Here's the new computer I'll be putting together

[johnwhelan]

I got an i7 860 for my new PC in Jan, though I have wondered ifI should have gone with a 920. However, it has worked like a dream so far - everything goes really fast! (Including Trainz, I can't believe the framerates.)

Paul

I think that's a difficulty with Trainz defining how much machine is enough. As long as it hits the magic 24 frames per second its doing fine. Mind you that is until some one builds a more detailed steam loco.

Cheerio John

 

[djt]

As long as it hits the magic 24 frames per second its doing fine.
Cheerio John

More like 60 frames per second.


The smoothest any game will run is with v-sync enabled and a frame rate that consistently matches the refresh rate of the monitor. In the case of an LCD with a 60Hz refresh rate this would obviously be 60 fps.

 

[johnwhelan]

More like 60 frames per second.


The smoothest any game will run is with v-sync enabled and a frame rate that consistently matches the refresh rate of the monitor. In the case of an LCD with a 60Hz refresh rate this would obviously be 60 fps.

Most of us are more than happy with a min of 24 frames per second in Trainz and on some layouts its a struggle for even the high end machines to keep above that.

Cheerio John

 

[mawilson]

The only danger in my build was the Zalman CPU cooler. The fins on that thing are vicious, especially when I was installing the 8pin between a case fan and the Zalman.

I did have a hiccup installing software. Something, I'm not sure what, clobbered the BR/DVD ATAPI driver. Reinstalling a bit more carefully with many restore points.

I do have some blue LEDs (Zalman and two Antec fans) but the Antec P183 doesn't have too many places for light to leak out and, even with 5 120mm fans, it's really quiet.

 

[djt]

Most of us are more than happy with a min of 24 frames per second in Trainz and on some layouts its a struggle for even the high end machines to keep above that.

Cheerio John

I'm not sure that “most” would be happy with a “min of 24 frames per second” (which is considered by many to be a slide show) but I agree seeing how dated the game the engine is I wouldn't be surprised that less optimized routes wouldn't bring things down to a crawl.


So far with my i7 setup and the default routes the majority of the time I'm seeing well above 60 fps at 1920x1080 (running on a 32” 1080p HDTV) resolution, 8xAA/16AF with everything at it's maximum setting in the TS2010 options.


I've been doing some testing on both fresh installs of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 and Windows XP/SP2 64-bit with a GTX 285 (new OpenGL 3.3 197.15 drivers) and a ATI 5870 (new 10.3a Catalyst driver). So far the 5870 is outperforming the GTX 285 and both cards show better performance in DirectX compared to OpenGL mode.

 

[Two99Point80]

I'm not sure that “most” would be happy with a “min of 24 frames per second” (which is considered by many to be a slide show)

Isn't that the standard frame rate for movies?

 

[djt]

Isn't that the standard frame rate for movies?

The 24 fps/movie argument is an old misconception, viewing a movie on a TV and how you view computer generated graphics on a monitor are two different animals.


http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html




Here's an example taken from a well known hardware site on game play and frame rate -

“[FONT=verdana, geneva]A word about 'FPS'[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva]What are we looking for in gaming performance wise? First off, obviously Guru3D tends to think that all games should be played at the best image quality (IQ) possible. There's a dilemma though, IQ often interferes with the performance of a [/FONT][FONT=verdana, geneva]graphics[/FONT][FONT=verdana, geneva] card. We measure this in FPS, the number of frames a graphics card can render per second, the higher it is the more fluently your game will display itself. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva]A game's frames per second (FPS) is a measured average of a series of tests. That test often is a time demo, a recorded part of the game which is a 1:1 representation of the actual game and its gameplay experience. After forcing the same image quality settings; this time-demo is then used for all graphics cards so that the actual measuring is as objective as can be. [/FONT]
Frames per second
Gameplay
<30 FPS
very limited gameplay
30-40 FPS
average yet very playable
40-60 FPS
good gameplay
>60 FPS
best possible gameplay

• [FONT=verdana, geneva]So if a graphics card barely manages less than 30 FPS, then the game is not very playable, we want to avoid that at all cost. [/FONT]
• [FONT=verdana, geneva]With 30 FPS up-to roughly 40 FPS you'll be very able to play the game with perhaps a tiny stutter at certain graphically intensive parts. Overall a very enjoyable experience. Match the best possible resolution to this result and you'll have the best possible [/FONT][FONT=verdana, geneva]rendering[/FONT][FONT=verdana, geneva] quality versus resolution, hey you want both of them to be as high as possible. [/FONT]
• [FONT=verdana, geneva]When a graphics card is doing 60 FPS on average or higher then you can rest assured that the game will likely play extremely smoothly at every point in the game, turn on every possible in-game IQ setting. [/FONT]
• [FONT=verdana, geneva]Over 100 FPS? You have either a MONSTER graphics card or a very old game.”[/FONT]

 

[SuperFudd]

So 24fps sux? someone should tell Hollywood.
I use 1/2 sync in Trainz at a 72 refresh rate so I get fps limited to 36fps max. It looks great to me. I trust my video card likes it too.

 

[djt]

So 24fps sux? someone should tell Hollywood.

Why would anyone have to “tell Hollywood”, read it again carefully -


http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

I use 1/2 sync in Trainz at a 72 refresh rate so I get fps limited to 36fps max. It looks great to me. I trust my video card likes it too.

Have you ever seen a sim/game run at a consistent 60 fps with v-sync enabled on a monitor with a 60 Hz refresh rate? If you haven't then I guess you wouldn't know any better then would you?