I fancy a new computer - thoughts?

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....

I think this brings out a fairly major point 1440 by 900 at 60 hertz is fine for me, and needs much less resources than 1920 by 1080 or other large screen or in other words more expensive components.

Cheerio John
 
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.
Cheerio John

Take a very close look at the screen shots I put up of TS2010, how much overhead is there above that targeted 60 fps (60Hz refresh rate)? Not much and that’s with one of the fastest CPU’s out there, common sense will tell you that with lesser specs that a consistent 60 fps is not going to be obtainable.
 
I think this brings out a fairly major point 1440 by 900 at 60 hertz is fine for me, and needs much less resources than 1920 by 1080 or other large screen or in other words more expensive components.

Cheerio John


Wrong again, TS2010 is primarily CPU dependent not GPU dependent, the resolution has very little to do with it.
I can post screen shots taken at 2048x1536 if you’d like to prove it.
 
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?

It's a:
Intel E2200
Biostar Tforce P945
Corsair 2x512Mb dual channel (I forget the timings, but it was the cheapest Corsair Tigerdirect had at the time).
XFX 8400GS
Xion case w/550W PSU (don't remember model number)
Seagate Barracuda 500Gb 7200.11.

As John pointed out, I haven't been including the cost of the OS, nor speakers, monitor, etc. as I already had those. I originally had TS installed on a RAID 1 machine with almost the same specs, but I had to retask that machine for work purposes.

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.

Yep, the physics is definitely lacking, and I see it even though I'm not a railroader. Worse, it doesn't seem the interest is there by by developers or the user base to improve this aspect of it. I like a good balance between physical realism and graphical. Oddly enough, as much as I love 2010's graphics, I think I would be willing to go back to 2006 graphics (or, at least, what seems to be content created for TRS2006) for better physics. And sound.

Ditto for FS. I understand X-Plane has better physics, but I haven't tried it yet.

Have you tried this –

Thanks, I've heard about it, but I'll give it a second look now. I seem to remember it had a route that interested me, but didn't bookmark it. If the physics are better, I'm very interested.
 
Oddly enough, as much as I love 2010's graphics, I think I would be willing to go back to 2006 graphics (or, at least, what seems to be content created for TRS2006) for better physics. And sound.


The sad thing is little has changed since TRS2006; the game engine is really basically the same going back further than that.

Looking at the screen shots I took of RailWorks and TS2010, in terms of shadows and lighting the RailWorks game engine has got Auran’s beat by a long shot and RW’s game engine is not exactly “up to date” either.

RailWorks can also handle dense scenery with ease, were TS2010’s game engine would be crippled.


Thanks, I've heard about it, but I'll give it a second look now. I seem to remember it had a route that interested me, but didn't bookmark it. If the physics are better, I'm very interested.

I thought you might be interested as the developers are putting a lot of emphasis on optimizing the program for performance.

So far it is the only consumer train-sim that provides any sense of motion/speed in the cab. The cab sway (lateral and vertical) is all there along with very realistic sounds, something sorely missing from the other train related simulation games. With realistic physics it also forces the user to actually watch signal indication and plan ahead when braking just like you do in the real world which adds immensely to the emersion factor.

Now for the best part, it’s free. On top of that you can also take it a step further and get completely free from a Microsoft OS and install it on Linux, which of course is also free.

By the way X-Plane will also run on Linux.
 
Cool. Yep, them I'm going to check them out. Interestingly, the only game programming I ever seriously considered was a train sim, back in 1996. I bought some books on graphical programming around 2001, then discovered MSTS (and, in short order, Trainz...I also think Abracadata had a sim out) so I decided not to pursue it any further. I still would like to see some of the ideas I had implemented in Trainz and/or RW.

Another thing that I wanted to mention that I find REALLY annoying about Trainz is the signaling. I realize it was developed by Australian folks, and I do believe there are workarounds, but I would have appreciated some better primitives to implement proper North American (especially NORAC, AAR and CROR) aspects. Also, I have yet to see functional cab signaling either. The scripts may be out there, but from what I'm learning, better primitives could have made things much easier. Accurate signaling is also one of those things I'm really picky about.
 
Another thing that I wanted to mention that I find REALLY annoying about Trainz is the signaling. I realize it was developed by Australian folks, and I do believe there are workarounds, but I would have appreciated some better primitives to implement proper North American (especially NORAC, AAR and CROR) aspects. Also, I have yet to see functional cab signaling either. The scripts may be out there, but from what I'm learning, better primitives could have made things much easier. Accurate signaling is also one of those things I'm really picky about.


Actually for the US it’s NORAC (speed signaling) and GCOR (route/directional signaling).

Of course there are railroads with their own operating rules as an example CSXT and NS use their own rule book and do not belong to GCOR or NORAC. CSXT uses speed signaling and has adopted many NORAC-like operating practices since the Conrail acquisition (I was an operating rules instructor for them). BNSF and UP both use modified GCOR rules.


