I have been using Atlanta MP for most of my graphic testing. Been averaging about 80ish fps. Went to Mores and got an average just over 100 with peaks much much higher.(150) Back to Atlanta and fps drops down to the 80's again. I thought the skies at Mores were rather empty, no clouds that I recall. But Atlanta had a layer of high clouds. Is the track and it's infrastructure the difference? Or the skies?
Yeah more objects means more juice needed. More textures, more objects, more shadows, more anti aliasing needed for the objects (i think) etc.
I guess the track bigger/more detailed. @Marcel Offermans Said that Silverstone is one of the most demanding track currently in the game. So I guess it's a good idea to test fps on that track.
Clouds, in the current Beta, will cut your fps in half. At this time, use Sunny weather to keep your fps.
Track size is not simply the issue, layout, long straights or double straights on each side of the pits/paddock will result in more simultaneous object renders. Basicly LOD, "limit of display" - the more objects within your visual radius results in less FPS. Which is why "The Green Hell" is not really that demanding, lots of treelines to cover what's around the next corner - and yeah there is a lot of them
