Graphic Settings - In-game, or from the opening screen?

[fraserm]

<Edited 10/17/11 2217H>

Hi, all. Can someone please explain the difference between the in-game settings for graphics (on the "Options" button), which I can set to "Highest" without a noticeable effect on performance, and the "Settings" tab on the launch screen where I can't operate on anything but "Low". And don't even get me started on the "Train Simulator 2012 Game Engine Technology" setting. It runs with that checked, but at a VERY low frame rate, enough that I never use it.
I think I have reasonably good specs on my machine:

HP Pavilion P6520F Desktop Box
Foxconn H-RS880-μATX (ALOE) MB
Athlon II X4 635 (Quad Core, 2.9GHz)
8GB DDR3 RAM
1TB HDD (5400 RPM)
GT 520 GFX card w/ 2GB DDR3
20" HP LCD monitor 1600x1200

It's not the best, but it's adequate. I'm looking to upgrade the CPU to a Phenom II X4 965 (3.2GHz), I can get one for $130 at New Egg. Probably have to upgrade the PS as well, just for safety's sake. Not sure, but I think this will at least help somewhat.

Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Marc

BTW - been running RW2/TS2012 since July and I'm completely ADDICTED!
I bought a bunch of engine add-ons from Steam, and I've downloaded several items from this site, G-Trax, and UKTrainSim. There's a TON of really good content available for a small investment of $$$ and time. But I'm probably preaching to the choir on that one!

[MugHug]

Cannot help on your main question, but it seems that you can upgrade to a Phenom II x4 as well. Maybe you mean a Phenom II as you mention 965.

Here is a good guide to get the best out of your settings http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=118677 Used it on desktop and laptop and works well. Also if you have AV running in background checking every file you open, adding an exclusion for the railworks folder speeds loading, etc. up.

[DonR]

Judging by your RAM amount, you are on a 64-bit OS? Which one, Windows 7?

Did you try the guide at http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=118677

It is quite useful.

I've got an AMD Phenom II X4 955 at 3.21 GHz, 3.25 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ 1GB running Windows XP.
I'm able to get decent results with TSX on, , MLAA+MSAAx4, High Option Settings.
My FPS is in the mid to upper 20s. It's playable. With the lowest option I'm seeing the 50s.
For me, anything over 24 is overkill.

Thanks,
Don.

[fraserm]

Thanks, MugHug and DonR. Yes, I'm using Win7 64-bit, and yes, I really meant Phenom. It's the highest upgrade that HP recommends on the product support site. Typing gets away from me every so often.
I quickly looked at my nVidia anti-aliasing section and it's set to application-controlled. I need to see if I can set the antivirus (Norton Security Suite) to exclude the RW folders.

More fine suggestions to try!

I'll update as I try different things and post the results here.

Thanks,
Marc

[Toripony]

My understanding is that the Settings panel on the launch screen pertain to your video card capabilities. The Graphic Options screen in the game is for in-game playing preferences. I know... "Well, that depends on card capabilities, too", but the concept is different. For example, I have a 5870 graphics card; when the upgrade to TS'12 completed it defaulted to "High" on the Settings panel. I've found that lowering it does not improve my performance although it does lower the heat output from my GPU vent. Conclusion: it is fully capable of processing the video content of TS on High without taxing (slowing down) my GPU. That provides me one level of confidence in my machine's abilities with this game. From that basis, I can adjust the in-game parameters which seem to mostly (if not completely) affect the load (heat and slowdown) of the CPU.

Another way I look at it is the Settings panel is about the hardware... about pure throughput and filtering/enhancement. The in-game Graphics Options are about processing (calculating) the software code. I am not a programmer and some may tell me I'm crazy, but it seems like a pretty common-sense approach to me. If I turn Shadows on High, the CPU has to calculate the definition of the shadows. Set to low, it does less calculation and sends up a "blob" shadow. All the GPU has to do is present it to the screen.

If TS used all 4 cores of my CPU, I think it would burn out the GPU trying to present all that data! I bet there wouldn't be any stuttering though!

[simer4]

One thing I noticed, is that you have a GT 520. Just because it has 2GB of Memory, doesn't mean it is fast. There are four things I look at. The Graphics clock, Processor Clock, Memory Clock, Memory Interface Width, and Memory bandwidth. Think of a GPU like a stick of RAM. It may have a high amount of capacity, but it can't get the info into the RAM without having a frequency. Take 8GB of DDR3 1066MHz RAM, or 4GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM. Many people would be quick to decide that the 8GB of RAM is quicker, however, it isn't, because the frequency of the RAM isn't as high (1066MHz compared to 1600MHz). There is also latency to take into account on RAM, but I won't go into details about that. The same goes for a GPU. The higher the specified areas above, the better. However the thing you would be looking more for, would be the Memory clock and Memory Interface Width. The GT 520 has up 898MHz and a 64-bit Memory Interface Width on the Memory clock. Now take a look at, say, the GT 240 1GB GDDR3. While being an older card, it has 900MHz clock, but a 128-bit Width, therefore being of higher performance. The GT 520 is able to turnout in turn, 14.4GB/s of Memory Bandwidth, while the GT 240 is able to turnout 54.4GB/s, thus it being able to handle more. Hope this helps you understand. Perhaps I should put up a guide explaining this stuff. Also check out arizonachris's webpage as well!

