collisions
- Thread starter mastertom88
- Start date
You play the game of business?
If you had a closely guarded trade secret which is the only thing earning money and someone went up to you and said,"Hey, can I use your [secret thing]?"
you'd say,
"No."
Also, I play Burnout, which is the high-speed equivalent of Flatout.
Do you have any concept of physics simulation? Here we have two options:
A. Make everyone redo their models to include 10 (10x the production time) entirely new damage levels. (Very difficult)
B. Develop an advanced softbody system (such as in Rigs of Rods) which can use Auran JET files. (Impossible without quantum computers and well over a terrabyte of RAM.)
It ain't gonna work.
Let me restate this: We want a simple bounding box system.
Mr.Jingles
Master of Disaster
Exactly. A simple Bounding Box Collision System with Objects interacting with one another, not just the terrain (and even that is behaving horrible right now).
It's not like we are asking for things like these shown in the Ageia Tech Demos. (Dynamically Deformable Objects, Bending Metal and real Fluids)
We, the more realistical thinking ones, simply don't want to see trains running through each other anymore, or watching an entire 100 wagon train jump off its rails because the loco derails at 10 mph and then watch all these wagons run up hills, flip around crazily, etc.
Sane people are harder and harder to find these days. Congrats, you seem to be one of them in this topic
.Tata
Mr.Jingles
As has been stated already, Trainz is a driving simulator, not a smash-em-up demolition Derby. If you you experience a collision, you have failed.
I wonder what the reaction would be, if Auran managed to include a collision detection feature that, physically propelled the driver's chair into the nearest wall, and fried the computer's motherboard.
Now that would be a realistic simulation of a collision.
Cheers
I wonder what the reaction would be, if Auran managed to include a collision detection feature that, physically propelled the driver's chair into the nearest wall, and fried the computer's motherboard.
Now that would be a realistic simulation of a collision.
Cheers
Mr.Jingles
Master of Disaster
And nobody was asking for a crashing simulator, were we ? No.
I don't know what people take to always come up with such assumptions. (Not trying to offend you)
And when I experience a collision, let me experience it and don't let the wagons phase-shift through each other and defy all laws of physics.
TRS is a Trainz Railroad Simulator, right ?
Wikipedia has a nice quote about "Simulation" : "A computer simulation is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer so that it can be studied to see how the system works."
Same thing refers to a Simulator.
I know, I'm getting down on a pretty "low" level with this ...
I wonder what the reaction would be, if Auran managed to include a collision detection feature that, physically propelled the driver's chair into the nearest wall, and fried the computer's motherboard.
Now that would be a realistic simulation of a collision.
Cheers
That's an easy one, then Auran would have to face about 300.000 lawsuits for intentionally demolishing customers equipment and body injury. :hehe:
Tata
Mr.Jingles
I'm sorry. I thought this thread contained complaints about the lack of realism in simulating collisions.
No offence taken, but if you like, I can cut and paste the statements that led me to this "assumption".
That sounds very like you are suggesting a crashing simulator.
Not really. It's a computer game based on a simulator. A real simulator would cost you hundreds of thousands of bucks, and a good one, millions. Even then, the crash at the end, when you fail, is not that graphic.
That's what would happen in a 100% accurate simulator. Tongue in cheek, I know, but I think it makes my point, even if taken to the extreme.
Cheers
My opinion FWIW:
It's the conditions under which the program detects a collision that ideally could be improved. At the moment a collision is only detected if the couplers meet, so rolling stock vehicles sometimes drive through each other without the program sensing a collision. What I reckon we want is that a collision is detected whenever any parts of two rolling stock vehicles meet, this being implemented by means of simple bounding boxes.
How the program reacts visually to a collision might be a bit fanciful at the moment but it is acceptable IMHO. I don't think this needs to be changed at all.
John
It's the conditions under which the program detects a collision that ideally could be improved. At the moment a collision is only detected if the couplers meet, so rolling stock vehicles sometimes drive through each other without the program sensing a collision. What I reckon we want is that a collision is detected whenever any parts of two rolling stock vehicles meet, this being implemented by means of simple bounding boxes.
How the program reacts visually to a collision might be a bit fanciful at the moment but it is acceptable IMHO. I don't think this needs to be changed at all.
John
Spawn_of_Chaos97
Trainz for Everyone!
TRS supports "crash boxes" only around the couplers.
The steam boxes would only be useful for smoke. Nothing else. Really sux...
The steam boxes would only be useful for smoke. Nothing else. Really sux...
Spawn_of_Chaos97
Trainz for Everyone!
And here is a beautiful video of what is WRONG with the current collision detection system (just the pit and wall glitch parts):
Video link (YouTube)
Video link (YouTube)
magickmaker
New member
I'm passing this on partly as just facts, and partly hoping it can explain some things. I haven't read all the posts, but that shouldn't detract from what I have to say.
Before coming to Trainz, I was a builder in MSTS. Much of my time was spent cutting my teeth as it were, building locomotives and rolling stock there. So, I became pretty experienced at dealing with the MSTS config files. I forget their exact name, but these files similar to trainz, have a ton of information in them.
When you build a Model in msts, you don't include the bounding box with it. In fact you don't include much beyond the naming convention. Wheels1, Bogey1, wheels2, bogey2, Etc.
The bounding box doesn't come into play until you get to the config file...and that's where things can get tricky.
In an ideal situation, your bounding box should be just under the size of the car's length over it's buffers or coupler. The reason for this was to allow a reasonably realistic looking coupling. The problem was, finding that exact size. In most cases you'd spend a good week toying with the box just trying to get everything set right. Apparently this box was figured into the mechanics of the game, making it automatic when exported using the MSTS exporter.
Now, the boxes on MSTS weren't perfect. you could seriously muck things up if you weren't careful. Get the box too large and it could conflict with another one. Too small and you have cars coupling into each other or worst case, derailing the instant the train started.
The whole config problems (getting it all perfect) actually spawned a group of people who only did that. The best of them was a lady who went under the name BNSFLady, but sadly she died middle of last year. I don't know who does it now.
________
Volcano classic vaporizer
Before coming to Trainz, I was a builder in MSTS. Much of my time was spent cutting my teeth as it were, building locomotives and rolling stock there. So, I became pretty experienced at dealing with the MSTS config files. I forget their exact name, but these files similar to trainz, have a ton of information in them.
When you build a Model in msts, you don't include the bounding box with it. In fact you don't include much beyond the naming convention. Wheels1, Bogey1, wheels2, bogey2, Etc.
The bounding box doesn't come into play until you get to the config file...and that's where things can get tricky.
In an ideal situation, your bounding box should be just under the size of the car's length over it's buffers or coupler. The reason for this was to allow a reasonably realistic looking coupling. The problem was, finding that exact size. In most cases you'd spend a good week toying with the box just trying to get everything set right. Apparently this box was figured into the mechanics of the game, making it automatic when exported using the MSTS exporter.
Now, the boxes on MSTS weren't perfect. you could seriously muck things up if you weren't careful. Get the box too large and it could conflict with another one. Too small and you have cars coupling into each other or worst case, derailing the instant the train started.
The whole config problems (getting it all perfect) actually spawned a group of people who only did that. The best of them was a lady who went under the name BNSFLady, but sadly she died middle of last year. I don't know who does it now.
________
Volcano classic vaporizer
Last edited:
Spawn_of_Chaos97
Trainz for Everyone!
If the game engine supports it...
wow tis thread takes a while to get all the way through...that being said, collisions need to be improved in this game badly, some D-6 sidebooms and a couple of 966s showing up to rerail stuff would be too cool, probably not very feasible...and sometimes, in the midst of frustration, being able to have a "Gomez Adams moment," might just add a little levity to a long day...
Spawn_of_Chaos97
Trainz for Everyone!
Well, you can break a coupler. Axles, not so much (though seeing wheels rolling away would be funny XD). And...what's a hotbox?
:hehe:
Watch that smiley! XD
Watch that smiley! XD
Spawn_of_Chaos97
Trainz for Everyone!
Ah, ok. Thanks John!
honestly, i prefer minimal derailments, much like the ones that the game has now. running thru switches, sideswiping trains, runnin over bumpers, heck, even humping cars to fast into the bowl, creates some sense of realism, however, i am honestly glad it doesn't do it alot easier like derailing cause of bypassed couplers in curves (wipes sweat off forehead) or kicking cars into another cut to knock the cars into the clear so i can keep switching. for what its worth, derailments are a headache, both in real life and on here. at work, we derail, gotta call the drug test lady, and the army of managers that make up the particular railroad i am employed by. on trs2006 i have yet to figure out a way to clean up the mess besides starting over, so while the realism is NICE, i have to say derailments completely suck. :mop: :mop: :mop:
