SimCity 4 runs slow on big cities

[cinbinsportsfan 0]

Hi all. I'm just wondering if any of you had a problem running Sim City 4 when you city reaches at least 700,000 residents. The calender doesn't move forward or moves VERY slow. Have any of you experienced this problem?

[z1 566]

This is not unusual. Make sure you're not using one of the radical automata mods from the NAM, as they can really slow things down. Also, are you using the NAM?  If so, which NAM and which traffic simulator are you using? And what's your computer's CPU and memory?

[cinbinsportsfan 0]

I'm using the Network Add-on MOD as well as a few buildings like the plasma gasification plant and the rest stop. My system has 1.99 GHz with 1.89 gigs of RAM.

[DCMetro34 576]

Hmm, well Sim City 4 needs 1 GB of RAM minimum to run...so part of the problem could be the RAM slowing you down.

-DC

[SC4BOY 20]

You can minimize a number of the setting to HELP (lower details, no shadows, etc).. also putting lots with animation in them will have a MAJOR drain on pc resources. Also using lots of intersections, especially avenues will cause problems and using TURNING LANES in the NAM is a problem.. turn that off... If you have water animations like bubbling brooks, water falls, or cascading water over dams, fountain park lots and stuff uses a LOT of resources.. .No doubt you are just running up to a wall for your particular PC hardware so your only option is to reduce the load.. Also being sure SC4 is the ONLY thing running (no browsers, no message packages (AIM, etc) and certainly no active tasks going on..

Oh, and your RAM is plenty with near 2Gb and absolutely NOT your problem.

[z1 566]

Again, which version of the NAM are you using, and which traffic simulator? Some of the older traffic simulators cause the game to run much slower than the current ones.

[cinbinsportsfan 0]

I downloaded the NAM from the NAM Team a year or two ago. I think it was the original version of the NAM they released. I haven't updated it or anything. I think the original was released in January 2009? I'm not really sure.

[k50 427]

About radical automata, I have the same problem, it just drags the speed down. How do I eliminate it (if possible, without a reinstall?) 

[Aspire 3]

SimCity sets the graphics Renderer to software as Default, and it sometimes keeps it to default when you restart. - make sure it is set to "Hardware" as software just slows everything down.

[z1 566]

Originally posted by: cinbinsportsfan

I downloaded the NAM from the NAM Team a year or two ago. I think it was the original version of the NAM they released. I haven't updated it or anything. I think the original was released in January 2009? I'm not really sure.quote>

The original NAM was actually released years before that, but in any case, it would really be a good idea to update to the current version, as so much has changed.

Originally posted by: k50dude

About radical automata, I have the same problem, it just drags the speed down. How do I eliminate it (if possible, without a reinstall?) quote>

I think that a reinstall is the simplest solution here.  It's not necessary to do an uninstall first, or to reinstall any additional NAM packages.  Just be sure to select the same options you did when you did the original NAM install.

[cinbinsportsfan 0]

Thank you, z1! Will the current version of the NAM help make the calendar move at a normal speed - keep in mind, the actual gameplay like animations of cars and fires and stuff isn't slow, it's just that the calendar stalls (which makes it hard to collect monthly revenues). Also, which do you recommend?

[Cob92 360]

I have the same problem. I have an AMD Phenom II x4 running at 2.8GHz, with 4GB of RAM and a Radeon HD 5770, and I still have the calendar stalling when my city gets over 100,000 people or so. It slows development, it slows tax collection, and makes the game less enjoyable. I can OC to about 3.3. GHz, but it doesn't help much.

[z1 566]

The stalling of the calendar is an indication that the traffic simulator is running, and this is what is slowing down your game. The traffic simulators available in the current NAM are all versions of the NAM Unified Traffic Simulator, which is one of the fastest traffic simulators ever released with the NAM. Large cities will still cause a noticeable slowdown when running at the highest speed, but it shouldn't be significant until well after you pass half a million in population. Of course, this is all dependent on your memory, CPU, and disk type. (SSDs do wonders for this game.)

@cinbinsportsfan:  What type of recommendation are you asking for?

@Cobhris96: You seem to have a very reasonable configuration there, so I wouldn't expect problems near the 100,000 population mark. Which NAM and traffic simulator are you using?

