Train simulator 2016 in 64-bit (DEVS PLEASE READ)

[eye]

I would really like to establish this subject and I am not too sure if it is my rig or not but as all of you know, train simulator 2016 is a really heavy game and requires alot of resources to run, now I am running 64-bit windows 10, yet ts only runs in 32 bit, and this really should be changed in order to unlock the full potential of the game. I know it isnt my GPU which is slowing it down becuase if I pause the game, it will get up to 50-60 fps but when I am running it and lots of other AI trains are running around me, the game gets about 10 fps. DTG please read this, I dont mind if you are not willing to set the game to 64-bit and I understand that that will take time to rewrite it, but please, do take this into consideration :)

[electronx]

Short: This has been discussed, and the outcome is that a completely new engine is being written.

Long: There are multiple problems with this code.

Changing it to 64-bit wouldn't make any difference on its own, the engine doesn't seem to care much about its "weakness" right now either. However, porting to 64 can introduce an array of problems, parts of the code may break (such as when it is assumed that the size of an int is 4 bytes, 32 bits). Being a game, verbose coding such as sizeof() are most likely avoided, ideally constants are used (instead of magic numbers).

One (and pretty much the only) instant advantage would be that loading delays (stutter) could be removed, as all assets (for a scenario) could be loaded at once - assuming it's not a huge difference and still fits in your memory. More likely though, phasing out and reloading would still be needed as long as your PC has below a certain amount of memory (say, 12GB). Also, there might be decisions such as textures belong to actual objects, so you would need 60GB memory anyway.
Also, today the engine pretty much uses a "load a block and then draw/handle it all" logic. Having the entire route loaded, additional distance checks would be required.
It could come with some benefits, such as the natural disappearance of the bug when some objects (trains) are invisible despite another with the very same loco / cars appearing.

Being single-core is another problem and limits how much the engine can draw at once. I have a really good PC and my fps is between 120 and 30.
I'd say that more intense effects (smoke, lighting, reflections) and plain old oversampling (MSAA) to counter jaggies (and problems with overhead wires, cabling, track moiré) would make significant difference and this would require extra cores / paralellism.

The actual assets used on the rotues are designed with the limits in mind (e.g. the 2D, low-poly trees), using a prettier engine wouldn't change much.
As an interesting example, I find the Portsmouth line very pretty with all the lush bushes - and it is the one producing 120fps.

So, as 64 bit probably wouldn't "unlock the full potential of the game", the devs decided to use a new engine, which is much more suited to the requirements of these days. Until that is completed, this is a legacy game with constantly added content.

[Growler]

The game has reached the end of it's natural life-span, care of the old 32 bit graphics engine. Are they going to produce a 64bit variant of the currrent game, NO. It would require a huge amount of effort for very little payback in way of peformance and all sorts of incompatibility with thousands of existing assets for the game. As Electronx has explained DTG are producing an entirely new transimulator game (using the UE4 graphics engine) that will be fully 64 bit; due for release (all going well) towards the end of 2016. The disadvantage being all existing assets (DLCs) from the current game will be incompatible with the new game. So the slate is entirely rubbed clean as they start a fresh with a brand new game and brand new content.

If you have a decent modern rig, seksy shpee, you should still be able to get very acceptable performance (even if not perfect) with the current game. You don't mention what your PC specs are, but a strong PC with well balanaced settings for the game should be able to hit a steady 25FPS+ even for the most complex modern routes/locos in 'busy sections' with lots of AI traffic.

It's worth playing around with your advanced graphical settings for the game, this can be a very signficant difference in improving existing performance. Turn off dynamic weather (you'll get a small general FPS increase), signficantly turn down "shadows" (reducing them to a half or even a third can tremendously improve FPS without any noticable deterioration in look of the game), and equally importantly don't try to push the game with the latest modern highest AA - SSAA settings, you're better off switching to the max MSAA as an alternative. Again I can assure you there will be little notable difference in the way the game visually looks, but potentially a huge improvement in FPS. So it's well worth modifying your advanced graphical settings just in case you are currently trying to run the game on max everything. You should be able to find a nice balance that will give you a far better performance for the existing TS game technology. Hope that helps a little. All the best.

[eye]

Ok, thanks for your replies guys, it really helped! I wanted to know if they were going to release a 64 bit version soon (I have 8gb upgrading to 16) an I wanted to know whether it would be worth upgrading.

