I think Management are the bugs
A Sad End to an Epic Run for Me with Trainz.
- Thread starter skittlekicks
- Start date
Only in the sense that they are concerned with the bottom line.I think Management are the bugs
When the software industry was still young, the coders often were the management too so their interests were more aligned. But even then, if the bottom line wasn't taken care of, there would not be a tomorrow for the coders to continue. The same today but even more intense - spend too much time chasing every single bug and that code will be in an historical archive as an example of something that was never released because they never finished it.
Humour is not your thing then?
Railroader1970
Active member
Makes me wonder what the point is with working on a route and uploading reskinned assets if they're going to be faulty in a few years and unworkable. Some people have stated that some of my assets are faulty. So if I update any Kuids, what then? Faulty in a few years again? Makes me wonder what the whole point is? Why couldn't Trainz just be compatible with old AND new assets, period. On the other hand, seeing as how I was told that TRS22 basically "thumbs its nose at older assets", then maybe I should get the TRS19.
- RR70
Last edited:
One of the things that many forget is that some assets were always faulty. The older Trainz versions would ignore the faults at the cost of extra work to get around them. Whether this was really a good move on the part of Trainz is debatable. Assets were let in that caused lockups, crashes and other unwanted behaviors but while they worked, they were available for use. Some were the fault of lazy creators or too cleaver ones who cut corners or used unsupported techniques while others were the fault of Trainz who didn't clearly document all the correct methods to use. Newer versions of Trainz were less tolerant of faults, first as warnings then as errors. As long as backward compatibility is demanded, you will see these errors. If not, each version could run clean but with a much reduced asset base.
Isn't that what the anti-backward compatability folk want?
With hindsight, probably not a good move but I was not there when the decision was made nor privy to all the whys or reasons for.
A big feature of Trainz over other sims is its user involvement. This was, and still is, a huge advantage as it has provided a huge range of assets that are free for all to use. But, as @martinvk points out above, It is also an Archilles Heel as many of those freely given assets (and who could be critical of that) were faulty even for the Trainz versions that they were created for. Other posters in these forums over the years have covered the "whys and wherefores" of this state of affairs and the advantages and disadvantages of the various proposed solutions, so I will not rake over those coals here.
We have seen content creators leave because they did not agree with the tightening standards for submitting assets. One prominent current creator has stated that if LODs are made mandatory (they are currently only "strongly recommended") then that will be the end for him. But that is often a necessary price for progress and improving the product, including its performance, for all of us. Of course, any new standards for submitting assets will not be retrospective. You can, of course, continue making assets that do not meet a new requirement (including LODs in all assets for example) for all versions of Trainz below the version where the new standard becomes a mandatory requirement.
My opinion. I originally sided with the view that older and possibly faulty assets should continue to be available for use. But after experiencing some of the issues these older assets can create, I am swinging more to the view of introducing a "cut-off" where you cannot use assets below a certain build number in a future Trainz release (yes I know, that will reduce the pool of available assets).
We have seen content creators leave because they did not agree with the tightening standards for submitting assets. One prominent current creator has stated that if LODs are made mandatory (they are currently only "strongly recommended") then that will be the end for him. But that is often a necessary price for progress and improving the product, including its performance, for all of us. Of course, any new standards for submitting assets will not be retrospective. You can, of course, continue making assets that do not meet a new requirement (including LODs in all assets for example) for all versions of Trainz below the version where the new standard becomes a mandatory requirement.
My opinion. I originally sided with the view that older and possibly faulty assets should continue to be available for use. But after experiencing some of the issues these older assets can create, I am swinging more to the view of introducing a "cut-off" where you cannot use assets below a certain build number in a future Trainz release (yes I know, that will reduce the pool of available assets).
Railroader1970
Active member
What about IM Files? I was told that these are replacing .TGA Files and as a result, the IM Files are harder to reskin as I was told the IM Files won't open in some Apps. And as for the LOD's, what are we talking about precisely? Are we talking about there will be requirements to only make and upload hi-res assets (over 1080p in the asset art) with many polygons (due to various details such as refilling door spaces/ re-reading hinges etc that are covered over by the logos during the reskin) and additional texturing such soot and weathering for example? Or, are we talking about low resolution images with pixels that are less than 1080p.
