TSW anyone?

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby _o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:29 pm

BNSFdude wrote:IMHO the only connections that should have the soft body physics should be the Independent and Actuating lines on the MU hoses. Those are the only hoses IRL that are soft enough for them to noticeably sway under lateral forces.

Brake pipe hoses, and MU cables are so dern stiff that you hardly see them swing when hooked to another one. On the front of a locomotive, I would buy into it.

The thing I don't get is they bothered to model and animate the crossover chains, but the safety chains don't hook up between engines. Which is something very noticeable.


Yes, I noticed that too. You can kick down the drop step, which is a cool feature. It should be part of setting up a m.u. consist as much as setting up the correct lights. And those chains should be connected to the other unit.
How much of a gap remains between those drop steps on real locomotives? Do they always match, since some have those big anticlimbers on the front pilot?

Also, should trailing units have their reverser handle removed and the automatic brake in "handle off" position? Things like this can easily be simulated and add a lot to realism (and the effort in lashing up a m.u. consist)

Rubber band hoses and flapping cables one can do without, since the brake hoses are too darn short to look prototypically correct anyway.
Edwin "Kanawha"
Image
The Chessie, the train that never was ... (6000 hp Baldwin-Westinghouse steam turbine electric)
User avatar
_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha
 
Posts: 2762
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:12 pm

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby NYWhiskey » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:00 pm

buzz456 wrote:At the expense of possibly annoying my friend from New York since I went from a 960 to a 1060 my graphics improved and my fps and general smoothness all around improved significantly. No other changes.


It.s all good. It's all a matter of perspective though. Sure you went from a 960 to a 1060 and "improved". You could have gone with a 980 and ran the game on ultra to see what it really looks like.
User avatar
NYWhiskey
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:27 pm
Location: Bronx, NY

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby AmericanSteam » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:11 pm

NYWhiskey wrote:
buzz456 wrote:At the expense of possibly annoying my friend from New York since I went from a 960 to a 1060 my graphics improved and my fps and general smoothness all around improved significantly. No other changes.


It.s all good. It's all a matter of perspective though. Sure you went from a 960 to a 1060 and "improved". You could have gone with a 980 and ran the game on ultra to see what it really looks like.

IMHO this game should be designed to play on moderate systems with I7s and 1060s without going to more high end hardware. 980s are a bit out of reach for folks such as myself. But my rig is no bargain parts box. As stated elsewhere, there are other UE4 based games that play well on other mid level gaming laptop/desktops. I have an idea what DTG wanted to accomplish, but jumping to the higher end components to play leaves me wondering will it ever play as nice as I expected on my system? It plays at an acceptable rate.
Intel i7 6700K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Z170 Pro Gaming MB, 16 GB DDR4 @ 3200, ASUS GTX 1060 6GB, Corsair CX850M PSU, XSPC D5 Vario cooling pump, running TSW and Railworks on a Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD, Dual Monitors 1920 x 1080.
User avatar
AmericanSteam
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:54 am
Location: Grass Valley, California

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby NorthernWarrior » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:25 pm

Well here's an oddity, which maybe shows the physics are all over the place. Running one of the AC4400 hauled intermodals in Services, as noted earlier initially took off like a bat out of Hell. However, once I hit the climb up to Mance (around 1.5%), after slowing for the 25 MPH section speed continued to drop eventually under 10 MPH, then under 5 MPH all in Notch 8 then wheelslip then I started to roll back. Sanding didn't help. This is also at odds with other reports I've seen of having to throttle back on the hill. The only thing I changed during the run was to increase the tree quality from High to Ultra which, ironically, boosted my FPS by around 3-4 FPS. However I can't see how this would have borked the physics calculations.

As I said, something very strange going on under the hood of this game.
Vern
User avatar
NorthernWarrior
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:47 am

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby _o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:36 pm

If and indeed TSW's intended main market is XBox gamers, a closed system of only moderate power compared to the average gaming PC, it perhaps makes sense to compile the game's code with the XBox in mind.

