[Rohit]

Sir,

Is there any option in Open Rails to improve the frame rate in scenery dense routes...I have set target frame rate as 200 but no use...can we mask some scenery which are consuming more fps?

[copperpen]

Why? Just tie the frame rates to the monitor refresh rate. Mine is running at 60 and shows very little variance from that.

[Rohit]

I meant the fps...frames per second issue...

[copperpen]

I have no FPS issues, even in scenery dense routes. Like I stated, my FPS are tied to the monitor refresh rate which is 60. In heavy scenery as tiles load, I get a momentary stutter, a drop of fps to 57, 58 or 59, and then it moves back to 60. There is no real point in having framerates in the hundreds, except for bragging rights.

I also wonder what your viewing distance is, the bigger that is, the higher number of tiles need to be cycled through causing extra load on the GPU/CPU. I have mine set at 3500m.

[disc]

snowy446, on 18 March 2015 - 07:25 PM, said:

I just tried Windows 7 compatibility and it works better
much less stuttering

Just because with the first run the OS cached all of the route files to memory, so at the next run, everything comes from the much faster memory, and not from the hdd/ssd.

[Rohit]

copperpen, on 01 August 2015 - 03:07 AM, said:

I have no FPS issues, even in scenery dense routes. Like I stated, my FPS are tied to the monitor refresh rate which is 60. In heavy scenery as tiles load, I get a momentary stutter, a drop of fps to 57, 58 or 59, and then it moves back to 60. There is no real point in having framerates in the hundreds, except for bragging rights.

I also wonder what your viewing distance is, the bigger that is, the higher number of tiles need to be cycled through causing extra load on the GPU/CPU. I have mine set at 3500m.

Thank you Sir... Tried that also...no improvement in fps...

[Lindsayts]

The viewing distance you can use depends on the route and one can vary it depending on the route. A 3.5kilometre viewing distacnce is required for real scenery dense routes such as the SOB and the freeware Bernena Bahn. Ocassional on routes I have used a viewing distance of 10 kilometres. One route I use it on is Russel Beers NE Victoria 1950's, while it causes some problems around Spencer st station yard it absolutely makes the rest of the route as the line passes through a small mountain range and with the longer viewing distance one can see these coming for miles, looks way more realistic.

The thing that currently appears to limit OR is the ability of a single CPU to throw enough data at the graphics card, a real high end card is not required (like for intstance an 4gig Nvidia GTX680) something like a Radeon 5870 being quite adequate.

LIndsay

[R H Steele]

Lindsayts, on 03 August 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

The viewing distance you can use depends on the route and one can vary it depending on the route. A 3.5kilometre viewing distacnce is required for real scenery dense routes such as the SOB and the freeware Bernena Bahn. Ocassional on routes I have used a viewing distance of 10 kilometres. One route I use it on is Russel Beers NE Victoria 1950's, while it causes some problems around Spencer st station yard it absolutely makes the rest of the route as the line passes through a small mountain range and with the longer viewing distance one can see these coming for miles, looks way more realistic.
LIndsay

Slightly :birthday-cake2: - - - The phrase I marked in bold is one of the reasons I have suggested a couple of times of having "route specific" tuning settings that could be saved for any route profile. Absent saved settings for a route OR would default to the options a user has picked. If a route had settings saved then OR would use those. That way you could tailor the viewing distance and other settings for maximum benefit of any specific route.

No one has seemed to have much interest in it.

[Lindsayts]

R H Steele, on 03 August 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

Slightly :birthday-cake2: - - - The phrase I marked in bold is one of the reasons I have suggested a couple of times of having "route specific" tuning settings that could be saved for any route profile. Absent saved settings for a route OR would default to the options a user has picked. If a route had settings saved then OR would use those. That way you could tailor the viewing distance and other settings for maximum benefit of any specific route.

No one has seemed to have much interest in it.

For what its worth I completely agree with you and are somewhat surprised it has not been comsidered worthy of any attention at all. Now not all routes can use a longer viewing distance but for the ones that can support it, its major improvement. I regularly change the viewing distance to suit a particular route, in general terms the longer the detailed viewing distance the better. The only reason in most cases for a short viewing distance is if the system can not handle the object count.

This brings up another point, in future when doing a route particularly for OR the terrain will need to be provided to a greater distance than 1 tile either side of the line. This does not mean it will be required to populate these tiles with anything other than major structures that can be seen from a long way off.

LIndsay

[Genma Saotome]

R H Steele, on 03 August 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

Slightly :birthday-cake2: - - - The phrase I marked in bold is one of the reasons I have suggested a couple of times of having "route specific" tuning settings that could be saved for any route profile. Absent saved settings for a route OR would default to the options a user has picked. If a route had settings saved then OR would use those. That way you could tailor the viewing distance and other settings for maximum benefit of any specific route.

No one has seemed to have much interest in it.

Not so. There has been plenty of interest, to the point of argument.