The game crash if i spawn more than 3 cars

Is that a Bug?
I have really good harware, so i dont think that my pc cant process that.
Anybody have the same problem?

 

I just tested and I can spawn 10 cars (with a lot of FPS loss) and no crashing, so it's not a bug I suppose.
Update the game, that should fix it

 

We can't help you without your computer specifications. My guess is that your CPU can't handle it and the game just simply crash.

 

my Cpu is a intel core 3570k
my graficcard is a ati 7870 xfx black edition
yeah i can spawn 6-10 cars but it will laaaag.
but when i will go then on play or something it crash with the crash report.
also only when i change player camera to world camera or push play button.
when i push "J" then i can play but laggy

 

well i can tell you i got quite similar cpu and it isn't powerful enough to run more than 4 cars whiteout lag. But i guess the problem lays somewhere in your game, maybe re-install?

 

how many gigs of ram do you have, also what speed is it?

 

Considering his hardware he likely has 8GB DDR3. RAM just about doesn't matter in BeamNG, though.

 

from what i have experienced games like ror and beamng seem to run better on amd cpu's because i only get 20-25fps with 1 car on this game but my friend with a fx4350 gets 40+ with 3 cars so could it be that some intel cpu's just have pour optimization

 

it depends on which intel or AMD, but i doubt it got anything to say if it is a amd or intel cpu.

 

well could be because the newer AMD models have more real cores instead of the hyperthread fakery.

 

Its comments like this that start pointless flame wars. Also i know for a fact my core 2 quad had 4 physical cores the only thing a fx4350 has on my cpu is that the amd has a higher clock speed, i wonder if that could be why.

 

uh, you obviously don't understand the difference between actual CPU cores and threads.

HyperThreading basically offers you 2 Threads per Core, which means that one core can work on two different task bogus-simultaneously, so that means that one core is seen as two and gets the work for two but it's actually just one unit doing the work.
You may ask how that works; well, you basically alternate between these threads after x command executions.

The thing is, that it's of course slower than actually having two cores doing the work without the need to do context switches and that stuff.

So while your i7 Quadcore may have 8 execution threads it doesn't have the power of actual 8 cores(I mean it's a QUADcore, what do you expect...) but AMD has processors with that amount of actual cores and thus can be better in multi-threaded applications.

That was my whole point.

P.S.: next time look up some stuff and don't just assume things that aren't meant.(you were refering to the thing with packing two dual-cores into one package, totally not the topic mate)

 

no as a computer tech/nerd i understand, i was just saying my core 2 quad doesnt use hyper threading proven here 4 cores 4 threads:

 

i hope you know that nearly every single program, game, software you name it. only uses up to 2 cores and they sometimes don't even need it. Thats when hyperthreading comes in and might be a good idea.
And just to fuel the fire, Intel IS better than AMD when it comes to mid and high budget computers. The only reason someone should buy AMD is to save money for a cheap wreck of a computer.

 

Blind bashing of AMD. How I love the internet

 

I didn't like the Bulldozer chipset. Tried it and it turned out to be worse than the Phenom II in some gaming cases. I have a Phenom II X6 @ 4.2Ghz, 16GB DDR3, a GTX680 and I get 45-55 FPS with 3 pickups spawned. My CPU is at 58%.

It goes up to 82% with 5 pickups on screen and FPS drops down to 20-25FPS. These numbers are with physics enabled of course. Without physics enabled the FPS is 150@3/110@5.

 

*facepalm*

Fluttershy... my brain hurts just reading your post.
People like you are the reason why we can't have normal discussions about hardware. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about or maybe you're just mis-informed and it's not very on-topic either.

We're talking about BeamNG here and someone said that AMD is possibly better performance wise, which could be true for numerous AMD models due to the many cores they have and thus can work on the physics truly simultaneously.
It's not about AMD vs. Intel here, it was just some observation by someone and I tried to give an explanation why it could be.

Of course Intel has better Single-Thread performance and yes, most software the average joe(like you) uses doesn't use many threads(not even the threads made up by HyperThreading) but there is software where more cores are beneficial, like BeamNG in this case. there are also many more, like

• raytracer engines(e.g. LuxRender)
• file compressors
• video converters
• physics simulators(especially solvers for fluid dynamics)
• web/game/file servers
• enc-/decryption software
• image manipulation software(I'm including recognition software here as well)
• sound studios
• database management software

and still a lot more. Even single algorithms can profit from more cores, like binary search or several sorting algorithms like quicksort.

Also you should buy a CPU depending on the purpose of it. Calling a computer with AMD "wreck of a computer" just shows you are lacking some intelligence and common sense.

 

You seem to be a know it all.....

 

not at all, but beginning a AMD vs Intel discussion here is not what this thread is for and bashing AMD just because they don't produce CPUs for your purposes is non-sense too.

 

No, Intel is better than AMD, no need to discuss it.
Now let us see how long it takes before he realize that i was just fucking with him.