I fancy a new computer - thoughts?

RRSignal · Apr 1, 2010

Photoshopping still?

djt · Apr 1, 2010

Prove it.

Prove what, lol.

You really must get out more often -

http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/fs9features.html

http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=gepro

http://www.scenerysolutions.com/

Dithering is a technique to blend objects with hard edges together. Related to it is "haze" which, while I don't know to be a technical term for graphic designers, it very evident in summer weather at altitude.

What you show in your FS9 screen shots is “blurred” textures which are a common problem with poor hard drive performance. It’s very old news and has been all over the flight sim forums.

It’s funny how I don’t suffer from the “dithering technique”.

Um, not into fora where geeks get together and demonstrate how little they know about real-world ops and how frame rates matter more than knowing what they are doing (IOW, been there, done that, way too much), but if you know a verifiable real-world corpjet or major carrier pilot then I would love to talk person-to-person.

Excuses, excuses that’s all we’re going to get out of you right? What’s a matter afraid of being laughed out of the forums with your misconceptions?

I am well aware of what it can do. I am also well aware of the price.

You stated that you can get just as much performance out of your $400.00 machine as I get out of my $1500-2000 machines, which is clearly not true.

For the umpteenth time, yet again and again and again, you've demonstrated that you clearly don't know WTF you are doing.

Lo, you just showed us some blurred out screen shots of FS9 with poor frame rates and you’re telling me I don’t know what I’m doing?

djt · Apr 1, 2010

See anyone in “disbelief” at any of these forums when I posted screens of FS9 performance with the i7, maybe because they have a clue?

Can you find any accusations of Photo-Shopping the frame rate? Of course not because with about 20 minutes of research in any flight sim forum you’d see that it’s not a great feat with a decent video card and an i7 to get that kind of performance out of FS2004.

http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=33603

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=276284

Here’s are some more screens this time at full resolution -

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1204/fs92010021711442191.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9570/fs92010021711452325.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/574/fs92010021711453622.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2072/fs92010021711463418.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8113/fs92010021711492309.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2599/fs92010021711582506.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6241/fs92010021712073262.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8941/fs92010021712121341.jpg

I’ll put up some of TS2010 and RailWorks next.

RRSignal · Apr 1, 2010

djt said:
Prove what, lol.

You really must get out more often -

http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/fs9features.html

http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=gepro

http://www.scenerysolutions.com/

Wow, you actually ADMITTED to this?

Crap, I don't know where to start...

That you have loads of commercial add-ons?

That those add-ons often don't look like real-life e.g. haze?

That you are using, according to one product, "technologically & artistically advanced, hi-definition texture utility for the simulator pilot who requires a more advanced feature set. The content is produced from extremely hi-resolution film photography, NOT digital, with the upmost artistic attention to detail..."

They're all addons.

You'd have made much more sense if you admitted to running FSX.

If you've got free demos though, I'm totally willing to try them.

What you show in your FS9 screen shots is “blurred” textures which are a common problem with poor hard drive performance. It’s very old news and has been all over the flight sim forums.

The problem with your theory is, of course, that the data is cached. An even bigger flaw in your theory is that, in your screenies, the horizon is so clearly discernable from the ground, yet another reason why I question you even know that basics of what you claim to speak of. On a hazy day, the blur between ground and sky is noticeable, depending on viewing angle, season and pollutants in the air. It's not uncommon in the summer to be MVFR (and, even, IFR) on a relatively clear day.

Not something the geeks tend to know, though.

It’s funny how I don’t suffer from the “dithering technique”.

You've demonstrated that artificial scenery looks great. By your own admission, above, you are using multiple enhancement packs. In other words, your basis for your argument for your "performance" is that you are not (or not fully) using default MS scenery.

Likewise, I own only one scenery add-on: Taburet's Philadelphia area scenery. It runs decently, but it's not built-in, and VERY lacking in surface objects.

