My Complaints about Open Rails

[Sleepy]

I got into the train sim back when it wasn't brand new but not ancient and there was no such thing as open rails. I got so frustrated with the crashes I completely ditched it and stuck with only my flight sim. Well my flight sim rig took a crap and rather than restart that from scratch I got a friend who can clone the HD but that has turned into a waiting game so in the meantime i had this old dell computer sitting around and figured I'll use this till i get my other up and running and I'll give the train sim another try. But now when I came back to the forums here i saw everyone talking about this thing called open rails. Looked promising but I held off. Once again Train Sims crashes and errors drove me nuts so I gave OR a try. I'll admit it. I tried it as a drop in replacement. 8-9 FPS. I said no way. I went back to MSTS. After seeing more and more about it here after a while I decided to give it another try. Started tweaking some settings and got the FPS up to bout 25. Not good but playable. 8-9 FPS was not. After getting the hang of it and really starting to enjoy it I decided to upgrade a couple things on this "temporary" computer so i upgraded from a Core 2 Duo to a quad core and ditched the 8400GS card for a GT1030 and even threw in a sound card and boom! I saw over 200 FPS. I have Vertical sync on now to keep the FPS at 60 and keep the card's temps down. Old computer so total investment was around $120. I had an issue that almost made be go back to MSTS but I think i'd rather give it up completely instead of going back. But it didn't get that way without a little work on my part and some help from some of the folks here. You may not have to replace any hardware. All it might take is a little tweaking and experimenting in the settings to optimize it for your hardware.

[seagoon]

24fps for movies was just the minimum industry standard chosen where a viewer perceives it as natural motion instead of a collection of stills.......

For traditional filming (i.e., using conventional film stock) it still is the industry standard, after more than 80 years.
Must have something going for it.

[R. Steele]

For traditional filming (i.e., using conventional film stock) it still is the industry standard, after more than 80 years.
Must have something going for it.

Remembering from my university days ( art, photography and film school )...originally 16fps was chosen for silent film...at 16fps the eye discerned the individual frames going through the gate as motion. Also you have to take into account the camera, film sensitivity & exposure and the motion picture camera shutter...which has evolved considerably since silent film. Each frame of film has to have sufficient exposure to light...so it's a combination of film technology, shutter speed, type of shutter, and what the eye "sees" as motion.
At 24fps with a motion picture shutter the exposure for each frame of film is something like 1/50 second ( or close to that...cannot remember, but that's close ). Eventually with an increase in film speed (sensitivity to light) the standard became 24fps.

The reason silent film looks speeded up is because the original 16fps is being projected at 24fps.

An increase in fps has been talked about but theater owners would have expense in upgrading projection equipment. It's also due to the very subjective nature of human perception...studies have have been performed that vary the frame rate up or down from 24fps and most people see 24fps at being "real" or "cinematic"

But with the advent of video games, digitial cameras, time spent on the web looking at the content, some younger two legged critters are saying the 24fps content looks unreal-old fashioned...go figure, maybe human perception is changing.

[necrails]

My complaints about open rails, none, zilch, nada. A vast improvement over the original program.