collisions

[kcdowdy]

But, I agree but if you make the trains crash more realistic. :udrool:

"MSTS in my hands, Woohoo!" Would not be the way to explain it. (Even if i like to see BNSF shoot 5000 Ft. Above the air)

Therefor if you make more realistic crashes don't the games file size go up? It's 3,398,543,858 On mine now, I really would not want to deal with all that scripting going to to CMP as it is, Plus the fact that the poly count could go higher. Auran hasn't made CMP stable yet, So to think about what i'm saying here keep reading.

1. More Scripting to deal with, Meaning more Errors could come up.

2. I'm a person who would put TRS2006 In the trash if this happened, I don't like trains shooting over Buildings, Objects, I'd just go buy MSTS.

3. Think of the forums if this happened, De-Railment threads would always clog the forum.

I agree with Alan.

Say NO to Collision Detection

Sorry if i ruined somthing.

 

[LVman]

well, another thing that would be nice, into reference to Hiballers Comment:

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).

Maybe in one of those A-Z options, it could be:
Dispatch Crane, or 'Wrecker' as i like to refere it as.
Maybe the crane could act as a rollingstock portal tyoe item, so it could actually move, and pull a freight car, or locomotive back onto the rails, now that'd be nice.
Cheers,
Sean

 

[Mr.Jingles]

... Therefor if you make more realistic crashes don't the games file size go up? ...

Not considerably, no. All that is needed is a 6 Polygon mesh that is used for collision detection and that's about 5 to 10 kb in size.

... I really would not want to deal with all that scripting ...

What scripting ? If auran would implement it in a meaningful way all you would have to do is to create a cube mesh with the same outer size as the object you modeled and give it a specific name, the rest should be handled by the game engine (to use that cube mesh for collision detection).

Plus the fact that the poly count could go higher.

Yes, 6 polygons (which won't be rendered anyways I guess).

1. More Scripting to deal with, Meaning more Errors could come up.

No scripting (see above), therefore not more errors than we already have.

3. Think of the forums if this happened, De-Railment threads would always clog the forum.

And how far worse would that be besides the 20 "CMP not working", 10 "Can't Login", 50 "How do I ..." which are explained already, messages that appear dayly in the forums ?
Threads like "Boah look how I derailed today" wouldn't make any difference to that chaos.

This thread could go on forever, so my suggestion is that auran REALLY objectively considers the cummunity's wishes regarding collision detection and gives us either a definite "yes" or definite "no" as to if we will ever see that in TRS or future products.
This could put an end to this discussion and what's the Suggestions Boxcar part of the forum about if nobody from auran is responding ? (Besides the post from Alan, obviously not understanding at that time that it was not for dead bodies, blood, explosions but only for, well, collisions and improved collision physics).

Tata
Mr.Jingles

 

[kcdowdy]

I guess that was dumb.


But a "Yes" Or "No" Would be nice.

 

[HSSRAIL]

Some thoughts.

I think the G rating is necessary to have maximum market appeal. Computer processing capabilities also restrict what can be done. I look forward to a future where computer limitations will no longer apply

 

[mastertom88]

i regret starting this thread

 

[LVman]

Well, heres another impliment.
In the other games i enjoy playing in my times where i do not play trainz, one of such, known as Flat Out 2, has a simple script that allows the vehicles to take on damage when hit by other cars, or inanimate objects.
So, if we implied that type of script to a freight car here in trainz, lets forsay that i boxcar got away from its train, and it ran down the hill, and hit the buffer at the end of the tracks. depending on the speed of the car, it would show the damage of the car inflicted. Then an interactive industry, a 'car shops' of sorts could be made so that once that car is removed from the site of the accident, it can be taken to the carshops, for repair.
Im not asking it to be like when 2 locomotives collide they burst into flames, and massive amounts of life is killed, its just a simple script that could allow damage to implent onto freight cars if something was to happen, like a derailment.
Also, as another example. You know when you accidently mis-set a junction and a locomotive hits it, and goes flying in the opposite direction, that irratates me. Make it so that the locomotive simply falls off the rails, and just skids in the dirt, where a later crane could come and pick it out of the dirt.
Its just a helpful suggestion.
--Sean

 

[jivebunny]

LVman, we're not talking about causing and showing damage, we're talking about simply detecting collisions. If Auran aren't even willing to listen to us on that then there's no way they're going to be willing to implement a damage system. Not only that but showing damage would put a lot of extra work on creators, and that's not what we want. We want a simple, rudimentary system whereby the simulator can detect when one object meets another, rather than letting them slide through eachother.

I think the G rating is necessary to have maximum market appeal. Computer processing capabilities also restrict what can be done. I look forward to a future where computer limitations will no longer apply

System requirements don't really come into it, the extra polygons (which aren't even rendered) really wouldn't noticeably affect performance. Depending on how detailed and busy a route it, is will mean something between an extra few dozen to few hundred polygons added to a scene. Also, a game does not lose it's G rating just because it can detect when two objects bump into eachother. All driving games can detect two cars making contact, all adventure games can detect two characters making contact, and Microsoft Train Simulator (a sim which none of the "G rating" brigade seem to have heard about) can detect when two trains make contact. Hell, even PONG could detect collisions between two objects.

Please everyone stop posting utter nonsense about G ratings.

JB

 

[locdriver]

Besides what is said about the whole train that derails, they also all decouple at the same time...?? There are trains made that CANNOT decouple that way, like passenger trains that are attached rather than coupled, as seen on this picture.

