Crashing in trs2009
- Thread starter wridenour
- Start date
OMG_internet
Member
As has been said before, it would improve it a lot if it was even a bit more realistic, like if it didn't ghost everytime you crashed.
Also, it would be much better if the whole train didnt derail if only 1 coach went over a point the wrong way
Also, it would be much better if the whole train didnt derail if only 1 coach went over a point the wrong way
This really gets me sometimes,why would you want to see crashes more realistic in something you clearly have a passion/interest for-maybe when people are a bit more mature they will understand crashes often trigger flashbacks of past events that can (and I know people who this has happened to)and do bring misery and years of distress.
If you like realistic crashes Trainz isn't for you,IMO I wouldn't want to see crashes more realistic,there are more important things that Auran can spend there cash improving,better physics,sound ect.
Maybe it's just a younger generation thing...
Daz
If you like realistic crashes Trainz isn't for you,IMO I wouldn't want to see crashes more realistic,there are more important things that Auran can spend there cash improving,better physics,sound ect.
Maybe it's just a younger generation thing...
Daz
Sure: derailed rolling stock will come out of the screen and into the room, so it shall be possible to experience the thrill of being smashed by a coal hopper!
springtransit
What are you looking at?
Personally, I would like to see more realistic crashes, but more in the sense tha the bogeys come off, and trains shatter, or just fall over. Also, I would like trains to be able to collide when they head towards each other too fast! Nothing too violent, but crashes should be more like the ones in MSTS.
Look at it from this perspective,if a modeler takes the time to model a loco/coach whatever,say it takes 3 months,I would very much doubt that he will want to see or include any kind of damage physics/modeling-that would just be plain wrong,I like to remember locos as they were/are without any kind of damage.Maybe I'm wrong and one day somebody will model a loco that has full damage capabilities where bogies and such like fly off,I hardly think these requests will be fulfilled in a simulation that is used by the general public,if it did,what kind of message is that sending out to potential customers,its ok to see trains smashed up?I think some Law suits would probably follow.
Just like many FPS games that make an impressionable impact on some young screwball who didn't have many friends,then goes nuts with an AK47 and kills half his schoolmates then blames the video games he was playing....I'll leave it there.
Daz
I didn't mean explotion, destruction, etc. I meant that if you, say, accidently couple too fast, that the cars would wreck (mabe fall over)and not just couple(unlike earlier Trainz versions where you could couple at 120 m.p.h. and nothing would happen).
(Not that I would try to couple at 120 m.p.h.)
(Not that I would try to couple at 120 m.p.h.)
Last edited:
OMG_internet
Member
Why is it that as soon as crashing is mentioned so many go on about destruction, carnage, fires, explosions, etc?
Has it not occured to you that maybe that's not what everyone is asking for?
A fair few would just like more realistic derailments, and to get rid of the ghosting, is this not a fair compromise between stupidly unrealistic crashes and indsanely overdramatic ones that some seem to want?
It's supposed to be a simulator, and if i screw up, i would prefer it if there was at least some realism in it, rather than ending up with rolling stock spread miles apart and going through each other and through everything else as well.
You know, maybe you could compromise between what you want and what others want rather than just taking the moral high ground to get what you want.
Has it not occured to you that maybe that's not what everyone is asking for?
A fair few would just like more realistic derailments, and to get rid of the ghosting, is this not a fair compromise between stupidly unrealistic crashes and indsanely overdramatic ones that some seem to want?
It's supposed to be a simulator, and if i screw up, i would prefer it if there was at least some realism in it, rather than ending up with rolling stock spread miles apart and going through each other and through everything else as well.
You know, maybe you could compromise between what you want and what others want rather than just taking the moral high ground to get what you want.
Last edited:
At the end of the day its only a minority who want to see derailments,trains are not meant to be derailed,they are supposed to be operated in a safe environment in a safe manner where safety systems are supposed to work akin to the real thing,that's not to say these kind of mishaps don't happen and more than often fatalities occur.
