Open rails=Good development.

[conrail1]

And I think you are all nutz for banging on the developers at this point! - You don't need a 5k investment to meet these specs - in fact you can do it easily with a 1k dell or hp...
Or roll your own from New Egg... As a long time systems engineer (over 40 years) I can assure you that these specs are pretty close to trailing edge if you are talking about high power desktop computing....

a 5 year old computer is almost irrelevent in todays world...

Which I proved on a two year old “mid range” system that can be built for well under a grand today –

https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=294407

Even a mainstream i7 socket 1156 setup can be built for well under a grand and would be a much better choice than spending money on a dated Core 2 based setup.

the only reason you can run MSTS on junk that old is that the underlying engine in MSTS is essentially junk by today's standards...

Actually Chuck I would take that step further and say its game engine was pretty much junk already when it was released compared to other game engines from the 2001 period.

I fully support the OR team in their efforts and if they had asked me, I would have suggested strongly that they compile using 64 bit...

I completely agree with you there.

[muskokaandtahoe]

Lengthy reply from Open Rails to OrangeBlossom

Whats happening with other games is totally irrelevant. Lets end that right now.

If a guy with a quad core and a $600 video card can only get 120 FPS instead of 425 FPS on account of compromises that also opens it up to people who cannot afford more than a $250 video card, then we compromise it. Its a pretty hard sell that the guy with deep pockets deserves 425 FPS at the expense of half the user base.

Anything else IS a "rich boys club" issue.

I suspect there are a few people involved in the development of this who already have the super computer resources and have blinders on to anything else. Somebody had better put a leash on these people. Some of these same people also think this game needs to parallel the top milestones of other game development.

But those people forget that this game is being developed for this community, and not for some other game community. What any other game community's development standards are is totally irrelevant. Last I checked, this community also included many many people who can't afford expensive gear.

Since when did the aim of this game become so exclusive? On whose decision?

Likewise, nobody is saying this thing has to be developed to the original game's hardware specs. And nobody is saying it cant take advantage of high end equipment. But it had better be able to accommodate 5 year old equipment. That's not unreasonable.

You've raised a number of good questions and I'll try and respond here.

First, do understand that Conrail1 is not a member of the Open Rails team and anything he has posted is simply his opinion (except where he has quoted Open Rails documentation).

Second, the objectives of Open Rails is determined by the members of the Open Rails team and not anyone else. Suggestions are always welcome but not controlling.

Third, Open Rails is not a commercial venture, it's a volunteer effort by those who want to contribute to this hobby of ours... in the same manner as those before us who have written Route Ritter, Conbuilder, Shapeviewer, and all the other contributed software packages that have made MSTS a whole lot easier to work with than what we got from Microsoft.

Last, your general tone.... Referring to OR as a product for a "Rich Boys Club" and the need to "put a leash on those people" and wondering aloud "who decides?" doesn't really contribute to having a polite conversation but I'll set those comments aside (which is more than you deserve) and try and address the real issue that a variety of far more reasonable people than you have (as I understand it), which is decent performance on older machines.

The fact of the matter is that visual display for all games is limited by the refresh rate of you monitor, which is typically 60 fps (for some it is 72). Anything above that is merely an indicator of what could be displayed if the monitor wasn't so slow. For our needs, a max of 60fps is perfectly adequate for all situations and in many cases anything above 32 is usually visually acceptable.

With that in mind, let me explain why 60 fps is often hard to achieve w/ train sims: Train Sims use a whole lot of models in each scene. What happens is this: For each new tile the CPU has to determine if there are any new features (e.g., models, terrain) and if so, to send all that new data over to the GPU. If it is a lot of new models, there is a lot of data that must be organized and sent to the GPU. In addition, for each frame CPU has to tell the GPU what to display -- that's the models, their textures, terrain, etc. that can be seen by the camera. Because the camera moves that list can change and that too is work by the CPU. Understand that the workload here is based how many unique models and how many unique textures are present. Turns out that for train sims that often is a large list. Now, if the CPU isn't so good it will take more time to prepare all of that stuff before it can hand it off to the GPU and that results in the fps dropping. If the interface between the CPU and GPU isn't very good andit clogs up then that too can drop fps. And if the GPU is ancient, it will take too long to figure out how to flatten all that 3d data into a 2d image to put on your monitor. All that said, for the most part it seems to be the CPU that most likely to be the bottleneck and that bottleneck is mostly caused by the large number of unique models on tiles.

In short, train sims are inherently in need of a faster CPU. Not the fastest because the monitor is still limiting what you see to 60fps, but a CPU that is fast enough to process those models and textures to get you closer to 60 fps. This fact is true for MSTS, true for RW, true for Open Rails and for the most part this doesn't have anything at all to do with what the Open Rails developers have done... It's like gravity... you just accept it that is there and get on with life. It is, after all, route developers who determine how many unique objects are in a tile.