The left one is a passengertrain that has no simple coupling mechanism and thus cannot decouple as sudden as happens in Trainz and the undamaged carriage was detached from the damaged carriage. It derails as happens in MSTS, where trains stay coupled during derailments, unless the mechanism breaks.
This way the cars uncouple right after an derailment in Trainz is not really convincing that they actually break.

I also agree with having a decend derailment with no carriages that go flying or move through each other. In the real world we say: deal with it and get it back on the track to fix the cars that are damaged and fix the track, maybe catenary too.
Why shouldn't we go a little in this direction and let carriages not move through each other... Besides, there are plenty of worktrains!!!!! It should be fun to see a few of those trains on the site (railcranes, catenary maintenance, scattercars to add gravel along the imaginary damaged track(s). Why not give them the sort of functionality they deserve?

Some of you say that Trainz is more than a hobby. Well, for me too and I know that a good derailment option lets you drive more careful and when derailed, you can see more clearly what has gone wrong. And some cars derail due to too much pressure from other carriages and get lifted out of the tracks or derail due to too much sideways pressure in a bend and then derail. If you don't want such derailments, than set the derailment option at NONE or ARCADE, instead of REALISTIC (which the realistic derailment option should get ) when Auran ever decides to implement the discussed derailment methods.
This way, people that have a PC that cannot run properly with the realistic derailments, can make use of the ARCADE derailment mode, as we have right now and this disables the scripts and other stuff that is used with the more decend derailments and runs Trainz better for them.

Mark

 

[boy_hennah1989]

or this GNER class 91 when a junction failed as it left kings cross,

i think someone said about random loco failer?? maybe when you set the train on your route, you can right click it and a box with different settings shows up, and you can set is 0%-100% chance fo the loco failing, 0 being the normal setting (i.e never fail) and 100% being a as soon as you get up to speed your going to break down, this could maybe have smoke coming form the motor (just so you know its failed, and your keyboard isnt jsut unpluged)??? so get in another loco and go rescue it

 

[Spawn_of_Chaos97]

hey all

I mentioned the Source engine. I take it that (almost) none of you have ever played Garry's Mod? There is a map called rp_subtransit that has trains that do NOT use waypoints. Instead, you sit in the cab, throw levers, and make the train go or stop. This just goes to show you that it's not impossible to do a Trainz-style train in HL2. I will admit, this train was not a model or scripted vehicle; rather, it was a part of the map (as in the mapper created it and it only worked/was avaliable on that map). Fun map though...If for no other reason, you should ALL go buy Garry's Mod 10 (for $10.00 [SERIOUSLY!]) and try out rp_subtransit before you all go saying that Source can't do TRS trains.

Sorry for the sort-of-rant, but some people just don't know 100% what they're talking about.

 

[Euphod]

Good News, all you Modelers of Mayhem!

I just read this in the Trainz Newsletter concerning Ship Sim 2008:

"NEW FEATURES INCLUDE:
# Ocean waves, with realistic ship motion # Advanced day, night and weather systems # Visible damage on ships after a collision # Long-distances trips between harbours (open sea missions) # Walkthrough options on all the new ships available"

Note the ESRB rating is "E" for everyone.

What's the reason for not allowing collisions in Trainz again? What was that? Oh, collisions in the water are gentle "bumps",....not like those nasty old trains banging together?

Ed

 

[kcdowdy]

Well going to get ship simulator, Bye guys.

 

[Forest_Runner]

LVman, we're not talking about causing and showing damage, we're talking about simply detecting collisions.

The entire first two pages of this thread doesn't comply with this statement.

New thread titled "Collision Detection" with clarity in the very first post on what it is and what it isn't is needed, if you really want this particular topic to be constructive. Request off topic posts to do with blood, guts, gore, and physical damage be moderated/removed it.

Cheers,
Simon

 

[Spawn_of_Chaos97]

Request off topic posts to do with blood, guts, gore, and physical damage be moderated/removed it.

Y'know...that's not a half bad idea. Someone who is friends with one of the mods should ask...

 

[m3henry]

We are all freinds of moderators
*goes and gives rai a big hug.

 

[Sourdough]

This thread could go on forever, so my suggestion is that auran REALLY objectively considers the cummunity's wishes regarding collision detection and gives us either a definite "yes" or definite "no" as to if we will ever see that in TRS or future products.
This could put an end to this discussion....
Tata
Mr.Jingles

I think Auran has learned by now that saying "no" to something suggested or wanted never ends the discussion.....

 

[Dmonky]

Why would we need the G rating? It's not like 4 year olds are going to play the game.

 

[RooRocz]

Flat Out 2, has a simple script that allows the vehicles to take on damage when hit by other cars, or inanimate objects.

Things wrong with this statement:

1. FlatOut, being almost entirely centered around crashing cars, uses this as it's entire selling point. It is an almost incomprehensibly complex script.
2. Cars in FlatOut are made of anywhere from 15-20 parts, each with 5-6 levels of damage. Incorporate this into Trainz, and every single piece of everything needs to be redone.

Damage levels are far too complex to possibly incorporate into Trainz, and Bugbear Entertainment (who made FlatOut) ain't gonna just give Auran the source code. We just want a simple bounding box system which is relatively easy to implement, possibly using already existing free-for-commercial-use physics engines, such as Newton or Bullet.

 

[kcdowdy]

No, The trains in Trainz are at 100% Just crash them to 10% With somthing that makes the 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% and 90% look real, Burbear and Empire might give auran the code. Might not.

You play Flatout?