(Actually, the only other FS9 product I own is FlightDeck III, but that's not relevant to this discussion.)

Excuses, excuses that’s all we’re going to get out of you right? What’s a matter afraid of being laughed out of the forums with your misconceptions?

Aww, you're butthurt AGAIN by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about? Earn an degree in Aeronautical Science from ERAU and we'll talk.

You stated that you can get just as much performance out of your $400.00 machine as I get out of my $1500-2000 machines, which is clearly not true.

In my original post I said "roughly same level of performance I get from my $400 POS." And I do.

Once again, on top of proving your highly-questionable 160 fps actually exist, prove precisely how that translates to a better user experience. Again, please provide documentation and video samples.

Also, once again, assuming your nice, overpriced i7 is more capable (and I really don't doubt it is), please tell me: What is the benefit of excess capacity i.e. being able to run TS2010 and FS9 at the same time?

Lo, you just showed us some blurred out screen shots of FS9 with poor frame rates and you’re telling me I don’t know what I’m doing?

Sure, because you showed us some doctored FS9 screenies. If we are to believe your own admissions, you may just as well have doctored your photos in Photoshop; the evidence that you did run them through Photoshop, combined with your add-ons which you have purchased, only further indicates that you are relying on show, now substance.

It's worth noting that you pretty solidly proved an initial point I made way back: That you are compensating for a lack of, um, "manhood", by buying your way into it. I had initially just thought you were buying unnecessarily fast hardware to feel good about yourself, but I hadn't considered you actually pay lots of bucks for pretty-but-questionable addons too.

So, it's quite likely, you paid a good 10 times what I paid for my POS.

If one needs the latest and best graphics, you have still to make a solid case, though I admit you probably have one. OTOH, if you're like the 99% of people who want great graphics, good gameplay, and not have to pay half the cost of a car for new equipment, then you've solidly lost this battle, and rather badly too.

I would like the admins to make this a sticky. At least, a more civil version of it.

RRSignal · Apr 1, 2010

djt said:
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8941/fs92010021712121341.jpg

Any of these are interesting but I see color compression as bad if not worse than my screenies, and my cap program (screenhunter) adds very lossy JPEG compression. I see at least a dozen bands, especially towards the top of the image. Not particularly impressive. Nor explainable as an effect.

djt · Apr 1, 2010

Wow, you actually ADMITTED to this?

Admitted to what?

Even with those three add-ons an imbecile could figure it out as being FS9.

They're all add-ons.

And your point is?

The problem with your theory is, of course, that the data is cached. An even bigger flaw in your theory is that, in your screenies, the horizon is so clearly discernable from the ground, yet another reason why I question you even know that basics of what you claim to speak of. On a hazy day, the blur between ground and sky is noticeable, depending on viewing angle, season and pollutants in the air. It's not uncommon in the summer to be MVFR (and, even, IFR) on a relatively clear day.

Not something the geeks tend to know, though.

Take a look at the link to the guide on FSX I posted a ways back through this thread then tell us what “geek” NickN” is about FS9/FSX performance. Do a little research on his back ground and let us know if he knows what he’s talking about or not.

The reaction to the screen shots that you posted and the performance would be priceless.

You've demonstrated that artificial scenery looks great. By your own admission, above, you are using multiple enhancement packs. In other words, your basis for your argument for your "performance" is that you are not (or not fully) using default MS scenery.

Who cares, is there any performance benefit to running those three add-on’s, no.

Would you like me to prove it by showing some screen shots with default FS9 scenery?

Aww, you're butthurt AGAIN by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about? Earn an degree in Aeronautical Science from ERAU and we'll talk.

How did this degree help you with computer hardware, obviously it didn’t.

In my original post I said "roughly same level of performance I get from my $400 POS." And I do.

Unless your name is Stevie Wonder it’s not hard to see that your “$400 POS” doesn’t even come close to what I’m getting with the i7 and the GTX 285 or the 5870.

