It has been a while since i have been able to test rF2.. 6 months. and i have all the latest racing sims, and by a long shot, rF2 is the slowest in load times. why is that.? i mean pcars have much more detail to load and they load 4x faster. and having to have shadows set to max or high for undercar shadows to be seen is crazy. a long way to go guys.. and others started after you, and are now passing you in graphics. but you still have great FFB and physics.
Sorry, something went wrong. A team of highly trained monkeys has been dispatched to deal with this situation.
Morning SlimJim: The tracks load rite up for me...and I have my shadows set on low (Increases the FPS) Something weird for sure.. Now I am showing my graphics with a: ASUS MATRIX-HD7970-P-3GD5 ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z AMD FX-5150 (8cores) 32 gigs of RipJaw memory If that makes a difference Not sure Have you checked to see if there are any updated video drivers available for you card? Throughout the forums, there have been numerous post about AMD cards, I have never seen the issues some have reported. All has been A-OK Dave
Track loading takes quite a while the first time you load a track due to all sorts of stuff happening, but should be considerably quicker the 2nd time (not great, but also not as bad as you describe). Also, cmps are decompressed during loading so using a lower compression setting would also help when packaging up the components. Cheers, Uwe
I agree on the 1st time load, but i've done multiple tests at Limerock, and still takes much too long. and it a pretty fast system i have.. here is a link to my build @ Overclock.net i'm able to run the game at Max setings 110 fps average. http://www.overclock.net/lists/display/view/id/5496778 forgot my PC specs are also located below my avatar pic. I do have rF2 located on my New HDD drive, as rF stuff will get pretty big in size soon. and as for shadows, i notice they do not appear until the car is very close on high setting, but for track objects they are always showing. maybe if you increased the lodin and out, the shadows would not have that pop in and out effect. or have a more simple shadow object for the car at a further distance.
When you install the package it unpacks it to your Installed location. The files will no longer be in CMPS (compressed as you say) format but in MAS etc. Much like rF1 is. You're refering to the packaged file in the packages folder, you could delete this file once you have installed the CMPS and the package that was installed will still load (although why would one delete it as they may require to reinstall at a later date etc).
Technically MAS file also decompress on the fly. I actually did some testing recently where I repacked some MAS files but with compression disabled and it only reduced load time by 2 seconds. It was Sebring that I tested with. The original track was 95mb and after repacking with MAS compression off the track grew to 340MB or so. Load time with a single car (same car for both tests) went from 14secs to 12secs. So I don't think decompression is the bottleneck.
They don't seem that slow to me and I don't have a great system. Too slow is subjective anyway. Maybe I should stop playing for 6 months so I can come and tell everyone how I think it's going... seems to work for you.
Lazza, for me it takes about 14 secs to load with a single car but AC for example only takes 5 secs to load with a single car. Sure 14 secs isn't that bad but 5 is a long ways from 14. The load time goes up dramatically when you join a league server with 40 different cars (not just skins but unique cars). It can't hurt to find some improvements. In rF1 is used to use mklink to move parts of my GameData folder to an 8GB RAM drive. It dramatically reduces load times. So it seems the bottle neck is IO. I just don't see why there is so much IO. You could copy all the from one location on take as long. If it was CPU that was the bottle neck then I would expect such a reduction when going to a RAM drive. Anyways, If anyone has lots of extra RAM to spare, try putting your installed folder in a RAM drive.
I agree improvement is always good, and probably possible, but ultimately a thread like this comes down to perception - I mean, if it takes 'too long' to load, you wouldn't bother. I realise that's a very literal take on the term but everything in practice is somewhere between instant and too long, and different people will have different thresholds within that range. My reply was terse because the OP is coming in and saying it's too long, and asking why. It's almost like he thinks they might be loading some things twice for no reason or something. I mean, it's doing something while it's loading - not sitting there doing nothing - so if it takes that long then that's how long it takes to do what it does the way it currently does it. Probably it could be improved, but maybe it'll be easier to nail down an improvement once any potential changes are also finalised so the whole process can be properly organised and sped up. Anyway, my response was really just to what I thought was a poorly thought out thread with a dubious question based on personal opinion and with a few other 'failings' thrown in for good measure. I knew soon after posting I should have just left it alone and am endeavouring to do that more often