This means that low to mid gaming PC's are subjectively performing better than the top of the range hi-end gaming PC's with I7 processors and nVidia >xx70 video cards.

Most of us are still stuggling with all kinds of settings to make the game playable, I certainly am. So it is too early to tell what the definite solutions to our performance problems are.
DTG is hard at work optimising the game, so we will get lots op updates that hopefully result in improved performance.

As Vern found out in his postings, it seems the physics (Simugraph?) take up a lot of CPU power and DTG haven't yet managed to find the right balance between for instance tree rendering (which I consider something UE4 is very good at) and the actual "railway" part of the game.
Edwin "Kanawha"
Image
The Chessie, the train that never was ... (6000 hp Baldwin-Westinghouse steam turbine electric)
User avatar
_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha
 
Posts: 2762
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:12 pm

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby AmericanSteam » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:45 pm

The crew died (FRA'd out) 6 miles out of Salisbury. Get the 3rd trick station master to run to town and hit the bars to get a fresh crew and bring um' out.


Some of these runs are long.
Intel i7 6700K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Z170 Pro Gaming MB, 16 GB DDR4 @ 3200, ASUS GTX 1060 6GB, Corsair CX850M PSU, XSPC D5 Vario cooling pump, running TSW and Railworks on a Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD, Dual Monitors 1920 x 1080.
User avatar
AmericanSteam
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:54 am
Location: Grass Valley, California

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby NYWhiskey » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:13 pm

AmericanSteam wrote:
NYWhiskey wrote: 980s are a bit out of reach for folks such as myself.


I see 1060s going for 250 to 270 bucks. For 60 to 80 dollars more you could get a 980 ($330) and it would improve people's experience immensely.
User avatar
NYWhiskey
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:27 pm
Location: Bronx, NY

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby JerryC » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:16 pm

Please explain - how is a 980 better than a 1060? I know that there are bumps in performance between 60, 70, 80 series but its not clear. My 970 seems to be handling TSW and all the other chores i'm throwing at it just fine.
The comments and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the individual who made them. Any resemblance to comments intelligent or ignernt is purely coincidental.
JerryC
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:13 am

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby trev123 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:32 pm

NYWhiskey wrote:
bpetit wrote:Better GPU should mean better performance. **!!bang!!**


Edit: Shadows seem to be the biggest eater of my FPS.


At the risk of Peeing Buzz off again let me try to explain.

You have a 960 card. The "9" denotes the generation. The "60" defines it as a business class card. A business doesn't need a card to run video games. A "70" as in a 970 is a mid range card and an "80" as in 980 is a gaming card.

Now you have all these people running out and buying 1060 cards. "10" denotes the generation and "60" defines it as a business card. People mistake the "10" in 1060 as meaning better which it is not. Sure it's fine for the 10 year old platform we are running on now but we are moving up to an up to date gaming engine.

So yes, better GPU should mean better performance. Just watch what you buy. "10" doesn't mean better, you want the last two numbers bigger.


Don't know where you got that info from and have never heard of it since I have been using Nvidia cards since 2000. Nvidias business cards are called Quadro http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro.html
Intel i5-2500K 3.3GHz Quad Core, Asus P8Z 68-V LE MB, Asus GTX 960 Strix 2GB OC graphics card, Windows 10 Home 64 bit, 16gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3 ram, Viewsonic VX2452 LED 1080P HD Monitor, Seagate Barracuda 1 TB 64MB Sata3 HD, Seagate Firecuda 2TB HD, Corsair 650W PSU. Gamer Since 1985
User avatar
trev123
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Home Of The Americas Cup

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby Griphos » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:42 pm

Well, *60 cards are definitely the lowest performing cards of each generation. The *70 cards are almost as good as the *80 cards for less money. The 970, for instance, definitely outperforms the 1060, as tests show. This has almost always been the case, where the prior generation (or even two) of the *70 and *80 cards outperform the newest *60 cards. It's best not to buy the *60 cards.

