OK. To start with, like most of us, I am a COMPUTER USER, NOT a technician. Like most of us, I understand that a "gaming computer" (a platform that can handle 3D game graphics better than average), needs at least a decent processor, a decent video card, a decent size HD, a decent amount of RAM (2GB) and a decent monitor (1024x768 minimum)
Like many of us, I don't have a clue as to what the TRAINZ software does when we click on LOAD in Driver or Surveyer.
Given : Route is rather large with thousands of trees everywhere, about a dozen in VARIETY in any one given "area" but high in numbers, and ground texture is similar, modest in variety but every inch is covered. Tracks are 2 meter tracks everywhere.
Guess/Assumption :
#1 A statrting point of view is the "first loco driver" in DRIVER MODE or the last saved point of view in SURVEYER MODE. When you click LOAD, it seems to take the longest time . . . of course, its loading everything from HD . . . OR IS IT?? From observing the "disk access light" it seems to be loading a specified area AROUND the initial "pont of view" BUT NOT the entire route. . . BECAUSE when you switch to another "driver's point of view" far away from the current location, there is heavy disk access. It seems to be loading that new point of view. As the view changes with the movement of the "point of view" (by the train moving or right clicking the mouse), new information is loaded into RAM. THEREFORE we have "draw distance". The computer waits to render distant objects or texture until we move closer. Therefore "data" is being "put into " cache as new data is read. (Any data residing in a cache can be retrieved faster than from HD) I'm sure that what the software ACTUALLY does is far more complicated than this.
IS THIS GENERALLY CORRECT ?
#2 IF #1 is pretty accurate . . . Everything starts with reading "data" from the HD. That data (math & graphics) is FIRST processed by the CPU according to preset "laws of physics". At the same time, "graphics data" is sent to the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit). If the GPU is powerful enough, it won't need much help from the main CPU to process graphical data. How much the main CPU has to "aid" graphical processing depends on the "video card". It seems to me, that if you have a good GPU that can generate 3D graphics faster than "real time", how does the importance of "Graphics Memory" come into play with regards to its amount?
#2b It is the general consensus that "MORE THE BETTER" with regards to Video Memory . . . but there should be "balance" of performance of all the major computer parts, right ??? Example : No amount of money spent on a HOT video card isn't gonna do any good if you have an old Pentium computer, data bottleneck in the CPU. OR A new computer with an expensive video card is no good if you only have 1GB of RAM, bottleneck in the RAM . . . etc. etc. If our computer has a DATA BOTTLENECK somewhere, how do we identify WHERE the bottleneck is?
#3 There are many threads and discussion on FRAME RATE. Like most of us, I understand that there are many factors that may interfere with frame rate other than the CPU speed, HD access amount, RAM amount and Video card. Type of objects used, object poly count, number of variety of objects and the number of objects in any scene/frame all affects FRAME RATE. Where and how we "use up" frame rate in a computer system is our preference. Example: Some will use nothing but "low-poly" objects and use a very small variety of textures just t keep frame rate up. Others will sacrifice some frame rate to achieve a "more realistic world". What is the IDEAL FRAME RATE, is it 30FPS like a TV source or 24FPS like a movie film? How do we find out what the "frame rate" in the game is? There must be a point of diminishing return . . . Can human eyes perceive anything more than 30FPS?
Particulars :
Here, I can only speak in terms of my system. But I do understand that system performance can vary greatly from one system to another.
My current computer is "middle of the road" computer that I would ike to upgrade . . . but frankly I don't know where to start . . . or rather "HOW MUCH UPGRADE" to start with.
My system:
Dell XPS410 1.8 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
800Mhz Front Side Bus speed
160 Gig 7200RPM HD
3Gig RAM - 677Mhz PC6300 DDR2
Nvidia 7300 - 512MB (came with computer) set at average between "quality" & "performance"
37" HDTV monitor.
TRAINZ: running at 1360x768 resolution
Draw distance (both) 1 notch less than max.
Train poly at max
Why upgrade:
In some areas of my route where there are MANY varieties and number of objects, the drop in frame rate is becoming noticeable and annoying. This IS probably the single largest reason why people want to upgrade. I can only speak for myself, but many of us are not sure what to upgrade and to what extent to upgrade. Of course, there is always the option to BUY a new Gaming computer for a few thousand dollars . . . but lets be real.
For my system, I was thinking of getting the Nvidia 8800GTX SC (super clocked) with 768MB RAM. . . a good chunk of investment. But, I have no way of knowing if I'm buying an "Indy Car engine" for my "Toyota" of a computer. AM I BUYING TOO MUCH VIDEO CARD??? In other words, I'm afraid that the CPU or the amount of RAM (3GB, limited by 32bit Win XP) might become the NEW DATA BOTTLENECK, resulting in an OVERALL IMPROVEMENT of "not that much". In such case I would want to Upgrade to "Win XP 64bit" to access an extra 1GB of RAM . . . and maybe a new CPU with 2.8 or 3Ghz Core 2 Duo . . . then maybe my motherboard spec isn't up to snuff. OH SUCH DELEMA !!
If I opt to buy a new computer and the video card . . .
How important is "Front Side Bus speed" ?
Are there any motherboard that can access more than 4GB of RAM ?
Is there a RAM access limitation in Vista OS ?
Cooling wise, is Trainz the kind of software that will make the CPU or the video card run HOT? Are additional cooling system important?