[SC4BOY 20]

Originally posted by: z1

SSDs do wonders for this gamequote>

hmmm... I've seen limited info on this issue and none have shown significant advantage to SSD's. Perhaps you have done some studies yourself? I don't have one myself (yet.. sooner or later I will add one.. the price is inching below $2 /gigabyte and more practical as we wait) or I'd look into it myself

(also there seems to be little apparent advantage from RAMDisks based on the only person I know who's tried it so far)

Both of these cases one would think could make major differences hypothetically, but I know of noone who has shown significant gain.

[Cob92 360]

Originally posted by: z1

The stalling of the calendar is an indication that the traffic simulator is running, and this is what is slowing down your game. The traffic simulators available in the current NAM are all versions of the NAM Unified Traffic Simulator, which is one of the fastest traffic simulators ever released with the NAM. Large cities will still cause a noticeable slowdown when running at the highest speed, but it shouldn't be significant until well after you pass half a million in population. Of course, this is all dependent on your memory, CPU, and disk type. (SSDs do wonders for this game.)

@cinbinsportsfan:  What type of recommendation are you asking for?

@Cobhris96: You seem to have a very reasonable configuration there, so I wouldn't expect problems near the 100,000 population mark. Which NAM and traffic simulator are you using?quote>

I'm using the May 2010 NAM with traffic simulator Z.

[cinbinsportsfan 0]

Thanks, Z1! I was wondering if you had a recommendation for the right NAM for me that won't slow the calendar down that much

[z1 566]

Originally posted by: Cobhris96

I'm using the May 2010 NAM with traffic simulator Z.quote>

Simulator Z wasn't included in the May 2010 NAM; the only traffic simulator included with that NAM is the NAM Unified Traffic Simulator, which is based on Simulator Z.  If you are running Simulator Z from a previous NAM, I would recommend switching to the new NAM simulator, as it is noticeably faster.  If you did choose the NAM Simulator and are simply looking at the name of the simulator file, there is a 'Z' in it because Simulator Z is still at its core, although a newer, faster version.

If you are using an older version of Simulator Z, you can now get the latest version of the NAM Simulator from the NAM Traffic Subsystem  on the STEX.  Just install it, run the Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool, pick the capacity you want in the middle drop-down box, click Save, and then exit.

Even the older version of Simulator Z shouldn't run as slowly as you describe, however.  There are several other things that can slow down the traffic simulator, though.  The more routes and the more intersections you have in a city, the slower the traffic simulator will run, as it has more choices that it has to examine.  In some cities, where there a lot of routes that are fairly equivalent in terms of the time they would take the Sims to traverse them, the traffic simulator can be slowed down more than normal, as it has to take a longer time to figure out which of the routes is really the best.  (Special "tie-breaking" optimizations are included in the traffic simulator, but there are some situations in which they are not very effective.)  An excess of mass transit stations (e.g., multiple stations on every block) will also cause a slowdown, as will excessive use of subways (e.g., subways under every road, or even more).  These factors apply to all traffic simulators in SC4.

Originally posted by: cinbinsportsfan

Thanks, Z1! I was wondering if you had a recommendation for the right NAM for me that won't slow the calendar down that muchquote>

Hopefully, it's clear by now that it's not the NAM, but the traffic simulator that counts here.  (Although I would recommend upgrading to the latest NAM in any case - it's got many wonderful new features.)  And for the traffic simulator, I would give you the same advice that I gave Cobhris96 earlier in this post.  But if you decide to upgrade to the latest NAM, you will automatically be upgraded to the NAM Simulator during installation.

[Cob92 360]

I am using the Unified Traffic Simulator. This NAM is a fresh installation on a new computer.

[z1 566]

Originally posted by: Cobhris96

I am using the Unified Traffic Simulator. This NAM is a fresh installation on a new computer.quote>

What speed are you running the game at, and how much is the slowdown? If you run the game at the highest speed, how many years per hour will it run, and on what size city?

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

Originally posted by: z1

SSDs do wonders for this gamequote>

hmmm... I've seen limited info on this issue and none have shown significant advantage to SSD's. Perhaps you have done some studies yourself? I don't have one myself (yet.. sooner or later I will add one.. the price is inching below $2 /gigabyte and more practical as we wait) or I'd look into it myself

quote>

I assume that you are referring just to SC4; there are a large number of benchmarks out there showing that SSDs run circles around HDDs in general.

As for the game, I am speaking from my own experience.  Last November, I built a computer with a pair of 80 GB SSDs linked together in RAID 0.  Almost all my applications launch essentially immediately now.  SC4 is the biggest exception, not surprisingly.  But with my 4 GB of plugins, it used to take about five minutes to start up; now it takes 45 seconds.  City loading time is reduced by a similar amount.

