Performance issues? Read more here

[Brian Clancy]

Okay, its pretty general knowledge that rF2 is heavy on resources, with even killer PC's having some pretty low FPS. I wanted to add a few details and put together a little info on the whys and what if's

Firstly, rF2 does NOT need or use the +Fullproc command anymore as rF1 did, it currently makes use of 2 cores. However, this is an issue for many people who run multicore (3-4-6 or more cores). Many people think that really good frame rates are almost totally down to the GPU (gfx card) but in reality, the CPU does handle a massive amount of the data/work for the GPU so the current limitation of 2 cores will and does effect some PC's performance The good news is that ISI may well increase this number later

Next up is GPU Drivers, this is something else that can have a dramatic impact on the performance of your PC. ATI/Radeon cards have proven to show big increases in FPS in rF2 by using the newest Preview Drivers (you can find the article Here http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/rf2-fixes-and-adjustments-list.45695/) and you can be sure that newer drivers later will further improve performance on most cards.

The next thing to consider is that this is very much a BETA, the code has yet to be optimised for performance and little tweeks that can add to FPS rates have not been made yet. I did some testing today on my rig:

Intel Q8200 quad core 2.33Mhz O/Clocked to 3.5+ Mhz
Asus P5QB Deluxe MoBo
XFX HD6970 (Overclocked) running 3 screens in Eyefinity ( 3840 x 1024)
8Gig Corsair Dominator Ram

Now, this rig, running rF2 with all setting at Max/Full with 16xAA (No HDR) at Mills with the Megane averaged around 120 FPS. Very playable and really quite nice looking, but well below par compared to other games. Once I had finished my tests, it was apparent the GPU peaked at a VERY LOW 62% occupancy, leaving almost 40% of the cards capability unused. This will improve as the software is improved, but added to the 50% of cores unused, its not too hard to see that we can expect some very good increases in performance in the future before the gold edition.

I hope this helps to make users a bit more aware of the reasons for the current FPS issues..... At the end of the day, this is a BETA test and its really too easy to forget that with all the excitement

We will continue to add new fixes/updates and improved settings etc as we get them in the 'Fixes and adjustments list' sticky thread here: http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/rf2-fixes-and-adjustments-list.45695/

 

[William Levesque]

Looks like my PC isn't that bad considering the bad optimisation !

Running about 30-45 FPS at Spa on Medium-Low graphics

Windows Vista Family Edition Premium 32bits
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
3GB of RAM
GeForce 9500GT

 

[Brian Clancy]

Looks like my PC isn't that bad considering the bad optimisation !

Running about 30-45 FPS at Spa on Medium-Low graphics

Windows Vista Family Edition Premium 32bits
Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz
3GB of RAM
GeForce 9500GT

Thats not bad And it should improve a bit yet too

 

[johnnyw]

Im just amazed how you get 120fps with that high res, i have core i5 2500K @ 4.7Ghz, 8Gb 1600MHz ram and GTX 580 and im only getting like 80-100fps with max settings and im using single 1920x1080 monitor.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

im only getting like 80-100fps with max settings and im using single 1920x1080 monitor.

Only? Lol I think many will be jealous on such high FPS John

 

[Brian Clancy]

Im just amazed how you get 120fps with that high res, i have core i5 2500K @ 4.7Ghz, 8Gb 1600MHz ram and GTX 580 and im only getting like 80-100fps with max settings and im using single 1920x1080 monitor.

Its strange how some people are getting very different results, that said, drivers, background progs running, and other things can all add up to the effect. I have to say, before I optimised my setup, 80-100 fps was nearer the mark, but a fresh win7 install and some messing about got me the 120fps I have now

Also remember I dont use widescreen monitors, so I run quite a few less pixels than most eyefinity users (that was always why I did this, great Fps)

 

[Eric. K]

I dont want to be a downer, but ISI needs to hire some real software engineers... Using 2 cores in todays age is like ridding a horse to work instead of your car... very noob IMO.. (sorry for being a little negative about the subject)

 

[Brian Clancy]

I dont want to be a downer, but ISI needs to hire some real software engineers... Using 2 cores in todays age is like ridding a horse to work instead of your car... very noob IMO.. (sorry for being a little negative about the subject)

Again, we really have to remember a couple of things.......First (I must be boring people with this but...) It's a BETA! LOL and secondly and probably more importantly, we all think of it as rFactor TWO and it is, but its a development of rF1, infact Gjon often refers to it, saying its really rFactor 1.5 or 1.9 etc, not a NEW rFactor When you consider this, a lot of the current issues make sense and you begin to see the steps of improvements already made and still yet to come

Patience Grass Hopper

 

[johnnyw]

Only? Lol I think many will be jealous on such high FPS John

Hehe, well obviously it isnt as low that it would give any problems, but with hardware like this would really expect more. Afterall game doest really look that much better than rf1 and still basicly using same 10 years old game engine as its base. At rf1 im getting like 400fps+ maxed out so really expected atleast 200 in this one too.

