Steam start up command lines: Multi-core & EnableAsyncKeys?

[Machinist]

As happens with -FPSLimit=XX, is also possible to command on Steam (pre-launching TS2012) to use multi-core and enable async keys? instead of checking their box on Command Line Options on Splash Screen every time I launch the game (dozens per day)?

[Rich_S]

I would like to see a list of all Rail Works command line options. Does anyone know if such a list exists? and if so, where can it be found / viewed?

[Cardinal51]

When should one tick the Multi-Core box ?

[Machinist]

When should one tick the Multi-Core box ?

When? when you have multi-core and getting better performance with that option checked. The problem is that I launch the game dozens times a day, and every time I have to check both boxes I use often. The command option on Steam overrides the options on splash screen, for example: if you set on Steam -FPSLimit=25 and check the box 30FPS Lock (or even leave unchecked either 30FPS Lock or 60FPS Lock) the game will automatically lock at 25FPS. If you use Steam option you don't need to check (everytime) any box before starting Train Simulator 2012.

[Cardinal51]

Thanks for the info. I have the following CPU:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

So ticking the multi-core box could show an improvement in RW3 performance ?

[Machinist]

Thanks for the info. I have the following CPU:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

So ticking the multi-core box could show an improvement in RW3 performance ?

Yep, "should" show an improvement... On my medium rig (AMD Dual Core 5200 @2.7GHz) the CPU usage is average 55% with Multi-Core uncheck, and 70% with it checked. But it depends of any machine...

[Cardinal51]

I just did a test. Compared FPS, no noticeable difference. I did not think of comparing CPU%, will do that tomorrow.

. . . . CPU usage is average 55% with Multi-Core uncheck, and 70% with it checked. . . . .

Is that good or is that bad ? I mean, when multi-core is checked should CPU% be lower or higher ? I would think lower CPU% is better ?!?

Cardi

PS: In case I am taking this thread in a non intended direction moderator feel free to split/move my messages.

[Machinist]

In my case the usage of one CPU is around 80% and other 35%, and when checked 80% and 60%, so it may means that game is using more of the other processor. Of course as better the processors (in comparison to other processors) as lower the "average" cpus usage should be. There are some other topics about the multi-core feature and the related usage on dual and quad system, I just can't find them now.

I just did a test. Compared FPS, no noticeable difference. I did not think of comparing CPU%, will do that tomorrow.

Compare only FPS is not enough, with higher usage of CPU you may be getting lower framerates (which makes game run smoother) even keeping same fps. It was discussed recently in another thread.

[snowstorm]

Effect of multi-core on CPU usage with an i5-2500K:

http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread ... ost1733874

Effect on frame rate on the same system:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4739

Basically, on the test system, the multi-core setting appeared to have some significant impact on how the CPU is utilised, but this didn't translate into a significant frame rate/frametime difference.

An earlier test I did showed FPS lock (at 30) didn't improve performance on the test system either. I presume the theory people have about the setting is that resources consumed maintaining unnecessarily high frame rates would be freed up to prevent unacceptably low frame rates, whereas the test showed all it did was cap the frame rate where it'd otherwise have been above 30, while dipping below 30 in pretty much the same pattern as when FPS lock was disabled.

It could perhaps alter one's perception by setting a mediocre frame rate as a baseline against which frame rate drops don't contrast as severely, perhaps with a dose of placebo (the suggestion it improves performance) complicating the psychology of perceived "smoothness". Don't think it worked well on me, in any case.

[Toldrabald]

When should one tick the Multi-Core box ?

When? when you have multi-core and getting better performance with that option checked.

The multi-core option is in the section of the debug and developer tools for a reason: it should not be used by every user!

I don't have the explanation at hand, but Derek (or someone else from RSC, but I believe it was him) said after a lenghty discussion at UKTS that it is primarily meant for users of Windows XP 32 Bit with a certain generation or type of processor which causes trouble or is not supported by default from RW. So when ticked it uses special commands to "speak" with the CPU, which may also include some debug options. These special commands cause higher CPU load, because they do not make use of default processing options. So if you do not have any trouble running the game (low fps do not count in general) do not use the multi-core option!

Railworks has multi-core support by default and if you benchmark your CPU while running it - or simply watch it in taskmanager - you will see that on a dual core CPU both cores are used almost equally, and on quad cores that at least two and at times all four cores are in use.

If you are running with low fps, better try the fpslock and set it on 25 or 30 as described by Machinist above. By default RW will try to make 100% use of every computing power available (or at it least it should, does not really look like that it really does it) and load everything in advance to get the highest fps possible. However it does not have very good load balancing and when getting to a very asset crowded area you'll notice the fps drops. When using fps lock, RW will concentrate on bringing a most fluid performance and try keeping the set amount of fps. Meaning in a low dense asset area only requiring like 20% computing power if the 30fps can be achieved and when going into more crowded areas using more resources.
I'd recommend using the fpslock for everyone, even when RW runs fine and fluent at 50-60+ fps. Since a lot of timers, scripts and also the ingame clock rely on the fps count (which is a horrible solution by the way) having a fix fps will stabilize the game and can resolve some AI and loco-script problems.

[snowstorm]

When using fps lock, RW will concentrate on bringing a most fluid performance

How do you define "a most fluid performance"? The frame rate being capped at fpslock, with no gain below fpslock? Because that's what my test indicated. Consider these charts for Horseshoe Curve's The Champion scenario, cropped to show just the performance below the 30 FPS mark:

FPS lock disabled


FPS lock set to 30


Would be great to see such results validated or contradicted by others on their various configurations.

[mojo12012]

"Thank you for contacting the Railsimulator.com customer support team. It is advisable to tick multi core in order to take full advantage of your processing power, your graphics set up is a matter of individual preference." That's the response I got from RSC Support a couple of months ago when asking for clarification in view of all the contradictory posts about this issue, and also my own query about Crossfire support in the sim. In my experience, ticking mulitcore "seems" to run some scenarios more smoothly on my setup-at least the rubber banding and stutters are less apparent-while not doing anything about fps. I can tolerate the latter down to the high teens, it's the stuttering and rubber banding that messes with my immersion factor. It's a shame there's no definitive RSC statement on the above as different people get/give different advice, and some of it may be dated. And of course, what might have a positive effect on my computer may not be so beneficial for someone else's The only way to find out appears to be using one scenario as a test bed, and trying the option ticked/unticked. But then again, it might not work for every scenario/route. And it does also depend on whether there's an "R" in the month Actually, I still enjoy the sim despite the aggravation

[OldProf]

I understand "stuttering", but please explain what "rubberbanding" means.

Thanks,

[artimrj]

I understand "stuttering", but please explain what "rubberbanding" means.

Thanks,

Rubber banding is, for me, mostly when you look out the side window and the scenery goes by in spurts. Normal then slow, normal then slow. This has gotten better with all the updates and locking your FPS helps also.

[arizonachris]

I'm very familiar with rubber banding related to playing an online game with a high ping server. it's like walking forward, then all of a sudden you are 5 steps back, walking forward again. Like a rubber band knocked you back as you walked/ drove/ flew into it. But that's a high ping server issue. I have not seen any rubber banding with my PC and RW. Just that darn stutter when the game reads from the hard drive. Not much to do about that, even the high speed (EXPENSIVE!!!!!!!) SSD drives don't help a lot.