Whats so important about the G rating???
collisions
- Thread starter mastertom88
- Start date
Whats so important about the G rating???
Let's take a long, mature look at the features collision detection might allow. My vision for collision detection is this:
In the next version of Trainz, bounding boxes ought to be drawable in Surveyor. Bounding boxes could surround objects or trains, and could serve three purposes:
They could inhibit the passage of particle effects.
and
They could stop other bounding boxes (and objects to which they are assigned) from going through them.
and
They could optionally prevent weather happening inside them.
The advantage of this system is that you would only bounding box objects that need them. If an object is 20 miles away from any track, it needs no bounding box, so you wouldn't give it one. With drawable bounding boxes, a line of buildings could have one bounding box rather than 20 smaller ones.
Boxes could be assigned to trains as well. This would have roughly the same effect as parenting one object to another in a 3D modeling application. This would allow for crashes, obviously, but other features as well.
Bounding boxes would inhibit particle effects as well. That would mean no more smoke floating through overpasses or anything of that ilk.
A special type of box would prevent weather inside them and not impede anything else. This would let us prevent rain or snow in tunnels and under bridges.
They would, of course, be scriptable, so you could assign a myriad of effects to them.
One would go about drawing boxes by first drawing a two dimensional rectangle on the ground in Surveyor that would encompass the object to be boxed. Then you would pull it upwards. The system would be similar to that used to draw polygons in Google Sketchup. Once drawn, they would be treated as scenery and could be elevated, rotated, and rolled as scenery objects can, but the information window would have a setting that would allow you to edit it in the same way as if you were creating it.
You'd also be able to assign a box to a traincar. First, you'd draw the box around the traincar. Then, you'd go to the car's properties window and click the "Assign Bounding Box" button and click on the box or boxes you want. The boxes would now move with the traincar. There would be a button somewhere on the rolling stock panel in Surveyor allowing you to permanently assign a box to an item of rolling stock, so that whenever you place that item of rolling stock, its bounding box would appear.
There would, of course, be an option to turn them off.
For performance concerns, physics calculations could be run on a separate thread. Most people have multi-core processors nowadays, so this would be a viable solution. The physics calculations would be fairly lightweight, so single-core folks could still run the game.
I imagine that Auran could use a ready-made physics engine, like Bullet or Newton, both free for commercial use (I think). Bullet I know for a fact can simulate over 500 rigid bodies with minimal framerate loss. Using a ready made physics engine would speed up development time exponentially.
In the next version of Trainz, bounding boxes ought to be drawable in Surveyor. Bounding boxes could surround objects or trains, and could serve three purposes:
They could inhibit the passage of particle effects.
and
They could stop other bounding boxes (and objects to which they are assigned) from going through them.
and
They could optionally prevent weather happening inside them.
The advantage of this system is that you would only bounding box objects that need them. If an object is 20 miles away from any track, it needs no bounding box, so you wouldn't give it one. With drawable bounding boxes, a line of buildings could have one bounding box rather than 20 smaller ones.
Boxes could be assigned to trains as well. This would have roughly the same effect as parenting one object to another in a 3D modeling application. This would allow for crashes, obviously, but other features as well.
Bounding boxes would inhibit particle effects as well. That would mean no more smoke floating through overpasses or anything of that ilk.
A special type of box would prevent weather inside them and not impede anything else. This would let us prevent rain or snow in tunnels and under bridges.
They would, of course, be scriptable, so you could assign a myriad of effects to them.
One would go about drawing boxes by first drawing a two dimensional rectangle on the ground in Surveyor that would encompass the object to be boxed. Then you would pull it upwards. The system would be similar to that used to draw polygons in Google Sketchup. Once drawn, they would be treated as scenery and could be elevated, rotated, and rolled as scenery objects can, but the information window would have a setting that would allow you to edit it in the same way as if you were creating it.
