Resources Used...

[fchrist16]

Without posting the actual log, maybe someone can help me figure out a reduction of resources here. FWIW I'm running on my own built route using a Tim Muir ex-Pacific Electric car in this scenario. This is on a lesser "tile loaded" area of the route but close to a "tile loaded" section which is probably part of the actual loaded area!

As seen in these screenshots, I'm using QUITE a bit of resources in the RENDER, SOUND and LOADER area. The TILE load is rather high too I think...

Regards,

-Frank C.

[derekmorton]

Hi Frank,

First thing that I notice, is that you do not have a video card, you are using the Intel chip on the motherboard.

Its appears to be an i5, but I can't tell the clock speed.

Can you post the hardware specs please?

[fchrist16]

Derek here are the specs!

Regards,

-Frank C.
sysspecs.jpg

[EldoradoRailroad]

Given what you have posted, an i3 and Intel's onboard graphics is a VERY tall order for the number of primitives that are displayed in the HUD. In my experience it is best to keep the amount of memory being used well below the limit of your graphics card. So in your case, a 1024Kb graphics card memory is going to choke when you have 1316 Mb of textures etc. loaded. The only choice you have to to drastically reduce the draw distance as 49 tiles is a VERY tall order.

I have been involved with OpenRails for some time (years!). My best results have been with an i7 (32GB) and a more recent Nvidia GPU with 4 GB plus memory on it. I keep the draw distance to 2000M. Mostly I get 60 FPS, 99% of the time. I tailor routes so that any one section has at best 3500 primitives to deal with.

Steve

[fchrist16]

Steve,

I currently have the draw distance at 1500M with distant mountains at 1000km...Unless I'm missing something...?

Regards,

-Frank C.
videotab.jpg

[derekmorton]

Hi Frank,

Unless you want to remove some scenery objects, there are limited ways to reduce resources.
Your machine is very low power for what you are trying to do.

To speed it up, add an nVidia card and an ssd.
The nVidia card will give you more FPS, the ssd will speed up loading and general speed.

[fchrist16]

Sadly it's just a laptop...I wasn't too concerned about the graphics, more the load elsewhere...Like the amount of tiles actually loaded and the sound.

Regards,

-Frank C.

[mikeebb]

I have a i5 laptop with Intel graphics pushing a 720P display, SSD, and 4G RAM. ORTS at best generates 15-20 fps on routes with sparse scenery and default stock. I also have an ancient desktop, Core2 Extreme X9650 pushing a full HD display, nVidia GTX 750ti (very low-end GTX graphics), SSD, and 8G RAM. ORTS seldom falls below 50 fps and usually maintains the 60 Hz display refresh rate.

Yes, the graphics system makes a difference. The SSD also makes a huge difference especially for routes loading a lot of scenery. More than 4G of RAM, for now, doesn't really matter (standard ORTS is still 32-bit software), but the Mono branch has broken that barrier so the time is coming when huge RAM can be used too.

[mikeebb]

PS to the previous: in my experience, you need to maintain at least 15 fps for ORTS to be playable. Below 12 introduces large delays in control inputs.

With the demo Scenic Sub that's available for ORTS, my laptop drops below 12 fps in many locations even when just in Explore mode with no AI activity, and eventually ORTS crashes somewhere along the line during a sustained low-fps period. The desktop, with a less-capable CPU but more-capable GPU, runs the Scenic Sub demo - any of the provided activities with AI action - at 50 fps or more and no crashes. Before getting the SSD for the laptop, the loader process would commonly bring ORTS to its knees; now it seems to be the frame time with the loader being only short spikes. 2.5" hard disks for laptops are usually 5400 rpm or less for power management reasons; the SSD beats the performance of those disks by a huge margin even when using the same SATA connection, and uses even less power (my laptop went from 3 hours and change on a charge with the hard disk to 4.5-5 hours with the SSD).

FWIW, a 1 TB SATA SSD is often available for between $80-100. I got one on sale at Fry's for about $70. It went in the (old) laptop and made it (for normal use; ORTS is still a desktop job) like a new computer. Cold start is about 20 sec in Win10 1909 or Linux Mint (it's dual boot; with a TB there was no reason not to give a good-sized partition to each), including a brief visit with GRUB to choose the OS. Startup is longer in the desktop with SSD, mainly because it takes longer to go through the BIOS and POST; starting Windows takes less time than POST in the Dinosaur.

The desktop is Mesozoic. The laptop is Cenozoic, but pre-Quaternery. The SSD in each makes it feel almost Holocene. I think I'm going to rename them one of these days.