Someone who has done an excellent job on modeling signals for Trainz is NS_37 -

http://trainzforums.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=09360968a6cc41fea2342a83bbfebd8e&topic=2118.0


His work on signals just like his work on locomotive models is top notch.
 
I hesitate to interject, for fear of getting something unpleasant waved in my face......but I will anyway.

Can someone please explain why anything more than 60fps is a required on a 60Hz monitor? Does using a 60Hz monitor mean the BEST I can EVER hope for is a 120km/h train passing my trackside position at 0.5m/per frame? Or is there something else I haven't considered? I'm genuinely interested to know.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

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.

It's well known that in MSTS & Railworks the physics are bugged. Trainz maybe capable of something better since TS2009, but as usual we could do with Auran letting us know in detail how the new code works.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread, despite the bickering................

May I suggest people stick to saying "I" rather than "we" or "us". I wasn't aware that any individual had been elected to speak on behalf of everyone else in this forum.

regards
Stovepipe :wave:
 
Can someone please explain why anything more than 60fps is a required on a 60Hz monitor? Does using a 60Hz monitor mean the BEST I can EVER hope for is a 120km/h train passing my trackside position at 0.5m/per frame? Or is there something else I haven't considered? I'm genuinely interested to know.
Stovepipe :wave:


More than 60fps isn’t required on a monitor with a 60Hz refresh rate. What is required when v-sync is enabled, to avoid stuttering, is that the frame rate consistently matches the refresh rate.

The only way to do this is to have a machine capable of maintaining 60+ fps in a given game no matter how demanding the scenario or in the case of a train sim/game, the scenery. This means that you have to have “head room” for more demanding areas of say a route to consistently keep up 60 fps.
 
Someone who has done an excellent job on modeling signals for Trainz is NS_37 -

http://trainzforums.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=09360968a6cc41fea2342a83bbfebd8e&topic=2118.0


His work on signals just like his work on locomotive models is top notch.

Cool, I appreciate the info. His signals look good. My layout is going to need Type-Gs though, and somebody on this forum has inferred that they are working on them. Since the routes that are of highest priority to me are the SEPTA (nee RDG-side) routes, I may have to model the signals themselves since the actual shape of the unit itself is so variable, but it looks like I can learn a lot from NS_37's work.

I'm curious, what were your territories on the RR?
 
I hesitate to interject, for fear of getting something unpleasant waved in my face......but I will anyway.

Can someone please explain why anything more than 60fps is a required on a 60Hz monitor? Does using a 60Hz monitor mean the BEST I can EVER hope for is a 120km/h train passing my trackside position at 0.5m/per frame? Or is there something else I haven't considered? I'm genuinely interested to know.


regards
Stovepipe :wave:

Deep technical mode now, on a subject that is not one of my specialties so some one on the electrical engineering side may correct me. On an LCD panel you have two things, one is how often does the image change and the other is the background illumination. 24 frames per second gives the illusion of motion in film and that is how often we want the image to change however the difficulty is it doesn't match up nicely with 60Hz. It works a lot better with a 120 Hz monitor since this is a multiple of 24 frames per second. However there are some caveats even here.

30 frames per second matches a 60Hz monitor better, 24 frames per second matches a 72Hz real monitor a little better being a multiple.

With an 60 Hz LCD panel the video card is "polled" 60 times per second for an image so if your application can produce 160 frames per second most will never make it to the LCD panel. If your application is creating 30 frames per second then you just see the same image twice which is strangely enough what happens in the cinema, the shutters open and close on the same image so you see 24 frames per second at a 48 or 72 Hz refresh rate.

Note the problem with 24 frames per second and a refresh rate of 60Hz this means its difficult to show films correctly on North American TVs. The UK standard of 50 Hz is a better multiple so films look better on UK LCD TVs.

Many games are locked at 30 frames per second, but running games at higher refresh rates can look better because when you get to demanding detailed screens you want some reserve processing power. This head room leads a number of people to brag that their computer system is better than some one elses because from time to time their 160 frames per second machines can deliver the correct image whilst a system that normally delivers 30 frames per second won't quite have worked it out. However if the 30 frames per second machine delivers the correct image 99.9% of the time but costs half or even a quarter as much most people will be satisfied and trying to pin down how much is enough is the difficult bit for Trainz. It depends so much on content. S&C for example needs lots of memory and other resources to get good frame rates, a simple test layout does need as much computer to give the same effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

The optimum refresh rate does depend on your eyesight, age, whether a black cat crossed your path this morning etc. etc.

Cheerio John
 
My layout is going to need Type-Gs though, and somebody on this forum has inferred that they are working on them. Since the routes that are of highest priority to me are the SEPTA (nee RDG-side) routes, I may have to model the signals themselves since the actual shape of the unit itself is so variable, but it looks like I can learn a lot from NS_37's work.

What are the “Type-Gs”?
The only signals with any mention of “G” that I’ve been familiar with are the automatics with the “G” plate (grade).


I'm curious, what were your territories on the RR?