You'd also be able to assign a box to a traincar. First, you'd draw the box around the traincar. Then, you'd go to the car's properties window and click the "Assign Bounding Box" button and click on the box or boxes you want. The boxes would now move with the traincar. There would be a button somewhere on the rolling stock panel in Surveyor allowing you to permanently assign a box to an item of rolling stock, so that whenever you place that item of rolling stock, its bounding box would appear.
There would, of course, be an option to turn them off.
For performance concerns, physics calculations could be run on a separate thread. Most people have multi-core processors nowadays, so this would be a viable solution. The physics calculations would be fairly lightweight, so single-core folks could still run the game.
I imagine that Auran could use a ready-made physics engine, like Bullet or Newton, both free for commercial use (I think). Bullet I know for a fact can simulate over 500 rigid bodies with minimal framerate loss. Using a ready made physics engine would speed up development time exponentially.
Last edited:
Mr.Jingles
Master of Disaster
This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.
Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.
Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.
Say NO to collision detection.
Alan
Being a bit of a rebel I say YES to collision detection
Instead of rewriting all the code and creating a ultra realistic collision model with deforming and breaking wagons, etc (I am sure that won't be done ever for trainz), why not just improve the already existing collision and physics model that exists now ?
I for myself would be pleased already if wagons would stop running through each other while on track (-> bounding boxes !), wagons would stop running through most of the scenery objects (-> bounding boxes !) and of course would stop running up hills, flipping crazyly through the air, etc. etc.
Now if THAT could be fixed I would be grateful already, but the system as it is right now just isn't .. right .. and takes some fun out of the game for me.
Improving that system that already exists to the above points also would not break your "G" family rating or, if done well, also would not put any more stress of modeling on our hands (you could do some silhouette mesh detection and dynamically create a bounding box mesh once for each piece of content for example - or if you are lazy, let us create a bounding box mesh for our content).
Physics play a more and more bigger part in games these days and simple bounding boxes are extremely cheap to compute these days and for those people with less potent computers, why not just include a checkbox in the config screen to turn bounding box physics off (the JET engine should be able to do that) ?
Yes, it takes time to program that, but your fans would thank it to you.
Me for example I was planning to get any update you woud throw on the market, but seeing that trainz did almost stay the same after TRS2004 SP3 (the one with the new great interface changes, etc.) I am now waiting for a more feature rich version to come out.
.. just my thoughts ..
Speak your mind
Mr. Jingles
Gangsta_Boi
Local Line Lunatic
As the game is called Trainz Railway SIMULATOR, I feel collision detection should be used, to SIMULATE the effects of a minor/major derailment (They do happen !) and to SIMULATE the real world effects of solid objects (i.e bridges, walkovers etc.)
+1 for collision detection !
Thanks,
Gangsta_Boi
+1 for collision detection !
Thanks,
Gangsta_Boi
ex-railwayman
New member
I am a little confused on this thread, is a derailment to be considered a collision?? I switch my derailment device on and off in driver depending on which route I am driving on periodically, which I find adds a bit of spice to simulating certain driving conditions, especially, when I am on my snowbound routes. It adds some realism to the expertise of the driver in being able to master the art of driving the loco over sets of points and junctions, whether he is driving a long train or just "light engine". So, in fact, we already have a derailment device built into the game, do we need another one?
As to a built-in collision support device on TRS as a whole, comments from everyone so far seem to be split 50/50, I would personally find it demeaning to this particular simulator game. There are plenty of other sim games on the market if you want to crash and explode things are there not?? I think there is enough blood and guts in modern real day life thank you very much, I personally don't want it to be involved in my relaxation period, when I can divorce myself for a few hours from the real world, playing this fabulous train simulating game.
Just my two penneth worth.
Cheers. ex-railwayman.
As to a built-in collision support device on TRS as a whole, comments from everyone so far seem to be split 50/50, I would personally find it demeaning to this particular simulator game. There are plenty of other sim games on the market if you want to crash and explode things are there not?? I think there is enough blood and guts in modern real day life thank you very much, I personally don't want it to be involved in my relaxation period, when I can divorce myself for a few hours from the real world, playing this fabulous train simulating game.
