Campaign to retain full DLS for TRS2004/06

[stovepipe]

Mike,

I don't want to rehash what's been said further up, I can see both sides in any case.

The trouble with progress is; it's the only model we humans have. Without progress it seems "Auran" do not have a business model. And that means TS2009/10 is where it's at, for now at least. Are they better? Yes I think so - from a user and route builders perspective certainly. It's evolution though not revolution.

Despite posting above^ about older content, (I was putting the other side), I don't believe the (minimum) standards ARE greatly higher, unless you want to use all the new features.

Granted I haven't got anything out the door of any substance yet, but I have started building stuff in Blender. I'll have to see how it goes. The biggest problem I see is making decent textures and the time it takes to do so. I'm making a few things for myself, to use on my own routes - and I'm enjoying the buzz.

I sincerely hope there is room for all creators in the future, but just as I was left behind with programming back in the day, I also must consider that the future may be increasingly dominated by fewer higher-skilled content creators - and that probably means more payware. Railworks is a good example of that already. Nevertheless I'm going to remain optimistic that Trainz can continue to include all interests, which afterall is what made/makes* Trainz great.

regards
Charles

* delete as appropriate!

 

[leeferr]

Charles
I would have to agree with you. I too can see both sides of the issue here and I'm not really wanting to rehash what's already been discussed before, but I think that your point about the game being dominated by fewer higher skilled content creators gets to the crux of the issue. I'm afraid that if the new features are to be fully utilized, that much of the high quality stuff that everyone wants is not going to be on the DLS, but will be payware. All I've been trying to do is champion the cause of the lessor of us skilled creators, but it appears that I've lost. I can accept that.
Mike

 

[ZecMurphy]

Hi All

In regards to content creation, the basic content (e.g. a house made for TRS2004) can still be done. It doesn't require fancy features.

However, by changing the build number from 2.8 (or lower) to 2.9, these basic items will actually start using some of the automated system, which help to improve performance. Granted, objects using the GMax exporters (or TRS2004 era 3DSMax exporters) will not be able to take full advantage of this, however they will still see an improvement in performance. And, as a plus, you can start using new functions if you so choose (e.g. if you made an object that had different versions for each season, then you can now make it in one object).

Effectively, your model itself doesn't need to change. Apart from ensuring that there are no errors in the model (as a note, if your model is shown as 'faulty' in 2010, then fixing it would likely provide better performance in all editions, depending on the asset), you do not need to do anything different. In fact, the situation with TS2009/TS2010 content creation is really no different to TRS2004 content creation. You have the 'hardcore' creators (those who enjoy trying every new feature possible, or try to make their content look like 'professional' content), and then you have the 'hobbyist' creators who just want to create simple/basic models. This is a very simplistic view, since most people fall somewhere between. However, TS2009 does still cater for the 'hobbyist'.

The creation of CCP was actually intended to make your job easier, since you now don't need to worry as much about naming conventions for tags, and it will prevent you from putting 'faulty' tags into a config. It also gives you the option of trying this tag, or that function without the need to have actually read the CCG to find it exists. Granted, you'll need to find it in the wiki to know what it actually does. However, by following the 'path' in the 'tree' view in CCP, you will have a good chance of finding the info you on the wiki, since the pages will hopefully follow the same paths.

For example, you want to know what a tag in the mesh-table in a traincar asset does. In CCP, it will appear as follows:
Kind - Traincar
|
--Mesh Table
|
-- Default (mesh entry)

In here you will then find the relevant tags. For example, we want to know what 'auto-create' does.

On the wiki, we would navigate as follows:

Content Configuration -> Kind: Traincar -> Mesh-Table

On the mesh-table page will be listed all of the available tags, and descriptions.

Now, this part can throw a spanner in the works. If a tag is available in a 'parent class', then it will not be listed in the 'child' classes. For example, a Traincar is a child class of kind scenery-trackside, which in turn is a child class of kind scenery, which in turn is a child class of kind mesh. In this case, you would need to climb through the 'parent' classes to find the mesh-table description in this case, however the config examples should also provide a link. The beauty of a wiki, is that you can change this if you think it is unclear. For example, you can add the link to the mesh-table if you think it useful/helpful. In a CCG, this would not be possible

However, to recap my original point. You do not need to do anything different in your content. The main difference is the slight changes in config formatting, and that by setting a 2.9+ build number, you will see some advantages in performance on most basic (non animated scenery object mainly) objects

Zec

 

[sparky15]

Charles,
You make excellent points. But, the underlying message is the only progress being made is in how Trainz displays content. Content not even made yet. You really don't think Auran will supply it do you? They can't. They rely on purchasing that content or the DLS.

