Hi folks, I have done some experimentation with unreal engine.ini settings to try and help me improve my Sherman Hill frame rate. You can watch the outcome at [SystemSettings] grass.CullDistanceScale=0.5 grass.densityScale=0.5 The CullDistanceScale means that I don't get any grass on the distant hills anymore which does change the look and means the default texture shows through at times but I'm ok with that because the frame rate boost is huge. The second is the densityScale and that doesn't really make much of a visible distance unless you compare before and after screen shots but gives another huge frame rate boost. Caveat/Warning: I've not done a huge amount of testing on other routes with these settings, if you experience a negative impact on others please let me know. My actual full ini settings are - these are settings that make me happy, they all have trade offs in either frame rate or what you're looking at. Your mileage may vary. [SystemSettings] r.MotionBlurQuality=0 ts2.passenger.DensityScale=4 r.ViewDistanceScale=2 r.StaticMeshLODDistanceScale=0.25 r.LandscapeLOD0DistributionScale=2 foliage.LODDistanceScale=3 r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2 r.Shadow.TransitionScale=2 r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=2 grass.CullDistanceScale=0.5 grass.densityScale=0.5
Thanks for posting this variables. I have to try it yet, but anything that could increase performace/bring more consistent gameplay is welcome. There is really some grass overshot at certain areas. I have try geloxo graphic improvement setting and at Cheyenne was everythind OK(fps 60+) but at section between I80 bridge and Wycon it crawl arround 16-18 fps, than it go up to 80 fps on west end of Wycon chemical plant. r.ViewDistanceScale=2 foliage.LODDistanceScale=5 r.StaticMeshLODDistanceScale=0.25 r.SkeletalMeshLODBias=-2 r.Shadow.MaxResolution=4096 r.Shadow.MaxCSMResolution=4096 r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2 r.Shadow.TransitionScale=2 r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=2 r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.005 PC: i6850K, 32GB ram, GTX 1080Ti
add grass.CullDistanceScale=0.5 grass.densityScale=0.5 fps +30 my set DX11 [SystemSettings] r.ViewDistanceScale=2 r.SkeletalMeshLODBias=-5 r.StaticMeshLODDistanceScale=0.25 foliage.LODDistanceScale=5 r.MaterialQualityLevel=1 r.DepthOfFieldQuality=0 r.MotionBlurQuality=0 r.HighQualityLightMaps=1 r.PostProcessAAQuality=6 r.MaxAnisotropy=16 r.TemporalAACatmullRom=1 r.TemporalAASharpness=1.0 r.TemporalAASamples=64 r.TemporalAAFilterSize=1.0 r.TemporalAAPauseCorrect=1 r.ToneMapper.Sharpen=1 r.SSR.Quality=2 r.Shadow.MaxResolution=4096 r.Shadow.MaxCSMResolution=4096 r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2 r.Shadow.TransitionScale=2 r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=2 r.Shadow.RadiusThreshold=0.005 r.TextureStreaming=0 r.GTSyncType=1 gc.TimeBetweenPurgingPendingKillObjects=90 gc.NumRetriesBeforeForcingGC=1 gc.MinDesiredObjectsPerSubTask=25 s.ForceGCAfterLevelStreamedOut=0 s.ContinuouslyIncrementalGCWhileLevelsPendingPurge=0 r.ShaderPipelineCache.BatchTime=0 r.ShaderPipelineCache.BackgroundBatchTime=0 r.ShaderPipelineCache.PrecompileBatchTime=0 s.AsyncLoadingTimeLimit=1 s.PriorityAsyncLoadingExtraTime=1 s.UnregisterComponentsTimeLimit=1 s.LevelStreamingActorsUpdateTimeLimit=1 s.PriorityLevelStreamingActorsUpdateExtraTime=1 s.LevelStreamingComponentsUnregistrationGranularity=1 s.LevelStreamingComponentsRegistrationGranularity=5 r.Streaming.NumStaticComponentsProcessedPerFrame=25 grass.CullDistanceScale=0.5 grass.densityScale=0.5
Thank you for posting this. I have shied away from Sherman Hill because it dips my FPS into the single digits in some places despite the fact that I have a fairly good rig with GeForce RTX 2080 Ti with 11GB and an Inel Core i9 9900. I run ultra settings and 150% screen. Taking the settings off ultra or changing the foliage quality help FPS minimally if at all. My benchmark is to launch the 10:56 Hermosa - Cheyenne Intemodal and immediately switch to the 8 cam without moving the mouse. I consistently get 17 FPS in this position and the only thing that really improves FPS for me is to lower the screen percentage. I compared a clean ini file with an ini file and had your grass cull and grass density settings and still got 17 FPS. I then added all your ini settings and got no change with 17 FPS in that position. I thought there was something wrong with my PC and began shopping for upgrades only to sticker shock on new graphics cards. I find it amazing that with a 3080 you are still having FPS issues with Sherman Hill. For now, I am enjoying the SD70 physics and horn on SPG and just set up a CRR run in scenario planner. I guess I will hold off on running Sherman Hill until an optimization fix comes out.
Lower the foilage quality, not your screen percentage or other settings. I used to run everything on max settings (with a clean .ini file) and most routes run fine on my 1050Ti. But the grass on this route kills the framerate (or at least it's one of the contributing factors). Lowering foilage quality to medium makes a big difference. Framerate still drops noticeable when zooming in around certain areas, but it's playable for most of the time.
Thanks for that recommendation, but surprisingly adjusting foliage quality gets me a 2-3 FPS boost at most in that situation even at the lowest quality setting.
Do you perhaps have custom .ini settings increasing foilage draw distance? Because one of the main issue in my eyes seem to be that certain type(s) of grass on Sherman Hill have longer draw distance than most grass types in the game, like 2 or 3 times bigger. So if you have .ini settings increasing the game's base render distance, then it will increase the already big grass render distance even further, therefore the bad framerate.
Here is what I run normally: [SystemSettings] r.ViewDistanceScale=5 foliage.LODDistanceScale=5 foliage.DitheredLOD=5 [/Script/Engine.UserInterfaceSettings] ApplicationScale=0.60 However, I tried it with a clean ini file, with Paul's recommended grass settings, with Paul's full ini file and with fanta1682002's recommendation above. All with no significant bump off the 17 FPS in that specific situation. All the other routes run well with my normal settings. This one tanks whenever there is a lot of grass in the frame, but it is puzzling to me that changing these settings doesn't help. Hmmm ....
I tried the grass.CullDistanceScale=0.5 setting by itself, I think it had some positive effect on the framerate, though the shorted draw distance of the grass was too noticeable for me. And at certain areas the framerate still tanked very hard. Simply setting the foilage quality to medium seems to be a better mix for me. But I think I've found exactly which grass type is the biggest culprit. It's this yellowish wheat looking stuff. It just spawns in way too dense and takes a very heavy toll on the framerate. For example, here is my framerate in a section which was FULL of this yellow grass. As you can see, barely 10 FPS. Sometimes it even went below 10 FPS. Just 50 or 100 meters away, where this grass type is less dense, I already had 25 FPS. Then on other parts of the route, I had 30-40 FPS with no problem. So it's either the single grass asset itself being too performance heavy for some reason (too many poligons or animation points?), or the game just spawns it way too densely compared to other foilage types. Anyway, as said above, I don't really like the shorter grass draw distance that grass.CullDistanceScale=0.5 causes, but I might give it a second try with grass.densityScale=0.5. I wouldn't want to lose in grass draw distance, but I can live with it being less dense, so maybe that's a walkable path for me.
instead of grass.CullDistanceScale 0.5 try 0.8 or 0.9 to make it less obvious it still gives a nice fps boost without the tweak i had a lot of place under 30 fps or even under 20fps at 0.5 i had 60fps at most places except for a few spots at 0.8 i had 40-45fps at most most places 0.8 is the value i will be using for awhile
Great discussion here folks and awesome to see people helping each other so much! It never ceases to amaze me the different results that people experience on different hardware. When I first got this game I was running a 1060TI and was able to run at 1080p no problems at all with everything on ultra on a monitor designed for photographic editing. Then I managed to get a decent 2K gaming monitor and the 1060TI couldn't cut it anymore so I upgraded to a 3070 which was the best I could afford, this didn't help all that much surprisingly and after a mobo failure that was a blessing in disguise I updated my mobo and of course the pin count changed so upgraded my processor as well - these together were giving my decent playable results. I spent a lot of time and used the geloxo settings quite extensively until recently when my eldest son watched one of my streams and generously got me a 3080TI. Since then those settings completely tank the frame rate across the board and I adopted a much simpler set. Great to see your results Dinosbacsi and Thorgred - what is palatable or not is very subjective for each individual and important to find a sweet spot that makes you personally happy. If you want to check out your pc JustWentSouth, I use userbenchmark.com which tests your machine and ranks it along side other similar hardware. It can also give you recommendations for PC settings changes that can improve things. For example I forgot to turn on the XMP memory profiles so the machine was running a lot slower than it needed to. Along with the recommendations it sometimes makes, if your hardware is a lot lower than similar hardware then there probably is something wrong and you can then examine your machine. I once had a GPU in a PCIx4 slot when I had a PCIx16 available for example. Note it does need you to download an EXE file to run. It seems innocuous, I've used it on quite a few machines without any issues. Paul
Hi folks. Just today I was testing the texture streamer (I haven´t done it yet with UE 4.26 as I parked game for a while) and after some tweaking this performs really well now. Maybe you can take a look to my post because, if you had disabled the texture streaming as many of us did while using UE 4.23, this may be one of the reasons for this performance loss in Sherman. I have seen significant performance gains (including Riesa-Dresden case that performed like hell even after tweaking) in today´s testing without aparent quality loss. Post including updated settings is here: https://forums.dovetailgames.com/th...-engine-ini-optimizations-for-ue-v4-26.50311/ If you don´t want to mess a lot with the other settings just take the red color marked ones as they are the ones dealing with the streamer. You can use them with both DX11 or DX12 modes. PS: welcome to the 3080 team Paul. It´s a superb card that you will definitely enjoy for years. Good XMas present! Cheers
It is a very nice card geloxo although it fights my air conditioner in summer - in winter its going to make a lovely space heater for the office . I've just ordered a much bigger case in the hope that better air flow will help it cool itself better. Paul
very good foliage.LODDistanceScale=5 grass.CullDistanceScale 0.8 +8fps at 0.8 i had 60-75fps at most most places my set dx11 [SystemSettings] r.ViewDistanceScale=1 r.SkeletalMeshLODBias=-3 r.StaticMeshLODDistanceScale=0.25 foliage.LODDistanceScale=5 r.MaterialQualityLevel=1 r.DepthOfFieldQuality=0 r.MotionBlurQuality=0 r.HighQualityLightMaps=1 r.PostProcessAAQuality=6 r.MaxAnisotropy=16 r.TemporalAACatmullRom=1 r.TemporalAASharpness=1.0 r.TemporalAASamples=64 r.TemporalAAFilterSize=1.0 r.TemporalAAPauseCorrect=1 r.ToneMapper.Sharpen=1 r.SSR.Quality=2 r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2 r.Shadow.TransitionScale=2 r.Shadow.CSM.TransitionScale=2 r.Streaming.FullyLoadUsedTextures=1 r.Streaming.HLODStrategy=2 r.Streaming.PoolSize=4500 r.Streaming.MaxTempMemoryAllowed=500 grass.CullDistanceScale=0.8
These have minimal impact on Sherman Hill. The tweak that appears to have most impact on Sherman Hill is foliage.LODDistanceScale due to the significant performance hit caused by the grass asset highlighted above. The difficulty trying to find a sweet spot Engine.ini file is due to the way DTG have chosen to develop TSW2, with each route effectively being completely separate. Thus, each route introduces it's own set of optimisation issues, whether that be density of trees, lighting, or in the case of Sherman Hill, the presence of a grass asset that absolutely destroys framerates. You'll understand if you decide to purchase the route
Certain city assets also seem to be hurting the framerate, I think they're the reason for the low performance around the Laramie yard for example, even though there is no grass there.
There are a few buildings that are a little too rich in detail that make the framerate drop if you look at them yes. In most yards its the OHLE and signals dropping the frame rate, here where their is no OHLE and very few signals its buildings . If you find any in particular call them out on the tech forum. Paul