(also there seems to be little apparent advantage from RAMDisks based on the only person I know who's tried it so far)quote>

RAM disks offer little or no advantage with modern operating systems, simply because modern OSes already do a very good job of caching what they think you're going to need in RAM.

[Panda_Power 1]

Originally posted by: z1

Last November, I built a computer with a pair of 80 GB SSDs linked together in RAID 0. 

quote>

Hi z1!

I went from a traditional HDD to an Intel 80GB SSD and the performance increase, as you know, for the OS and any games you install on it is incredible! Did you go straight from a HDD to one SSD first or did you go straight from HDD to a pair of SSDs in RAID 0?

I'm just curious as to how you found the performance increase going from 1 SSD on its own to 2 in RAID because I'm thinking about getting another SSD for the system I built.

[z1 566]

I went from a pair of Velociraptors in RAID 0 to a pair of SSDs in RAID 0. RAID 0 seems to work particularly well for SSDs based on the benchmarks I've seen, but the performance you get depends a lot on which SSD you're using and which RAID controller it's paired with. I'd recommend doing a little Google research here.

[SC4BOY 20]

Originally posted by: z1

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

Originally posted by: z1

SSDs do wonders for this gamequote>

hmmm... I've seen limited info on this issue and none have shown significant advantage to SSD's. Perhaps you have done some studies yourself? I don't have one myself (yet.. sooner or later I will add one.. the price is inching below $2 /gigabyte and more practical as we wait) or I'd look into it myself

quote>

I assume that you are referring just to SC4; there are a large number of benchmarks out there showing that SSDs run circles around HDDs in general.quote>

Indeed I am.. they certainly do accelerate the general case...

As for the game, I am speaking from my own experience.  Last November, I built a computer with a pair of 80 GB SSDs linked together in RAID 0.  Almost all my applications launch essentially immediately now.  SC4 is the biggest exception, not surprisingly.  But with my 4 GB of plugins, it used to take about five minutes to start up; now it takes 45 seconds.  City loading time is reduced by a similar amount.quote>

Indeed this is where I'd expect the gains.. what I was referring to (and which you implied above) is the game-play speed and ability to handle a larger city without slowdowns.

(also there seems to be little apparent advantage from RAMDisks based on the only person I know who's tried it so far)quote>

RAM disks offer little or no advantage with modern operating systems, simply because modern OSes already do a very good job of caching what they think you're going to need in RAM.quote>

RAMdisks are configurable in every way EXACTLY like an SSD (in fact they probably are much faster than SSD's as they are made up of a subset of your system RAM dedicated to act as a disk .. naturally they tend to be very small compared to either a real disk or even an SSD.. and considerably more expensive as well on a cost per gigabyte basis). To the system they look like another hard drive that happens to work at RAM speed. The only difference is that an SSD doesn't "forget" what's on it if the system loses power, while a RAMdisk has to be loaded each time you restart the system. (Perhaps you're confusing this with virtual memory?).

At any rate it's great to see you're playing with it! I look forward to seeing your continuing reports.

[z1 566]

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

RAMdisks are configurable in every way EXACTLY like an SSD (in fact they probably are much faster than SSD's as they are made up of a subset of your system RAM dedicated to act as a disk .. naturally they tend to be very small compared to either a real disk or even an SSD.. and considerably more expensive as well on a cost per gigabyte basis).quote>

Yes; this is what I was basing my comment on.  But it's been a while since I checked into RAM disks, and they're apparently much faster these days - just horribly expensive (and small).  The SSDs are quite fast enough for me.  And to answer Panda_power's question, putting them in a RAID 0 array actually doubles the sequential read speed - I benchmarked mine at 485 MB/sec.

[Panda_Power 1]

Originally posted by: z1

......putting them in a RAID 0 array actually doubles the sequential read speed - I benchmarked mine at 485 MB/sec.

quote>

Wow!...That is pretty amazing! Thanks z1.....I think I'm finally settled on my next purchase!

[SC4BOY 20]

Originally posted by: z1

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

RAMdisks are configurable in every way EXACTLY like an SSD (in fact they probably are much faster than SSD's as they are made up of a subset of your system RAM dedicated to act as a disk .. naturally they tend to be very small compared to either a real disk or even an SSD.. and considerably more expensive as well on a cost per gigabyte basis).quote>

Yes; this is what I was basing my comment on.  But it's been a while since I checked into RAM disks, and they're apparently much faster these days - just horribly expensive (and small). quote>

The reason they are coming back is simple.. Due to the wide acceptance of 64bit OS's, new processor architectures, memory in cheap 2G sticks and the mobo's to handle it  (recall DDR3 is not new... my ca. 2003 video card uses it.. , yet it is much faster than the DDR and DDR2 that is commonly used today and virtually every new vid card is using DDR5).