Why would I want to roll a piece of scenery? Ever try to use one of those proper junctions on a grade? Be nice if I could, eliminate that gripe of mine. Be better if I could lay a proper junction to begin with.

Laying proper radius curves in RS is a snap, can even do it with multiple tracks if I need to. Trainz, one at a time, with a template, if it exists, or with the ruler and don't forget to hold down the shift key. A train sim that can't properly represent track work after how many years?

Ease of use, AI and signaling, Trainz hands down. No argument there, no matter which version.

Please tell me though where any gains have been made. I have a set of CSX GP40s from Nikos1 that looked great in 04, then in 06, then in TC and even in 09. Same can be said for most content out there as long as it is made right. Another poster in another thread bragged about over 31,000 pieces of content being imported into 2010 with only 1000 errors. Congrats, you're 1000 errors away from breaking even with what you already had.

I have a route with hundreds of Trunda's trees on it, looks good, runs great, right up until I put that route in 09. To get it to run in native I had to replace those trees. Looked past awful and ran like crap until I deleted most of them, still stuck with those ugly green globs. If not, back to compatibility which runs worse than any version I have. May as well stay with 04/06/TC, which I am.

Unrealized gains in content just to run exactly the way I did before hardly qualifies as progress. All my content ran very well in previous versions, the same content everyone has because there is nothing to replace it. "Look, I can buy a new product, fix tons of errors and be exactly where I was." Auran missed the boat by playing pitty-patt with content. They chose how you run what you already have as a priority over real upgrades to corner the market.

Dave.....

 

[leeferr]

Zec
I appreciate your reply and understand what you're trying to say, except the part on the wiki. I absolutely hate the wiki. There have been other threads about this, so I won't elaborate here. Also, I do alot of my studying on content creation when I'm away from my computer and just relaxing. The wiki does me absolutely no good for this. Thanks anyway.:wave:

Mike

 

[paulzmay]

Zec, Are you saying that mesh stitching won't work on older build content irrespective?

Paul

p.s. And the wiki is getting better (slowly)

 

[johnwhelan]

Hi All


However, to recap my original point. You do not need to do anything different in your content. The main difference is the slight changes in config formatting, and that by setting a 2.9+ build number, you will see some advantages in performance on most basic (non animated scenery object mainly) objects

Zec

Interesting could you expand a little on this. Are you saying that if I change the version numbers to 2.9 on all the assets when I'm running TS2010 I should get better performance?

Thanks John

 

[stovepipe]

Charles,
You make excellent points. But, the underlying message is the only progress being made is in how Trainz displays content. Content not even made yet. You really don't think Auran will supply it do you? They can't. They rely on purchasing that content or the DLS.

Since I've had Trainz, content has always come from third parties. Content available now is much better than in 2008 when I first got Trainz. Will it continue to improve? I hope so, the tools are in place.

Why would I want to roll a piece of scenery? Ever try to use one of those proper junctions on a grade? Be nice if I could, eliminate that gripe of mine. Be better if I could lay a proper junction to begin with.

It seems I misunderstood your point. We agree the track needs to be better in Trainz out of the box. I believe it is now possible to lay proper junctions on a grade with third party assets.

Laying proper radius curves in RS is a snap, can even do it with multiple tracks if I need to. Trainz, one at a time, with a template, if it exists, or with the ruler and don't forget to hold down the shift key. A train sim that can't properly represent track work after how many years?

Fair enough - it's an area that needs improvement in Trainz. Does RS/RW do transition curves also? Superelevation even?

Please tell me though where any gains have been made. I have a set of CSX GP40s from Nikos1 that looked great in 04, then in 06, then in TC and even in 09. Same can be said for most content out there as long as it is made right. Another poster in another thread bragged about over 31,000 pieces of content being imported into 2010 with only 1000 errors. Congrats, you're 1000 errors away from breaking even with what you already had.

We've had this debate before. There is a list of improvements in the game engine published, maybe you don't believe they really exist? Yes some content needs fixing, too much content even. Hopefully a solution to that is coming - see the Trainz Resources Newsletters. It has been worth it for me, predominantly a player and route builder, to move up to the later version.

