...The Darkness begins to Fall...
Have You seen this
- Thread starter robin_hoods
- Start date
...The Darkness begins to Fall...
You really have no clue do you ?
I apologize crohakon, I did not mean it in a mean way. I just don't think (or maybe you do) how passionate these guys are about what they do. Some of these guys have been doing this for a long time and only know this way of creating. I'm like that myself. But, I do want to learn to some good normal mapping.
I would love to be able to do normal mapping and would be willing to learn, but I find blender just too foreign and difficult and I can't afford 3ds, so what's a poor old guy to do. Just get left behind in the dust. I'll really miss making content for everyone. Yes, I've tried the Blender tutorials. The program just isn't very user friendly.
narrowgauge
92 year oldTrainz veteran
Leeferr
This comment is just below one of yours in another thread. Normals mapping is also possible in Gmax, if you search the forum you will find posts on the subject.
I agree with your comment about Blender.
Peter
This comment is just below one of yours in another thread. Normals mapping is also possible in Gmax, if you search the forum you will find posts on the subject.
I agree with your comment about Blender.
Peter
American_Connections
AC MonkeyWrench Models
I'll help :hehe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_mapping
http://wiki.polycount.net/Normal_Map
http://www.bencloward.com/tutorials_normal_maps1.shtml
http://www.3dtotal.com/team/Tutorials_3/normal_mapping/normal_mapping01.php
http://forums.mapcore.net/viewtopic.php?t=6806&sid=24b8d1cc5fbc59f3f2b59012e1d5b5e8
Though most of the above deal with 3DS Max , I'll add this link for xNormal
http://www.xnormal.net/1.aspx
You'll find that in the last couple releases of Max , RRT is somewhat broken , use xNormal instead .
Sci
From the wikibook - a Normal Mapping Tutorial
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trainz/Tutorial_for_Normal_mapping_(TRS2009)
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trainz/Tutorial_for_Normal_mapping_(TRS2009)
A new version of Blender is due out the middle of this year and I looked at the alpha 1 version, available for download, with the layout entirely different to the previous versions which may make it easier to understand....Just the opposite for me though as I am used to the older versions, having used it for about 8 years, and I also use its integrated game engine for boats and barges as there is a realistic phyhsics function for collisions, etc. Also a script can be found for meshes for srtm2 data...... B ............P.S.........Blender blend files I have used and reloaded into Blender over several years and they all still work, and used them for trainz DS through gmax, so in my opinion there is very little wrong with ALL the content on the DS. Configurations and changes to alpha textures are a different matter dependant on programming and it's functions and some peoples change of attititudes and interests.... But not my concern will concentrate on Blender and maybe open rails at a later date......B
Last edited:
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Well, this is what that link gives me:
Smiley.
The correct link is
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trainz/Tutorial_for_Normal_mapping_(TRS2009)
and also there is
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trainz/Tutorial_for_incorporating_normalmaps_using_Blender_(TRS2009)
Cheerio John
American_Connections
AC MonkeyWrench Models
Thanks for that!
Very good annswer! I never used this mapping for my models, just made the parts ort set images on a plane. Seems eazier to me!
Well this debate seems to be running on several threads with discussions in the version specific forums too.
My take on the situation - not a particularly customer friendly move by Auran. Although I purchased 009 and 010, I'm still doing my route building in 006. Despite what was said a few pages back, a computer (particularly laptop) that will happily run 004 or 006 will not necessarily run the latest version. I've already posted previously about the performance issues I have with 010 once starting to apply terrain texture so it is simply not possible to do the route building in 010. Auran themselves admitted the hardware requirement for TS2010 would be much steeper, even to the point of recommending 64 bit systems and delaying release to try and ensure it ran at all on 32 bit systems. As an aside the same laptop runs Railworks quite happily on medium to high settings, but I'm digressing slightly.
Can Auran please explain by what reasoning a route created in TRS2006 using largely built in content (which of course is all error free - ha!) will not be permitted for upload even though it will work perfectly okay in the "current" versions?
I also agree with the sentiments about what is meant by "support". Yes if I buy an old game for £4.99, I accept so far as technical support is concerned I'm on my own and will be lucky if there's even a pdf manual or readme on the disc. However TRS2006 was the current version pretty much up to the end of 2008 so yes, it may be 5 years since it was released but ignoring the TC diversion I suspect along with 004 it is the single most sold version, in all its various guises. I'm sure this tack of "004/006 owners were customers in the past" tactic was tried when the company tried to persuade us TC was the way forward.
Trainz has always been about the culmative development and one of the selling points has always been the huge range of content that users can call on - regardless of which version it was (or is) created in. I could maybe understand if TS2010 had been a completely new product (as MSTS2 would have to MSTS1), but when itself ships with all the old 1.0, 1.3 and UTC stuff in there and even my dire Glasgow to Falkirk effort, the company is being a tad hypocritical to say that content developed in those older versions will no longer be accepted.
However, a bit like industrial relations these days, it appears Auran are set on doing this and consultation consists of telling us in a backdoor way how and when it will happen. So the question going forward has to be, how do those of us who wish to work round and continue creating in 004 or 006 do so?
The simplest solution, if you own the later versions seems to be create the route in TRS2006, import it and clone/save in TS2010 so it gets a current version number then upload it in TS2010. However that doesn't help those who want to run in an older version. There's also the issue that at some point the developer's TRS2006 will no longer be allowed CMP access to the DLS to obtain assets, even if you own a later version. End users will face similar problems. And this is always assuming Auran don't have some clever means of policing routes that have been created in 004/006 and purely ported through 010 for upload.
The other solution, as mooted, is to use an external site such as T-S.com or UKTS or even a CD-ROM. In actual fact, that's no real biggie for me as I've already done it with routes that exceeded the DLS file size limit. The issue again of course is that even if the route developer has a good store of third party scenery, potential end users on TRS2006 won't be able to get the dependencies (and AFAIK CMP won't let you package other than your own KUID items into the cdp, leaving aside the permissions that might not be readily forthcoming). It wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to build a route using built in content supplemented by my own 3D creations, which for independent distribution won't be subject to the DLS checking procedures and the DLS won't get a sniff of it.
Please don't get me wrong. I would love to build my routes in TS2010 and take advantage of all the new features, but as stated above I can't. I'm not prepared to spend money on a new laptop I don't need, given the existing one runs 006 and RW perfectly well with no guarantee after putting out £600 TS2010 will perform any better than now. There's other more pressing things around the house and garden that need that amount of cash spending on them.
In fact, I'm now tempted to do a clean install of TRS2006 (and TS2010 for what it's worth) and construct routes using only the built in content. It will be a great shame to no longer be able to use the DM Drake Cityscape dioramas or JVC trees, but thus is the price of progress. Even if I can ultimately get TS2010 running satisfactorily I think that will be the same policy - independent operation and Auran have lost a FCT renewal in the process.
In conclusion, Auran are taking a big gamble with this course of action and it will be interesting to see how it all turns out. At what point will the pre 006 forums disappear and discussion of earlier versions in the general sections be prohibited? I have a feeling the attrition ratio will be a lot more than 2:1, if you factor in those who continue to build but stick two fingers up at the DLS, even for stuff made in later versions (which will itself be obsoleted in 2014).
My take on the situation - not a particularly customer friendly move by Auran. Although I purchased 009 and 010, I'm still doing my route building in 006. Despite what was said a few pages back, a computer (particularly laptop) that will happily run 004 or 006 will not necessarily run the latest version. I've already posted previously about the performance issues I have with 010 once starting to apply terrain texture so it is simply not possible to do the route building in 010. Auran themselves admitted the hardware requirement for TS2010 would be much steeper, even to the point of recommending 64 bit systems and delaying release to try and ensure it ran at all on 32 bit systems. As an aside the same laptop runs Railworks quite happily on medium to high settings, but I'm digressing slightly.
Can Auran please explain by what reasoning a route created in TRS2006 using largely built in content (which of course is all error free - ha!) will not be permitted for upload even though it will work perfectly okay in the "current" versions?
I also agree with the sentiments about what is meant by "support". Yes if I buy an old game for £4.99, I accept so far as technical support is concerned I'm on my own and will be lucky if there's even a pdf manual or readme on the disc. However TRS2006 was the current version pretty much up to the end of 2008 so yes, it may be 5 years since it was released but ignoring the TC diversion I suspect along with 004 it is the single most sold version, in all its various guises. I'm sure this tack of "004/006 owners were customers in the past" tactic was tried when the company tried to persuade us TC was the way forward.
Trainz has always been about the culmative development and one of the selling points has always been the huge range of content that users can call on - regardless of which version it was (or is) created in. I could maybe understand if TS2010 had been a completely new product (as MSTS2 would have to MSTS1), but when itself ships with all the old 1.0, 1.3 and UTC stuff in there and even my dire Glasgow to Falkirk effort, the company is being a tad hypocritical to say that content developed in those older versions will no longer be accepted.
However, a bit like industrial relations these days, it appears Auran are set on doing this and consultation consists of telling us in a backdoor way how and when it will happen. So the question going forward has to be, how do those of us who wish to work round and continue creating in 004 or 006 do so?
The simplest solution, if you own the later versions seems to be create the route in TRS2006, import it and clone/save in TS2010 so it gets a current version number then upload it in TS2010. However that doesn't help those who want to run in an older version. There's also the issue that at some point the developer's TRS2006 will no longer be allowed CMP access to the DLS to obtain assets, even if you own a later version. End users will face similar problems. And this is always assuming Auran don't have some clever means of policing routes that have been created in 004/006 and purely ported through 010 for upload.
The other solution, as mooted, is to use an external site such as T-S.com or UKTS or even a CD-ROM. In actual fact, that's no real biggie for me as I've already done it with routes that exceeded the DLS file size limit. The issue again of course is that even if the route developer has a good store of third party scenery, potential end users on TRS2006 won't be able to get the dependencies (and AFAIK CMP won't let you package other than your own KUID items into the cdp, leaving aside the permissions that might not be readily forthcoming). It wouldn't be the end of the world if I had to build a route using built in content supplemented by my own 3D creations, which for independent distribution won't be subject to the DLS checking procedures and the DLS won't get a sniff of it.