Just my two penneth worth.
Cheers. ex-railwayman.
We don't want to crash things. No one said anything about explosions. We just want to have the myriad of benefits collision detection could introduce into the game, one of which is better crashes. There are a whole host of others that I can think of, and I'm sure other people can think of even more.
FWIW IMHO it would greatly improve the program if it could be modified to detect all collisions between rolling stock, not just collisions between their couplers as at present.
Handling road vehicles presents some very difficult problems, for example when there are level crossings on two parallel tracks.
What the program currently does in reaction to a detected collision seems appropriate to me.
John
Handling road vehicles presents some very difficult problems, for example when there are level crossings on two parallel tracks.
What the program currently does in reaction to a detected collision seems appropriate to me.
John
Harry_James_Potter
General Thrash
It's G rating means that the game can be played by all sectors of the consuming population between the ages of four and four hundred years old..
regards
Harry
Harry_James_Potter
General Thrash
I still stand by what I said much earlier in this thread about Bounding boxes and performance loss.
My TRS is having problems coping right now. Chuck bounding boxes in on top of that and the whole show goes to hell in a handcart very quickly.
Maybe do it when the last of the single core processored machines have been quietly retired. Until then, we need fixes for things that are more important like sound (limitations on distances sound can be heard. To hear a Shed ying-yinging 10 miles away is not on!!), AI intelligence (hopelessly lost and helplessly hungry) and steam physics (which is disasterously unrealistic).
regards
Harry
My TRS is having problems coping right now. Chuck bounding boxes in on top of that and the whole show goes to hell in a handcart very quickly.
Maybe do it when the last of the single core processored machines have been quietly retired. Until then, we need fixes for things that are more important like sound (limitations on distances sound can be heard. To hear a Shed ying-yinging 10 miles away is not on!!), AI intelligence (hopelessly lost and helplessly hungry) and steam physics (which is disasterously unrealistic).
regards
Harry
Accipiter777
New member
G-rated
Blood and gore
Did not know that making collisions ment all this would HAVE to be included. I dont need the detail of body parts... but I'd like to see more accurate derails, and collision. If you DONT want your railroad to reflect this accurate, then make it an option. Well... at any rate... Microsoft Train Sim X is in the works... Would hate to see Trainz fall behind the times...
Blood and gore
Did not know that making collisions ment all this would HAVE to be included. I dont need the detail of body parts... but I'd like to see more accurate derails, and collision. If you DONT want your railroad to reflect this accurate, then make it an option. Well... at any rate... Microsoft Train Sim X is in the works... Would hate to see Trainz fall behind the times...
I can see it now... Preliminary screenshots are amazing... New, crazy realistic features... Everyone runs out and buys Vi$ta so they can run DirectX 10 on their computers... It's finally released and costs $50... You buy it, come home, install it, and boot up... and...
"Microsoft Train Simulator X has encountered an error and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."
Yeah, Auran really needs to learn to simulate those kinds of crashes to keep up with MSTS.
Accipiter777
New member
:hehe: LMAO! Your probably right!
Your probably right!joshjlawnjjl
New member
While I don't think it is nessesary to have realistic crashes, it would be nice though, if there was a way to fix minor derailments with out having to end a session. Like a working rail crain that would put cars back onto the tracks, Givin that the reck isn't to bad.
Just a thought
Just a thought
Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
One thing that bugs me is passing through a car on the crossings. Why not make it so if the train hits a car, the car will at least get pushed out of the way or something.
The main excuse here seems to be that "Trainz is an E rated game", and those giving it seem to be ignoring the non-violent suggestions being made here.
The main excuse here seems to be that "Trainz is an E rated game", and those giving it seem to be ignoring the non-violent suggestions being made here.
Something that bugs me is that people clamoring here seem to confuse collision detection = explosions/mayhem.