I have a route with hundreds of Trunda's trees on it, looks good, runs great, right up until I put that route in 09. To get it to run in native I had to replace those trees. Looked past awful and ran like crap until I deleted most of them, still stuck with those ugly green globs. If not, back to compatibility which runs worse than any version I have. May as well stay with 04/06/TC, which I am.

Your choice, but there are alternatives. Overall it's a gain for me, agree there are some negatives, but there are more plusses.

Unrealized gains in content just to run exactly the way I did before hardly qualifies as progress. All my content ran very well in previous versions, the same content everyone has because there is nothing to replace it. "Look, I can buy a new product, fix tons of errors and be exactly where I was." Auran missed the boat by playing pitty-patt with content. They chose how you run what you already have as a priority over real upgrades to corner the market.

We have done this one before too. I get a better experience from upgrading, and the tools are in place to move forward. It wasn't pain free. Is it worth you making the effort to do the same? It doesn't seem so.

regards
Charles

 

[IsambardKingdomBrunel]

What really counts for me though is the sheer freedom and flexibility of what you can do in Trainz, the others feel like wearing a straightjacket.

regards
Charles

In a nutshell, so i won't waste my time expanding on that.

IKB.

 

[Vern]

Re dependencies, RW ain't so hot. In MSTS you bundled up all the items along with the route and ended up with a 400Mb zip file on Trainsim.com or UKTS. Cumbersome but most times it gave you a self contained package that works.

With RW there are dependencies scattered all over the place. There's a huge grey area over exactly sure what conditions apply, whether to bundle or not plus apprehension over inadvertently bundling payware (which is the bulk of the assets as very few people are creating for RW). Result? Download a route and you spend ages trying to track down assets, or more than likely just don't bother. That then leaves the default objects in RW and identikit looking routes all with the same textures 'cos Kuju and the mob running it now made it too difficult for users to add new terrain textures! Do we really want that situation with Trainz.

And as mentioned before, there's so much in TS2010 by default you can build a convincing route without adding to it at all from the DLS.

Even running slow as it is today, the DLS is still a godsend and I'm glad I coughed up my annual subscription again.

 

[NikkiA]

That then leaves the default objects in RW and identikit looking routes all with the same textures 'cos Kuju and the mob running it now made it too difficult for users to add new terrain textures! Do we really want that situation with Trainz.

I suspect the complete lack of a filtering system really hurts RW here too, with trainz you can easily manage a large amount of assets and narrow the asset lists down. With RW everything is just one big list, and the only way to narrow it down is to NOT include other people's assets besides the built-ins.

And then when you do get a good route - like say, Wales & Borders, and you're suddenly looking at several hundred assets to download via uktrainsim's clunky system.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

there's so much in TS2010 by default you can build a convincing route without adding to it at all from the DLS.

So where have all the British 1960 - 1980 loco's gone then ?
Why can't they be run in "Native" mode in TS2010 ?

It's no bloody good having a route, if you ain't got the stock to run in it.

 

[Vern]

My reply was more aimed at route building material than rolling stock and not country specific (I've currently got fledging routes based on New Zealand, Japanese and US lines under construction).

 

[Pencil42]

I believe it is now possible to lay proper junctions on a grade with third party assets.

Yep, both my feeble attempts and Andi's newer junctions can be rolled to match a grade. It would be nice if every object could be rotated (and along all 3 axis), however; I'm not sure why we currently need to specify if an object can be rotated. Even better would be a tag that automagically aligns the junction with the underlying ground....

Curtis

 

[narrowgauge]

Curtis

Why is it desirable to lay a junction with a transverse angle. I can understand a gradient in direction of run, but I doubt that the 'big boys' would want or allow a transverse angle. What would be the purpose?

Peter

 

[mezzoprezzo]

Drifted a bit haven't we?

See post #1 for purpose of thread.



Casper


Graphic effort to get back on topic:

.

 

[happyj]

Casper

This illustrates my point, nary a railroad in sight.

Cheers.

 

[mezzoprezzo]

This illustrates my point, nary a railroad in sight.

Cheers.

Nor should there be.

This thread is about DLS assets.

Cheers
Casper

 

[BLACKWATCH]

just to keep happyj happy ............................. :hehe:

 

[Pencil42]

Peter,

My comment was more in the general sense; why can we not rotate any object with a transverse angle. However, I could see some specialized cases (superelevation, perhaps?) where you might want to do so with a junction as well.

Curtis