Please don't get me wrong. I would love to build my routes in TS2010 and take advantage of all the new features, but as stated above I can't. I'm not prepared to spend money on a new laptop I don't need, given the existing one runs 006 and RW perfectly well with no guarantee after putting out £600 TS2010 will perform any better than now. There's other more pressing things around the house and garden that need that amount of cash spending on them.
In fact, I'm now tempted to do a clean install of TRS2006 (and TS2010 for what it's worth) and construct routes using only the built in content. It will be a great shame to no longer be able to use the DM Drake Cityscape dioramas or JVC trees, but thus is the price of progress. Even if I can ultimately get TS2010 running satisfactorily I think that will be the same policy - independent operation and Auran have lost a FCT renewal in the process.
In conclusion, Auran are taking a big gamble with this course of action and it will be interesting to see how it all turns out. At what point will the pre 006 forums disappear and discussion of earlier versions in the general sections be prohibited? I have a feeling the attrition ratio will be a lot more than 2:1, if you factor in those who continue to build but stick two fingers up at the DLS, even for stuff made in later versions (which will itself be obsoleted in 2014).
Just to point out, Jankvis' (on the DLS) JVC trees, shrubs, grass and so-on all work 100% fine in native mode. The only reason they'd possibly get considered for an asset cull would be the build number alone. Jankvis is still around and contributing, so I imagine if it *really* came down to culling pre '2.9' or so assets like that, he'd probably change the build numbers (about 20 seconds of work - mass open for edit, use a regex-based search and replace tool to replace 'trainz-build "2.0"' with 'trainz-build "2.9"', and mass commit). I think *one* of his trees has a warning, and that's it. DMDrake's stuff is mostly error/warning free too, although a couple of his textures require fixing, I haven't tried his cityscapes though.
If all he has to do is change a build number, please, tell me how all this "upgrade" is a benefit to anyone. Other than strong arming everyone into buying new versions of Trainz I see zero benefit in any of this.
Yes, I bought 09. It's on a shelf and 06 and TC are loaded back up and being used.
Dave.....
Yes, I bought 09. It's on a shelf and 06 and TC are loaded back up and being used.
Dave.....
Because Jankvis isn't representative of 99.9% of the stuff on the DLS. He made sure that his assets are 'correct'.
When your assets are already 100% native-mode compatible, it's not a big deal, but then we have stuff like this on the DLS:
And it's not that the filenames are wrong, or anything like that, half of those textures are plain JUST NOT THERE the attachment points don't exist, etc etc.
That asset likely never worked in the first place, not as the author intended, the missing textures probably showed up in some default colour in 2004 and so noone figured to look inside and make sure it wasn't just 'broken'. Making trainz continue to 'try to guess the right thing', or provide defaults that may rely on slow/inefficient render-paths just isn't viable if trainz intends to remain competitive, so these assets that are utterly broken need to be dealt with.
We can hold up the good content creators, like jankvis and such, that paid attention to what they were doing all we want, but it won't make the bad assets that are on the DLS any better.
This is technically true - we've lifted the min spec in TS2010, in part due to SpeedTree, and in part due to the fact that content has become a lot 'heavier' since the previous min spec was devised. However, you should find that the current min spec is more than adequate for running the game. If you're above min spec and are having problems with basic functionality, you should be paying careful attention to your settings and drivers to find out why.
For example, try changing your Anti-aliasing setting (on by default now, whereas before it was off by default.) Try testing both OpenGL and DirectX mode in case your specific hardware doesn't deal well with whichever mode you're in currently. Try updating your drivers.
In overall terms, as others have said, TS2010 typically runs noticeably better than older versions of the game, assuming the same content and the same hardware.
We've been through all this before, but for the sake of getting you a simple answer- we are beginning the process of phasing out support for the older file formats. The first step of this process is to drop support for uploads, so that the older content will 'dry up' over time.
Additionally, it allows us to be very clear about the technical quality of the uploads. This mainly applies to other types of content rather than routes, but it's still relevant. Older content versions are not rigorously tested as we are well aware that there would be a very high failure rate- this is not a dig at the people who created that content, but a simple realisation that there weren't any good validation tools available at the time most of the content was built. Rather than blanket declare the majority of the older content as 'faulty', we're taking the approach of accepting only higher-version content which is tested much more rigorously.
Finally, it should be obvious that a TS2010-version route is much more likely to have been tested in TS2010. There's a fairly good chance that a TRS2004 route has never been tested in TS2010. Regardless of any automated validation we might attempt, human testing is still the ultimate in determining whether a given content item actually works properly. The majority of our paying customers now and in the future are purchasing TS2009 or newer. That's what we've spent the six years since TRS2004 developing, and that's where we're putting our focus moving on from here. We don't see that serving untested (in their version) routes to the customers is beneficial.
As always, no-one can accurately predict the future. I'd say it's less of a gamble to give the majority of our paying customers what they are asking for. In any discussion of the DLS, it almost inevitably comes down to "there's a lot of content, but much of it is faulty." We plan to change that.
chris