[Eldorado.Railroad]

I so wish that "FPS" was NOT an ambiguous term! First Person Shooter in OpenRails at high Frames Per Second!

[P Escue]

Ok, I did some experimenting, are you using HDMI or the DisplayPort (DP) to connect the monitor? I tried this a few minutes ago and when I use HDMI the framerate drops. In OR I only get 40 to 50 fps. With the DisplayPort I'm getting the 230 to 250 fps. I normally use the DisplayPort connection, but in case a cable goes bad I have a HDMI cable for backup.

Phil

[vince]

I note that the maximum display rate (Refresh Rate) for most monitors is 60 Frames Per Second.

vince

[P Escue]

The difference between HDMI and DisplayPort is bandwidth. HDMI 2.0 gives you 18 Gbps, whereas DisplayPort 1.4 gives you a maximum of 32.4 Gbps. For example, HDMI provides 4K resolution up to 60Hz or 1080p up to 240Hz. The DisplayPort 1.4 gives you 4K resolution up to 120Hz or 1080p up to 360Hz. Even with HDMI 2.1, which provides you with close to the exact resolution as DisplayPort 1.4, DisplayPort, because of the larger bandwidth, gives you better video visuals over HDMI.

The advantage HDMI has over DisplayPort it was designed for audio/video. Because of this, it is found on more devices, such as digital television, digital audio, video projects, and computer monitors. Where DisplayPort was designed to carry data, video, audio, USB, and others. Because of this, you can only find it on computer devices, such as computer monitors. However, if I was going to give a presentation off my laptop, I would most likely use HDMI to connect to a video projector. Of course, I would most likely connect to it with a wireless connection today. If I connect a streaming device to my home large-screen digital TV, I will use HDMI. Entertainment devices would most likely use HDMI. For gaming, I would use the DisplayPort with a computer monitor. My monitor has both HDMI and DisplayPort. If I use HDMI on my monitor, the best I can get is FHD 1920 x 1080 at 60Hz. If I use the DisplayPort, the best I can get is FHD 1920 x 1080 at 240Hz.

I should add that 1080p is 1920 x 1080 progressively display pixels, also known as Full HD or FHD, and yes, I had to look most of this up. I’m software, not hardware.

I’ll give you the three great fears in the computer industry:

A programmer with a screwdriver,

A hardware person with a software installation program,

And a user with a manual.

I’m the programmer with a screwdriver, I’m worse than that; I went over to the Dark Side – Management.


Phil

[Genma Saotome]

 P Escue, on 23 April 2024 - 08:32 PM, said:

Ok, I did some experimenting, are you using HDMI or the DisplayPort (DP) to connect the monitor? I tried this a few minutes ago and when I use HDMI the framerate drops. In OR I only get 40 to 50 fps. With the DisplayPort I'm getting the 230 to 250 fps. I normally use the DisplayPort connection, but in case a cable goes bad I have a HDMI cable for backup.

Phil

I had similar results but I do not now recall the exact numbers. I will add that Display Port also did a better job dealing with dual monitors. I have HDMI running from the PC to the AVR and on to the TV. A bit awkward to enable but it does work.

[Jack@Elvas]

My main monitor is connected with display port.
Vince my target is 60 with vsync enabled.

[P Escue]

Do you have any other games on this system, and can you check to see what their fps?

Phil

[Jack@Elvas]

 P Escue, on 26 April 2024 - 04:26 AM, said:

Do you have any other games on this system, and can you check to see what their fps?

Phil

Sure - but first lets recap this thread:
Originally my framerate was pretty low (25-30)
I wasn't sure if this was normal, so I asked here about what framerates others were getting.
Others with lower end hardware were getting much better framerates, so then I messed around with some settings and got the framerate to go way up.

With all the goodies turned off, I'm getting 220 FPS, and of course I don't need 220
so the original question was more "what framerates should I be striving for" but it's kind of morphed into "Whats the ideal combination/prioritization of graphics settings"


Right now I've got shadows off, draw distance of 5000m and I'm getting about 90-100FPS, that seems like a decent number - there will no doubt be scenes where the FPS drops and this should allow for a consistent 60FPS when vsync is enabled.
So I'm looking for advice on the best combination of features.

Back to your question: Under normal circumstances, I have vsync enabled and get 60FPS on most other train sims - Run8, train sim world, derail valley - those all hit 60 with consistency. Train Sim Classic is pretty good - usually around 60, but it does seem to have a large dependency on what is on screen. Trainz seems to forever struggle with framerates , but they are tolerable for how little I use Trainz.

[P Escue]

To answer your question, you want the highest fps your system will support with the level of detail you want to display. It still sounds like your system should have much higher fps with your graphic card, especially when you have everything on. There are a lot of factors that could cause this. You might want to give more details on your system and ask if anyone has a similar system and what fps they are getting.

Phil

[Jack@Elvas]

Thanks Phil!

System details are in post #13,

4080 GPU
i7-13700k CPU
32GB ram
Display 5120x2160
Gen 4 SSD - ~7000MB/sec read/write

I think the big thing was the draw distance at 10,000 - a few people posted better framerates with 2000m draw distances which makes sense.
I'd lowered to 5000 and that helped quite a bit.
I still can't get shadows that look good - mine are very blocky, so it seems better to just leave them off.