I started in the Midwest with the WC in Stevens Point and Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin then hired on with Conrail in the mid 90’s and moved back home to upstate NY where I worked out of Selkirk. I worked the River Line (NYC West Shore), Mohawk (Dewitt and Frontier (Syracuse, Buffalo) and the B&A (Boston Line).

I then transferred down south with the CSX take-over and worked out of Augusta, Savannah and Jacksonville, Fl.

After that fiasco I hired out with CP Rail and worked on the D&H out of Saratoga, NY before going into dispatching which brought me back to the Midwest with the SOO Line out of Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

After transferring back to the D&H property and getting furloughed around 9/11 I landed a job training new hire T&E for CSX for Northeast/New England terminals.
 
Deep technical mode now, on a subject that is not one of my specialties so some one on the electrical engineering side may correct me. On an LCD panel you have two things, one is how often does the image change and the other is the background illumination. 24 frames per second gives the illusion of motion in film and that is how often we want the image to change however the difficulty is it doesn't match up nicely with 60Hz. It works a lot better with a 120 Hz monitor since this is a multiple of 24 frames per second. However there are some caveats even here.

30 frames per second matches a 60Hz monitor better, 24 frames per second matches a 72Hz real monitor a little better being a multiple.

With an 60 Hz LCD panel the video card is "polled" 60 times per second for an image so if your application can produce 160 frames per second most will never make it to the LCD panel. If your application is creating 30 frames per second then you just see the same image twice which is strangely enough what happens in the cinema, the shutters open and close on the same image so you see 24 frames per second at a 48 or 72 Hz refresh rate.

Note the problem with 24 frames per second and a refresh rate of 60Hz this means its difficult to show films correctly on North American TVs. The UK standard of 50 Hz is a better multiple so films look better on UK LCD TVs.

Many games are locked at 30 frames per second, but running games at higher refresh rates can look better because when you get to demanding detailed screens you want some reserve processing power. This head room leads a number of people to brag that their computer system is better than some one elses because from time to time their 160 frames per second machines can deliver the correct image whilst a system that normally delivers 30 frames per second won't quite have worked it out. However if the 30 frames per second machine delivers the correct image 99.9% of the time but costs half or even a quarter as much most people will be satisfied and trying to pin down how much is enough is the difficult bit for Trainz. It depends so much on content. S&C for example needs lots of memory and other resources to get good frame rates, a simple test layout does need as much computer to give the same effect.

Cheerio John


First off don’t get what you see on your TV mixed up with how you see computer generated graphics on a computer monitor –

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

Secondly, many games aren’t “locked at 30fps” any more this went away years ago.

The needed head room isn’t for “bragging rights” but to avoid the stuttering that occurs with v-sync when the frame rate drops below the refresh rate of the monitor and gets divided. When this division of the refresh rate takes place it is not seamless which causes the stuttering.

This reminds me of another discussion over at Flight-boob.com with some other “know-it-all’s”, read through the entire thread -

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=208911
 
What are the “Type-Gs”?
The only signals with any mention of “G” that I’ve been familiar with are the automatics with the “G” plate (grade).


I believe that was what were also called triangular signals, with the lights in a triangle usually against a rounded face. US&S called them CR-something and they are also referred to as ex-NYC style. The link below describes them. However, I think it was the Reading, and, consequently PC and/or PC, that began using oblong, elliptical heads on the lower aspects. But only when showing two aspects, IIRC.

http://www.rrsignalpix.com/grs_plates_h.html

I then transferred down south with the CSX take-over and worked out of Augusta, Savannah and Jacksonville, Fl.

Cool, interesting career. That's a lot of moving around though, and that's part of the reason I left commercial aviation. I was down there around the same time too. I remember the fires. I loved the smell of burning wood as a kid but after living through that, the smell of burning wood still makes me a little nervous.
 
I believe that was what were also called triangular signals, with the lights in a triangle usually against a rounded face. US&S called them CR-something and they are also referred to as ex-NYC style.

Yes I’ve seen them on the Mohawk and the River Line. The last place that stands out in my mind that I’ve seen this type of signal was the automatics before you get to CP-SH on the Selkirk sub.

You might want to grab your camera soon because CSX is in the process of replacing all the former NYC signals with the new hooded (“Darth Vader”) style signals, most of them up here are gone already.

It kind of reminds me of what CP did after buying the D&H; they started to take down those classic D&H gantry signals.


Cool, interesting career. That's a lot of moving around though, and that's part of the reason I left commercial aviation. I was down there around the same time too. I remember the fires. I loved the smell of burning wood as a kid but after living through that, the smell of burning wood still makes me a little nervous.

Yeah it started out interesting and got old real quick. Living out of suit case/railroad grip bag sucks. I spent most of twenties working a POS extra board while trying to chase skirt, which isn’t easy.


The fires that I remember happened in the summer of 1998 in North Florida. I remember the smoke that looked like fog every morning when I worked in and out of Jacksonville from Savannah and Waycross.

I also remember the hurricane that summer where I got stuck in a hotel after bringing Q158 into Florence, SC, fun times.
 
Back
Top