As a matter of fact it doesn’t even come close to my Q9650 setup.

Once again, on top of proving your highly-questionable 160 fps actually exist, prove precisely how that translates to a better user experience. Again, please provide documentation and video samples.

Simple, the ability no matter how demanding the scenery is I can lock v-sync on and get the smoothest most fluid performance you’re going to see.

Again do the research it’s not hard to find info that backs this up, the only thing questionable here is your intelligence.

What is the benefit of excess capacity i.e. being able to run TS2010 and FS9 at the same time?

Who the hell ever said that I run two games at the same time?

Sure, because you showed us some doctored FS9 screenies. If we are to believe your own admissions, you may just as well have doctored your photos in Photoshop; the evidence that you did run them through Photoshop, combined with your add-ons which you have purchased, only further indicates that you are relying on show, now substance.

As I said above get yourself on one of the flight sim forums and see if I doctored the FS9 “screenies”, this just proves again how in the dark you really are.
Quick don’t look put your blinders back on, lol.

OTOH, if you're like the 99% of people who want great graphics, good gameplay, and not have to pay half the cost of a car for new equipment, then you've solidly lost this battle, and rather badly too.

You lost the battle when you posted those screen shots, I think you’d be better off on creating Word documents with that machine, lol.

Any of these are interesting but I see color compression as bad if not worse than my screenies, and my cap program (screenhunter) adds very lossy JPEG compression. I see at least a dozen bands, especially towards the top of the image. Not particularly impressive. Nor explainable as an effect.

They were taken with Fraps and put up on Image Shack so blame them.

The screens you showed us were such a blurred out mess that I thought you were kidding.

djt · Apr 1, 2010

Here are some of TS2010 taken with the ATI 5870 and the i7.

All were taken at 1920x1080, 8xAA “Wide tent”, 16xAF all settings in TS2010 were maxed and DirectX mode was used.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9682/trainz2010040101074874.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6052/trainz2010040101080729.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4976/trainz2010040101113952.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5213/trainz2010040101164734.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2059/trainz2010040101183978.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1366/trainz2010040101193876.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9629/trainz2010040101203869.jpg

djt · Apr 1, 2010

johnwhelan · Apr 1, 2010

boc61 said:
Thanks for all the replies. I've been looking at a place called Georgia Computer Workshop to build this machine. I've never owned a computer anywhere near a gaming rig, I'm using a 6 year old Dell Dimension that I bought off the shelf on eBay. I'm not a techie by any stretch and am trying to research as I go, but it can be daunting. Here is what I came up with on their configurator in my budget and using the choices they gave on the configurator. Prices are USD.

# $114 ANTEC NINE HUNDRED GAMING STEEL MID-TOWER ATX BLACK NO PS Bays:9/0/0/USB/1394 4 FANs 52553 * /QTY:1
# $83 ANTEC EA-500 *** 500W ATX 2.0 Metal EarthWatts PS 55518 * /QTY:1
# $216 ASUS P6T-SE SKT1366 ATX DDR3 2000 (6/24) PCI-E X16x3 PCIx2 Intel X58 A&GBL&1394 81881 * /QTY:1
# $328 Core_I7 930 2.80GHz INTEL SKT1366 8MB Cache Retail W/Heatsink Fan 89451 * /QTY:1
# $195 CRUCIAL CT25664AA800x3 6GB (3X2GB) DDR2 800 Non-ECC 240-pin DIMM PC2 6400 CL5 70149x3 * /QTY:1
# $44 SEAGATE ST3250318AS 250GB *** 3.5-in Internal SATA2 7200rpm 8MB BULK 83237 * /QTY:1
# $96 SEAGATE ST31000528AS 1TB **** 3.5-in Internal SATA2 7200rpm 32MB BULK 81549 * /QTY:2
# $38 PIONEER DVR-218LBK Internal SATA DVD+/-RW BLACK 22X DVD Burner BUFFER BULK 82638 * /QTY:1
# $159 EVGA 01G-P3-1145-TR NVDIA GTS 250 . 1GB PCI-Express DDR3 DVI HDMI Retail 88873 * /QTY:1
# $37 Creative Labs Sound Blaster SB0570 Audigy SE Internal PCI 7.1 Channel Bulk Pack 43674 * /QTY:1
# $26 D-LINK DGE-530T NETCARD 10/100/1000 Gigabit PCI RETAIL 25070 * /QTY:1
# $117 MICROSOFT WINDOWS 7 HOME PREM Operating Systems 64-BIT DVD OEM Pack 84551 * /QTY:1
# $0 Free Assembly and Testing
# TOTAL: $1549

