Now there are lies, damned lies and statistics and benchmarks but my impression is that your system, while it wouldn't beat mine out of sight, should be noticeably better. Steam locomotives are more work than Diesels or 'leccys so massed kettles can slow things down too- again not unbearably in my opinion. Köln-Koblenz with its urban settings and acres of electrified marshalling yards is the worst route I have in that respect but remains driveable.

TS runs fairly smoothly for the most part, though I couldn't tell you the frame rate, but will slow down on some routes when there's a lot of details to handle. It has a 2.4GHz i5 and Radeon HD 7690M XT GPU. My system runs Windows 7 so it's at least six years old (second hand so I can't say exactly). (TS seems to be a bit nonplussed when installed on systems without a GPU and leaves everything on maximum.) What you change is up to you- I don't like having scenery popping into existence in the middle distance or missing buildings so I have scenery density and viewing distance turned up and pretty much everything else off.Ĭlick to expand.Someone else will be able to come up with numbers and detailed advice but I can describe my own system and experience. That said if I had the choice of only using the first system or not using TS at all I'd muddle along and turning down most of the graphics settings and perhaps running at a lower screen resolution will go a long way toward making things run smoothly. If you have the option (and if you think it worth updating an old machine) even a basic GPU will make a big difference. This is not only because of the dedicated hardware (which is hardly state of the art) but because it and the CPU aren't playing After You Claude for memory access. I have TS running on two laptops with roughly similar i5 processors but one has your common-or-garden Intel HD integrated graphics while the other has a discrete GPU and the difference really is night and day.

Train simulator 2016 steam edition nocd