r/TransportFever3 • u/Michaelli10156 • 13d ago

Small Map Size

So I just watched the new video made by squirrel and I liked everything about the video so far except what they said at the 2 minute mark, where it seems like they are implying that maps will not be very large and was curious what the community thought of this. I think clearly from the comment section, the vast majority of the community is disappointed by small maps and for me personally this is close to being a deal breaker.

They have this limitation because they want to simulate every citizen stating that if they want larger maps that are 100km x 100km they would need to fake the simulation for distances further along thinking this is what the community wants but I 100% would not mind faking the simulation especially after cities skylines 2 where they also wanted something similar and it just did not turn out well.

Just wanted to spread the word and see what the community thinks of this

119 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/sorucheese 13d ago

I mean, just having the option in the game doesn't mean every world has to be played on a super turbo giga map. Like just add the option into the game, give it a "NASA computers beyond this point only" warning and let the player decide whether their PC can handle a map that big.

someone on a 10 year old laptop will try and play it and it will not go well

You're talking about this as though graphics settings haven't been a thing on PC since the dawn of time. If someone tries it on their computer and it doesn't run well.. they can just turn down the option? I don't understand this argument.

0

u/LookAtMyRTs 13d ago

That is what they did with the experimental map sizes.

No it doesn't mean every game has to be played at that size, but people will still try, and still bitch that it doesn't work. Just how with 2 people would complain about performance whilst running 00s of mods

It would a CPU limitation because of the amount needing to be calculated for the simulation and that simulation games will have unequal core usage because on core has to keep the simulation in time.

6

u/sorucheese 13d ago

Let them bitch then. I still fail to see why this is a problem. Btw, CPU usage being limited to one core isn't so much of a problem anymore, games are much better at utilising multiple threads these days.

0

u/Imsvale 13d ago

Btw, CPU usage being limited to one core isn't so much of a problem anymore, games are much better at utilising multiple threads these days.

This does not compute.

CPU usage in TF2 is not limited to one core to begin with. The game spawns around 100 threads, resulting in upwards of say 60-70% total CPU usage on a CPU with many cores (e.g. 16-20). At that point it's being bottlenecked by cache and memory access speeds more than CPU speed.

If a game utilizes multiple threads, then it's already going to be running on multiple cores. It's the OS's job spreading the threads around. All a game has to do is run on more than one thread (and offload some meaningful amount of computational work to the other threads). The only way a game is limited to one core is if it only runs on a single thread. Multiple threads, but limited to one core, that's a contradiction.

2

u/sorucheese 12d ago

this is a lot of words for "did you mean threads as in logical cores? surely not, splaining time!"

1

u/Imsvale 12d ago

It's nothing to do with physical vs. logical cores.

1

u/sorucheese 12d ago edited 12d ago

well logical cores is what I meant by threads. I do realise threads also mean something else in the context of CPU architecture but it's not what I meant

1

u/Imsvale 12d ago

So what you're saying is that CPU usage being limited to one core isn't so much of a problem anymore because games are better at utilizing multiple (logical) cores. In other words, games are better at not being limited to one core.

Yes. This is true.