I also am looking at the Dell XPS 9000, but the configuration I have for it isn't much cheaper than this.

It's basically the same as mine except it doesn't use ecc memory. That motherboard comes with a solid sound processor so doesn't need the sound card even for performance. I haven't had bad experiences with ASUS and the P6T is a popular board.

You don't need a separate network card unless its wireless and to be honest if you can run a wire to the network router you'll get better performance. The motherboard has an ethernet connector on it.

The video card matters, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-graphics-card,2569-6.html the GTS 250 is a 55 nm part that is essentially a GTX 9800+ so its power requirements are higher than the ATI 5850 and its performance isn't as good according to Tomshardware. Auran gets support from nVidia so have their sticker on the web site. If you choose to stay with nVidia GTS 250 I'd up the power supply to 650 watts, or choose to switch to a 5850 and stay with the 500 watt power supply. If you do that then look at the Sonnata III you get exactly the same power supply in the case for about the price of the 900 case alone.

Disk drives, I'd look at the warranty, one reason I went Raptor, and Samsung 2 terrabyte. Performance wise I don't think you need two drives they both have about the same performance and realistically a single 1 or 2 terrabyte drive should do fine. If you have the cash then an SSD boot drive is worth looking at.

Run it through the shopping cart at NCIX.com, they charge $50 to assemble but the total cost may well be cheaper and the range of components is probably wider.

cpu, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu,2570-7.html seems reasonable, has good reviews on newegg.com.

Best of luck

Cheerio John

winjmoore · Apr 1, 2010

OK guys this is about John's new rig. Maybe if you posted pictures of onesself you would hide less behind your keyboards... These ant the forems of the 1980's
John I hope you enjoy what you get.

If you knew anything about setting up hardware for performance applications you wouldn’t have even mentioned FAT32, you really are lost. [/QUOTE]

Confusion over fat 32
In the last 2 days I've fixed 3 issues re xp on fat 32. 2 of the system were not starting and it's easy to fix if you have a boot disk. the xp boot disk of cause works with ntfs just easier with dos (fat32).
Another thing I like about fat32 is that viruses that get on ntfs drives can be harder to remove saying you do not has permission to remove the file. of caues that can be overwritten but with fat32 there is no permission granted to files. someone said that they had a fat 32 drive that was 80 gigs.... fat 32 32= max size of 32 gigs and 80 gig drive will work under fat 32 but the size of every sector would be huge and trainz would be huge on that drive. I've had trouble with drives over 32 gigs so don't go their now. Someone also claims that compressing a ntfs hard drive makes it faster.. Think about it guys before the file is accessed it must first be uncompressed. how do that make it faster.

Fat32 : vista and 7 a bootable os these days needs to be on ntfs simply because of the fat32 32 gig limitation

as for guys skyting about their pc's ms fligh sim is hardly a rig breaking app
hum go try Avatar the game or for flight sims wings of pray which amisingly works on intel intergrated videos. Actually so dose Avatar but not well.

Why do forums degrad to people talking down to one another
John I'll stick with my rig but hope yours lasts you for many long years
In the range you are looking at anything will do trainz

RRSignal · Apr 1, 2010

djt said:
Admitted to what?

Even with those three add-ons an imbecile could figure it out as being FS9.