I'm running a 970, with an i5 2500k at 4.2 and I'm getting 25 to 40 FPS. I've only run it about an hour, and I just left it on the settings it defaulted to (mostly high). I'm okay with that.
User avatar
Griphos
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:18 pm

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby buzz456 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:50 pm

No the 50 cards are the slowest.
Buzz
39 and holding.
"Some people find fault like there's a reward for it."- Zig Ziglar
"If you can dream it you can do it."- Walt Disney
Image
User avatar
buzz456
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15098
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:30 am
Location: Sycamore, Il

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby cbff33 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:17 am

trev123 wrote:
NYWhiskey wrote:
bpetit wrote:Better GPU should mean better performance. **!!bang!!**


Edit: Shadows seem to be the biggest eater of my FPS.


At the risk of Peeing Buzz off again let me try to explain.

You have a 960 card. The "9" denotes the generation. The "60" defines it as a business class card. A business doesn't need a card to run video games. A "70" as in a 970 is a mid range card and an "80" as in 980 is a gaming card.

Now you have all these people running out and buying 1060 cards. "10" denotes the generation and "60" defines it as a business card. People mistake the "10" in 1060 as meaning better which it is not. Sure it's fine for the 10 year old platform we are running on now but we are moving up to an up to date gaming engine.

So yes, better GPU should mean better performance. Just watch what you buy. "10" doesn't mean better, you want the last two numbers bigger.



I just bought a gtx1070 strix, and the packaging clearly states it is for gaming.

Don't know where you got that info from and have never heard of it since I have been using Nvidia cards since 2000. Nvidias business cards are called Quadro http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro.html
i7-7700 4.20GHz, ASUS MAXIMUS IX HERO, GTX 1080Ti ROG Strix 11OC, 32GB TRIDENT Z DDR4 3200 DDR4 RAM, SAMSUNG 960 EVO M2, SAMSUNG 850 EVO SSD, WINDOWS 10 PRO 64, AOC AG271QG GAMING MONITOR
cbff33
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:45 pm

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby Ericmopar » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:51 am

buzz456 wrote:No the 50 cards are the slowest.

Yes, until you drop into the GT range of cards, which are even less powerful.

If a person is going to spend $360 on a 980, they may as well pony up for a GTX1070 which is more powerful and has better coding etc.

I have my doubts about GTX 1080s now. My system is perfectly balanced with a i7-7700k and GTX 1070 at stock clocks.
Even Soldier Summit runs smooth now. *!greengrin!*

After almost 5 years of searching, I've built a system that doesn't have a heart attack while playing Train Simulator. !*YAAA*!
New build. i7-7700k, MSI Z270 Gaming M5 Mobo, Hyper 212 Evo, Corsair DDR4 3200 Mhz RAM, Klipsch Pro Mediea 2.1 Speakers, Samsung 850 Evo SSD, HAF XM Case, Asus Strix GTX 1070 and Cooler Master Storm XT Keyboard.
Slick with Pretty Rainbow Colors.
User avatar
Ericmopar
 
Posts: 2784
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Henderson NV.

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby JerryC » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:04 am

I know we are talking about apples and oranges here, and some will shake their heads over this, but the single greatest improvement to my experience with gaming came after switching from HHD to SSD drives. Stuttering, especially at tile boundries, almost completely disappeared. Sure, going from 550ti to 760 then to 970GTX graphics card did have impact, but not as much as being able to load and run routes smoothly.
The comments and opinions expressed here are the sole responsibility of the individual who made them. Any resemblance to comments intelligent or ignernt is purely coincidental.
JerryC
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:13 am

Re: TSW anyone?

Unread postby dgallina » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:23 am

An update on the high-end system crashes (i5 6600k & Geforce 1080):

After much back & forth, the first-level DTG support folks have responded as follows and then marked the help desk ticket private:

Thank you for bringing these issues to our attention.
We will now pass them on to our Development Team who will look into potential future resolutions.


DTG responded similarly to bugs I'd submitted in public beta, but those bugs were never resolved.

I'm hopeful but don't have much confidence.

Diego
dgallina
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 11:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to TSW General Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests