Comparing Frame Rates

Still very much on an early (and steep) learning curve with OpenBVE, and enjoying driving established routes while developing my own.

I've noticed that the frame rate of openBVE 1.5.1.1 is a lot lower than 1.4.2.0. I ran a few comparisons between the two using the same 'diagrams' and train options in NWM. I found on my Windows 7 system an fps of 90 / 100 for 1.4.2.0 dropped to about 60 fps for 1.5.1.1. Some train options bring the 1.5 frame rate down to a rather clunky 25 fps.

The NWM 2017 Update still returns a useful 80 fps in 1.4.2, but can drop to the 25/30 range in 1.5.

Is there a known reason for the drop in frame rate?

Loco.

Can I have some diagrams/ approximate track positions?

It's almost certainly going to be related to the number of transparencies in the catenary, which are being handled very slightly differently in later builds. I need to take a look at what's happening myself before I can give you an absolute answer though.
In general terms though, my builds are in most circumstances equal or faster than 1.4.3.


The train options I'm guessing you're referring to are Steve T's from BVE4 trains, and it's basically just the total number of faces with these; Some of the newer stuff is very heavy (Although it doesn't always look it)

Actually many of stuff with a huge amount of faces in them have been around for about seven years or so....!

Although I've actually stopped making the textures too small for close up detail if I have the photo's to do so.

So some of them are a bit big........

But how that alters how the same train running in the same route has different frame rates between the two versions I don't know.

I better go back to making 15 year old route objects!

Thanks for your replies gents. I think I have discovered my problem. I was surprised when leezer3 thought that 1.5 was quicker as all my tests had returned a lower frame rate. So I checked all the options again. I'm using Full Screen mode at 1280 / 1024 / 32 bits, and found that the option 'Vertical Synchronisation' was enabled in 1.5, but disabled in 1.4. It makes a big difference! Set 'Vert Sync' to Disabled and it flies along, with no problems that I can see.

Cheers,

Locomotion wrote:Thanks for your replies gents. I think I have discovered my problem. I was surprised when leezer3 thought that 1.5 was quicker as all my tests had returned a lower frame rate. So I checked all the options again. I'm using Full Screen mode at 1280 / 1024 / 32 bits, and found that the option 'Vertical Synchronisation' was enabled in 1.5, but disabled in 1.4. It makes a big difference! Set 'Vert Sync' to Disabled and it flies along, with no problems that I can see.

Cheers,

Yeah, VSync will muller your framerates.

It attempts to keep the framerate as a multiple of your display's refresh rate, and hence may display a little less tearing & may be a little smoother at times.


Wandering dangerously off topic, I've been about since 1997 (20 years!), and I remember when externals weren't even thought of
More faces = Less FPS, a simple fact of life!
A lot of the externals in my collection are comparatively simple things even these days!