[trainfan68]

Sound like some knows what theyre talking about so I hope I may just go off at a tanget and ask a question rather than start a new post. Im not a PC user but after trying the game on a fairly crap pc I had laying around I decided to get what was advertised as a middle of the road gaming pc within my $1200 budget.
Im more than happy with the game and how it runs I get really high frame rates on the older legacy DLC but the newer ones it drops to around half my top end frame rate. I have been in 2 minds whether to buy another higher spec pc next January or upgrade the processor. I currently have an I5 I believe Skylake? my motherboard will take an I7. So im just curious and weighing up the cost between the 2 options. Again sorry to Hijack but you both appear to know what your on about.

[Growler]

Originally posted by trainfan68:

Sound like some knows what theyre talking about so I hope I may just go off at a tanget and ask a question rather than start a new post. Im not a PC user but after trying the game on a fairly crap pc I had laying around I decided to get what was advertised as a middle of the road gaming pc within my $1200 budget.
Im more than happy with the game and how it runs I get really high frame rates on the older legacy DLC but the newer ones it drops to around half my top end frame rate. I have been in 2 minds whether to buy another higher spec pc next January or upgrade the processor. I currently have an I5 I believe Skylake? my motherboard will take an I7. So im just curious and weighing up the cost between the 2 options. Again sorry to Hijack but you both appear to know what your on about.

Dear trailfan what speed is your i5 cpu? A fast i5 is basically an ideal platform for running TS well. If it's the case you have a fast version of the chip, then short of at leat 8GB ram, then all you really need is a high quality graphhics card (such as a Nvidia GTX970) and you should be 'laughling', enjoying very good performance indeed running TS2016. By all means friend me, should you wish to discuss the specifics of your PC in more detail. All the best.

[trainfan68]

I currently have an I5 6500 3.2 Ghz 8Gb RAM and a Nvidia GTX970 and an ADATA SP550 SSD. I really dont know much about PCs the machine runs well but Id like to get just that bit more out of it. And thanks for the reply.

[electronx]

Trainfan68: Check your fps with Shift-Z.

There are some places - such as the London area on the route to Peterborough - where even the toughest system fails to produce a smooth ride.

My old PC - i5-2500 I believe, plus GTX 560 Ti, produces ~60% of the fps of my 14 month old i7-4790 + GTX 970 Ti. The 4790 runs at 3.60GHz.

Are you running other games, too? Are those smooth enough for you? I wouldn't buy a very high end PC just for train simulator. You can always tone down settings as Growler suggested.

I think you need a balanced computer. As far as I can tell, processor and graphics cards are in the same price range. At some point I visited:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
Although my PC is custom, its settings are heavily based on a roughly €1000 gamer PC, plus a few extra (that one didn't have an SSD). It runs everything I care about (Skyrim, Blizzard games) nice and smooth.

Try to find yours and see if one is in a lot worse position than the other. The Xeons are shifting CPUs to look less powerful. My numbers are roughly 11500 for the CPU and 9500 for the GPU.

Edit: I see you just posted. i5-6500 is scoring 7043 on that list, which is between my old and new, closer to the former. You could improve that but the marginal cost is high. You need an i7 if you want faster individual cores. I would use that PC for a year or two, then sell / gift / demote it and get an entirely new one.

[trainfan68]

Yes my fps drop in high density urban areas as I would expect and smooth once I go more rural. Im not running anything else on this machine, I bought it purely for this game. The only software Ive added is Winzip and Mozilla.

[Growler]

Originally posted by trainfan68:

Yes my fps drop in high density urban areas as I would expect and smooth once I go more rural. Im not running anything else on this machine, I bought it purely for this game. The only software Ive added is Winzip and Mozilla.

