Thanks, that is good guide, this thing has so many roads one ends up lost! I figured out that if I go straight from first intersection that is after leaving spawning area, then go to left after completing loop, I can drive as long as I like, but apparently there is even more roads to choose from, so there is actually two loops you can keep running on. With your instructions I can spawn cop car of few to block exits I don't want to take and might be able to run until I starve.
@Tenma Gabriel You can subdivide the object in question by 1st making a backup copy of it. Then as you go along, keep making copies of the original backup object, and editing each part down to it's own section. Then, if you haven't already, you can simplify it down section by section for LOD purposes (don't need to simplify the full-detail model). It's time consuming, but when you make it go from 10fps to great fps it's totally worth it.
#1 rated map for most draw calls - 14,550! I thought my 5300 in one spot in one of my maps was too high :x (hint, this should always stay under 4000 otherwise you risk dropping FPS) That being said, it's quite fun, and definitely worth the download if you've got a good processor and a decent video card. My RX 480 8g card that's almost 2.5 years old has little issue running this, along-side my 4+ year old gaming machine with it's venerable-but-still-capable 4.4ghz 4790k with some quick RAM. So even if you have an older machine (provided it's an intel machine newer than core2duo/quad or otherwise not an AMD FX-era machine), it should still be capable if the clock speed is high enough. I don't know what game this is ported from (if it is, it looks like it is), but whatever you're doing, it's awesome to play, and not many times did I get eaten by guide rails. Quite fun and definitely worth the download, even if admittedly it's not yet quite perfect (my maps aren't anywhere near perfect either). AMD APU systems previous to the Ryzen generation (FX-era APU systems) may have issues running this, but most other modern machines won't have too much trouble. I was handling this around 45fps with LOTS of other stuff running (I will edit this number if I try later with less stuff running and it's vastly different).
This map was ported from a wangan midnight game, also, i run it with a I7 875k (yes 9yo cpu) and a GTX1070 and its alright, sometimes it bottle necks, but its overall playable to me too also, thank you very much!
You can place cones as lane divider to get around with that car eating spot when joining to main roads. It is that road paint that has collisions which eats cars I believe, as long as one stays clear of that it seems to be fine, so cones can be easy solution if disabling collisions for paint is not possible option. Would be nice if someone can figure out how to get AI traffic working on this as probably has been mentioned too many times already. I think performance is issue only with amd and alike *starts running*
It's not all AMD. Ryzen is quite fast, but it's the FX that's slow. It's also not all the APU's from AMD either. The Ryzen 2200G~2500G series is quite decent for the price. My next system will be a Ryzen, even if the IPC isn't much better than my 4790k system for BeamNG, I wasn't pleased with the value of the intel system for overclocking. The overclocking was a complete SHAM as the chip would hit 100C with it's stock cooler at 4.2~4.4ghz or eventually hit 100C doing math at it's stock speed on stock cooler. I bought a nice board, nice 100$ cooler, delidded the chip, used liquid metal and all that, just to get the bloody thing to run at it's advertised speeds without overheating or going above 70~75C. No thank-you intel, not again. Learned my lesson - what a rip-off. They Ryzen 3xxx series is supposedly the 1st Ryzen series to really give intel a run for it's money on the high-end stuff, not just the mainstream. On the mainstream stuff, the Ryzen 2xxx is great if you're building on a budget. It will get you more FPS with the same cash VS spending it all on the cpu with intel, more expensive motherboard, and so-forth, unless you're going for a 9700k/9900k or otherwise a 5ghz chip. Do you know how much better of a CPU I could have bought, had I known what a pig and a waste this processor was going to be? I could have gotten into the x79 or x99 platforms (depending on what was out when I built this) for the price of the CPU+Cooler+delidder kit+liquid metal!
People want to believe, what I have seen is that AMD is not optimal performance in this game, of course there is a reason why they are selling cheap and they are great for many uses, but not for this game or map. Needs faster IPC, clock speed or optimizations, CPU bottleneck still happens too easily: What do you mean 144fps should be enough? Away with such nonsense... x79 or x99 would of been more rubbish than your current setup for this game, sure great if you spend most of the time rendering, but at least I don't. Moving edges and vertices with gigantic models is still one core wonder, like most of everything else, no matter how much people want to believe multicore church, it is not reality and reason people are getting poor framerates is their hardware is not optimal for this game, wish more truth would be spoken about these matters instead of illusions about multicore being awesome. First thing to limit with fast GPU is still IPC/clock speed, increasing that increases framerate, adding more cores does nothing, sad fact. Then again you can always turn off shadows and enjoy good framerates even without spending arm and leg to hardware.