To clarify things a bit from my perspective, 'collision detection' is just a first step on realistic physics (= more prototypical train handling behaviour). You know, acceleration, friction, weight, dynamics of a train, this sort of things.
Bounding boxes are just a tool that helps in many situations:
lighting = is the item lighted by headlights or other light sources? Or it's in shadow?
collisions = is the locomotive sideswiping a wagon, or not?
LOD rendering = if bounding box less than a visible size (e.g. less than half a pixel), ignore item when rendering
coupling = 2D (two-dimensional) bounding boxes approach each one too fast, or not?
I think that we really want a better done physics model underneath Trainz, that would automagically correct many of the handling deficiencies in train handling due to obeying to laws of mechanics.
We do not care about twisted/deformed locomotives and wagons (even old MSTS handled derailments in a much better way, despite handling rolling stock as inflexible objects, and slack action worked more or less correctly in USA trains).
For people who do have a powerful CPU, give them this option.
Back to my HOT house,
N.F.
To clarify things a bit from my perspective, 'collision detection' is just a first step on realistic physics (= more prototypical train handling behaviour). You know, acceleration, friction, weight, dynamics of a train, this sort of things.
Bounding boxes are just a tool that helps in many situations:
lighting = is the item lighted by headlights or other light sources? Or it's in shadow?
collisions = is the locomotive sideswiping a wagon, or not?
LOD rendering = if bounding box less than a visible size (e.g. less than half a pixel), ignore item when rendering
coupling = 2D (two-dimensional) bounding boxes approach each one too fast, or not?
I think that we really want a better done physics model underneath Trainz, that would automagically correct many of the handling deficiencies in train handling due to obeying to laws of mechanics.
We do not care about twisted/deformed locomotives and wagons (even old MSTS handled derailments in a much better way, despite handling rolling stock as inflexible objects, and slack action worked more or less correctly in USA trains).
For people who do have a powerful CPU, give them this option.
Back to my HOT house,
N.F.
RooRocz's lengthy suggestion earlier is absolutely brilliant IMO, I hope Auran take note of it as it sounds like a very clever and efficient way of implementing collision detection on only the objects that need it.
People keep coming back to the same topic: explosions and gore. That's not at all what this is about, it's simply about having realistic physics. When a train leaves the track in the real world, the derailed vehicles will continue to move for anything between a couple of feet and a couple of hundred feet, depending on the speed. They don't slide along for two or three miles as they do in TRS. The vehicles that aren't directly affected will come to a sudden halt, or continue a bit further down the track as the ripped pipes apply the brakes, they don't all derail.
Yes it's a simulator and the aim is to drive a train, but just like in the real world accidents do happen. It would be nice if when they did happen it at least looked semi-realistic. It's the same with smoke floating though concrete structures or out of tunnels, it just looks silly and if MSTS was able to do it efficiently in 2001 then there's no reason why TRS can't do it in 2007.
The point I really want to get to, and that a lot of people seem to be missing, is this: Look what happens in TRS when a train flies off the track, or when the camera's viewpoint comes into contact with the ground or a hill, or when you click to place an object like a level crossing or fixed track down. That's right, they all detect where sky meets earth, and pretty accurately as well. I'd like to know how this could be acheived if TRS didn't have some sort of (even rudimentary) collision detection system. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to apply this same system to objects as well as the ground?
Personally I would like to see a combination of the following options:
- Creating a bounding box in gmax for new objects (either using the standard "box" technique or by creating an "imaginary" box by placing an attachment point for each of the eight corners)
- Drawing bounding boxes in Surveyor as per Roorocz's suggestion
- Having the option to turn all bounding boxes off, for those with lower-end PCs
It'll be interesting to watch this thread develop but it's one of the things I really hope Auran listen to. I am now starting to "get" the whole TC idea, and it does seem to be a step in the right direction, but the current release of TC is a very very small one at best. With a couple of new simulators due to hit the market over the next year or two, Auran needs to concentrate on catching up with two of the more basic elements of simulation, namely sound and physics. It's sad to see that a simulator launched (and swiftly abandoned) six years ago can still do these far better than TRS can.