And this fact of life makes it rougher for people who routinely get low fps because a CPU upgrade normally means a brand new PC, whereas a GPU upgrade can be done for far less expense. This too has nothing to do with what the Open Rails developers want.

There are a couple of other issues that come into play w/ older machines and that is with Microsoft software. First, as with hardware, newer software can deal with more work. WIN 7 is inherently better for multi-core CPU's than is Win XP and multi-core PC's are inherently more capable of solving that CPU bottleneck I described above. Open Rails doesn't require WIN 7. Open Rails doesn't require multi-core PC's. But if you have WIN 7 and a multi-core PC you will get much higher fps because those things help solve the primary problem with Train Sim performance. And given that fact, we're writing Open Rails to take advantage of those things IF PRESENT. Short of removing objects from routes, it is the ONLY WAY to get better performance for train sims.

That's not creating a product for a "Rich Boys Club". It's creating a product for MSTS content that can take advantage of the technology improvements of the last 10 years. Ideally we'll be able to extend that improvement into routes, models, and textures too so that new content can also take advantage of this growth in capability. To get there, better hardware and newer software will make a big difference, but that's not because Open Rails requires it, it is because the problems inherent in MSTS can be solved by it.

OrangeBlossom, I'm sorry to hear that you find yourself unable to upgrade your hardware to take advange of what Open Rails is attempting to do, but your dilemma is yours, not ours, and your attitude gives us little reason to consider your opinions any further.

To everyone else who has older equipment, we are making note of changes / features that have an impact on performance and where possible, trying to provide a means for you to turn those off. If you do that you won't be able to get much more out of Open Rails than you can with MSTS but please understand, there really isn't much we can do with the game software to fix what is inherently a hardware problem. We hope you'll understand.

[conrail1]

First, do understand that Conrail1 is not a member of the Open Rails team and anything he has posted is simply his opinion (except where he has quoted Open Rails documentation).

I don’t know where it could have been construed that I was a member of the Open Rails team but thanks for clearing that up. Any time I’ve posted my opinion it has been based on what can be gathered from the OpenRails documentation.

For our needs, a max of 60fps is perfectly adequate for all situations and in many cases anything above 32 is usually visually acceptable.

Which with v-sync enabled is the most fluid performance you’re going to get with a monitor with a 60Hz refresh rate. What should be mentioned is the fact that with v-sync enabled if a 60 FPS frame rate cannot be maintained on a monitor with a 60Hz refresh rate, stuttering will occur as the refresh rate is divided. So actually 32 FPS isn’t very fluid as any comparison to 60 FPS with v-sync enabled will prove.

In short, train sims are inherently in need of a faster CPU. Not the fastest because the monitor is still limiting what you see to 60fps, but a CPU that is fast enough to process those models and textures to get you closer to 60 fps.

At this point in OpenRails development, no you don’t need “the fastest” to maintain that 60 FPS target. How much of that “over head” performance that the fastest CPU is providing now will get eaten by features not yet implemented in OpenRails remains to be seen.

Open Rails doesn't require multi-core PC's. But if you have WIN 7 and a multi-core PC you will get much higher fps

Well maybe not much of a frame rate increase at this point in OpenRails development -

https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=294407

[wacampbell]

I would have suggested strongly that they compile using 64 bit...

Although, not on topic for the rantings of this thread, I'll comment that OR is 64 bit on 64 bit hardware. It doesn't need to be compiled specifically for it since it uses .NET technology, which essentially leaves the final compile for the end-users' computer to do. The .NET JIT compiler optimizes this final compile specifically for the hardware its running on taking into account register width, as well as cache sizes, processor features, co-processors etc. When 128 bit processors come out, we'll be ready!

[conrail1]

Although, not on topic for the rantings of this thread, I'll comment that OR is 64 bit on 64 bit hardware. It doesn't need to be compiled specifically for it since it uses .NET technology, which essentially leaves the final compile for the end-users' computer to do. The .NET JIT compiler can optimize this final compile specifically for the hardware its running on taking into account register width, as well as cache sizes, processor features, co-processors etc. When 128 bit processors come out, we'll be ready!

Excellent!

How about future use of DirectX 11, maybe not so much for eye candy but for taking better advantage of otherwise wasted GPU resources?

[wacampbell]

How about future use of DirectX 11, maybe not so much for eye candy but for taking better advantage of otherwise wasted GPU resources?

I don't see why not, but pretty soon we have to set the graphics and visual work aside and spend a little time on our original promise of realistic operations.

[Train-a-Mania]

Thanks for the posts, Dave and Wayne! I appreciate the clarification of what Open Rails is attempting to do performance-wise.

