i’d like to request that dtg make significant optimisation work to crewe station and basford hall for ALL routes, it causes crashes on every single route that goes there except for spirit of steam. it’s the one reason i’ve not picked up preston crewe, after a couple of runs on trent valley it became quickly apparent that the whole area is an absolute liability and needs optimising from the ground up
It’s probably the extensive yard areas which additionally on the modern day routes also have catenary above many of the tracks. I would quite happily accept a slight reduction in the amount of track modelled if that brings performance up to a more reasonable level. Or, given much of the yard space is hardly ever used, place dummy track as a scenery asset rather than (presumably) the more complex interactive track. Crewe is always going to be a busy location for trains, but in the case of the JT route hasn’t even got the local services to/from Crewe and Manchester or at the other end towards Stoke/Derby and the Shrewsbury direction.
Really? I've been playing this game since it launched and all the predecessor train sims since the mid 90's. Yes of course I know what the fudging core is, I've mentioned it myself in numerous threads and waiting for DTG to get off their behinds and sort it. However that doesn't absolve the 3P's from not containing their ambitions to what it can deliver on the assumption DTG can't or don't know how to fix it.
I do suspect this is why the Cumbrian Coastline was JTs next route? I asked the question on the roadmap if they had learnt anything from this route and Tom said something along the lines of not being too ambitious! Don't get me wrong the timetable and the JT quality is definitely there. I love what JT are doing! On paper the timetable is fantastic and a real feat of TSW. But we know we can have just as an amazing route on a smaller scale branch line or slightly less busy route. BPO is still one of my top routes, bouncing down the branches in the Pacer and running the shorter mainline services to Blackpool! Imagine the gameplay if we could have a small steam branchline doing services with pickup/drop off goods, like that fantastic scenario from PFR!
I hate to say it, but this route barely makes my PC break sweat. Although there is always room for improvement, I’d say the issue isn’t so much the route or indeed the game, but where PC’s are concerned particularly is people trying to play the content on ancient hardware with far too high settings. No amount of optimisation (and by optimisation really you’re saying ‘make worse’ because you mean remove scenery) is ever going to get around that fundamental fact.
Im sorry if this come across wrong but what systems are you lot running if your getting bad performance, my system is not exactly high end (5900x 32gb RAM 4070ti super) and I'm at a locked 60fps at 1440p maxed graphics in game, and running jetwashes ultra settings, my GPU sits at about 60% to 70% usage and CPU at about 10% to 15%, the only time i get near 100% usage is when i turn on RTGI in reshade.
Same here I run with a 60fps framerate limit and my PC is hitting that limit throughout the route, with only a slight drop at Crewe, Warrington, Wigan and Preston. The main issue is the stuttering due to asset streaming, but there's nothing much that can be done about that until DTG decide to improve the core. Vern, he was replying to OP who is requesting optimisations for the "Crewe core", which doesn't make sense.
There will always be stutters mate, it's a UE4 thing when loading in world tiles (well how DTG use UE4)
Erm thats not how it works mate, i have a solid 60 because v-sync is on and my monitor runs at 60hz, if i turn off v-sync i get anywhere from 80 to 130fps.
Do you have a solid 60 or do you have stutters? And let me guess, when you turn off vsync your GPU and CPU usage goes up?
Yes on reflection you are probably correct. However forum etiquette generally is if you make a pointed comment directly under a previous post without a quote to clarify, you are referring to that post immediately above. I know that's how it works on the SCS forum where, in fact, the mods will censure you if you quote the post directly above yours if replying to it. Anyhow the one thing we can be certain of, is the TSW core is currently more fudged than a Thornton's toffee shop!
Well of course cpu and gpu usage goes up when v-sync is disabled, as v-sync caps frame rate to monitor refresh rate, I'm still not seeing where you're going with this, and the stuttering is caused by DTGs implementation of world tile loading amongst other things, and it's not a bottleneck in load times either as TSW is installed on a 2tb NVME gen 4 drive with read speeds in the 7gbps range, my average frame times in TSW are in 5-11ms range depending on scenery, higher in larger stations.
Where I'm going with this is you say you have a locked, solid 60FPS, which would make you unique. But on further inspection you don't. Also, you get a 5ms frame time at 60hz?
Ok i know this is a stupid question but do you actually read what's written, or just like to cherry pick parts?, anyway if you want a serious conversation I'm more than willing to engage, but if all you want to do is try and cause drama, go elsewhere as I'm not interested.
