ryanstrains
Moderator
They have stated many times that warnings will almost always become errors later down the line.
Appalled and Dismayed
- Thread starter nathanmallard
- Start date
I think they would have saved everyone a lot of agita if they phased the changes in, speeled out what would happen and what would be needed to fix it and gave people some time to prepare rather than just springing it up the way they did.
The warnings only showed up with just before SP1*, Trainz Original through TS12 46957* did not even flag these as errors.
The problem is, the uniform texture error outright breaks a lot if not a majority of Trainz content. Worse still, AFAIK, there is no resolution to these errors if one does not have the original mesh, hence the need for the pixel-change workaround.
As for the LOD distance, the creator is ultimately responsible for making his or her objects look good. N3V pretty much forces one's hand here.
*IIRC. It's pretty close in any case.
Last edited:
Yes, UNTIL you bring this up as just cause for correcting the warnings and complain that their original intent (uniform color textures smaller then 16x16 would NOT be errored or warninged) was not adheared to. THEN it's an invalid argument and you are told "They are just warnings, don't worry about it".
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
maybe that is where the misunderstanding comes in. most of these are warnings if the content is older or was not created by the current user. if the content is new (for example build 3.6) or created by the current user, then it will show as faulty. i dont see this as a one-size-fits-all approach. it seems like the right way to go to me and more places responsibility for fixing the items in the right place.
also, the rulebook never said it was okay to do completely nonsensical things like use the same model for 2 lods or a large texture map with a single color on it. perhaps the developers were putting too much faith in the common sense of the so called creators.
The problem that, if the last round of DLS Cleanup is any guide, is that any content fixes, especially those being done on the back end, WILL upgrade assets to the latest version, introducing these errors. I saw a lot of these upgrades during the first round, where many things were needlessly updated to version 3.3, even though the content was fully complaint with, say, TS2009.
Also, I just checked, and it may not be long before all content is updated to 3.7, regardless of whether or not it's necessary. Some updates, specifically for that build, started coming in before SP1 was even released. As of now, there are about 800 on the DLS.
Well, not everybody has a 1K+ poly extra-high-detail mesh from which to cull some polys, so, yeah, it makes sense, in certain circumstances, to reuse meshes for the first two LODs. Especially when any culling is extremely obvious and would make the lower-detail, but still close, mesh look like crud. Common sense should tell one that, but as usual, others think they know what's best for everybody.
Last edited:
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
Answer already given.
Last edited:
Judging from the list next to his avatar in the original post at the time I posted this (about 24 hours after he originated the thread), he did not, or at least if he did, he hadn't bothered yet to register it.
ns
2995Valliant
Well-known member
What bothers me more about the new DLC is that it is uneditable. There's a track error in the S&C which can't be fixed (not a big deal for me though, admittedly) but far more depressing is that fact that I can no longer change enginespecs in loco's and rolling stock to ones I regard as more realistic - I think that's a great shame.
It's the "tinkering" that makes this more of a hobby than a game to me, and I fear we are slowly starting to lose that.
Anthony
It's the "tinkering" that makes this more of a hobby than a game to me, and I fear we are slowly starting to lose that.
Anthony
CaptEngland
Trainz Engineer
I think this smacks of the Railworks "buy a model, buy a new re-skin for same price" approach. Just ask any Railworks user about the class 31 stich up.
I agree 100% with Anthony. Why-O-Why are certain routes un-editable now. It's lucky that I already modified my Murchison 2 route and Settle and Carlisle, but did not do anything with my Classic Carbon City route (pre SP1+). At this moment, the only way for me to edit CCCity is to install it into my other p.c. from the old exe file, and then save and export a clone of it into my SP1+ install on my main P.C.
If this is the future, N3V, then more and more people will not be buying "official" DLC from N3V.
Regards.
CaptEngland
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
I did put this in another thread, but I will repeat it here.
The main reason why you cannot edit N3V payware routes in-game is because they are now a single asset in Content Manager and the fact that they are now packages and not .ja files or open content folders (it would not surprise me if it's a different format entirely for packages).
Shane
The main reason why you cannot edit N3V payware routes in-game is because they are now a single asset in Content Manager and the fact that they are now packages and not .ja files or open content folders (it would not surprise me if it's a different format entirely for packages).
Shane
ZecMurphy
Community Assistant
Good Morning All
As above, this explains the situations you will see the uniform texture error. The 'minimum' fix is simply to reduce the size of the texture(s), this will already improve performance if the asset is commonly used or has a lot of uniform textures...
As to using the same mesh twice in the LOD scheme, this is not appropriate. Simple as that. It's a waste of resources, and could very well be causing a negative impact on performance, which in turn makes your LOD completely useless.
You must ALWAYS reduce polys in LOD. ALWAYS. Yes, this is very much a one size fits all situation, because it has to be. LOD isn't just about removing polys per-se, it's about simplifying the model. So, for round objects, you reduce the number of sides. For objects with multiple 'layers' of detail, you reduce this detail back to flat textures with a normals map. This will, of course, require careful texture mapping, and careful modeling. You will probably also need to rebuild parts of the model to make them lower detail/poly.