Who cares, is there any performance benefit to running those three add-on’s, no.

Would you like me to prove it by showing some screen shots with default FS9 scenery?

Yes, please. Summertime, while making a hard diving turn, daytime, over a populated area. Make your system work a little.

BTW, if what you say is true and there's no performance hit to using those addons, then great - they should run just as well on my machine as yours. So, my pics should look exactly the same, just with a frame 35-40 fps frame rate.

How did this degree help you with computer hardware, obviously it didn’t.

I know just a tad bit more about aviation than you. In fact, nothing annoys a real pilot more than armchair wannabes like yourself.

P.S. my graduate degree was in CS.

Unless your name is Stevie Wonder it’s not hard to see that your “$400 POS” doesn’t even come close to what I’m getting with the i7 and the GTX 285 or the 5870.

...

Who the hell ever said that I run two games at the same time?

For the purpose of simming, it certainly does.

I don't dispute that your rig has a lot of excess capacity. The problem is, that's exactly what it is. So the $1,600 price difference bought you nothing but hubris.

P.S. I noticed you removed the EXIF metadata from your screenies now, which is how I knew you Photoshopped them.

RRSignal · Apr 1, 2010

winjmoore said:
OK guys this is about John's new rig. Maybe if you posted pictures of onesself you would hide less behind your keyboards... These ant the forems of the 1980's
John I hope you enjoy what you get.

If you knew anything about setting up hardware for performance applications you wouldn’t have even mentioned FAT32, you really are lost.

Confusion over fat 32
In the last 2 days I've fixed 3 issues re xp on fat 32. 2 of the system were not starting and it's easy to fix if you have a boot disk. the xp boot disk of cause works with ntfs just easier with dos (fat32).
Another thing I like about fat32 is that viruses that get on ntfs drives can be harder to remove saying you do not has permission to remove the file. of caues that can be overwritten but with fat32 there is no permission granted to files. someone said that they had a fat 32 drive that was 80 gigs.... fat 32 32= max size of 32 gigs and 80 gig drive will work under fat 32 but the size of every sector would be huge and trainz would be huge on that drive. I've had trouble with drives over 32 gigs so don't go their now. Someone also claims that compressing a ntfs hard drive makes it faster.. Think about it guys before the file is accessed it must first be uncompressed. how do that make it faster.

Fat32 : vista and 7 a bootable os these days needs to be on ntfs simply because of the fat32 32 gig limitation

as for guys skyting about their pc's ms fligh sim is hardly a rig breaking app
hum go try Avatar the game or for flight sims wings of pray which amisingly works on intel intergrated videos. Actually so dose Avatar but not well.

Why do forums degrad to people talking down to one another
John I'll stick with my rig but hope yours lasts you for many long years
In the range you are looking at anything will do trainz[/quote]

Yeah, you're right on all counts, it's just a pi$$ing contest I guess. And, yeah, you're right about FAT-32, as well as it performs, Trainz is eating my primary partition alive in terms of capacity and that's why I want to move it onto my NTFS partition like I did MSTS.

I have never been a fan of drive compression, FTR, for the reasons you state. Big HDDs are cheap these days.

djt · Apr 1, 2010

winjmoore said:
Confusion over fat 32
In the last 2 days I've fixed 3 issues re xp on fat 32. 2 of the system were not starting and it's easy to fix if you have a boot disk. the xp boot disk of cause works with ntfs just easier with dos (fat32).
Another thing I like about fat32 is that viruses that get on ntfs drives can be harder to remove saying you do not has permission to remove the file. of caues that can be overwritten but with fat32 there is no permission granted to files. someone said that they had a fat 32 drive that was 80 gigs.... fat 32 32= max size of 32 gigs and 80 gig drive will work under fat 32 but the size of every sector would be huge and trainz would be huge on that drive. I've had trouble with drives over 32 gigs so don't go their now. Someone also claims that compressing a ntfs hard drive makes it faster.. Think about it guys before the file is accessed it must first be uncompressed. how do that make it faster.

