xxuntitledxx wrote:Just a question for more experienced route builders. How do you judge what a good FPS to detail ratio is? I've been trying to keep it in the 60ish FPS range at max settings. I don't want to be too sparse that it looks bare or too dense that it is killing frame rates to a crawl on some "lower" powered machines. I've been having a tough time trying to figure it out. Any pointers?
The 60fps target sounds like a fine goal to maintain over the route. Of course this figure is relative to the spec of your PC versus what you feel the 'average' user is running.
3d assets near the track are the largest scenery resource hog, as they can cast shadows over the track and train. This is very visually appealing, but can eat fps quickly if you aren't judicious in their placement. One or two rows of 3d trees between your track, and asset blocks of 2d trees should be plenty. If you are concerned about the FPS hit, you could change the LOD settings of the lines of 3d trees so that the one closest to the track is at '10', and the further row is at a lower value of say '5-7'. That would mean that users running the route on a lower detail setting would not see that second row of trees, but would also not suffer the fps hit of their computers having to draw them. Again, the balance of visual appeal vs FPS is up to you.