|
Post by karlisss on Oct 26, 2007 16:19:27 GMT -5
hi iam new here and just tried to FSONE 2006 v1.0 i raced in australia melbourne but there is a big problem for me: the PC SLOWDOWN in race weekend mode... i can use only NO SHADOWS and all textures LOW for normal gamespeed.. i have a pc with parametrs: videocard NVIDIA GeFORCE 6600 AMD Athlon9™ 64 procesor 3000+ 181 GHZ, 1GB RAM is there is enaught with these parametrs? and if so then where is a problem cause all other mods work fine in highest setings/// thanks
|
|
|
Post by Phil Sousa on Oct 26, 2007 16:36:33 GMT -5
Recommended Specs
Dualcore 2 1.8 GHZ DDR2 2 GB RAM 256 MB Graphic Card (Geforce 7950 GT or higher is strongly recommended)
|
|
|
Post by karlisss on Oct 26, 2007 18:15:08 GMT -5
maybe there are awayliable a low res skins???
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 4, 2007 9:02:55 GMT -5
There's anybody playing FSONE at maximum level details with 22 cars on grid and it performs perfect with a lower card than a GeForce 8800 GT/ultra ?
Regards,
SchumiBCN[/i][/b].
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 4, 2007 9:27:18 GMT -5
There's anybody playing FSONE at maximum level details with 22 cars on grid and it performs perfect with a lower card than a GeForce 8800 GT/ultra ? Regards, SchumiBCN[/i][/b].[/quote] Me I have a P4 Prescott 630 3GHz with 2GB DDR2 533MHz RAM. It all works along with a NVIDIA GeForce 7950GT with 512MB of GDDR3 RAM. I previously had an ATI Radeon x700 PRO with 256MB GDDR2 RAM, and everything worked fine without shadow blur activated. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Setzer on Nov 4, 2007 11:13:46 GMT -5
And me too: GeForce 8600GT with 512mb, and it works perfect... I tried WTCC with more then 22 cars and it works too. So you have to buy a new card
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 4, 2007 14:01:32 GMT -5
The fact is that my system is:
AMD ATHLON X2 4200+ STK-AM2 512K 64BITS IN BOX DUALCORE
AM2XLI-E SATA2 DDRII PCI-E 8USB ASROCK
2 X 1024MB DDR533 KINGSTON CL40
GeForce 7600GT 256MB PCI-E CLUB3D
HDS: SATA2 320GB MAXTOR, IDE 80GB SEAGATE, IDE 20GB MAXTOR
And I have Windows XP Pro installed in the SATA2 HD and I also install videogames in that one as I guess SATA2 is much faster than IDE.
The game runs perfect with only one car and all settings at maximum (more than 150 fps), but when racing, it depends on how many cars are near to me, the fps go down from ~120 fps to ~15 fps.
First and general doubt:
I tried installing Windows XP 64 in one of the IDE HDs to test rFactor and other games, but I didn't get any improvement, I think an XP 64 Bits works as a 32 Bits system in an IDE, so I should try XP 64 in a SATA2 to get some improvement.. is this right ? If so, would both microP work then ? because I think using an XP Pro 32 Bits even in a SATA2 and a DUALCORE system, I'm only using one microP because of the 32 Bits of Win XP Pro Operating System.
Second doubt related with rFactor:
I don't know if my system should performs rFactor at maximum quality, I think it shouldn't because it doesn't.. but I've played with .GEN files of the cars and also with the .SCN files of the tracks reducing ClipPlanes to improve FPS rate.
My doubt is regarding .GEN files; in general, what's "best", using less different models of .GMT files to generate for example the body of the cars so the system doesn't have to change so often the models (but without trying to just use the best model all the time) like this:
<MAX> MeshFile=BMWva.gmt CollTarget=False HATTarget=False LODIn=(0.0) LODOut=(4.0) ShadowReceiver=True <MAX> MeshFile=BMWvb.gmt CollTarget=False HATTarget=False LODIn=(4.0) LODOut=(150.0) ShadowReceiver=True //<MAX> MeshFile=BMWvc.gmt CollTarget=False HATTarget=False LODIn=(300.0) LODOut=(700.0) ShadowReceiver=True <MAX> MeshFile=BMWvd.gmt CollTarget=False HATTarget=False LODIn=(150.0) LODOut=(250.0) ShadowReceiver=True
Where I only use the best model (A) for onboards and adjust B and D for the rest.
Or using more models (A, B, C, D, E) to have more precission and allow having very bad models far far away doesn't "kill" the performance ?
Well, I hope my doubts can be solved by you mates !!!
