Major lag with big pile of logs.

[mikejl46]

I'm using the Nivdia Ge Force GTX 1050 card. I have a big pile of logs, and I have to back the game graphics down to low just so I can get next to the pile and load the logs.
I was wondering if there is a graphics card that can handle a big pile of logs, what do I need to upgrade to so I don't have this major lag on the game high graphics setting?

[bassaddict]

A big pile of logs (or bales, or pallets, or basically any dynamic objects) will cause a very heavy load regarding physics calculations. That's done on the CPU. So basically you'd need a more powerful CPU. Or if you don't want to spend any money on hardware: Try to avoid big piles or collections of dynamic objects. Rather just use multiple smaller groups, with maybe a few dozen meters space between them. How much exactly is possible depends on the exact system. You'd have to find out the maximum possible by yourself by trying how long it's still running smooth.

In case you're wondering why lowering the graphics settings has helped: Graphics rendering also puts some load on the CPU, the higher graphics settings, the more load on the CPU. So by lowering the settings, you've freed up a bit of CPU time. So I guess the log pile is probably just a little bit above what your computer can handle properly.

[mikejl46]

Good idea, just make smaller log piles, with some distance between them.

I'm running a AMD FX 8320 Eight-core Processor 3.5GHz, So what do you think the next step up with processor upgrade I could make to eliminate the lag with big log piles in one location.? I have watched some videos with big log piles in one location, so i guess it's possible, but wonder how big a processor I need with out going over board.

[bassaddict]

The AMD bulldozer series is not really strong in single threaded tasks.

When deciding what new CPU to get, you'd have to check some benchmarks. If you just want to know the average overall performance, you can check e.g. on https://www.cpubenchmark.net/ The lists are sorted by overall performance (multicore). If you click on a CPU, you get on a detail page, which also shows the single core performance. For many nowaday tasks, the single core performance is still important, since a lot of tasks just can't be parallelized, or at least not without a lot of additional programming and general overhead. Especially for games a good single core performance is often still better than a high multicore performance, although that's changing a bit. If you want to know exact results, you'd have to check specific benchmakrs for the CPUs in question and the games/software you intend to run.

Just for a quick reference:
your CPU is at a "lousy" 1400 points single core score -> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... re&id=1782
If you check out the currently often recommended AMD CPU for gaming (Ryzen 5), it's already at almost 2000 points -> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... 0X&id=3000
And if you check out the often recommended Intel CPU for gaming (Core i5), it's at almost 2400 points single core score -> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp ... Hz&id=2919

Just from those values and just for FS17, the Intel Core i5 would probably be the best choise. But if you also do some video rendering or 3D modelling, you might want to go for the Ryzen 5, since it has a clearly higher multicore score, which is benificial in such highly parallelizable tasks.


Of course those are just two well known examples in the gaming scene. There are way more CPUs out there. In the end, you have to decide yourself what kind of money you want to spend, find out what you would also have to upgrade (a new CPU usually means a new motherboard as well and maybe also RAM and more), then check out what's available in that price range, compare the choices using benchmarks and draw your conclusion.

[mikejl46]

Great, thanks for all the info.

[mcatalyst]

A big pile of logs (or bales, or pallets, or basically any dynamic objects) will cause a very heavy load regarding physics calculations. That's done on the CPU. So basically you'd need a more powerful CPU. Or if you don't want to spend any money on hardware: Try to avoid big piles or collections of dynamic objects. Rather just use multiple smaller groups, with maybe a few dozen meters space between them. How much exactly is possible depends on the exact system. You'd have to find out the maximum possible by yourself by trying how long it's still running smooth.

In case you're wondering why lowering the graphics settings has helped: Graphics rendering also puts some load on the CPU, the higher graphics settings, the more load on the CPU. So by lowering the settings, you've freed up a bit of CPU time. So I guess the log pile is probably just a little bit above what your computer can handle properly.

Will this issue be fixed in FS19? I want to stack the mill with logs and not lag just to show the progress of work done.

[W1der]

Lots of good info in this thread ...
thank you bassaddict!

[bassaddict]

Will this issue be fixed in FS19? I want to stack the mill with logs and not lag just to show the progress of work done.

There's nothing really to fix. Physics is just extremely complicated.
Sure, there are probably ways to improve the system, but with lots of dynamic objects interacting with eachother, there will always be some kind of limit at which a computer won't be able to calculate everything real-time. It's all just a tradeoff between accuracy and speed.

[mcatalyst]

There's nothing really to fix. Physics is just extremely complicated.

And that is where the real world wins. hah