What applications were running on this FAT32 formatted machine, games (performance applications) or office applications? What was the OS?
Could you point us to examples in a real hardware forum where users are running games/sims on FAT32?

djt · Apr 1, 2010

Yes, please. Summertime, while making a hard diving turn, daytime, over a populated area. Make your system work a little.

BTW, if what you say is true and there's no performance hit to using those addons, then great - they should run just as well on my machine as yours. So, my pics should look exactly the same, just with a frame 35-40 fps frame rate.

How would “making a hard diving turn, daytime, over a populated area” show that my system was “working”.

You really are hiding out in this forum for a reason aren’t you? Again I dare you to go into one of those flight sim forums with this crap.

Could you explain to us how GE Pro, UT and some new sky/cloud textures change the way FS9’s game engine renders scenery, let me clue you in, it doesn’t.

I know just a tad bit more about aviation than you. In fact, nothing annoys a real pilot more than armchair wannabes like yourself.

P.S. my graduate degree was in CS.

Who the hell said anything about what you know about aviation and how is that relevant to the misconceptions you’ve brought up here about computer hardware?

I’ve got 17 years of experience in the US railroad industry, do you know more than me about that to. Nothing annoys real railroader’s more than armchair wannabes like yourself.

As I said above there is a very good reason why you hide in this forum.

The problem is, that's exactly what it is. So the $1,600 price difference bought you nothing but hubris.

How has my “$1,600 price difference bought me nothing but hubris”, lol?

Gee look its more Flight sim enthusiasts using $2000.00 PC’s, you better warn them that it will bring them nothing but “hubris”-

http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_topics.asp?FID=29

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showforum=326

P.S. I noticed you removed the EXIF metadata from your screenies now, which is how I knew you Photoshopped them.

The EXIF metadata is missing because the last bunch weren’t resized before I put them up at Image Shack, were you smart enough to notice that the performance didn’t change or are the blinders coming back on for that also?

saintjimmy · Apr 1, 2010

I'm going to have to side with djt on this one. There is just no way for a $400 computer (no matter how powerful) can match the gaming performance at the resolutions he plays at. Heck, it takes a $150 graphics card (at the very least) just to play Trainz at 1920 x 1080 with full 8x anti-aliasing (or higher) and 16x anisotropic filtering. While you (RRSignal) might get good performance at 1440 x 900 or whatever resolution you play at, djt plays at 1080p and has the resources to play any game at all at flawless speeds. It's just that some people like to buy the best out there and see how well it runs for them. djt just happens to be in that group.

Okay, rant 1 over....

RRSignal · Apr 1, 2010

saintjimmy said:
I'm going to have to side with djt on this one. There is just no way for a $400 computer (no matter how powerful) can match the gaming performance at the resolutions he plays at. Heck, it takes a $150 graphics card (at the very least) just to play Trainz at 1920 x 1080 with full 8x anti-aliasing (or higher) and 16x anisotropic filtering. While you (RRSignal) might get good performance at 1440 x 900 or whatever resolution you play at, djt plays at 1080p and has the resources to play any game at all at flawless speeds. It's just that some people like to buy the best out there and see how well it runs for them. djt just happens to be in that group.

Okay, rant 1 over....

Exactly, that's the part he doesn't get, which is why I keep bringing up the price issue. I could just as easily build the same rig he has and have performance to spare, but there's no point. For one, I'm constrained by my monitor's resolution - I just don't have the interest to get one that does full HD (and, in that case, it's actually less about the money than the fact that I really, really can't get into the whole "widescreen" format.) Rather, I build what does a great job for me at 1280x1024, tweak it some more, and pocket the difference.

This is not to say I don't blow money myself on hobbies. I have money pits of my own!

djt · Apr 1, 2010

RRSignal said:
This is not to say I don't blow money myself on hobbies. I have money pits of my own!