The reason IPC limits things is Draw Calls. If you can find a good game engine, or make one, and do the modeling right, you can game easily with any CPU made in the last 5 - and sometimes 10 years. It depends what you want to render, and how real you want to make it, do you NEED 3d window-frames on the buildings in a driving game (not saying your map), likely not. If you've got a garage and simulate tuning the vehicle, maybe you want that house and garage to look extra nice, and wish to afford a few dozen extra draw calls rendering the building around it. It's all perspective. Ryzen will do just fine with Samsung B-die memory and clock to about 4ghz. It will run within 10% of my processor here on pure FPS *IF* you have fast memory. If you do NOT have fast memory then the Ryzen will be a slouch - but that goes for lots of processors (more for Ryzen because core-to-core communication is done via mesh, like high-end intel chips use now, it's limited to RAM bus speed). Several users and I have benched Ryzen in this game and there's ZERO issue if you set the system up correctly. If you put it to a 9900K, sure, the 9900k will win, but that chip costs twice as much also, the motherboard costs more, so it's all relative. It depends what you're going to spend, and as I said above, if you're on a budget, the Ryzen is fine. That's why my next system will be a Ryzen. I am not willing to over-pay for a chip I need a chiller to cool. I am not interested in buying a system I can't upgrade a few years down the line with a new processor with more cores for MOAR CARS! I would love to be able to drop a 6 or 8 core chip in this system even if it cost me a few max FPS, BUT I CAN'T "...because intel...". It's deliberate, too. Chinese manufacturers ONDA have managed to get ANY intel 14nm chip working on the newest socket. Sheesh. Lesson learned - not going through that again. I am also on social security, so I cannot afford 9900k's when I have to put that money into the stock market, so I have something for my future (per year income increase < inflation & market rates). I am going to support the little guy. Even if I get 10% less max FPS, but can run about twice as many (or more) vehicles, that's fine for me. The multi-core church is where BeamNG.drive has it's membership, and where I make my maps, so this is where I am. I will still have this system (that I custom built in 2014), so if I need anything to run for single-core, this is it. I don't need 160fps with one vehicle when I don't have higher than a 60fps screen, so who's to notice if the system maxes out at 120~140fps vs 160fps. The socket is upgradable, so if there's an issue down the line, the Ryzen systems (be it Ryzen Threadripper CPU or mainstream Ryzen desktop / Ryzen Pro / Athlon series processor) will be a good answer. Plus I have stock in AMD, and it's gained exponential worth over the years. Too bad I won't be able to touch it anytime soon. Is it the highest FPS, NOPE, does it give me equal FPS for the dollar but more cores? YES. Is it as fast as a 9900K? NOPE, but nor is it as expensive - again, all relative. If the majority of us were buying 9900k processors, we wouldn't see AMD's stock having gone up over the last year or so it's been out. The truth is, most of us don't NEED super-fast processors. The original Ryzen processor wasn't the greatest thing out, but gave us a competing chip 'for the rest of us' at a competitive cost. It also caused intel to suddenly change course and offer 6 and 8 core processors for mainstream desktop. Ryzen 2xxx came out and gave us a great performing chip, almost closing the gap entirely (sure there's still some to go for 3xxx series Ryzen), again at a competitive cost. So be happy AMD is around. Lots of newer things are going to the Multi-core church, as you have called it. I won't be the last rat going down with the single-core Church's sinking ship, that's for sure. The day is coming, it's not over yet, but we must look to the future here. This is especially true if your machine must last many years - as this one has; it's already almost half-way through it's fourth year and some of my software is starting to show that I could feed it more cores to make it happy. At-least I will be able to drop in a processor upgrade should I not be satisfied in the future. BeamNG.drive, Fallout 4, Cities Skylines, Rimworld even, rendering whilst checking my models in Maya, they ALL use multiple cores, and I push the limit in every one of them. Surely it won't help with draw calls in DX10/DX11 games, which is the single largest and most outstanding reason that there's a 'single-core IPC is king' mantra still going around, as draw-calls are single-threaded. DX12 and Vulkan (AMD or non-Windows OS alternative) both ratify this with multi-threaded draw calls, so you can have a whole lot