PC Tsw4 Enhancement | Lighting & Graphic Enhancement V4.7 (inc Lossless Scaling Guide)

Honestly, the work you've put in to help the community is immense. There should be some kind of Community Hero award for you and others who take so much time to improve our gameplay experience.

 

The latest update and its optimisations are great JetWash. I was unable to use your tweaks on my 3060 Laptop GPU a while back but can now play on medium at a steady 60 frames following the installation instructions. Thanks for all the good work!

 

But at 4K at 200% there will be no noticeable improvement to graphics? Just the GPU will work super hard?

 

it's supersampling, which is a means of gaining a smoother more antialiased effect by rendering at a higher resolution than your display, resulting in more accurate image detail. It scales according to the pixel density of the screen you are using. Essentially you'd be rendering at 8k for a 4k screen, 4k for a 1080p screen, etc. Yes, the GPU has to work harder, but you get a better result.

 

anyone please?

 

So at 4K a setting of 200% screen percentage will always show a better image than 100% ?

 

Thanks for the response. I have been testing by applying some of the profiles from other routes manually.

I can heartily recommend the Niddertalbahn. It is the best looking most complete track (I’ve got the rest and spend 90% driving down the Nidda.
Thanks for all your hard work. Much appreciated

 

So a question I have is I've been using the Ultra preset on every version with no issues. (discard what I've said about the blurriness for the sake of this post. That's not related to the mod anyways I've found out.)

I have an RTX 2080 Super, i9-9900K @4.7Ghz, and 32GB ram, as well as a page file size set at 10000MB. And I keep seeing posts from people, specifically related to GPU, that say "oh I wouldn't even use Ultra unless I had a 3090 or more" or something related to that. But I've been using that Ultra preset for a while now with my 2080 Super with no problems. It runs great. Very smooth performance, no hitching, stuttering, etc. Graphics look amazing. And I'll spend hours at a time in TSW4, if I have the time, at one sitting. Not just 30 mins here and there. So I've definitely had a chance to put my GPU through the paces when it comes to running TSW4 on this Ultra preset. But like, is it stressing my GPU too much? It doesn't seem to be from what I can tell. Temps are within range (80-86C and never above that) usually 15-30% usage. I know if my GPU was ever being overstressed for a long period of time, or even a short one for that matter, my PC would shut down long before anything happened that could cause permanent damage. I guess I'm raising this question because of the comments I see about not thinking to run Ultra on something less than a 3090 cause I do it just fine on my 2080 Super. But I don't want to be causing it to be working harder than it needs to, even if performance is flawless.

 

Depends. What do you consider "smooth performance"?
What sort of framerate do you run the game at? What resolution is your display? What settings do you have toggled ingame? etc.

 

No stuttering, no hitching, no pauses whether they are one second or less or longer. Even after clearing the DXcache and running the route again, there really isn't any stuttering. Especially on v3.4. My frame rates are pretty constant, usually 50+ at all times. Of course, there's the occasional drop around areas with a vast amount of foliage, or if there's a lot of other trains where you are, but even at that, I'd say they drop to 30ish. They're almost always high enough that even with a 10FPS drop, I don't notice any difference and wouldn't know they dropped unless I looked. Honestly, with how my system performs, I'd think I had something higher than a 2080 Super.

 

Oooh yeah, even with a VRR display the idea of FPS ever dropping below the mid-high 50s is beyond what I could comfortably take. I would definitely be taking that down a notch if I was on your hardware.

 

Why though? Even though my hardware seems to have no issue running the Ultra preset?

JetWash - What is the differences between Ultra and High / High and Medium? If I'm going to take it down a notch from Ultra, I'd still like to have the same experience I'm getting now. Would there be much of a noticeable difference from Ultra to High or even Medium? If it's something more related to shadows and stuff, I don't much care about that. I care way more about the overall look and quality of the graphics, etc. But if the graphics and lighting are gonna look the same on Medium vs. High or Ultra, I'll definitely back it down.

 

In my case because framerates that low are very noticeable and uncomfortable to look at. Again, this is why I was asking, since some people don't really notice performance issues that are glaring to others. One person's "smooth" is another's "unplayable".