Thank you very much in advance and kind regards,
SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 4, 2007 14:30:37 GMT -5
LOL SchumiBCN
the problem aren't your 64bits... 64bits don't mean 2 CPUs...they mean MORE THAN 4GB OF RAM. You don't use two CPUs on 64bits systems, and one CPU on 32bits system. You always use BOTH. 64bits are for people with more than 4GB of RAM, cos 32bits can't address more than 4.096MB of RAM.
That is, you should use win xp 32bit sp2 with the latest drivers for your nvidia card, and forget win xp x64. 32bit applications as rFactor don't work at their maximum under 64bits OSs.
That's because of the emulation enviroments they must run into, under a 64bit OS.
Not going too deep into explanations, just consider staying in Windows XP 32bit with all the latest drivers and every application turned off (from systray expecially).
I think your graphic card is a little slow, anyway. That's why it can't handle all the computings FSONE 2006 on rFactor asks. Just reduce some antialiasing or some anisotropic filtering, and I think you'll get better FPS.
I can't give you any suggestions concerning your second doubt, wait for some FSONE member to answer on that.
Hope I've been clear,
cheers!
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 4, 2007 14:45:59 GMT -5
LOL SchumiBCN the problem aren't your 64bits... 64bits don't mean 2 CPUs...they mean MORE THAN 4GB OF RAM. You don't use two CPUs on 64bits systems, and one CPU on 32bits system. You always use BOTH. 64bits are for people with more than 4GB of RAM, cos 32bits can't address more than 4.096MB of RAM. That is, you should use win xp 32bit sp2 with the latest drivers for your nvidia card, and forget win xp x64. 32bit applications as rFactor don't work at their maximum under 64bits OSs. That's because of the emulation enviroments they must run into, under a 64bit OS. Not going too deep into explanations, just consider staying in Windows XP 32bit with all the latest drivers and every application turned off (from systray expecially). I think your graphic card is a little slow, anyway. That's why it can't handle all the computings FSONE 2006 on rFactor asks. Just reduce some antialiasing or some anisotropic filtering, and I think you'll get better FPS. I can't give you any suggestions concerning your second doubt, wait for some FSONE member to answer on that. Hope I've been clear, cheers! Well, my CPU as it's a Dual Core, they are 2 uP of 32 bits each one, that's 64 bits. If the O.S is of 32 bits, it's impossible to use the 64 bits.. don't think it has nothing to do with the RAM memory Anyway, 2GB should be enough to play rFactor at maximum level as other people do with that memory so, I agree with you that the main problem is the video card, that's why I'm thinking about getting a 8800 GT/Ultra but.. first of buying it, I should be sure that with that, I would be able to play rFactor with 200.000.000 cars on the grid !!! ;D Well, with 30 would be enough.. Because what do you think about the uP.. mine is enough ? EDIT: I have checked the card settings.. I thought it was configured to max performance but it was to quality, I have changed it to performance setting everything off to test it, will post the results. Regards and thank you very much for you help !!! SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 4, 2007 15:33:15 GMT -5
64bit CPUs have been introduced to cope the memory addressing limit that 32bit CPUs have always had, and not to go faster. 32 is the number of the bits that can fit into the MAR (Memory Address Register) of a 32bit CPU. Of course 64bit CPUs will have a 64bit MAR. With 32bit you can address from 00000000000000000000000000000000 to 111111111111111111111111111111, which are exactly 4.294.967.296 bytes of RAM. Convert it into GB, and you'll get 4GB. That is, a 32bit CPU can "read" only 4GB of RAM. You can do the same thing thinking on a 64bit CPU: it can address from 0000...0 to 1111...1 (64 digits, of course), that is extactly 18.446.744.073.709.551.616 bytes of memory (17.179.869.184 GIGABYTES of RAM...I think they'll be enough for the next...mmm...100 years? ). That's the only difference between 32 and 64bits CPUs. EVERY 64bit CPU has a 64bit MAR, or if you like, every CPU has 64 small golden little wires that connect it to the motherboard. It's completely untrue that dualcore CPUs have 32bits per CPU...if it was such, you'd have a 32bit dualcore CPU. You could have a single core 64bit CPU, instead. What you say about 32bit OSs is right. If you use a 32bit OS, you make the CPU generate 32bit memory addresses. I suppose you're using only 32bit applications. When you use 64bit applications on a 64bit OS things work as in a 32bit environment: the CPU receives 64bits instructions and things go well. If you use a 32bit application on a 64bit OS,instead,you force the OS to CONVERT the 32bit system calls in 64bit ones, otherwise the program would not work. All these intermediate transformations require time and computing power, thus resulting in a slower execution. In conclusion, 64bit are still too early to be used today, and are only necessary to people who use large amounts of RAM (over 4GB, as I explained above). Who says that 64bits are better than 32 because they're faster, or they're more powerful or any other things is just lying: 64bit don't give extra power, they allow you to install more than 4GB of RAM (hope you have a motherboard that supports more than 4GB of RAM, otherwise your CPU would be waisted...) Sorry about the lesson, I didn't mean to teach anything to anybody, I was just trying to be clear and sort things said. You can trust me, in case just consult wikipedia, it will be much clearer than me (and harder to understand to not engineers...) As for your graphic card, I think you're gonna get the right decision. Your 2GB of RAM are largely enough for rFactor, and your CPU is a good one. I'd have preferred an Intel Quad Core, though... Cheers