Is there an article or a table that shows "balanced combination" of CPU to Ram to video card for 3D gaming?
Any info from any "computer tech" types of members will be greatly appreciated by myself, and hopefully by many.
Thanks
Like many of us, I don't have a clue as to what the TRAINZ software does when we click on LOAD in Driver or Surveyer.
Given : Route is rather large with thousands of trees everywhere, about a dozen in VARIETY in any one given "area" but high in numbers, and ground texture is similar, modest in variety but every inch is covered. Tracks are 2 meter tracks everywhere.
Guess/Assumption :
#1 A statrting point of view is the "first loco driver" in DRIVER MODE or the last saved point of view in SURVEYER MODE. When you click LOAD, it seems to take the longest time . . . of course, its loading everything from HD . . . OR IS IT?? From observing the "disk access light" it seems to be loading a specified area AROUND the initial "pont of view" BUT NOT the entire route. . . BECAUSE when you switch to another "driver's point of view" far away from the current location, there is heavy disk access. It seems to be loading that new point of view. As the view changes with the movement of the "point of view" (by the train moving or right clicking the mouse), new information is loaded into RAM. THEREFORE we have "draw distance". The computer waits to render distant objects or texture until we move closer. Therefore "data" is being "put into " cache as new data is read. (Any data residing in a cache can be retrieved faster than from HD) I'm sure that what the software ACTUALLY does is far more complicated than this.
IS THIS GENERALLY CORRECT ?
#2 IF #1 is pretty accurate . . . Everything starts with reading "data" from the HD. That data (math & graphics) is FIRST processed by the CPU according to preset "laws of physics". At the same time, "graphics data" is sent to the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit). If the GPU is powerful enough, it won't need much help from the main CPU to process graphical data. How much the main CPU has to "aid" graphical processing depends on the "video card". It seems to me, that if you have a good GPU that can generate 3D graphics faster than "real time", how does the importance of "Graphics Memory" come into play with regards to its amount?
#2b It is the general consensus that "MORE THE BETTER" with regards to Video Memory . . . but there should be "balance" of performance of all the major computer parts, right ??? Example : No amount of money spent on a HOT video card isn't gonna do any good if you have an old Pentium computer, data bottleneck in the CPU. OR A new computer with an expensive video card is no good if you only have 1GB of RAM, bottleneck in the RAM . . . etc. etc. If our computer has a DATA BOTTLENECK somewhere, how do we identify WHERE the bottleneck is?
#3 There are many threads and discussion on FRAME RATE. Like most of us, I understand that there are many factors that may interfere with frame rate other than the CPU speed, HD access amount, RAM amount and Video card. Type of objects used, object poly count, number of variety of objects and the number of objects in any scene/frame all affects FRAME RATE. Where and how we "use up" frame rate in a computer system is our preference. Example: Some will use nothing but "low-poly" objects and use a very small variety of textures just t keep frame rate up. Others will sacrifice some frame rate to achieve a "more realistic world". What is the IDEAL FRAME RATE, is it 30FPS like a TV source or 24FPS like a movie film? How do we find out what the "frame rate" in the game is? There must be a point of diminishing return . . . Can human eyes perceive anything more than 30FPS?
Particulars :
Here, I can only speak in terms of my system. But I do understand that system performance can vary greatly from one system to another.
My current computer is "middle of the road" computer that I would ike to upgrade . . . but frankly I don't know where to start . . . or rather "HOW MUCH UPGRADE" to start with.
My system:
Dell XPS410 1.8 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
800Mhz Front Side Bus speed
160 Gig 7200RPM HD
3Gig RAM - 677Mhz PC6300 DDR2
Nvidia 7300 - 512MB (came with computer) set at average between "quality" & "performance"
37" HDTV monitor.
TRAINZ: running at 1360x768 resolution
Draw distance (both) 1 notch less than max.
Train poly at max
Why upgrade:
In some areas of my route where there are MANY varieties and number of objects, the drop in frame rate is becoming noticeable and annoying. This IS probably the single largest reason why people want to upgrade. I can only speak for myself, but many of us are not sure what to upgrade and to what extent to upgrade. Of course, there is always the option to BUY a new Gaming computer for a few thousand dollars . . . but lets be real.
For my system, I was thinking of getting the Nvidia 8800GTX SC (super clocked) with 768MB RAM. . . a good chunk of investment. But, I have no way of knowing if I'm buying an "Indy Car engine" for my "Toyota" of a computer. AM I BUYING TOO MUCH VIDEO CARD??? In other words, I'm afraid that the CPU or the amount of RAM (3GB, limited by 32bit Win XP) might become the NEW DATA BOTTLENECK, resulting in an OVERALL IMPROVEMENT of "not that much". In such case I would want to Upgrade to "Win XP 64bit" to access an extra 1GB of RAM . . . and maybe a new CPU with 2.8 or 3Ghz Core 2 Duo . . . then maybe my motherboard spec isn't up to snuff. OH SUCH DELEMA !!
If I opt to buy a new computer and the video card . . .
How important is "Front Side Bus speed" ?
Are there any motherboard that can access more than 4GB of RAM ?
Is there a RAM access limitation in Vista OS ?
Cooling wise, is Trainz the kind of software that will make the CPU or the video card run HOT? Are additional cooling system important?
Is there an article or a table that shows "balanced combination" of CPU to Ram to video card for 3D gaming?
Any info from any "computer tech" types of members will be greatly appreciated by myself, and hopefully by many.
Thanks
.