more going on, in the same scene. Now you can even get DX12 on Windows 7 as-of a few days ago (that Windows 7 is one sinking ship I will enjoy being on until it's not supported), so there's little excuse to have to worry about a single-threaded future. Some things will always love IPC of a single core and only use that, but I'm not building my PC around 160fps in Notepad, I'm building a PC to run the traffic tool in BeamNG better because that's the majority of what I spend my time doing, and this is choking past 8~9 vehicles. When Ryzen 3xxx drops, I am there, totally there, unless intel's got something significantly better for me at a better price. If someone else's software doesn't run well enough on the Ryzen chip but the majority of things do (they do, already verified), then I don't need the poorly programmed or otherwise inefficient software. Linus tech tips of all places just did a video in the last week comparing a 700~750$ Ryzen system to an intel system of the same price. The Ryzen system won-out more than not. I'm not saying that the Ryzen is better than the best intel system (because it's not if FPS is what you're going for), but it's sure got them beat on price to performance ratio! I am almost 40 so I have to spend my money smart, I am not getting any younger here. Ryzen is the answer for me - provided I am not trying to win a Counter-strike tournament, that is (and I'm not, I don't play shooty-shooty FPS games anymore except good old 90's Dos Doom and it's clones, and occasionally some Fallout 4 - but only because it has a CAT LAUNCHER and I can build neat stuff). That is all. Please don't take it as an argument, but I've been into PC tech for 25 years and my first PC was AMD, an AM486 dx 2 / 66mhz machine with a whopping 8MB of ram and 0.5GB HDD and a soundblaster 16 card. I love competition, it's better for you, and it's better for me, and it's better for EVERYONE'S wallets. So I am buying AMD Ryzen - but that doesn't mean you can't have an intel system if that's what you desire. --Cheers!
Disable two of your four cores and see how much that has effect to what you do. I did disable 4 of 6 cores, so I did run with 2 cores at 4.3Ghz and ZERO effect to anything. Only thing where it has effect is when spawning more vehicles. You can keep your multicores, won't do anything to me. Import large terrain in Blender and you wait until that one core finishes the job, load map in BeamNG and you wait until one core finishes the job. I worry about multicore performance when I can see need for it, currently number of vehicles while holding fps over 60 is limited only by single core performance, of course not going to happen if you have slow GPU like 1070 or slower, with gtx1080 it is pretty darn hard to get around that IPC/clock speed limitation and at least I prefer to run software well today, in future some other hardware might be better, but not today, heck no. Running LIDAR cleanup (to take out trees and build groundplane) takes 10 hours and again only one core is working. Be aware what your most used software really is using, with BeamNG stuff it has been and it will be single core who knows how long, you want to make videos, well GPU coding is nice, but still single core performance is again what makes hit to fps when recording, thankfully of GPU recording it is not big hit, but it is there. That is not going to disappear anywhere anytime soon, it is not like with FX, but still you want to be aware of how many moments your daily usage maxes out all cores vs one core. Today's systems are not ones you keep 10 years, within 5 years it is must upgrade as things fail so soon, then situation needs to be evaluated again, but right now I don't see any point getting lower single core speed than what you have, hopefully 3rd Ryzen will be good in that, but it really should be more clear how much single core is still dominating, especially on this type of maps. And you do love 160fps with single car, because that translates to more cars you can run, 8 threads is plenty for that stuff, your IPC/clockspeed limitation hits before you max out that 8 threads, but for most GPU limits come before that. Yeah, I can run about same number of cars with same fps if I have 4 or 6 cores activated, something again which is not told and something people generally don't understand at all how one core can limit such way, but it does. Ryzen 4 at earliest I would think, or maybe 5th or 6th, it takes so long for all these software I use to start actually using computing power properly. Also Bob, you should know already that I have been punching that stupid tower for longer than you have breathed this polluted air, might seen few things come and go during that time, one thing stays though, nobody is going to sell you something cheap if it is good enough to ask full price of it.