I know I would be done if reskinning was no longer possible at the most if not extremely difficult at the least. I already stated in one of my previous posts as to why. I hate to say it, since I have been with the Trainz Community since September of 2017, but I know I won't purchase an updated version of the game if my movements and options will eventually become restricted. Not interested in that. Sorry. And this is coming from a guy who is addicted to making routes and reskins (even though it's a trial/error situation with some of those). Can't say that I blame Skittlekicks for his decision to bail. Why make something if it's going to shut down and no longer work later -- all that work gone? Frustration to say the least.
Last edited:
Not sure I understand your point. We never opened IM files. They are the framework, skeleton if you will, that the textures are draped over. Change the texture files, the TGAs and the appearance of the object changes without changing the underlying structure. Depending on how the creator used the textures, reskinning can be easy or very hard.
Last I looked, an LOD is a lower res version of the object. The further away you are from the object, the less detail you can actually see so there is no need for the program to even try to display that detail. Move even further away and eventually your supper detailed object is only a few pixel on your screen so why attempt to show those wonderful details?
Railroader1970
Active member
Well if I'm expected to go below 1080p to say 480 or 360p, then I think that's a deal breaker for me. Doing low res images? Not my style. I don't make contemporary assets. To me it makes the asset look and feel cheap as well as lazy compared to JR, SRS, RR Mods and other train sim companies that sell high res assets with detail. I'll see how things go from here on out, but low res images are a no go for me -- no way. I'm not going to dumb down the appearance on some of my reskins that may have more than 500 polygons. Interested in quality, not quantity. Not interested in diluting my reskins to the Picasso way. Sometimes, contemporary simplicity isn't the best thing, IMO. It might be for others and that's fine for them. But not me nor others with similar views? NO. Sorry.
Last edited:
I don't think you understand what the low res image is used for. It is only shown when you are far away from the object. At that distance you can't see the loss of detail and your monitor doesn't have enough pixels covering the object to even show the original details. If you don't provide a set of low res objects, Trainz will waste its time and resources calculating the details which will never be seen.
Railroader1970
Active member
I see what you mean. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I'll see how things go. No point in me jumping to the wrong conclusions. Thanks for explaining the matter.
Dinorius_Redundicus
kuid 68213
Railroader1970,
You seem to be confusing several different concepts.
The “level of detail” in a 3D mesh is just how much geometrical detail is in the shape of an object. It’s measured by how many triangle polygons are in the mesh. This has nothing to do with “resolution” of the texture images applied to the mesh surfaces. This is just the size of the images, measured in pixels, in the horizontal and vertical directions. For example a 1024x512 pixel image.
1080p, or 480p, etc. are measures of screen resolution, which is a totally different thing. It should not be confused with mesh detail or texture image resolution. Nobody speaks of 3D assets as “1080p” etc.
The other point to make is that while mesh LOD requires creators to make separate meshes, with progressively lower amounts of triangles in them, there is no need for them to include texture images of progressively lower resolution to go with them. In fact, it’s recommended creators not do that, because Trainz automatically generates a set of lower resolution images for long range (or instant temporary short-range) views from the high-res images. That process is called mip-mapping.
I hope this clarifies things.
Last edited:
We all have days like that. But I always say that before you can be "old and wise" you have to be "young and stupid".I could not even get the edit right.
Railroader1970
Active member
Thanks for taking the time to explain things. Clears things up.
Dinorius_Redundicus
kuid 68213
Sorry I took a while to compose that rather "wordy" post. Terms like "detail" and "resolution" are thrown around a lot in the modelling and computer game world, but have very different meanings depending on the specific context. Confusion is quite common. Meanwhile, I didn't realise that martinvk had already replied saying the same thing in a much more concise way.
Railroader1970
Active member
No need to apologize, it's all good.
Well, I was "young and stupid" half way through the last century and I have reached the "old" bit but as far as the latest Trainz versions are concerned I am sure I have not reached the "wise" bit
.Doug.