In many modern DX11 titles im getting similar or even better framerate than in rf2 as its current state so that only tells me that something is still not really as it should be.


E; One thing i noticed tho is that HDR lowers fps a lot, when i disable it i get like 50fps more.

 

[Mark Birney]

I have a quad core, maybe that's why FPS is down, it's only using half the CPU. Hopefully with new drivers and rF2 updates, it will improve.

 

[Brian Clancy]

In many modern DX11 titles im getting similar or even better framerate than in rf2 as its current state so that only tells me that something is still not really as it should be.

One thing i noticed tho is that HDR lowers fps a lot, when i disable it i get like 50fps more.

Whoooooa 50FPS! I loose maybe 5-10 depending on the track/time of day set :O

 

[Eric. K]

I have a quad core, maybe that's why FPS is down, it's only using half the CPU. Hopefully with new drivers and rF2 updates, it will improve.

No mark it is not using half the CPU... it is using half of the CPUs (you have 4)

 

[Eric. K]

Again, we really have to remember a couple of things.......First (I must be boring people with this but...) It's a BETA! LOL and secondly and probably more importantly, we all think of it as rFactor TWO and it is, but its a development of rF1, infact Gjon often refers to it, saying its really rFactor 1.5 or 1.9 etc, not a NEW rFactor When you consider this, a lot of the current issues make sense and you begin to see the steps of improvements already made and still yet to come

Patience Grass Hopper

Brian I dont buy that. They have been developing rF2 (or 1.5) for 2+ years (I saw the first interview+video with Gjon in '09). It is not beta software but alpha from what I am hearing... They have good ideas, but clearly they are not working with various performance teams from Intel, ATI or Nvidia to develop proper software (the core thing is a killer!! today you can write CUDA code to use 300+ cpus for various NON graphical computations).

 

[Brian Clancy]

There is another point that I think is being lost here also......

DX9 or DX11 really wont make a HUGE impact on fps, some, yes, but not masses, I see maybe a 10-15% loss in DX11 in pCars against DX9. The thing is, rF2 is quite highly detailed textures (that is an FPS hit) look at the image below, untouched.

The thing we forget (or just take for granted) is that rFactor 2 is a very good simulator, so much so, it works out physics and many other data/simulations that other sims dont, this does have an impact on CPU usage and as I have said before, this impacts on GPU and FPS rates also. Compared to many sims, it has a very complex Tire model, Green Track physics, and engine/environment model that can be as accurate as to formulate 'hot air' in your radiators if you closely follow or get a tow from another car etc..... This all eats CPU resources

 

[Eric. K]

The thing we forget (or just take for granted) is that rFactor 2 is a very good simulator, so much so, it works out physics and many other data/simulations that other sims dont, this does have an impact on CPU usage and as I have said before, this impacts on GPU and FPS rates also. Compared to many sims, it has a very complex Tire model, Green Track physics, and engine/environment model that can be as accurate as to formulate 'hot air' in your radiators if you closely follow or get a tow from another car etc..... This all eats CPU resources

And that's why they should be using all the CPUs and not just 2

 

[Brian Clancy]

Brian I dont buy that. They have been developing rF2 (or 1.5) for 2+ years (I saw the first interview+video with Gjon in '09). It is not beta software but alpha from what I am hearing... They have good ideas, but clearly they are not working with various performance teams from Intel, ATI or Nvidia to develop proper software (the core thing is a killer!! today you can write CUDA code to use 300+ cpus for various NON graphical computations).

You may be right, infact I'm pretty sure Intel/Nvidia/ATI may not be that interested in a less than mainstream sim.... But I have been told directly, that it is a dev of rF1 rather than a whole new package and the 'feel' of it makes me believe that Maybe they should have held back another 6 months or a year to get further ahead or personally, I think just enlarge the 'closed Beta', but they didnt

Im a fan of this software, but not a fanboy lol. But for all its issues, I do see a great deal of improvements and some really good innovations that could make massive changes to how we race for the better

 

[Brian Clancy]

And that's why they should be using all the CPUs and not just 2

Cant argue with pure Logic........ Not Fair....... Foul

 

[Eric. K]

See I have a system with 32 cores in it... imagine what they could do as far as physics were concerned if they used all the cores it would be like driving a real car..

 

[Knut Omdal Tveito]

See I have system with 32 cores in it... imagine what they could do as far as physics were concerned if they used all the cores it would be like driving a real car..

That would have been very nice! But easier said than done unfortunately. For some physical simulations it is not too difficult to make a parallelized code and use >1000 cpu cores on a supercomputer. However for the kind of real time simulations you have in a racing sim it is very difficult in my experience. I have tried it and many times it takes longer time to run a calculation with 4 cores than 1 core Its just not suited for parallelizing.

But of course it would be fantastic if they worked out a way to use more cores.

@Brian did they actually say they would increase the number of cpu cores in the future?

 

[Brian Clancy]

@Brian did they actually say they would increase the number of cpu cores in the future?

Yes, Tim Wheatley did state

rF2 is already built to use multiple cores (two at present, more likely in future if available).