The changes to signalling and level crossing setups in TC will no doubt be welcomed by many, but it's major changes like those I have gone over that will get the long-term trainzers interested in the TC concept, especially when you consider that there are a number of people developing new ideas for signals and level crossings at TRS2004 / 2006 level.
JB
People keep coming back to the same topic: explosions and gore. That's not at all what this is about, it's simply about having realistic physics. When a train leaves the track in the real world, the derailed vehicles will continue to move for anything between a couple of feet and a couple of hundred feet, depending on the speed. They don't slide along for two or three miles as they do in TRS. The vehicles that aren't directly affected will come to a sudden halt, or continue a bit further down the track as the ripped pipes apply the brakes, they don't all derail.
Yes it's a simulator and the aim is to drive a train, but just like in the real world accidents do happen. It would be nice if when they did happen it at least looked semi-realistic. It's the same with smoke floating though concrete structures or out of tunnels, it just looks silly and if MSTS was able to do it efficiently in 2001 then there's no reason why TRS can't do it in 2007.
The point I really want to get to, and that a lot of people seem to be missing, is this: Look what happens in TRS when a train flies off the track, or when the camera's viewpoint comes into contact with the ground or a hill, or when you click to place an object like a level crossing or fixed track down. That's right, they all detect where sky meets earth, and pretty accurately as well. I'd like to know how this could be acheived if TRS didn't have some sort of (even rudimentary) collision detection system. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to apply this same system to objects as well as the ground?
Personally I would like to see a combination of the following options:
- Creating a bounding box in gmax for new objects (either using the standard "box" technique or by creating an "imaginary" box by placing an attachment point for each of the eight corners)
- Drawing bounding boxes in Surveyor as per Roorocz's suggestion
- Having the option to turn all bounding boxes off, for those with lower-end PCs
It'll be interesting to watch this thread develop but it's one of the things I really hope Auran listen to. I am now starting to "get" the whole TC idea, and it does seem to be a step in the right direction, but the current release of TC is a very very small one at best. With a couple of new simulators due to hit the market over the next year or two, Auran needs to concentrate on catching up with two of the more basic elements of simulation, namely sound and physics. It's sad to see that a simulator launched (and swiftly abandoned) six years ago can still do these far better than TRS can.
The changes to signalling and level crossing setups in TC will no doubt be welcomed by many, but it's major changes like those I have gone over that will get the long-term trainzers interested in the TC concept, especially when you consider that there are a number of people developing new ideas for signals and level crossings at TRS2004 / 2006 level.
JB
Forest_Runner
Active member
It's because the thread started off in this manner. Reading the first two pages of this thread ingrains into the reader about making collisions more graphic.
Personally, I think a new topic thread titled "Collision Detection" with the first post providing the lengthy explanation of what it is about, and possibly what it isn't, would result in more constructive discussion on the subject.
Cheers,
Simon.
seany55520
Lego Builder
The crashes wouldn't be violent or explosive or show major desturction or any of that. They would just be more beliveable.(Unless thats your view of beliveable.) My view of beliveable is if a train hits another train, the cars come off the track and either stop or continue rolling along the landscape, depending on the force of the impact. So if a train derails, it rolls of the tracks and does something realistic. Simply put, there would be solid objects instead of cars going through each other. Say YES to collision detection.This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.
Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.
Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.
Say NO to collision detection.
Alan
PS: don't comment on the spelling.
Spawn_of_Chaos97
Trainz for Everyone!
I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet, but TRS could be patched to run on the HL2 "Source" engine (with permission from Valve of course.) That would unfortunately require a large amount of recoding, but at least then it would be possible!
HL2 has more realistic physics than MSTS even!
HL2 has more realistic physics than MSTS even!