A question for route makers

[aardvark1]

First, thanks to all of the route makers for the great routes that are available to us less creative Trainzers.

The question is based on this reply from a train engineer in answer to a question I asked in another thread:

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showpost.php?p=776200&postcount=190

His post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvark1
Mouse I would like to ask you 2 questions as a train engineer.

Do you look at all the scenery while driving?

In your cab, how far ahead can you see?

Thanks

Yes, I'm always looking around while running, especially on a nice warm day when the girls are wearing shorts.

It depends on the terrain and the conditions. Running out across Ohio and Indiana you can see for a mile or more during the day. At night you can see even farther looking at the lights. I remember the first time, running an intermodal train toward Chicago at 60 mph and watching the marker on the train I'm following, flash and he was at least 4 or 5 miles ahead of me.
__________________

My question to you is:

If a real engineer can only see say about 1.5 miles ahead, or to the side in the cab, why do many routes have vast areas on both sides of the rails populated with many trees or houses and other content.

Q...Would reducing the number of boards on each side of the rails, thereby reducing the amount of content needing to be loaded and perhaps having a negative effect on FPS? Also, would not populating these outermost boards also help?

Also, based on his answer of only seeing about 1.5 miles ahead or to the side, it seems reasonable (to me) that the "draw distance" selection of 2500 meters would work best for CPU and GPU processing.

While I understand that route makers are also being artistic in creating a route, it would seem that a lot of the work put into the route is wasted when driving a loco in CAB mode.

Please do not interpret my question as a critique of your work, but a basic question from a non-route maker who enjoys driving in CAB mode.

Again, thank you for your great creations.

I look forward to your replies.

Regards,

 

[RRSignal]

I would say upfront that a lot of people enjoy looking outside the cab too, where you might see a lot more, especially from a chase or detached camera view.

 

[pfx]

Here's my take.

I'm currently building an 80 mile route (there are some recent shots on the UK screenshots thread) and my opinion is that users will be driving in cab mode or closely following in external view/trackside cameras. On that basis, I use high detail trackside and 500 metres or so either side, and also ensure towns bear enough similarity to the real locations as to be recognisable. Detailing drops right off after that as I reason it just isn't going to be seen.

The exception to this is where there is a specific area of scenery which is intrinsic to the route and users would expect to see. This can range from a forest, to a factory, anything really which people may look for but within reason.

As you say, the more scenery items, the slower things get. The skill is in getting the balance right so the route is interesting to view but not too interesting that it has a gash frame rate.

 

[Vern]

The simple answer is to cater for all those who like to drive their train from the helicopter viewpoint!

Personally I am all in favour of optimisation for looking forward from the cab, but you only have to look at some of the reviews on the Edinburgh - Glasgow route released recently for Railworks to see people protesting the scenery isn't deep enough. Trainz may be slightly different in that there is still the element of (and I hate to say it) model railway type operation where things are monitored from a strategic God type view.

Nevertheless some compromise is necessary, I would certainly never look at going more than maybe 1000 - 1200 metres either side of the track with detail and that in itself would be reduced the further out you go. In hilly terrain distant mountains are important but these can generally be painted with a generic colour. Don't forget you can now set a draw distance out to, what, 5km in Trainz and if you don't fill that area with something people are going to be seeing the honeycomb edges of the world baseboards - guaranteed to destroy the illusion of being there.

 

[zatovisualworks]

Yes, dear Ron, I understand your position. This is something we've discussed a lot on our IBTZ forum.

The matter lies on the fact that many of us 'hate' :hehe: cabs and like watching the scene "all along the watchtower" [played by Jimi Hendrix] .

I myself love to "drive" trains on the roof of locos... :hehe:

:hehe: I can remember the last time I got into a real 1:1 cab (both electric and steamer preserved) and got out in full dress of grit, grease and dirt. :hehe: Yes, I'm a couch roof driver, I admit it.


However, I don't like tiring too long routes. I love modules. In general my advice would be not to go beyond 2 boards sideways when "dressing" a layout. No more is needed. Even less if we take into account the T10 problems with drawing distances + certain mischievous assets aka as splines.

