Resourcememory vs Resource Cache Size

[manjoe]

You folks have been fantastic answering my questions. Thanks a lot.

RESOURCEMEMORY and RESOURCE CACHE SIZE. Are they one and the same, and if not, how are they related??? I have had them both set at ZERO, and I have set Resource Cache Size to its' maximum of 256, along with a variety of different numbers up to and including 3072 for Resourcememory. I have read places where 64 is desirable for both, and allowing the system to handle it. Same thing for ZERO.

I have 4G of RAM and a 512MB graphics card. I have not had any problems yet. I just would like some clarification. Somewhat confusing to me, and I AM NOT computer literate.

Since I am not seeing any problems, are there any suggested tools that will tell me everything is running normally, or do I simply look for signs of stuttering or something???

TRS2004 at 2365. Thanking you all in advance.

 

[johnwhelan]

You folks have been fantastic answering my questions. Thanks a lot.

RESOURCEMEMORY and RESOURCE CACHE SIZE. Are they one and the same, and if not, how are they related??? I have had them both set at ZERO, and I have set Resource Cache Size to its' maximum of 256, along with a variety of different numbers up to and including 3072 for Resourcememory. I have read places where 64 is desirable for both, and allowing the system to handle it. Same thing for ZERO.

I have 4G of RAM and a 512MB graphics card. I have not had any problems yet. I just would like some clarification. Somewhat confusing to me, and I AM NOT computer literate.

Since I am not seeing any problems, are there any suggested tools that will tell me everything is running normally, or do I simply look for signs of stuttering or something???

TRS2004 at 2365. Thanking you all in advance.

Where have you found the reference? With 4gigs and 512 MB don't worry too much about performance settings just trainzoptions.txt and in there you should probably have the line

-ResourceMemory=1536

To allow Trainz to use the memory you have.

Cheerio John

 

[llebrez]

Well.. 4 Gb of RAM! If you are using Windows XP 32 Bit, you are not using that much of memory. Only Vista, (That I know of) can use that much and more. If you don't believe it, check it on system info. I see there about 2.7 Gb (I also have 4 gb RAM in XP). There has been a very heated debates about this on "deep" forums of computer things, but no solutions. As per how to set the memory resources and all, just set it in the trainzoptions file to 1.6 or 1.7 Gb and it should be fine. Leave the setting on the Trainz "advanced options" at max (256) and forget it. Don't forget to defrag your hard disk.

 

[manjoe]

The TRS2004 default is ZERO for RESOURCEMEMORY when that parameter is not used in TRAINZOPTIONS. This is documented in their own manuals. The RESOURCE CACHE SIZE is also ZERO by default when initially installing TRS2004.

I never changed either for several months after installing TRS2004. I read here in the TRAINZ FORUM about TRAINZOPTIONS, and the use of the RESOURCEMEMORY option. I started to tinker with it. I never saw any difference. The FORUM also mentions to use 256MB if you have at least 512MB of RESOURCE CACHE SIZE. No changes are visable regardless of what value I put it.

I set both to ZERO, and TRS2004 runs fine. That is why I posted the question. Are the resource related parameters one and the same, and if not, how do they relate to each other???

The RAZORBACK railway website/forum mentions in at least 3 different places that RESOURCE CACHE SIZE sat at 64M works for them. I tried that, and different values for RESOURCEMEMORY. Still no changes.

I know nothing about computers. Is it possible that an efficient operating system can do the work instead of TRS2004 when these values are theoretically "too low"???

By the way, this is an old XP Media operating system, not VISTA.