 

Yes, I agree. I notice if the frame rates drop right away. It's a total immersion killer and indeed uncomfortable to look at...But I never have them drop far enough down to a point where I would even notice a dip. So I guess that's why I'm a little confused by "I would definitely be taking it down a notch if I was on your hardware." Why, if I'm not noticing any frame rate drops or any other performance issues? Other than it is over-stressing my GPU, which I have no knowledge of right now. I of course would want to avoid that, though. It seems like my 2080 Super can handle Ultra just fine but now I find myself questioning that.

 

The lighting changes are the same on Ultra as they are on low, barring the ray-marched cloud shadows. Beyond that between Ultra and High you’re looking at a step down in shadow resolution and occasionally lower draw distance. Between High and Medium the shadow resolution steps down again as do various other parameters (I can’t remember off the top of my head). Finally, low is 90% lighting, there is nothing in there to ‘enhance’ your stock settings.

I can see how naming them Ultra - Low might have led people to think that if they have Ultra game settings to go for the Ultra preset, but I couldn’t think of another naming convention that was appropriate.

It has to be remembered that resolution has a big input to the experience too. A 2070 would meet an untimely demise trying to run Ultra/Ultra/4K. However, it’s entirely feasible that it could well cope with Ultra/Ultra/1080p. Ultimately, if you’re happy with what you’re seeing that’s all that matters. Again though, if you’re seeing artefacts or weird behaviour that is a sure fire sign that you’re pushing your GPU too hard.

 

This was what I was getting at with my line of questioning. I have friends on the same graphics card as me who use it for 1080p gaming and use higher ingame settings than me, because I use 1440p. I know some people who are fine with 4k ultra settings on games even if it means the only fps lock they can hit is 30.

 

Thanks for this. It was helpful indeed. My screen resolution is 2560x1440 which is the maximum I can run. I'd assume 4K would be higher than this. Admittedly, I'm not as knowledgeable with this stuff. I know enough, but not in greater detail. So I guess I use Ultra/Ultra/1440. As for the screen percentage, I use 90% per your recommendation. I've found my rig doesn't like being pushed beyond that. Anything over 100% kills it. I definitely don't see any weird artifacts or otherwise weird behavior. And like I said, temps are well within normal range when gaming. I have a closed loop, radiator cooled CPU as well. I use extra cooling, too, with an external fan, as an added safe measure.

 

These are my in game settings, most if not all of which are set to match what you have in the mod manual. Like I said, 2560x1440 is the max I can run, which I don't think is coming close to 4K. For me, I'd see no advantage to running higher than this as the quality is amazing the way it is.

 

Interesting. Would you mind trying 100% screen percentage and see what happens.

ps 4K is 3840 x 2160 so considerably more pixels

 

Sure, I can do that. What exactly should I be looking out for? For what it's worth, I had it on 100% for the longest time, just up until a few nights ago when we talked via DM and you suggested backing it down to 90%. I don't recall any major noticeable difference between 90% vs. 100% but kept it at 90% because it looked relatively the same and was probably performing just a tiny bit better. It's anything over like 125% I'd say where I can notice it starting to struggle. I've tested it at 200% just for fun and it's pretty much unplayable. Almost a slide show.

 

I just wondered if it might have solved your problem.

FYI 1440p at 200% is 1440 x 2 = 2880 so a resolution significantly higher than 4K (2160)

I’m surprised to be honest you can run Ultra even at 1440p. At 100% screen percentage and 1440p it will occasionally push a 3090 to the limit.

 

Interesting. Good to know. Well I definitely wouldn't go beyond 100% at this point. I don't think I'd even go past 90%. It runs fine there and I don't see an advantage of going higher.

I'm a wee bit concerned now running at 1440p and 90% with Ultra is in fact pushing my GPU to the limit. It's just, it doesn't seem to be. There's no signs at all that there are any issues with doing so. Runs like a top. But maybe I should back it down; to at least High.

 

FWIW you don't have to be afraid of pushing your GPU to the limit or "too hard", that's what it's built for. If you see the performance you want there's no reason to lower the settings.

If however some parts of the performance are lacking, like the slow and inconsistent streaming of high-res textures you mentioned earlier, tweaking the settings might help. Checking VRAM usage especially, in that case. (not page file though, that ones virtually irrelevant – if VRAM is full it'll swap to RAM, where your 32GB is plenty) Task Manager can show you VRAM usage and Windows' gaming overlay (Windows+G) can, too. Though I'd heartily recommend installing MSI Afterburner to observe performance stats, it can show you CPU (per-core) & GPU usage, temps, VRAM & RAM, framerate and frametimes, all in one handy overlay.