[conrail1]

I don't see why not, but pretty soon we have to set the graphics and visual work aside and spend a little time on our original promise of realistic operations.

Thanks for the info Wayne.

I have a few individuals I’ve worked with in the railroad industry that just might want to contribute to this project.

[danthecpman]

FYI I get decent performance with an appalling heap-o-junk P4 2.4-GHZ single-core CPU and nvidia E-Geforce 7300.

[conrail1]

FYI I get decent performance with an appalling heap-o-junk P4 2.4-GHZ single-core CPU and nvidia E-Geforce 7300.

Interesting, any screen shots or details about what resolution AA/AF you used in your evaluation?

I gave OpenRails a try on a fresh install of Windows XP/SP3 with a 3.4GHz P4, 2GB of RAM and an ATI X800XTX video card based machine a few weeks ago and the results were less than “decent” to say the least.

[OrangeBlossom]

Thank you Dave Nelson for that response.

I want to go out of my way to say that any of my comments directed at Conrail1 are not directed at the O/R team. Please understand and make that distinction in return. Many of his replies were of an "upgrade or leave" theme, which I believe created unnecessary concern for more than one person with lower end computers. I appreciate you affirming this is not official policy and clearing that up.

As for attitude or tone, with all due respect, that should be of no concern to most of the people who invited themselves to comment on that. Thank you for understanding.

I do apologize to the team for the "rich boys club" comment, for it was said as part of a debate with someone whose status with the O/R group was not clearly established. I apologize to the team for that, but also ask for suggestions on how these "official looking" incidents can be avoided in the future. I'm sure you can understand that some unaffiliated people do focus extraordinarily on the O/R area, and they reply to O/R threads with an extraordinary frequency, creating the appearance to some that they are more connected than they are. Absent a clearly designated team of spokesmen, is there a published roster anywhere that identifies who the team members are, so people can know for certain the status of a person who may be aggressively answering questions in an official-sounding manner? Or do we just continue guessing and possibly making wrong assumptions?

[muskokaandtahoe]

> I do apologize to the team....

Very gracious of you.

As for the identifier, yeah, that's a problem (my own posts included) and we need to deal with that.

[danthecpman]

Interesting, any screen shots or details about what resolution AA/AF you used in your evaluation?

I gave OpenRails a try on a fresh install of Windows XP/SP3 with a 3.4GHz P4, 2GB of RAM and an ATI X800XTX video card based machine a few weeks ago and the results were less than “decent” to say the least.

AA=4x
AF=8x
Detail=10
1024/786
FPS=14/44

[conrail1]

AA=4x
AF=8x
Detail=10
1024/786
FPS=14/44

Thanks for posting the screen shot, resolution and video card settings.

You wouldn’t happen to have the Feather River Route would you? At 1920x1200, 4xAA/16xAF the P4 setup I mentioned earlier wouldn’t go above the low twenties as far as frame rate is concerned and even with a WD Raptor hard drive scenery/object loading was very choppy. Not a very “playable” experience in the least.

I noticed that the F-5 info in your screen shot only shows 1 processor, does your P4 have Hyper-threading?

[conrail1]

I want to go out of my way to say that any of my comments directed at Conrail1 are not directed at the O/R team. Many of his replies were of an "upgrade or leave" theme, which I believe created unnecessary concern for more than one person with lower end computers.

It wasn’t an “upgrade or leave theme” it was more about getting the point across that “if you’re not running OpenRails on adequate hardware then be prepared for less than ideal game play”. If you are satisfied with running a simulation at 10 FPS then by all means knock yourself out.

I think Chuck pretty much summed things up with his response, but with a little less tact than I displayed -

And I think you are all nutz for banging on the developers at this point! - You don't need a 5k investment to meet these specs - in fact you can do it easily with a 1k dell or hp...
Or roll your own from New Egg... As a long time systems engineer (over 40 years) I can assure you that these specs are pretty close to trailing edge if you are talking about high power desktop computing....

a 5 year old computer is almost irrelevent in todays world...

According to Moore's Law, available computing capability doubles every 18 months or so...

run that equation backwards if you want to see what 5 year old hardware and software gets you....

the only reason you can run MSTS on junk that old is that the underlying engine in MSTS is essentially junk by today's standards... That is one of the reasons that, even with bin, the capabilities of MSTS and stability thereof is less than optimal...

Sheesh! Get a life......

I fully support the OR team in their efforts and if they had asked me, I would have suggested strongly that they compile using 64 bit...

And before the flat earthers on here whine about that - it is hard to buy a CPU less than 5 years old that doesn't have 64 bit capability.

All the geeks and rich bouys I know are running WIN7/64bit and have a min. of 4 gig of memory and directX 11 (Right Sniper?)