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 4, 2007 18:16:30 GMT -5
This system has almost a year.. so the only upgrade I would do to it would be the video card, even that card is quiet expensive !!! ;D Well, I'm almost an electronical engineer, so I understand you very much as I'm very used to these "language". But this kind of memory facts, is something that has been always around and that I've never exactly how it works. I trust you mate, but then.. let's see if these statements are right: 1 - If I install a 64 bits application in my Win XP Pro 32 bits, it wouldn't work because of the O.S. 2 - If I would install that application in a Win Xp 64 bits, it would work as my x2 uPs would do the job as a 64 bits uP. 3 - As rFactor is a 32 bits application, a dual core nor a 64 bits O.S. aren't needed. 4 - In a dual core uP as mine, we could say both uPs are working at the same time, if so, how could I check the performance of each one ? I don't know if people is getting tired of this, if so, we could keep on talking by PMs or e-mails, but I think this conversation is very useful and interesting for everybody, so thank you very much for it !!! Regards, SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 5, 2007 10:25:49 GMT -5
I'm a computer engineer, so we can speak the same language... Let's examine your statement: 1) completely true. You can't even run the installation program, because it does not work because of the OS; 2) true; 3) quite right. rFactor, as all the other 32bit application we have, runs perfectly on 32bit CPUs with 32bit OSs. It loses performances under 64bit OSs (depending on the hardware configurations, of course). So 64 bits are useless for 32bit applications. But two cores are better than one, so dualcore cpus work better than a single core one. In conclusion, 64bits are useless, but dualcore CPUs are faster than singlecore ones. For example, imagine that with a dualcore CPU rFactor uses the 1st CPU to generate polygons, and the 2nd to calculate the physics. It's much faster than letting one CPU compute both the things together! 4) Simply by using task manager. You'll be able to see the graphics of your CPUs committment. They don't always work with the same load, application scheduling is care of your OS and depends on loads of things. No problem for me to talk about this on here, hope people will appreciate. In case they don't, we could always open a dedicated thread. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 5, 2007 11:57:05 GMT -5
Ok, now I'm understanding much better how all this work !!! Then, the more uPs you have the better if we compare it with one single core with the same freq, so as you said, the best uP possible today, would be a Quad Core, but also the most expensive one I've downloaded last nVidia drivers (they are over 100th version !!!) and configured with everything off or at lowest level. Driving FSONE from NOSECAM, I could get over 240 fps alone on track but obviously, when more cars added, that rate goes down. So I think the best solution for my case, will be the 8800 Ultra !!! About the performance of both uPs, windows task manager doesn't show me both uPs, just one or an average of both. Here you're a screenshot of the task manager: Or that red line is for one up and the green for the other.. ? Cheers mate, SchumiBCN.
|
|
|
Post by ZannaBianca on Nov 5, 2007 13:10:40 GMT -5
You probably haven't chosen the right view...in task manager do this: in italian is: visualizza -> cronologia CPU -> un grafico per CPU in english should be: show -> CPU history -> one graph for each CPU I don't know spanish, i'm sorry... As for your graphic card and the drivers, I've never modified the default settings they come along with, I've just always installed them and ran rFactor. With my config I get an average of 90fps (it depends on the track!), and rFactor is all set up with the maximum details (1280x1024x32, maximum antialiasing, maximum anisotropic, everything at top details). The view I use is the cockpit view. Regards P.S.: that red line in taskmanager is something I've never understood...it shows kernel timings..what does it mean? if anybody could help, it'll be useful!
|
|
|
Post by SchumiBCN on Nov 5, 2007 14:20:01 GMT -5
In Spanish is "un gráfico por cada CPU" But I had selected the one graphic/CPU option, but it still showed one graph.. It could be something related with the "Hypertrehading" of the BIOS as I've read looking for it in google? Because I've checked that in "system manager" then "device manager" I had the "multiprocessor system", and I have it, but I also have "standard system" there.. Screenshot: Any idea about that ? I hope I haven't been using only one of the uP till today !!! ;D Cheers, SchumiBCN.
|
|