But as I said, investigating this stuff is only worth it if there's actually something about performance (or noise levels) you want to change.

 

Can I ask, when you ran v3.2 12GB did you alter the VRAM numbers yourself? Given the 2070 only has 8GB VRAM I’m surprised it didn’t cause chaos. Luckily I still have that version so I can send it to you to try.

I’ve been in and out of the game for a good chunk of today and have tried different routes/weathers/times of day/fog/no fog and so on and I’ve seen no ghosting, no blurriness, no artefacts. I even tried antelope valley and it was pin sharp, both stationary and in motion. If Nvidia Shadowplay wasn’t playing up (yet again) I’d have recorded a video to demonstrate it.

 

Thanks, this is very helpful. I know that if the GPU ever gets pushed "too hard" or even beyond its limit, the PC will shutdown before any permanent damage can be done. I just see good performance with no issues with my current settings and see no signs that my GPU is being worked too hard or, as we've said, pushed to the limit. Ultra/Ultra/1440p with screen percentage at 90% seems to run great.

I still don't know what was or is causing the weird fading/ghosting effect. It never did it before so I really doubt it's anything related to the VRAM not being able to keep up or something. None of my settings have changed. In fact, I boosted the page file size as I stated in an earlier message. Not sure how much that will really help in the end however. But it can't hurt and I have plenty to play with. Funny enough, I do have MSI Afterburner and have used it a lot over the years. Admittedly, I haven't thought to check it during these tests or "issues". Anytime I've checked VRAM usage in the Task Manager, it's never above 50% and almost always less than that. Usually around 30%. Temps are between 80-86C usually, which is normal for my GPU when under a decent load. Max temp before it'll shut down is 92C so it's not approaching that limit. It never goes above 86C. I'll definitely take a look at MSI Afterburner now to check all the specific perimeters.

I will definitely investigate more but really, there's nothing I WANT to change, only if I actually needed to. Nothing is pointing towards needing to though. I'm not seeing any issues with hardware, performance, etc.

 

No, I didn't touch any of the VRAM settings myself. I just installed that version of the mod and it ran like a top. If you can, DM me that version you have and I'll give it a try to see what happens. I'm beyond curious with what's going on.

 

I’ll send it shortly

FWIW I would have said 86 degrees is very hot to be honest. For comparison my 3090 is never going much above 72 or 73 degrees under max load, and it runs hot for a GPU. It’s also drawing well over 400w in that scenario.

 

I'll have to double check that number through MSI Afterburner when I get a chance. I was going off memory and could be wrong on the exact temp. I'm also wondering if I quoted the CPU temp and not the GPU one. It's very well possible I may have. As soon as I can, I'll look into all of this.

 

86°C is in range of the 2080 Super. Nvidia gives specs up to 89°C before thermal throttling comes into play. Question here would be what card it is, FE for the 2080 running in that range is normal. Also don't forget the 3090 is a very efficent card with a big, big cooling block. 2080 super FE or custom cards do have a much smaller cooler and total cooling area.

But in all the temp could be a bit high. So it would be interesting to know which exact model you have amtraknick1993

 

It definitely runs a fair bit hotter than my 2080ti did, that’s for sure. Makes a heck of a lot more noise too.

 

Yeah, I can look and let you know here in a bit. As far as I know it’s just a standard 2080 Super. It could be the Founders Edition though. However I’m almost certain it’s just the standard 2080 Super. There’s virtually no major differences and from what I can tell, the temperature between the two is nearly the same when under load. Nvidia says the temperature range is 65C-89C for the 2080 Super but it throttles itself if it gets that high to 89C. Normal operating temp under a normal load with high graphics is between 80-86C, which is the exact range mine seems to run at. I’ve never seen it above 86C and often times it’s on the lower end of that range, sometimes even around 77-79C. It just depends. It’s very quiet and makes no noise. My whole PC in general is very quiet. You can’t even hear it.

 

Are you sure that's dedicated VRAM? Task Manager shows not only dedicated but also allocated RAM (for swapping) and the combined size. 30% would be extremely low, as that wouldn't even be 2.5GB on your 8GB card. I usually sit at 3.6 or 3.7GB, and that's with all settings on low or medium!