You already have an extremely good PC spec for running TS well. Just make sure you're not overly 'greedy' with the game's advanced settings and you should be fine. I have a very similar spec to yourself and the optimum I've found to give very best FPS versus good quality graphics. Is to have dynamic weather disabled (IMHO the new weather/clouds look rubbish, and you'll take a real FPS hit especially with stormy weather scenarios). Dynamic Lighing (enabled) - it's essential to get all the high quality graphical benefits of the game.
Ideally keep the resolution to max 1920 x 1080; signficantly higher can result in a real bad FPS hit.
Importantly for AA use the old MSAA rather than SSAA. So FXAA +8 x MSAA will give you really nice sharp lines. This setting is far more efficient than the new FXAA + 3 x 3SSAA which at smaller resolutions (like 1080) really will make no difference in look whatsover but can result in a big drop in FPS. I have Texture Filtering at Anistrophic x 2.
Next most important in keeping up a good FPS is "shadows". I personally have mine on 33%, but would recommend not running it higher than 50%. Again I think you'll find a signficant potential benefit in improved FPS, with no noticable detrimental look to your game. Water quality fine at around 50%.
I run scenery quality, scenery density, and view distance all at max 100%. Plus Procedural flora, Adaptive bloom, depth of field, and headlight flares all enabled.
And the above compromise settings give me a really nice balance between good FPS even in high density urban areas and decent graphical look.

Anway a few things for you to consider, and a start for tweaking the advanced settings on your own machine to get the desired result. But AA settings and shadows, are the two chief settings where a reduction of, will most likely give you a signficant overall boost in FPS. Hope that helps. All the best. :)

[trainfan68]

Just checked and my settings werent too far off your suggestion, I had 1920x1080 res, FXAA + 8xMSAA and Ansotropicx8. it appears I am unable to set the scenery quality to Max it appears to reset to around 80% but everything else you suggest works. Western Mainlines in London Padd Im getting 30-35 as I pass Old Oak Common I get an increase to around 40-45 and past Acton its up in the 70+fps. Im going to run with what you suggested and will see how I get on.

[Growler]

Originally posted by trainfan68:

Just checked and my settings werent too far off your suggestion, I had 1920x1080 res, FXAA + 8xMSAA and Ansotropicx8. it appears I am unable to set the scenery quality to Max it appears to reset to around 80% but everything else you suggest works. Western Mainlines in London Padd Im getting 30-35 as I pass Old Oak Common I get an increase to around 40-45 and past Acton its up in the 70+fps. Im going to run with what you suggested and will see how I get on.

Try Anistrophic x2 which was my suggestion not x8! I wouldn't be at all surprised if you can then run the scenery quality at max. All the best :)

[trainfan68]

Haha lets try again then

[Phase3]

The 64-bit upgrade will be little affected by physical RAM. Where it will get better is that if the code is written correctly TSUE4 64-bit will be able to access 8 TERABYTES of Virtual Address Space (VAS) and the Windows OS 64-bit can also access 8 TERABYTES of VAS. OOM's and dump files will be a thing of the past especially when using the editor. Having said that 16 GB of physical RAM would be good, to avoid having to use the Paging File (aks virtual memory).

[Crunch Berries]

I have a GTX970 and an i5-4670K (3.4 GHz). I run all settings on max, with the exception of AA, which is turned off. For AA I use DSR; I go into NVIDIA Control Panel (global settings) and turn on DSR, and select a 4.0X native resolution. Then in TS2016, I select that resolution (which NVIDIA scales back down to the native resolution of my monitor). I find that the results are way better than MSAA or SSAA, and with better framerates. In fact, I get acceptable framerates on most routes, most of the time. One thing though, if you have a GTX970, stay away from the most recent driver versions (around v. 368), which are really buggy/crashy for that particular card. I rolled back to v. 364.51.

[Chicken Balti]

Hello trainfan, your PC spec should run TS2016 well, even with it's older limited 32bit core performance. An i7 CPU will make little change compared to perhaps upgrading your GPU at a later date, a fast i5 CPU is all that is required for gaming (at the moment) and you have that.
You should be able to run with most settings maxed out, apart from AA, SSAA will look sharper but reduce performance to around 30-35 fps, a hit many are willing to take in TS for the visual improvement, and still makes for smooth enough game play with a powerful GPU/CPU to start with.
Make sure you 'save' any changes you make.
With the introduction of new faster GPU's from Nvidia and AMD, the coming months and price drops on the present ranges, should make a good time for everyone to consider upgrading their GPU to one a few levels above what they presently own.
Edit: I would also agree with Crunch Berries above, try DSR, I use AMD's SVR at a virtual resolution of 3200x1800, all TS settings on max and AA of 1xFXAA X 2xSSAA, great looking displayed TS game and still around 30-35fps. Using your GPU Frame Lock feature may help smooth things out too.
Best.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gpus,review-33382.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gpu-hierarchy,review-33383.html