There is a semi-exception, and that's splines. Where splines are concerned, your poly count can be 'higher', but over a longer distance object, and is effectively lower. For example, if I have a 10poly 5m object, which then goes to a 15 polys 10m object, I've got a higher poly mesh, but it's actually less polys in the scene (15 polys per 10m, rather than 20 polys per 10m).
Regards
my last post... said:
As above, this explains the situations you will see the uniform texture error. The 'minimum' fix is simply to reduce the size of the texture(s), this will already improve performance if the asset is commonly used or has a lot of uniform textures...
As to using the same mesh twice in the LOD scheme, this is not appropriate. Simple as that. It's a waste of resources, and could very well be causing a negative impact on performance, which in turn makes your LOD completely useless.
You must ALWAYS reduce polys in LOD. ALWAYS. Yes, this is very much a one size fits all situation, because it has to be. LOD isn't just about removing polys per-se, it's about simplifying the model. So, for round objects, you reduce the number of sides. For objects with multiple 'layers' of detail, you reduce this detail back to flat textures with a normals map. This will, of course, require careful texture mapping, and careful modeling. You will probably also need to rebuild parts of the model to make them lower detail/poly.
There is a semi-exception, and that's splines. Where splines are concerned, your poly count can be 'higher', but over a longer distance object, and is effectively lower. For example, if I have a 10poly 5m object, which then goes to a 15 polys 10m object, I've got a higher poly mesh, but it's actually less polys in the scene (15 polys per 10m, rather than 20 polys per 10m).
Regards
Zec,
At some point it becomes a hassle to us casual users.
Your third party contributors making money off the program mean nothing.
This program is a pass time, nothing more. Outside of the few who live here or profit from it.*
Justin might swoop in about content but he does have a monetary interest. I enjoy his content, but, see no reason to use anymore of it as he uses his position to profit from your choices.*
You argue amongst yourselves. N3V will not get another purchase from me. My JointedRail purchases sit on a disc. I'm just a user who is done with it. I have older versions and gigabytes of content saved. I spend most of my time in Surveyor. I can spend years in the MAC version on built in content alone.
We don't all live for this forum or DLS.
On a side note, can us MAC users not get the asterisks every time the forum saves?*
Ball is in your and payware provider's court. I can enjoy this program for years without you. Can you do the same without me?
At some point it becomes a hassle to us casual users.
Your third party contributors making money off the program mean nothing.
This program is a pass time, nothing more. Outside of the few who live here or profit from it.*
Justin might swoop in about content but he does have a monetary interest. I enjoy his content, but, see no reason to use anymore of it as he uses his position to profit from your choices.*
You argue amongst yourselves. N3V will not get another purchase from me. My JointedRail purchases sit on a disc. I'm just a user who is done with it. I have older versions and gigabytes of content saved. I spend most of my time in Surveyor. I can spend years in the MAC version on built in content alone.
We don't all live for this forum or DLS.
On a side note, can us MAC users not get the asterisks every time the forum saves?*
Ball is in your and payware provider's court. I can enjoy this program for years without you. Can you do the same without me?
2995Valliant
Well-known member
Shane - the S&C looks like a normal route with dependencies in CMP to me. If though you are correct about routes, that still doesn't explain why the rolling stock assets can't be committed, however this section of the config does:
privileges
{
is-payware-content 1
}
That's a conscious choice to prevent people editing payware content, not a by-product of the way it is now distributed/installed. I can well understand and fully support the desire to prevent fraudulent redistribution but the new restrictions are almost like buying a Hornby/Bachmann model and then not being allowed to detail it.
Regards,
Anthony
privileges
{
is-payware-content 1
}
That's a conscious choice to prevent people editing payware content, not a by-product of the way it is now distributed/installed. I can well understand and fully support the desire to prevent fraudulent redistribution but the new restrictions are almost like buying a Hornby/Bachmann model and then not being allowed to detail it.
Regards,
Anthony
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
That new tag is part of the changes as a result of the new DLC system.
Shane
Shane
I'm not as eloquent in speech or writing. I agree with above statement.
2995Valliant
Well-known member
Obviously, but it wasn't a necessary change - that's my point. It's not a by product of the new system as you appeared to be suggesting.
It's a restriction which has quietly been added alongside a number of improvements.
Last edited:
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
It depends on which way you see it. I'm guessing that the tag is what tells Content Manager to display the $ icon.
Shane
Shane
I agree with this statement too.
I really like trainz 12 SP0, but i think what N3V did with the DLS, SP1 and all the other things (DLC, DRM) is too much. They are not much better than a well known publisher who give a **** about customers (Ubisoft...)
I'll not patch my TS12, and I'll not buy any new trainz versions.
Congratulations N3V, you've lost the next customer...
Felix
Similar threads