Who didn’t get what?

Did I not say that this was a hobby for me?

Did I not say that I built high end gaming systems as a side business?

By the way there are plenty of actual pilots in those forums that I posted links to who have spent $2000.00+ on computer hardware to run FS9 and FSX the same can be said for some RailWorks users I know.

How about X-Plane do you use that also?

RRSignal · Apr 1, 2010

djt said:
Who didn’t get what?

Did I not say that this was a hobby for me?

Did I not say that I built high end gaming systems as a side business?

By the way there are plenty of actual pilots in those forums that I posted links to who have spent $2000.00+ on computer hardware to run FS9 and FSX the same can be said for some RailWorks users I know.

How about X-Plane do you use that also?

No. Frankly, I really don't do that much simming aside from Trainz and occasionally FS9. And even then I'm really more interested in getting into route and scenery development than driving.

johnwhelan · Apr 1, 2010

winjmoore said:
OK guys this is about John's new rig. Maybe if you posted pictures of onesself you would hide less behind your keyboards... These ant the forems of the 1980's
John I hope you enjoy what you get.

Someone also claims that compressing a ntfs hard drive makes it faster.. Think about it guys before the file is accessed it must first be uncompressed. how do that make it faster.

Why do forums degrad to people talking down to one another
John I'll stick with my rig but hope yours lasts you for many long years
In the range you are looking at anything will do trainz

The discussion has brought out some interesting thoughts and has refined my original ideas. I think we've seen one opinionated person who is a self proclaimed expert but even here it has become apparent that their knowledge about the specific requirements is limited which actually is useful to note for others that machines for Trainz are ones that run Trainz reasonably well and it is not necessary to get 160 frames per second. In fact if you do you probably paid too much.

To get the best value for money you want a system that is balanced. With a fast quad core cpu even Trainz has cpu cycles to spare so by using compression you transfer smaller amounts of data to and from the hard drive which is a performance bottle neck and use up more cpu. I wouldn't do this on a single core system and even on a quad I'd want to run perfmon whilst Trainz is running logging the data first to see what was happening. I'll benchmark the new system with and without disk compression to see if there is any difference. You don't run it on file servers because of the cpu demand.

"File compression

NTFS compresses files using a variant of the LZ77 algorithm. [16] Although read–write access to compressed files is transparent, Microsoft recommends avoiding compression on server systems and/or network shares holding roaming profiles because it puts a considerable load on the processor.[17]
Single-user systems with limited hard disk space can benefit from NTFS compression. The slowest link in a computer is not the CPU but the speed of the hard drive, so NTFS compression allows the limited, slow storage space to be better used, in terms of both space and (often) speed.[18] NTFS compression can also serve as a replacement for sparse files when a program (e. g. a download manager) is not able to create files without content as sparse files."

Cheerio John

djt · Apr 1, 2010

What are the exact specs on your machine, despite all the useless back and forth bickering we’ve just gone through I don’t even know what this $400.00 PC consist of?

RRSignal said:
No. Frankly, I really don't do that much simming aside from Trainz and occasionally FS9. And even then I'm really more interested in getting into route and scenery development than driving.

That is one of the big issues I have with TS2010, RailWorks and other so-called train-sims, the physics suck and they are a poor representation of what running a real train is like. They’ve become nothing more than a 3D scenery creator.

This is the main reason why everyone’s attention turns to the scenery/eye candy with these “train-games”, if there’s no skill involved in running the simulated rail equipment what’s the point?

Have you tried this –

http://railsimroutes.net/blog/

http://openbve.freeforums.org/index.php

I fancy a new computer - thoughts?

Cheesesteak Guru

New member

New member

Cheesesteak Guru

Cheesesteak Guru

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Member

Cheesesteak Guru

Cheesesteak Guru

New member

New member

You! Off my planet.

Cheesesteak Guru

New member

Cheesesteak Guru

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads