Half-Life 2 uses the Havoc physics engine so it's not Valve you'd need to ask. The trains in HL2 pretty much just move from waypoint to waypoint at a set speed, the animation is neither smooth nor realistic. As HL2 is a first-person shooter, the physics engine deals with stuff like skeletal animation (characters), detailed water animation, reflection and refraction, bullets bouncing off the ground, how objects break up when dropped / thrown / blown up etc... I don't see how any of this would actually be of any use in a train simulator. It'd be a bit like trying to make a realistic flight sim out of the rollercoaster tycoon physics engine...
collisions
- Thread starter mastertom88
- Start date
seany55520
Lego Builder
Look! All these great suggestions about how making a trainz crash more realistic are out there and some of you guys are ignoring them saying "oh, trainz isn't supposed to have violance in it." and "We want to keep trainz G rated." These suggestions WILL keep it G rated! OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! It really bugs me when that group of people keeps ignoring all the non-violant suggestions and saying "It will make it to violant." Maybe we can make it a setting for those of you who like the way it is now or who want to avoid crashing or just don't like it being realistic. But there are hundreds, if not, tens of hundreds of people who don't want to spend that fortune on MSTS and who like to simulators that are REALISTIC! As it says in that new diet pepsi commerical, WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
Forest_Runner
Well-known member
I posted early on in the thread. I'd prefer things like not having rain fall in tunnels, not having track and road float after it's been laid, steam sounds fixed (which I understand is improved in TC), signalling and A/I improvements......things like that.
These things are realism which impact the Sim all the time - rain/snow in tunnels dependent on weather of course. If people want realism because "it happens" these points listed above are surely better things to concentrate on, which benefits the majority of users.
I know crashes/collisions occur, but I haven't had one for something like over 18 months, so I personally don't care for it.
Cheers,
Simon.
These things are realism which impact the Sim all the time - rain/snow in tunnels dependent on weather of course. If people want realism because "it happens" these points listed above are surely better things to concentrate on, which benefits the majority of users.
I know crashes/collisions occur, but I haven't had one for something like over 18 months, so I personally don't care for it.
Cheers,
Simon.
I wonder if auran could make 1 version involving collisions and see what happens.
HL2 has got trains,signals and stations is that enough for you?
Last edited:
It might be if you can explain what on earth that has to do with collision physics... which is what my post was about (as is the rest of the thread, maybe you could take the time to read it?)
TBH I miss my train game. details are here in the thread Comp problems.:'(
I would like to have the smoke disappear when the loco derails and the engine turns off.
I would like to have the smoke disappear when the loco derails and the engine turns off.
Last edited:
Michael_Evans
thread killer
Train Wrecks
I read about the big debate about weather or not trainz should have collisions. I for one say it'd make a great feature. MSTS has it. You wouldn't even have to have exploding trains, just two trains hitting each other, and cars ending up in zig-zag fashion or flying all over the place. And one or two minutes after the wreck the trains and drivers would disappear. And what about rail/road accidents. Train hits car, car flys to side of tracks, one or two minutes later car disappears. And the collision feature should only happen to trains traveling over 20 m.p.h.
I read about the big debate about weather or not trainz should have collisions. I for one say it'd make a great feature. MSTS has it. You wouldn't even have to have exploding trains, just two trains hitting each other, and cars ending up in zig-zag fashion or flying all over the place. And one or two minutes after the wreck the trains and drivers would disappear. And what about rail/road accidents. Train hits car, car flys to side of tracks, one or two minutes later car disappears. And the collision feature should only happen to trains traveling over 20 m.p.h.
mastertom88
Guest
trainz will still be g rated, unless things get bloody with passengers,
Mr.Jingles
Master of Disaster
Why is it always that when people see the words "collision detection" they think about dead bloody corpses, explosions and other bad things ?
That has not even been asked for !
What has been asked for was :
- Bounding Box collision detection (and interaction) between game meshes (terrain, buildings, trains, wagons, etc.)
- more realistic physical behaviour of derailed objects (so they don't run up hills, flip around like crazy, etc.)
- More accurate derailemts (so that not the entire train automatically jumps off the rails)
What has NOT been asked was :
- Dead bodies and blood
- Deformed train meshes (or building meshes)
- On-Board death cam
- Fire and Explosions
- Move from an G-rating to a M-rating
- Extreme amount of particle -and soundeffects accompanying the crash
- a death counter
Collision detection (and interaction) and more proper physics, if ever implemented, should bring a bit more realism into the simulator and those expecting to see the elements that have not even been asked for (see list above) should not take that element away from these community members which are expecting to see more realism just because they have a wrong impression of what it would be like.
And if these people would still not like the fact that trains suddenly would not be running through each other, should be able to disable the Collision Detection physics in the options screen with a simple checkbox.
AND even auran themself has an entirely wrong impression on that suspect :
This good (and in my opinion needed) feature discussion is going into an entirely wrong direction !
Tata
Mr.Jingles
That has not even been asked for !
What has been asked for was :
- Bounding Box collision detection (and interaction) between game meshes (terrain, buildings, trains, wagons, etc.)
- more realistic physical behaviour of derailed objects (so they don't run up hills, flip around like crazy, etc.)
- More accurate derailemts (so that not the entire train automatically jumps off the rails)
What has NOT been asked was :
- Dead bodies and blood
- Deformed train meshes (or building meshes)
- On-Board death cam
- Fire and Explosions
- Move from an G-rating to a M-rating
- Extreme amount of particle -and soundeffects accompanying the crash
- a death counter
Collision detection (and interaction) and more proper physics, if ever implemented, should bring a bit more realism into the simulator and those expecting to see the elements that have not even been asked for (see list above) should not take that element away from these community members which are expecting to see more realism just because they have a wrong impression of what it would be like.
And if these people would still not like the fact that trains suddenly would not be running through each other, should be able to disable the Collision Detection physics in the options screen with a simple checkbox.
AND even auran themself has an entirely wrong impression on that suspect :
This good (and in my opinion needed) feature discussion is going into an entirely wrong direction !
Tata
Mr.Jingles
Hi Mr Jingles 
Most of us are simply asking for collision detection. There are just a few who really don't understand the idea and think we are after blood, guts and broken limbs. I think it's best to ignore them. For a long time, Auran's excuse has been that it didn't want to lose its G-rating. What I would like to know is what makes them think they would lose their G-rating just for implementing collision detection. G-rated driving games have it, as do flying games, sports games, role-playing games, strategy games and, yes, Microsoft Train Simulator.
I really don't see where the problem is.
JB
Most of us are simply asking for collision detection. There are just a few who really don't understand the idea and think we are after blood, guts and broken limbs. I think it's best to ignore them. For a long time, Auran's excuse has been that it didn't want to lose its G-rating. What I would like to know is what makes them think they would lose their G-rating just for implementing collision detection. G-rated driving games have it, as do flying games, sports games, role-playing games, strategy games and, yes, Microsoft Train Simulator.
I really don't see where the problem is.
JB
Blutorse4792
Now T:ANE I can get into
I feel that this belongs here so...
On the subject of cars at the level crossings, how about making it so if a train hits a car on the crossing, it'll just get pushed out of the way or something? No blood or violence necessary.
On the subject of cars at the level crossings, how about making it so if a train hits a car on the crossing, it'll just get pushed out of the way or something? No blood or violence necessary.
Michael_Evans
thread killer
All I want to see is two trains hitting each other and ending up in zig-zag fasion or flying all over the place and also the rail/road accident.
Personally I think it's pretty funny how if a train derails and goes into a small ravine, they keep bouncing up and down against the walls. 
But no, this isn't a derailment or death simulator. If there were collision detection added, all that would be necessary would be bounding box collision detection (and interaction) between game meshes (terrain, buildings, trains, wagons, etc.) so that cars wouldn't just go through each other, more realistic physical behaviour of derailed objects (so they don't run up hills, flip around like crazy, etc.), and more accurate derailemts (so that not the entire train automatically jumps off the rails).
Alan, I do not believe a simple derailment physics improvement like that would change the rating or anything. But, if you were only against the dumb ideas such as "death and blood" and "explosions" I could see why, that stuff is completely unnecessary.
But no, this isn't a derailment or death simulator. If there were collision detection added, all that would be necessary would be bounding box collision detection (and interaction) between game meshes (terrain, buildings, trains, wagons, etc.) so that cars wouldn't just go through each other, more realistic physical behaviour of derailed objects (so they don't run up hills, flip around like crazy, etc.), and more accurate derailemts (so that not the entire train automatically jumps off the rails).
Alan, I do not believe a simple derailment physics improvement like that would change the rating or anything. But, if you were only against the dumb ideas such as "death and blood" and "explosions" I could see why, that stuff is completely unnecessary.
Well make time for it. I read the whole thread.
Last edited:
Thank you, John.:wave:
When: A soon as anything moves into the path of a train a collision is detected REGARDLESS of severity.
What to Do: pop up a box saying that a collision has been detected between xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx -- what do you want to do about it? (options a-z or whatever).
The point is that the simulation can go on, after you make the decision as to what to do. One of the options could just be re-rail the train at the point of detection. My flight sim can do most of the above if you turn on collision detection.
Say, there's an idea. How about the ability to turn it on for those who want it?
Bill
What to Do: pop up a box saying that a collision has been detected between xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx -- what do you want to do about it? (options a-z or whatever).
The point is that the simulation can go on, after you make the decision as to what to do. One of the options could just be re-rail the train at the point of detection. My flight sim can do most of the above if you turn on collision detection.
Say, there's an idea. How about the ability to turn it on for those who want it?
Bill