Any way, recalling our IBTZ motto... :hehe:

"There's not only one Trainz, but a different Trainz for each of us"

The couch driving side of Alberte :wave:

 

[aardvark1]

Hi Alberte,

I am really not trying to assert a position, but asking if route makers can make building routes less time consuming for themselves.

While I understand that many use External View, in my thinking, large populated areas are still not visible from that position.

Again, just a question, not a "gimme", to improve the overall viewing process and eliminating "slow" visual lags while playing.

Thanks,
Ron

 

[teddytoot]

..... Trainz may be slightly different in that there is still the element of (and I hate to say it) model railway type operation where things are monitored from a strategic God type view....

Some of us come from a model railway background and regard Trainz as a virtual model railway (as was it's original concept). Moving from a large house with a separate railway room to a small retirement bungalow this was the only way I could really continue my hobby. To me the aerial view is the normal way of operation. However I agree that large expanses of scenery are not necessary since in real model railways you have probably an even more restrictive side spread.

 

[Dermmy]

...Would reducing the number of boards on each side of the rails, thereby reducing the amount of content needing to be loaded and perhaps having a negative effect on FPS? Also, would not populating these outermost boards also help?

Yes and Yes. The amount of 'stuff' the program has to draw on the screen is inversely proportional to performance. Less 'stuff' = higher framerates.

...Also, based on his answer of only seeing about 1.5 miles ahead or to the side, it seems reasonable (to me) that the "draw distance" selection of 2500 meters would work best for CPU and GPU processing.

And by happy co-incidence I have settled on about 2500 meters as the best compromise between appearance and performance on most routes.

...While I understand that route makers are also being artistic in creating a route, it would seem that a lot of the work put into the route is wasted when driving a loco in CAB mode.

It is possible to 'constrict' the view from the cab to such an extent that you could easily build a one-board-wide route and have it look flawless and perform brilliantly. The thing is though that many Trainzers (including myself) are railfans, not drivers, and prefer to watch from outside the cab. My preferred view is external tracking cameras. Short of a solid wall of trees both sides of the track it is much harder to 'constrain' the external view compared to the cab view so more 'width' is needed on the route.

In all my route-building efforts prior to TS2010 my goal was to keep the route as simple as possible (ground texture only) farther than a couple of hundred meters from the track at most. The route still needs some 'width' though because my pet aversion is the appearance of baseboard 'sides' in the distance.

TS2010 though completely moves the goal posts, and two years in I am just starting to work out how far the posts are moved. It is quite possible in 10 to include detail I would never have dreamed of including in earlier versions and still maintain user-friendly frame rates.

As with everything it's a balance, and the balance point will vary from route to route. Perhaps more importantly, it will vary from Trainzer to Trainzer...

The rambling introspective side of

Andy

 

[Euphod]

I once suggested a function be added to Surveyor in which the route builder could select the preferred camera perspective for the route, such as cab mode or others. My thinking was a rule that would allow users of the route to view it in the way the builder intended. Of course, the user could change this setting by eliminating the rule in Surveyor, but at their own peril.

I was soundly thrashed for that suggestion.

 

[bl4882]

I'd like to echo Teddytoot's comments and add that, for me, the increased draw distance of TS2010 is a boon. It eliminates the wall stud and insulation backdrop of model railroads built in the garage.

Bernie

 

[zatovisualworks]

Beeerniiieeee....

:hehe: Do you mean this increased viewing distance?

My apologies for bringing back this old issue at TS2010, widely commented here --> http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=52393

But... 4400 metres were missing... :hehe:

In general my advice would be not to go beyond 2 boards sideways when "dressing" a layout. No more is needed. Even less if we take into account the T10 problems with drawing distances + certain mischievous assets aka splines.

The missing metres searching side of Alberte :wave:

 

[TRam__]

It is connected with semitransparent alpha texture of rails. Make it alpha-masked and the draw-distance would be restored. Or, may it be, alpha of grass splines.

 

[zatovisualworks]

I know, guy, I know. Anyway, thank you for your post.

