Trainz Update Announcement (SP6)

[paulper]

As a test I just merged my two largest routes into a 400+MB monster ("monster" by my standards) and I am seeing a noticeable drop in the FPS, particularly in asset rich (i.e. built up urban) areas. The two separate routes (210MB and 195MB) work perfectly without any issues in SP6.

I always take a minimalist approach to asset selection (e.g. no tree splines or billboard trees, lots of LoRes assets at distances from the track, using assets with LOD data where they were suitable and available, etc) so there is little further pruning that I could do.

I will join you in waiting to see what develops with the next update or TRS26 (whichever is first).

Presumably that's 2 bugs that you've reported now regarding SP6?

 

[ivomasek]

The fix is simple. "Update" to SP5 (everything worked there). And they can call it SP7 (and everyone will be happy). The Trainz game is not free. And it is not exactly cheap. There is no room for experimentation with a paid product. A paid product has to work.

Ivo

 

[HPL]

Midwestern Rails ran smooth in SP5 but in SP6, its a slide show no matter where I go.

That's exactly what I experienced (reported here) and N3V's answer is here. It was in the RC build but same issue once SP6 was pushed on. No further news since... Note that several other routes (including DLCs) have the exact same problem.

 

[Sanek17]

And the developers don’t want to communicate with us anymore?

 

[HPL]

They did communicate via the Newsletter touting SP6's performance optimization. But they never play their own game, otherwise they would know that SP6 looks like an amateur game in an early development phase.

 

[paulper]

They did communicate via the Newsletter touting SP6's performance optimization. But they never play their own game, otherwise they would know that SP6 looks like an amateur game in an early development phase.

I might be wrong, but I'm not sure that anyone that hasn't had issues with SP6 has been able to state it has improved performance.

 

[HPL]

At last N3V reacts! Here.

 

[pware]

Presumably that's 2 bugs that you've reported now regarding SP6?

Not yet. I am currently testing to narrow down the problem.

The last time I merged the same two routes in SP5 there was an identical issue. I discovered that some small grasses and small bushes I had been painting throughout large parts of the route using the Scrapbook Brush had asset file sizes in excess of 1MB each. Replacing those with far less memory intensive grasses and bushes resolved the problem. Since then I have been adding other assets and now I have noticed that some of the road spline assets have file sizes of around 4.5MB (I am presuming that is per spline segment???) and I have hundreds of kms of these road assets throughout the route. Currently removing them in stages and retesting - a slow process.

EDIT: Preliminary Results:

Phase 1 of the testing, to remove all the road splines and run a session, now complete. I can report that, apart from a very minor drop in FPS in the most asset dense area of the route, all the "stuttering" has gone.

 

[HPL]

From N3V's latest post: "...recently introduced memory management system..." and further: "...the limiter...". So there is a memory limit in SP6 if someone still was in doubt...

 

[pware]

Not in doubt at all.

Our internal testing has confirmed that a recently introduced memory management system is being triggered more often than we expected in certain routes. This system was introduced to reduce crashes caused by excessive memory consumption. We expect that this is likely the cause of much or all of the reloading/redrawing of scenery, especially splines.

You seem to be confusing "memory management" (Windows has that as well) with "memory limit". As easy mistake to make.

 

[JCitron]

It seems we can add you to the 'growing number' of posters in this thread that now have issues! Even if you refuse to ever call them out on it.


Whether there is some new memory limit or not, something they changed is irrefutably affecting (larger?) routes. No, I imagine there wasn't any limit before, hence if there is some kind of one now, what would that make it? It could also very well just be the typical botched coding.

Yes, there could have been something misinterpreted and they meant hardware limits instead, most likely tied to the GPU's VRAM as opposed to system RAM (I can place hundreds of third-party payware rolling stock on a detailed route at max settings without hitting 16GB of RAM, widely considered the bare minimum these days). That doesn't change the fact that if things were working fine in SP5 and don't in SP6 that the hardware isn't the problem.

Either way, the main point is how are we to know? It's been a week now and not a whisper from N3V. No, they don't tend to communicate much here outside of their occasional "We are going to communicate with our userbase now" that might last a couple of weeks before the crickets return, but there is no chance they haven't seen any of these responses on their own release thread.

This isn't a physical system limit. This is internal game memory limits. Programs, particularly games have a "budget" to work with to ensure performance is up to par. This doesn't matter how much actual RAM your system has or what your video card has installed. N3V devs have admitted that there budgeting code may have an issue and they are looking into it.

I have 64GB system RAM. The RTX3080 comes with 10GB of dedicated onboard RAM, and that uses 32GB of system RAM for sharing textures.

 

[Paul_Bert]

Good day



Yes, unfortunately it is as you describe. Large maps have a big problem after the update. What worked normally before the update, does not work after the update.

Map: A small piece of Europe 4:

ivomasek
ID: 276055

I would submit this route and your screen shots to the help desk now that they have acknowledged that their is an issue. I tested this route and i got the same results as you have. It’s the first route I’ve tested that i have seen the issue.