It is nothing to see people building new systems with 8-12G of memory now (depending on whether they are using DDR2 or 3). The I7 chips can easily handle 6 sticks of 2G RAM while the I3/5 and older technologies easily use 4 2G sticks of DDR2.. all at a fraction of the system cost.

What does that have to do with it, you say? Well only the rarest home user will EVER use 8-12G of memory with current programs, so they end up with massive amounts of excess memory. A system will easily run Vista plus SC4 plus various background tasks and never break 2G. Consequently they ask, "What handy thing could I do with 6-10 extra Gigs of RAM?". Answer: Put it into a RAMDisk (recall this is not a "purchasable item", but is merely a system driver configuration issue).

These disks are massively fast.. Oh and of course that extra 6-10G is enough to run the ENTIRE of SC4 and all associated elements... and you needn't quibble over needing Raid 0  

Another good part of all this memory is that new systems are relegating virtual memory (long a bane of system users) to the trash heap of history.

[Panda_Power 1]

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

The I7 chips can easily handle 6 sticks of 2G RAM while the I3/5 and older technologies easily use 4 2G sticks of DDR2.. all at a fraction of the system cost.

quote>

Lol...when was the last time you bought RAM?

Compare the prices of RAM vs SSDs at Newegg US:

6GB RAM (3x2GB) @ Newegg

SSDs @ Newegg

For the price of an additional 6GB (for someone who's already got 6GB) you can get a 32GB SSD!

Plus the fact when you start adding RAM to your system you've got to make sure that each stick plays well with the sticks you've already got installed otherwise none of them will work and that can be a total headache if you get one bad stick. 

You could buy a pack of 12GB RAM (6x2GB) where each stick has been tested together and guaranteed to work together, but for the price of those you could probably get a 128GB SSD, so buying additional RAM with the intention of purely making a RAMdisk just doesn't make sense.

[SC4BOY 20]

Originally posted by: Panda_Power

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

The I7 chips can easily handle 6 sticks of 2G RAM while the I3/5 and older technologies easily use 4 2G sticks of DDR2.. all at a fraction of the system cost.

quote>

Lol...when was the last time you bought RAM?

Compare the prices of RAM vs SSDs at Newegg US:...

...For the price of an additional 6GB (for someone who's already got 6GB) you can get a 32GB SSD!

... make sure that each stick plays well...

You could buy a pack of 12GB RAM (6x2GB) where each stick has been tested together and guaranteed to work together, but for the price of those you could probably get a 128GB SSD, so buying additional RAM with the intention of purely making a RAMdisk just doesn't make sense.

quote>

I was not comparing prices (I pointed this out earlier....

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

 .. naturally they tend to be very small compared to either a real disk or even an SSD.. and considerably more expensive as well on a cost per gigabyte basisquote>

It's just what people are doing.. making new machines and sticking in 2G chips.. I doubt I'd do it myself, but it is VERY common. I read many reviews of folk making new machines.. Apparently cost is not a big issue for some folk..   If they're gonna make a new system where the cpu cost $350 the mobo costs $350, the case costs $150, the powersupply costs $100, the video card costs $250 etc, another $200 takes little commitment.. and that doesn't even count the "nuisance" items   (and that's a pretty modest "nice" system. one can EASILY exceed $2500.. a HOT system can beat $4000 without a hiccup)  It has been my experience over MANY years that people simply DO NOT PINCH PENNIES when it comes to DIY home machines.

And as for "playing well with each other" trust me, they're buying matched sets ... just like the ones you're linking   And you can't "not have" RAM... ya gotta buy it anyways.. all a matter of how much.. As Win7 64 bit systems were coming on strong... in the last 6 months don't forget!!   folk thought they were being downright negligent if they didn't have at least 6Gb.. 

and trust me I KNOW my prices.. I get newegg flyers almost every day.. LOL. sometimes more than one...   Also trust me that when the first mobo's coming out with DDR3 and the first X58 boards, SSD's were hardly on the horizon. .And SSD's are only JUST NOW coming of age as we speak.. in fact using them is still a bit for the nerdly folk such as myself     This isn't ancient history we're talking here.. this has been 6 months ago.. LOL

They'll be coming on strong as the year progresses...their prices have dropped almost 50% in the last 3 months alone.. not to mention the early ones were absolute disasters in term of "plug and play".. if you don't believe it, google SSD problems and you'll be BURIED in the list.. hehe  Also noone seems to want 32G SSD's in fact I'd say they're almost demanding at least 128G.. or will "settle for" a mere 80G...  