Yeah, but even for that to happen would be extremely rare. When the card heats up and cooling can't keep up, the card reduces power (clock speed). For a shutdown it'd have to heat up really fast, maybe if you forgot to install any cooler at all or something's broken. And yeah temps of 80+ degrees are on the hotter side, but fine. I'm running at ~85°C, too.

 

Yeah, setting something to use more vram than you physically have is usually a recipe for a CTD or bluescreen.
These usage claims do have me doubting some of these settings are working at all.
Even loading up unmodded TSW3, my VRAM usage jumps to around 5.5GB the moment I load a service.

 

Okay, good to know that someone else is seeing the same temps as me. Higher temps but still okay. I think at this point if there was a problem, it would have happened a long time ago. For reference, I run Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS, the new one) at pretty high settings, some on ultra as well, with no problems. And that’s certainly more demanding than TSW. And I’ve ran it for well over a year on those settings and have never experienced a single hardware related crash.

I should note a lot of the numbers I’ve given have been off memory and I might be wrong. Which is my fault. I guess I should wait until I have the exact data before I post so my bad on that. Clearly, if I was doing something my hardware couldn’t handle, I would have experienced an issue a long time ago. When I can I will double check all of these numbers and give the exact ones.

 

Is it correct the Blackpool route defaults to the PBL ini from the drop down list? I have copied over the latest godmode.sav and I don't have a Blackpool in the list of routes. Thanks.

 

Just a quick note, the Sky Quality not only affects the resolution of the clouds, but also the diffuse lighting amount. Best to check before sunset on "Light Clouds" (45%) sky, notice how the tint changes when switching between "Medium" and "High".

 

I don’t name the routes, the game/developer does, but PBL is ‘Preston - Blackpool’ and is the last route in the list. The PBL dynamic.ini is tuned specifically to that route.

Generally I think the principle station is first in the identifier, so although many of us incorrectly refer to it as BPO (Blackpool - Preston - Ormskirk) PBL is actually the right code / name for it.

 

and you just got yourself a new subscriber

 

Just throwing in SimRail - the evening light is so much more natural here... especially the unlit areas are not boosted like in vanilla TSW, or the whole cab glowing red.

 

Blimey, of course. I could not see in in the abbreviation. All I could see was Physics Based Lighting and thought it was a generic setting for your mods. Thank you for the answer.

 

The rolling stock folder uses PBO.

 

Yes! I'm very impressed by the SimRail Update...and this is only part 1 of 2

 

Here’s the breakdown of all the hardware usage and numbers now that I’ve had a chance to test while in game:

Task Manager:

CPU Utilization: 25-35% running at a constant 4.20-4.68Ghz
Memory: 14.4/32GB (45%)
GPU: Utilization 15% using 4.9/8.0GB
GPU temp: 83-85C

According to the gaming overlay: (Windows+G)

CPU: 19%
GPU: 95-100%
VRAM: 61% (4.8/8.0GB)
RAM: 45% (14.4/32GB)
FPS: 65-70 constant

MSI Afterburner:

GPU Clock: 1695-1720MHz
Memory Clock: 7000MHz
GPU Temp: 83-86C

Standard RTX 2080 Super. Not FE version. This is a factory overclock. Nothing has been overclocked by me.

 

Another shot of SimRail's fine lighting after sunset. Just as I'd perceive it in reality.



Now look at this. Cab too bright, scenery looking flat and muddy. (Vanilla TSW)

 

Gees, TSW looks bloody awful in it’s default state doesn’t it?’

 

Highly depending on the amount of clouds. But way over the top. The worst case of the Autoexposure is driving an Amfleet CabCar in a snow storm - the white scenery in the small window causes the engine to completely darken the cab, even with cab lights on it's pitch black.

In TSC, the ingame settings for Ambient Light, Contrast and Sunlight Intensity come in handy very often, and be it only to compensate for badly composed TimeOfDay files.

Here's where TSW shines though - still vanilla settings

 

You see, I look at that image and still see a number of things glaringly wrong with it.

 

Meanwhile, in DTG’s as yet unreleased new route…

https://www.youtube.com/live/A6JLdj2QU9k?si=lGIzNPqGd5pKyAFN&t=1280

It looks like a TV that’s about to fail.

 

not sure what's going on here

 

Just don't buy it. Im getting tired of these bland routes with very little care, massive pop in, shadow issues and everything else!!!! Might go back to pc and try this mod.