computer monitor question

[glenn68]

What is the best video settings for Railworks? I have mine set to 1024x768 and 32 true color. In the program I have the anti alaising is set to 0 and full screen. Is there better settings. I have a AMD quad core 64x4 ATI radeon HD 5450 video card(512 meg). I feel that I am not taking full advantage of the video quality that Railworks can deliver. In Railworks my average Frame rates vary from 45 to 65.

Thanks,
Glenn

[ATSF3814]

I'd say it all depends on the size of your monitor and what your video card can handle. I have a 23.5" monitor that maxes out at 1920x1080 so that's what I play at. I can usually get a decent 30 fps but it does dip down when I have many objects on the screen or when I'm driving a longer train. So I guess just try pushing it to the max resolution your monitor can handle and if your performance is suffering too much, tone it down until you get a playable frame rate. It's going to be different for every computer.

[Chessie8638]

Is 1024x768 your native resolution on your monitor? If not bump your monitor up to it's native res. Then if you experience fps drop dial back the settings until you find a nice mix.

My native res is 1680x1050 and I can play Railworks near max. with around 40fps-80fps (sometimes it will dip below 20fps if the game has a hick-up loading the distant terrain).

I run a AMD Athlon II 640 x4 processor, Nvidia 250GTS, 4GB of RAM. Like ATSF3814 stated it all depends on your PC set-up. What runs great for me might be horrible for you.

[Toripony]

Also check your ATI Catalyst Control Panel. Try adjusting the sliders/settings between Quality/Performance and see what works best. If you get lost, just reset them all to default.

Tori

[Marleyman]

I find the best FPS improvements for the least graphics decrease can be made by tuning off both shadow options inside the game options. And don't forget that higher screen resolution will significantly reduce FPS as more and more pixels have to be drawn by your Graphics Card and with 512mb memory you could be taxing it at anything above 1280x1024.

[artimrj]

I would put everything at maximum and then start working backwards if your not getting good frame rates. Turn all RW settings to max and turn all your graphics card settings to max, see what happens and go backwards from there in small adjustments. When you go to change the resolution of your monitor, one of the options should say DEFAULT for your monitor, I would also start at that resolution.

[glenn68]

I checked this morning that my native resolution is 1600 x 900 at true color. I had everything set up for Microsoft Train simulator since using anything higher than 16 bit would cause MSTS to crash in the editor mode. Last night I moved to 32 true color setting and Railworks display during play really opened up and the 3d effects almost looked real, and the fps was still holding 40 to 60 on the P&LE route. tonight I am going to try 1600 x 900 and I will post my results.

Glenn

[Mark]

I turned my anti ailising off on my laptop as it stutters quite a lot fo rme , but I am running at the low end of the spec requirements
The PC I used before I had it at 16 and it looks a lot smoother that way , all the anti ailising does is take the block squares out the animation and smoothes them out to look like actualy object, the tracks and curves on the train look a lot better at 16 imo

teh rest of the settings as have been covered are just your own preference, with a decent spec you could have everything set to high detail with anti ailising at 16 and the gameplay looks even better than you could imagine. mostly trial and error though to find your own comfort levels with the screen res etc


Regards
Mark

[glenn68]

1600 x 1200 true color works great all around. It still get 30 to 50 fps and internet explorer also displays properly.

[micaelcorleone]

1600 x 1200 true color works great all around. It still get 30 to 50 fps and internet explorer also displays properly.

Good to hear.

I run in 1920 x 1080.

[nolatron]

I'm running at 1440x900 right now on a secondary 19" monitor. My mac is hooked up to my main 28" monitor.

With the higher resolutions, do you gain any actual real estate in the viewable area? In other words, do you just get a bigger picture or do see actually more off to sides that would be cropped on a smaller resolution?

Hope that makes sense.

[Mark]

I think I know what yopu are asking here, I use the same settings on mine, and it does not stretch out further views, it just makes the screen area a little stretched, I think the higher the resolution the more it stretches, as it loads everything into frames, therefore it wont be different views depending on your resoloution, If you use the low old version win me settings of I think its 800x480 or whatever it was it would look cramped as the same frames are squashed into a smaller area,
if that makes sense