Ryzen 1xxx was the upgrade for all those on AMD FX and APU systems. Ryzen 2xxx was for those on same systems who didn't upgrade and / or those who wanted something close to 4xxx intel performance for gaming or every-day tasks. Ryzen 3xxx will be a game changer. Period. It's going to give intel a run for it's money. It might not be the end-all for the processor wars certainly, I get that. However, it will be plenty good enough for when my situations need more cores. Seeing as I need a new machine, and Ryzen 5xxx (4xxx will not exist due to 4 being unlucky in Mandarin superstition) will socket right in, I think it's a safe bet. If it's not good enough, I'll give it away to a family member or sell it. It's not a big deal, but I can't see to paying the intel tax when the Ryzen is good enough. From the benchmarks I have seen, it's supposedly quite good and the clock-speed is there, too on 7nm. If 3xxx Ryzen comes out to about match intel's price, I will likely still get the AMD if the performance is close enough due to the ability to upgrade. I am sure they will be more expensive than they are now with 2xxx but also; there will be a lot more cores on the top end before the year's out. At-least I can upgrade the thing when I need to. Intel can't give me 12 cores & 24 threads, or 16 cores 32 threads on mainstream desktop yet, and AMD will be doing so with Ryzen 3xxx (or at-least, they have the chip-space for it, and a 12 core unit has been going around the benchmark websites for over a month now). The chiplet design this iteration has solved the majority of the latency issues that plagued the early Ryzen lineup (with cache mirroring and such and shared IO via the main chip not some of the chiplets talking direct to the RAM and others not), so I'm hopeful. That's all I can be. Welcome back @fufsgfen , where have you been, I missed the arguments if anything, heh *throws some mildly agitated house cats at Fufsgfen* This guy's poor map thread. We murdered it. Oops. (sorry...) Oh well, more activity = more people see the map thread...
It is value for everyone to know few basic things about how things work with this game. 6 cores 6 cars vs 4 cores same 6 cars: Your 8 cores of 12 will be resting, it does not work so that add more cores and you can run more cars, no, you are already more limited by your one core performance than number of your cores/threads. General misconception which people sometimes have hard time getting right, but after certain point of increasing threads it becomes to fact of one core being again limiting factor, there is absolutely no point of having more than 8 threads currently as number of vehicles you can run is limited by other factors and in practice your IPC/Clock speed. It can change, but developers already made huge performance improvements, I have no idea how much more there can be, but single core nature of this game is by design. Yes, it is kinda funny, game to uses as many cores as you might have is also very single core relying one, so cores alone don't help at all, you need IPC/clock speed improvements (or more optimization) to be able to fill those cores. Other maps, other graphics settings are then easier for that one poor core, however I have not found any practical advantage of having more than 4 cores, it always comes down to one core being limiting. Also with gtx1080 there is no coil whine or bottleneck by GPU. Before running after many cores it is worthwhile to do own research of software you run to see if there is actually any gains from more cores. Now when making maps, making sure you get as much fps as possible helps running more cars, as low fps in map usually is because of that one poor core is overloaded, or CPU in question has lesser one performance per core than optimal. Also when making maps, there is potential to do harm by reducing detail in pursue of performance, fast GPUs can do pretty much anything one throws at them (let's not talk about my attempt of running 10 automation cars at Italy). What is amusing of this map is that how well it runs even drawcall count is so high, performance I get is pretty much same as Italy has and I can run very long times at very high rate of speed.
So I was feeling a bit bored (since I don't have a job right now) and was thinking how awesome it would be to see this map lit up at night. So I temperately put some lights around part of the spawn area. My laptop definitely didn't like it, I went from about 45-40 to 25 FPS (I think I put like 40 lights up or something close to that). But it made a nice screenshot at least. I've really been enjoying this map, It's my favorite for just cruising down the road at a constant speed. So thank you for putting all of this work into it. Also I haven't had any problems with the game crashing like you and others have reported, or at least yet.
I stumbled today upon this map and seriously it's so good. I enjoyed completing laps on this map and it reminded me of same level from Blur video game.
I know its a long strech, but do you happen to have the 3dmodel of this map and if so can I pls have it ?. I really need it for an assignment im doing. pls man. Hope to hear from you soon.