+ certain mischievous assets aka splines.

I wouldn't want to start over the issue discussion. We all know the cause. You should read that thread carefully again and understand that's not the only reason. The TS2010 developers, as stated by themselves, put in a distance limiter when T10 encounters a mischievous heavy-buffered asset.

And the assets are already done. That's called legacy, dear guy, the legacy from my friends Vendie and Jan, which I'm not removing from my memories at all. The only thing I removed was Vendie's LODs but that doesn't interfere with legacy.

The already knowing side of Alberte

 

[theokus]

Here's my take.

I'm currently building an 80 mile route (there are some recent shots on the UK screenshots thread) and my opinion is that users will be driving in cab mode or closely following in external view/trackside cameras. On that basis, I use high detail trackside and 500 metres or so either side, and also ensure towns bear enough similarity to the real locations as to be recognisable. Detailing drops right off after that as I reason it just isn't going to be seen.

The exception to this is where there is a specific area of scenery which is intrinsic to the route and users would expect to see. This can range from a forest, to a factory, anything really which people may look for but within reason.

As you say, the more scenery items, the slower things get. The skill is in getting the balance right so the route is interesting to view but not too interesting that it has a gash frame rate.

Good thinking and good point.

Please don't shoot me but I did learn from the designers of RailWorks.
They use in route building 3 stages left and right of the track.
- nearby scenery > high resolution.
- mid range > over about 300 meters > a bit less res.
- far > about (to) 600 meters > les ress.
I guess this makes sense.

 

[zatovisualworks]

but I did learn from the designers of RailWorks.

Dear Theo, oh, my dear stubborn teaser (a bit trolling IMHO)...

I learnt it from my first grade primary school teacher in Antwerp... who didn't know a single 00010100101000011 section of RWhat????? :hehe:

The still learning to shoot side of Alberte :wave:

 

[aardvark1]

.

The TS2010 developers, as stated by themselves, put in a distance limiter when T10 encounter a mischievous heavy-buffered asset.

Per Windwalkr...the limiter is also in TS2009.

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showpost.php?p=561584&postcount=4

Regards,

 

[TRam__]

Draw distances in ts12 :

Cabin view. Objects - 960 m , relief and splines - 1500 m (independent from settings)


Outside view. Objects - up to 1500 m, relief and splines (& probably SpeedTree ) are dependent from settings.

 

[zatovisualworks]

Unfortunately T12 is not responding well when drawing distances with Jan [jankvis]'s and Vendie [Vendel]'s veggie splines. The limiter rules again...

Yes, I admit [and they, Jan and Vendie, too] that their veggie splines are always very hungry at the performance meal and they must be used wisely but...

The learning to get thinner side of Alberte :wave:

 

[schweitzerdude]

re too much detail too far from whats visible from trainz

I am guilty of this. The reason is that I spent many years fooling around with SimCity4, where everything is equally visible. Then I discovered Trainz, where I found I could do things I never could do in SimCity. But I spend too much time in surveyor and have the constant conflict of "well this road that crosses the railway needs to go somewhere so lets build a village and some farms" even though it the railway goes nowhere near it. And so it goes.

And I generally don't use cab view in driver so that adds to the problem. And baseboards get added and landscaped for a branch line that eventually never gets built, so I have to continously cut back as needed.

I do agree that long stretches of rural track only need to be 2 baseboards wide assuming realistic terraforming is done.

 

[sniper297]

"Some of us come from a model railway background", so it's old habit with me - viewblocks and assorted distractions (the eye is naturally drawn to closer objects, so more detail close to the tracks and fake it in further out). Funny part is when DEM first became available for MSTS, the DEM guru at the time added distant mountains to the PO&N - and discovered that distant mountains didn't really add much to that route since there were so many forests, hills, valleys, and ridges you couldn't see that far anyway. :hehe:

Superdetailed routes with sweeping long distance vistas are great for screenshots, but since I prefer operations I nearly always compromise in favor of playable framerates. I'm currently doing a city route which will have detail close to the tracks and splines beyond, that's the best way to hide the baseboard edges.