[MugHug]

Wondered about the video card. Thinking about your hardware, I have one or two suggestions. If you feel that they are not relevant, I will not be offended. :)

Your GT520 has a 64-bit wide memory bus which when tied with DDR-3 is wasting the 2Gb of RAM. The actual heart of the GPU just does not have enough muscle to make 1Gb or even 0.5Gb of memory sweat, let alone 2Gb. A good gaming card needs at least an 128-bit memory bus and DDR-5.

Thinking about it and comparing your CPU to a Phenom II X4 965 using a number of benchmarks from Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desk ... 4447%5D=on, you may benefit more from a graphics card upgrade first.

Here are benchmarks comparing the GT 520 and a GTX 550 Ti: http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2011 ... 5231%5D=on, which can be found as low as $130, which is what you would have paid for the CPU upgrade. Also when it comes to PhysX which TS2012 uses (on CPU at moment), the GTX 550 Ti can handle that plus give good FPS while the GT 520 is really a no go.

I am sure others will offer advise, but I feel that the weak link for you at the moment is your video card, even for TS2012. :)

NOTE: You did mention about upgrading your PS for the CPU and I imagine that it would be necessary for the graphics card.

[fraserm]

Thanks, MugHug! I didn't realize the 520 was quite so far down the low end of GFX cards. I think the 550Ti will be next on my list, along with a PS upgrade. I have a spare 450W PS, so the 250W factory PS will go! The Tom's Hardware info is really enlightening, thanks for that research! I'll also upgrade the CPU a little further down the line.
Then again, I MAY just start collecting components for a completely new build...

I tried several of the settings ideas from the UKTrainSim forum that DonR suggested and with the Custom settings on the launch screen, if I invoke TSX and in-game at Lowest I'm seeing 14FPS; with it off and in-game at Highest I get ~30FPS, so I'll keep it there for now.

Toripony - that's good info about the differences in the settings screens, hardware vs software. Thanks a bunch!

More stuff to try, more $$$ to spend. Oh well, it's only money, right? At least that's what I keep trying to convince my better half...

As always, I'll keep everyone posted here as I try things.

Thanks again,
M.

[fraserm]

Hi, all, back again with more questions. Looking into getting an Alienware laptop, 17", and my question relates to which GFX card would be better - HD 6870, or GTX 560M? Looking at the specs, it seems that the 560M has both faster processor and faster memory speed. Both are using GDDR5. Do I flip a coin on this one? There's about a $100.00 difference, higher for the model containing the GTX 560.

Thanks,
M.

[Hawk]

Be aware that Alienware computers are not as good as they once were, ever since Dell acquired the company.

[fraserm]

Yep, I do realize that, but I use Dell now, and I'm pretty satisfied with them. Shopping right now, to see what's out there.

M.

[arizonachris]

fraserm, if all other specs are equal with the two laptops (processor, memory(RAM)) then I would go for the one with the GTX560M. As long as you can allocate at least 1Gb of memory to the graphics card. My reasoning is that, with an Nvidia card, PhysX can run on the graphics card. With an ATI graphics card, PhysX runs on the CPU.

With all that said, Hawk is right. Since Dell bought Alienware, they just aren't the same. And to me, laptop (mobile graphics chips) will always fall short of a decent desktop PC.

[fraserm]

Thanks, Arizonachris, I tend to agree with your view. The real reason I'm looking beyond where I'm at is last night I downloaded the Portland Terminal Expansion Pack. I'm from near Portland, ME and I know the area very well, so I wanted to see just how good it is (pretty good, overall!). But on the desktop I have now, running my "conventional" settings as previously described, many graphic features were completely invisible, including many buildings, bridge foundations, trestle structures, and the like. I had to bump up my opening screen settings to the "Custom" settings recommended by UKTrainSim, and the in-game options to "Medium" from "Low". All of this got me the content, but my frame rate is in the range of 14 - 19 most of the time. Lots of stuttering. I need to see how it goes on my laptop when I get back home this afternoon. The Portland Terminal is a very rich environment and needs higher graphics capability than I currently have.
I'm exploring all options, including building my own desktop with mega GFX power.

Thanks for the comments, and as always I'll post results here for all to see.

M.

[Samwolf]

Be aware that Alienware computers are not as good as they once were, ever since Dell acquired the company.

Tried ordering an Alienware after dell bought them. What a nightmare!!!

Finally just cancelled the order and went with Digital Storm. Very, very satisfied with their compuer and service.

[fraserm]

Thanks, Samwolf, I'll look into Digital Storm as well.

M.