Creating compatable scenarios in TS2009 for use in TS2010 (SpeedTree)

[AussieTiger]

If I build a layout in TS2009, does anyone know if I will be able to make all my trees forward compatible so they can be rendered using SpeedTree when TS2010 is released?

 

[wreeder]

No, Speedtree is a very expensive modeling program used to create trees for use in games. It has nothing to do with the game engine rendering the trees themselves. Auran is producing the trees using the program and will include them with 2010 as assets you can place on your route. What you can do is to use the replace asset tool to replace your old style trees with Speedtree trees once you get 2010.

William

 

[itareus]

As William said, but your 2009 trees will still work the same in 2010 as they do in 2009, so you only need to replace them with "Speedtrees" if you want to.

Worth looking on the DLS for trees created recently by authors "Jankvis" and "TNM" these are not "Speedtrees" but have been created to work OK for 2009 Native mode. The thumbnail images will show "made for 09" or similar.

 

[AussieTiger]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies!

I'm in the early stages of working on a fairly large layout and wasn't looking forward to placing thousands of trees only to have to replace them all at a later stage, but didn't think of the obvious - the 'replace asset' tool!

I wonder how many different tree types there will be? I would like to keep the number of different assets down to a minimum - without making the scenery look repetitive and boring. Does anyone have a rule of thumb they use?

What about draw distance? ts2009 can handle up to 5km (which probably no-one actually uses at the moment, but with advances in graphics card technology it won't be long...)

I'm aware that from the inside of the cab on flat terrain you can't see more than a board or two either side of the track, but it's when you zoom out in third person view that you need a whole lot of board to be a bit more immersive, and not feel like you're driving on someone's coffee table.

I intend to use accurate topographical information and complex scenery roughly a single board either side of track, and then use simpler, generic scenery in the medium distance, and finally only texture the boards at the extremes. Would this be a good approach in your opinion?

 

[itareus]

I wonder how many different tree types there will be? I would like to keep the number of different assets down to a minimum - without making the scenery look repetitive and boring. Does anyone have a rule of thumb they use?

As a general rule the fewer different assets you have the better your frame rates wil be but it's all a balance and getting the look right is important to me. Following this rule using the same assets in the background as in the foreground makes good sense. Newer assets use LOD (Level Of Detail) steps which basically means that in the distance they are less machine intensive than in the foreground.

I intend to use accurate topographical information and complex scenery roughly a single board either side of track, and then use simpler, generic scenery in the medium distance, and finally only texture the boards at the extremes. Would this be a good approach in your opinion?

I would try and keep the track in the center of one board with a 5m grid for better terrain shaping (this will not always be possible where the route curves of course. Personally I would then only have 1 or max two boards either side using 10m grid (less polys = better performance). Finishing off the "horizon" carefully using hills, trees etc. can fool the eye (brain?) into believing there is land beyond. Have you considered backdrops? (not many about so you would probably have to make your own).

The other aspect is that you will soon be "burnt out" if you try and work on too much detail everywhere and on too many boards.

Just my opinions here - this is a very subjective topic!

Cheers

Chris

 

[wreeder]

I believe that Chris (Windwalkr) has said that 2010 will come with about 100 or more Speedtree models. I know from looking at the program it is easy to create variants once you have the basic tree design for a tree species so there should be a wide range of choices in the finished product.

William

 

[Vern]

I would try and keep the track in the center of one board with a 5m grid for better terrain shaping (this will not always be possible where the route curves of course. Personally I would then only have 1 or max two boards either side using 10m grid (less polys = better performance). Finishing off the "horizon" carefully using hills, trees etc. can fool the eye (brain?) into believing there is land beyond. Have you considered backdrops? (not many about so you would probably have to make your own).

Unfortunately the current trend seems to be a demand to service distant mountains and increased draw distance but this increase considerably workload for the route builder.When using Transdem, I normally apply a filter to add 6 or 7 boards either side of the track centre-line. Obviously not all those are going to be high detail and at the outer edges some generic textures should suffice to represent distant terrain. In some places you can trim back, for example where the whole area is behind a ridge and wouldn't be visible from the train even if using exterior view.

On the US inspired route I'm currently building, I've chosen 3 - 4 basic tree types to use as the forest through which the line runs for much of its length. That allows easy copy and paste for the bulk of surrounding scenery, placing some more detailed trees and grass splines etc. immediately next to the line.

I'm quite curious to see how Speedtrees will work with this approach, once TS2010 arrives and I'm ready to start building a new route.