I have to agree, granted my system is no slouch and runs Msfs2024 very well even in VR. I have been doing simulations, flight and trains, for well over 20 years and it is always has been a battle between hardware and quality of the simulation. I have my settings on Ultra and fps locked to 60, first time through Crewe would drop momentarily to the lower 30s and a few stutters as the shaders did their thing but definitely very playable. Subsequent runs did show improved performance. As I put forth in another thread, equality of performance across the various systems and the fixed level of hardware in consoles is a pipe-dream. Maybe it is time to consider forked development streams for the consoles. I know it probably economically unfeasible … but one size never fits all.
Sorry, Vern, but you're playing on a calculator. Flagship smartphones are probably faster or have the same performance.
Well, Vern's machine is capable of playing the game at the right detail level. The problem is, he isn't. If he stepped down to 1080p he'd get something approaching reasonable performance, even with a mechanical HDD rather than an SSD. Instead, he's trying to force 4k on something nowhere near capable of it, and blaming yards and grass and whatever for what he's seeing and hearing.
A slight exaggeration - equally the same or thereabouts as a PS5. So all the people having the same issue on this route and no others on a PS5 and XBox should also switch to a lower resolution? Anyhow, in the spirit of being constructive I’ve just rebought the wretched route and will see what 1440p offers. As I’ve said before, this PC copes quite nicely with other graphic intensive and detailed games such as Snowrunner. And TBH the optimisation was never my main complaint anyway, it was the messed up timetable with no arrival times and the missing reverb which were my main concerns. 1440p findings to follow…
As someone who previously played on a 2560x1080 monitor, that's clearly not enough. With this level of hardware, you need to use 720p. I had an i5 3570k, 16GB DDR3 and Radeon 7970. At 1080p in 2014, this configuration did not allow for the most comfortable playing of TSC at 1080p resolution. It's 2026, and trying to play TSW on a configuration slightly more powerful than my old one seems crazy. Even at a resolution of 2560x1440, when the much more powerful RX9070 at 3440x1440 is straining with all its might.
Dropped to 1440p and solid 30 FPS which is good enough for me. In all seriousness I do plan on replacing this old PC later in the year but I’m sure I’m not the only one who took advantage of last years Windows 10 security extension to keep things running only to now look on in horror at what’s happened to hardware prices in the ensuing months.
Crewe's been fine for me on the new JT route. Done plenty of shunting moves and ECS movements without any issues. Think it's only dropped into the red on FPS once. Warrington area, I had only my 2nd ever CTD in TSW, but Crewe is ok on my 5-year-old PC.
No idea, mate. I'm not talking about platforms I don't own. I do own a number of PCs though, and I can only echo JetWash's comments above.
I did say "something approaching reasonable", and given he's reporting 30fps at 1440p (still overdoing it, imo), I stand by that.
It would be good if it was PS4 equivalent. Let's ignore the fact that Snowrunner is already six years old and isn't known for its graphical refinements. But! This piece of unoptimized code only runs about 60-70 fps on my computer. But very stable, without any drops.
I've only completed one full trip along the Preston Crew route so far. The monitor resolution is almost the same – 3440x1440. The shader cache isn't full yet, but I'm only getting 50-60 fps, with some drops to 35-40 fps. I hope the situation will improve after the cache fills and the stutters will decrease. But I don't believe 30 fps is possible on 10-year-old hardware.
I can only speak for myself, but I run TSW on a pretty average 'gaming laptop' and performance has been acceptable on the whole given just how busy and complex the route is. The lowest fps I tend to get on busy parts is around 24-25, but most of the time it's between 40 and 60 fps I do agree though that it would be nice to have the final destination on runs done as a timed 'load passengers' instruction rather than a generic 'stop at'. It's difficult to tell if you're going to keep to time on the final stop with how the timetable is set up, although this matters much less on the freight runs.
The main difference between PC 4k gaming and console 4k gaming is most console 4k games run at a much lower resolution and then are upscaled to 4k, they used to use a process called chequerboard rendering (CBR), but now technology has moved forward they mainly use forms of temporal rendering like FSR whereas unless specified the PC will try to run the game at true 4k, even tho when you look at the resolution number alone it doesn't seem that much of a jump, but the actual rendering différance between 1080p and 4k is something like 4x the amount of work needed to create the same scene.