In the so many years using rail simulations,I don't think I've had more than 1 crash/derailment,so that would explain why I don't deem it necessary for more realistic derailments.
If it bothers you that much,create a poll of some kind,see what others think,or wait a few weeks and see what other responses this thread gets or you could learn animations and make some yourself.
Daz
In the so many years using rail simulations,I don't think I've had more than 1 crash/derailment,so that would explain why I don't deem it necessary for more realistic derailments.
If it bothers you that much,create a poll of some kind,see what others think,or wait a few weeks and see what other responses this thread gets or you could learn animations and make some yourself.
Daz
bernhart_lossiemouth
New member
I think the age gap is beginning to show.
Too funny !
It does appear to be a younger thing , crash your train , your bad , start over and be more careful . It is a Trainz simulator , not a Demo Derby simulator .
Train engineers that crash , are frowned on .
Damn , two hoppers headed straight for my face !
--- ,DLR
strench707
TCR Content Creator
I think it should at least be like MSTS where ccars bump into each other and get pushed around rather than ghosting. Im not looking for crumpled metal or anything, just so that the cars dont wrap around each other, like in a previous California crash (with all respect to those who were afected).
Just alittle time there by Auran and we could at least bump up to MSTS quality in that category.
With that being said I would prefer other improvements over this because this isnt what the simulation is all about.
Just my 2 cents
Davis Strench
Just alittle time there by Auran and we could at least bump up to MSTS quality in that category.
With that being said I would prefer other improvements over this because this isnt what the simulation is all about.
Just my 2 cents
Davis Strench
I don't normally post in these threads, but... I would like to see one change made, and that is if you hit the end of the track, or couple too fast (to the point that it will derail), or do something that would derail only a part of the train, then only a part should come off. This would actually allow for the interesting scenario of rescuing the other part of the train from the crash site. It would also be nice to remove the ghosting, especially if it added the ability to derail if two carriages 'hit' when on different tracks. Would probably be good to have the ability to turn this on/off though (sometimes we do need that ghosting on points when there aint enough room!).
Zec
Zec
Hi
To add a point to this interesting debate:
Virtual railroading is an evolution to the old model railways, Hornby, Tri-ang Etc.
Would you go out and buy two expensive loco's, and send them into a headlong collision?
Lets just imagine that they made it truly realistic, where a train wreck meant that the loco, AI driver and rolling stock were a complete write-off and you could never use them again. Would you still want crashes?
If realistic means a simple rolling stock derailment where you need a crane to right it, I guess that would be OK. On the other hand, if your talking about an express passenger wreck with blooded bodies everywhere, then its a definite no-no.
We have enough violence in this world, and I for one, wouldn't like it to be introduced into my hobby.
Cheers
Pete.
To add a point to this interesting debate:
Virtual railroading is an evolution to the old model railways, Hornby, Tri-ang Etc.
Would you go out and buy two expensive loco's, and send them into a headlong collision?
Lets just imagine that they made it truly realistic, where a train wreck meant that the loco, AI driver and rolling stock were a complete write-off and you could never use them again. Would you still want crashes?
If realistic means a simple rolling stock derailment where you need a crane to right it, I guess that would be OK. On the other hand, if your talking about an express passenger wreck with blooded bodies everywhere, then its a definite no-no.
We have enough violence in this world, and I for one, wouldn't like it to be introduced into my hobby.
Cheers
Pete.
Some interesting points have been stated,some posts I read there is almost a definite trend that some people actually go out of there way or enjoy this type of scenario.
I for one enjoy realistic outcomes not in the form of TRS but other simulations I play,fully deformable landscapes,rag doll physics ect,each has its place in todays simulations.
I for one enjoy realistic outcomes not in the form of TRS but other simulations I play,fully deformable landscapes,rag doll physics ect,each has its place in todays simulations.