You might also, following your logic, ask why folk want those massive SSD drives.. a well-managed system could work "as well as you could get it" with a 32G SSD, but does that stop them from wanting 256G? preferably in Raid 0?   When people spec and build their own PC's, penny pinching is not a common event.. LOL I notice even mild-mannered z1 put DUAL 80G's in RAID 0, and he was using dual velociraptors which are massively more expensive than normal very good drives on a cost/Gb basis before that ...   . Do you suppose he was "pinching the pennies"? 

You're also neglecting that RAM absolutely SMOKES SSD.. If you are a good judge of system configuration and know where to put what in terms of splitting among HD's and RAMdisk, and have a a modest skill at setting up macro's for your program loads, you can absolutely burn SSD's in terms of speed for a ton of normal apps (ie games, etc).  Of course nothing says you can't do BOTH

You'd be hard-pressed to find a program that actually uses even ONE Gb of memory (SC4 certainly doesn't).  People brag about 400Mb/s on throughput on SSD's.. remember bandwith for memory is more like 16Gb/s .. a factor give or take of 30 to 1 faster.. .. 'sall I'm saying    [note: Don't get me wrong. 400MB/s is a GREAT rate..4-6 times a typical hard drive.]

I'm not pushing either one, but as Sgt Friday says, "We just want the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

Do you all suppose we've taken this thread far enough off-topic? LOL

[z1 566]

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

Do you all suppose we've taken this thread far enough off-topic? LOLquote>

Not yet.    And anyway, the topic is about the speed of SC4, right?

remember bandwith for memory is more like 16Gb/s .. a factor give or take of 30 to 1 faster.. .. 'sall I'm saying   quote>

Do you mean Gb (Gigabits) or GB (Gigabytes)?  I just looked over a set of benchmarks for 12 RAM disk products, and the fastest was 1.6 GB/sec, which would be about 16 Gb/sec.  That's only a little over three times the speed of my SSD array.

One final point...

Another good part of all this memory is that new systems are relegating virtual memory (long a bane of system users) to the trash heap of history. quote>

Virtual memory is what allows modern operating systems to do multitasking, by giving each program its own address space.  It's built into the CPU hardware.  It does not necessarily require a page file, which appears to be what you're referring to.  But even though the importance of page files has decreased tremendously over time as memory has become ever cheaper, the OS still uses them for a number of things besides paging in and out user programs and data.  This is why it's recommended always to have a page file, regardless of how much memory you have.

[SC4BOY 20]

Originally posted by: z1

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

remember bandwith for memory is more like 16Gb/s .. a factor give or take of 30 to 1 faster.. .. 'sall I'm saying   quote>

Do you mean Gb (Gigabits) or GB (Gigabytes)?  quote>

GBytes The actual spec is 4.8GT/s (which is GigaTERAbits/s) but that is a serial interface. The transfer encodes 8 bits in 10 bits so you can convert it yourself.. but 16GB/s is actually conservative)

Originally posted by: z1

I just looked over a set of benchmarks for 12 RAM disk products, and the fastest was 1.6 GB/sec, quote>

The spec is for raw transfer to/from the memory bus. I don't know about the end implementation after all system and driver overhead. Where did you find TWELVE benchmarks for modern RAMdisk.. virtually no one uses it today, so I'm frankly stunned .. I'd love to dig into it myself. And lets suppose it IS "only" THREE TIMES FASTER..  

Originally posted by: z1

...does not necessarily require a page file, which appears to be what you're referring to.  But even though the importance of page files has decreased tremendously over time as memory has become ever cheaper, the OS still uses them for a number of things besides paging in and out user programs and data.  This is why it's recommended always to have a page file, regardless of how much memory you have.quote>

You could of course put that page file in RAMdisk if it has become a bottleneck! 

[z1 566]

Originally posted by: SC4BOY

Where did you find TWELVE benchmarks for modern RAMdisk.. virtually no one uses it today, so I'm frankly stunned ..

quote>

Here.