Limit of the numbers of cars in BeamNG now?

I crash on 5th

 

With which vehicle? Vehicle choice makes a difference.

 

pigeons

 

Pretty average setup which I'm selling now, but what's interesting for you is probbably i5 4690K @ 4,7GHz, GTX 970 high OC too, 8GB ddr3 2400MHz cl10/11?

I know, I can look in to logs (I did, and it says spawning object 47, then it crashes which is wrong because spawning object #48 crashes game), but I like to make things clear for everybody, not just for me Once again, this time with 47 objects without Vsync and with fps counter.

Average fps ~190 with 47 objects, collisions turned on, realtime, 1080p, high graphics settings, once again I have to stop at 47 (that's why I put there stop sign ) otherwise it will crash the game. And I found it interesting that without Vsync UI got slow as hell and I had to load all the tubes with vsync and then disable it, because spawning one tube would take like 20sec.

 

the objects as with all computing thing are numbered from 0. Object #47 is actually the 48th, the default vehicle is #0. If you look into how arrays and lists work in programming languages under the hood (right down to machine code level) this actually makes sense as the number is an offset from the start of the array.

 

I managed to get 11 cars before a crash

AMD FX 8350 OC to 4.2ghz
Radeon R7 260X Royal King
16gb RAM at 1600mhz

 

OK, I tried it on the empty grid at 100 times slower than real time. While my frame rate hung on perfectly, I got to only 19 pigeons before the game crashed (Probably extra big-ass memory issues).

My specifications are:

CPU: Intel i3-4360
GPU: AMD Radeon R9 380 4GB
RAM: 16GB DDR3

 

I managed to hit 26, crashed spawning #27.

 

If x86 is what the kids are doing these days: here's this, purely for the purposes of one-upmanship....

 

Alright, so testing from the console on gridmap with Torsion's tube spawner code, I manage 43 tubes before crash on the 64-bit version:

Code:

 43.34285|D|libbeamng.engine|creating new object in slot 44 ...
 43.34307|E|luamem|Couldn't allocate 512 KB block (all blocks used or other failure)
 43.34308|E|libbeamng.lua.V|*** FATAL LUA INITIALIZATION ERROR
 43.35521|E|Crashreport|*** Trying to get Lua callstack
 43.35522|E|Crashreport|*** this is not the error, look above
 43.35527|E|GameEngineLua|*** FATAL LUA ERROR: [string "line"]:1: Lua C++ CrashRpt stacktrace
=============== Stack Traceback >> START >>
(1) global C function 'error'
(2) main chunk of [string "line"] at line 1
--------------- << END <<

 43.35528|E|GameEngineLua|*** while executing this line: error('Lua C++ CrashRpt stacktrace')
 43.35529|E|GameEngineLua|*** in chunk: line

BUT on the 32-bit version, I managed all 64 "vehicles" without a crash; in fact, the game was still responsive and stable. The physics instantly paused with "Instability Detected", but that's because all the tubes were inside of each other ready to explode outward. So I tried to add some more tubes, and the game crashed, but with a different error: "Failed to resurrect vertex buffer" which sound more like the graphics engine was overloaded unexpectedly.

Any thoughts as to why the 32bit version can easily do 64 vehicles but the 64bit version only manages around 43?

 

I think that the physics instability actually is affecting your results - you might want to try again with this updated script. I can get 47 tubes to spawn in 64-bit executable, but I can't get 60 to spawn in the x86 executable yet... odd IMO. Especially considering that my hardware isn't as good as yours in any relevant respect - I think that our differences may have more to do with game settings and spawn pacing. [For comparison I'm running an i5-4670K @ stock w/ GTX 780]


The code I posted in post #20 is better than what you used (spawns X number at 5 meter spacing), but still flawed for this purpose I think. I've noticed that the game responds better if you don't spawn everything at once, so here's something else to try. As before, this should be run from the GE - TorqueScript console. Execute/run the first line by itself and then modify and run the second line a necessary. The variables at the beginning set number-to-spawn, name/jbeam, config, an color. Running the second line over and over will just continue to extend your line of tubes (or whatever) on that 5m spacing by whatever number you set.

Code:

$torsionpos = ServerConnection.getCameraObject().position;

%n=10; %j="tube";%cfg="";%c="0.25 0.25 0.25 1.2"; for(%a = 0; %a < %n; %a++) {$torsionpos = VectorAdd($torsionpos, "5 0 0"); spawnSpecificVehicleAtPos(%j,%cfg,$torsionpos,%c);}

 

I had to keep trying! So you were right, the instability did affect the results a little bit, but the trend I noticed still held true.

For the 64-bit version, I managed 47 tubes once I rectified the stability issue with your code, which is the same max vehicles you and others got. Though it'd always instantly crash on the 48th with the "Can't allocate 512 KB block" error. But it was a stable 47 almost every time, tested both using the UI to spawn one tube after another and spawning using your provided code; even when running perfectly fine and responsive with 47 tubes, just adding anything results in the insta-crash.

BUT I then tried the 32-bit version, and lo and behold, Nadeox1 is right: 64 vehicles is the hard limit, because I managed to spawn all 64 possible vehicles and it ran fine, but adding another resulted in a fatal Lua error, mentioning nothing of the "Can't allocate 512 KB block" error from the 64-bit version.

Proof of the 32-bit version running 64 vehicles: (thePlayer + clone0 through clone62 = 64 vehicles)


So why is the 64-bit version limited to 47 but the 32-bit version manages all 64 vehicles?

 

Wow, i got 37 vehicles before my game decided to commit suicide, btw i have a 5820k and 16gb of ram.
Was running x64

 

Well, I'm not really familiar with Intel CPUs so is yours better than mine? Besides that mine have 32GB RAM, running x64, highest graphics with dynamic reflection on, and most of time crash on 10th or 11th

 

My max currently was 10 Covets but then I had an fps limiter on I might see if removing that does anything.

One on my usual settings and one on lowest.



Tried it again on full screen and without the limiter and 12 was the max number before it crashed.


btw it was on the 64 bit mode.

 

You have the same chip as I do (4790k), and it's technically faster in singlethreaded performance because it runs at 4.4GHz turbo, whereas the 5820k only hits 3.6GHz at turbo. However, the 5820k is a six-core with hyperthreading (vs the 4790k's four cores hyperthreaded) and it has more cache, so he's got the "better" chip.

 

It is a 6 core with all cores running at 3.8ghz. So yes.

 

What benchmark? How can I run it?

 

-deleted-
never mind, your answer is in the reply down below

 

--- Post updated ---

Its in bin64