Quality or Detail?

[SantaFebuff]

Quality or detail? What would that mean, well, most pick up on a few guesses, but let me specify. Would you prefer a route with low detail and possibly mostly default content that is fun to drive, but no a wonder to look at? Or a route that is a detailed wonderland, but has no backbone to it? I prefer the routes with low detail and good driving. (Well, that's coming from an Integrated Intel Express Family Chipset series user.) However, the result might be different with someone able to actually load 10 JointedRail or RRMods locomotives without a problem.

I like to know what your opinion! (Yes, both is an option.) However, I'm talking about what your computer can take. So, that is my influence for my choice.

Cheers,
Joshua

 

[BobCass]

Hi SantaFebuff: I agree with what you said..I too like to watch good runs..I don't like switching routes persay, but I definitely like to watch trains run..


Bob Cass

 

[stagecoach]

You have a big problem then. Both types of people are out there, those that want to work for a living and those that like to sit in the cab or carriage and watch the view as they travel along the line. I prefer routes that have a mixture of both that way i can change mode without changing routes.

 

[angelah]

Routes that run

Why not have detailed routes that run? Hopefully mine do!

Angela

 

[Hot_Box_Detector]

Why not have detailed routes that run? Hopefully mine do! Angela

Angela: You do make beautiful routes, unfortunately, my hardware is lacking, and I'm not able to run them. Maybe I should give them another try in 2010 and see how they do.

SantaFebuff: You have asked the $64,000 question. It seems as though there is constantly a trade off with Trainz. New versions are released with changes made...some improve graphics, some changes break things, where content is concerned. In my opinion, the routes made by people who build with this in mind make the routes with those limitations in mind...resulting in the best overall outcome, visually and operationally.
I would have to say that I prefer "a route with low detail and possibly mostly default content that is fun to drive".
Mike

 

[NIARTcar]

. (Well, that's coming from an Integrated Intel Express Family Chipset series user.) However, the result might be different with someone able to actually load 10 JointedRail or RRMods locomotives without a problem.

I am proud to say that I am in that club, regardless of the route size, I can run rediculus amounts of highly detailed content.

However, I prefer more simplistic well layed out layouts. face it, a good route starts with good track work, and often times we see now that one can hide bad track work with over detail,

 

[sparky15]

Balance.

Sometimes a nice long run is just the ticket. Sit back and relax and watch the world go by. Other times an intense switchlist fills the bill as a local dodging mainline traffic. A route that can do both is a real winner in my book.

Content wise, only enough to make the scene viable should be added. Out on the mainline at 40MPH plus, who is going to notice a bucket next to a house for instance. In an urban or industrial setting at slower speeds the more detail the better. If you can consider each section of a route as a separate "scene" you can concentrate on assets more apt to that area. Mainline, more trees and bushes, less clutter. Urban and industrial, less trees and more clutter. Just like in real life and balances out the frame rates.

My downfall in Trainz is once I start on a particular area I tend to go a little crazy. If I don't stop myself a one board section turns into two or three more just for scenery. I'm not moving and start noticing and adding to much. That is part of the fun but kills me when I actually go to operate the thing. For me surveyor is just as much fun as driver, some days more so.

Angela, you do make some very fine looking routes. Its been a while since I've had one on my computer though. With limited disc space I had a habit of rotating routes on and of my system. Now that I'm back to Trainz, I should reload one or two for inspiration. I do like the screenshots from Dermmy's new EK as well. Very clever use of hillsides and minimal, for lack of a better term, scenery items to create what I consider some of the most realistic looking scenery in Trainz.

Anyway, just my opinions.

Dave.....

 

[AnalogOldguy]

I will vote for "fun". If I leave a driving session and say to myself, "gee that was fun!" That is what I am looking for the most in Trainz.

Things that tend to increase my fun factor: if the route feels somehow real and also interesting. For instance, if the curves of the track seem realistic. And the placement of scenery and industries look like they are in a "real" world!

Also if I get the feeling that I have driven a "real" train in a realistic looking situation, and have accomplished some "real" passenger or industrial chores, and it has to be interesting ! as opposed to tedious or boring !

Low, aggravating frame rates will always affect my fun. I'm always happier downloading less scenery for a route or removing some scenery from a dense area so that the frame rate "hit" does not distract me.

Just my two cents. Thanks for starting this thread Joshua! Bob P.

 

[wklang]

Over the years I've drooled over the detailed layouts in Model Railroader - the fantastic attention to detail.

I've never had the space, the money, the time, or felt that I had - or even could develop - the skills to create something at that level.

However, I've seen a number of one and two board routes where the authors were trying to duplicate these detailed routes and these routes really catch my attention. These small routes - in my opinion - probably are not attractive to "drivers and switchers" - but are of real interest to me - creating detailed 'worlds' in the train environment...with the emphasis on detail. I don't need space or money - just time....and I am now retired.


Because of my interest in small layouts, frame rates from my view point are not important because I'm not driving three 50-car freights at 50 mph through country with 100's of assets.

I have no idea what percentage of Trainz users are interested in detailed, small routes, but I've often wondered if there would be any interest in a class of assets where the number of polys would be irrelevant.

I see assets on the DLS with the _2D suffix which I assume means low-poly count in order not to adversely affect frame rate. Maybe we could use assets with a _HD suffix (for highly-detailed) for use by people interested in small routes.

Just my two cents.

Wes

 

[sparky15]

Like you, I also love model railroads. Now I have the time, I don't have the space. Always a catch 22 with that hobby.

I agree about the small railroads. Just as much fun in them as any other route. Right now I'm building the Naugatuck Valley from an issue of model railroader. Originally it was designed to fit a 32" door. Through the magic of surveyor I'm able to expand it to the NV Plus. Still keep the basic plan but loose the ultra compactness by making it a two board route, plus a few extras for the portals.

The route I've had the most fun with was the Bear Paw Lumber Co. route I downloaded at virtual railroads site. Not much to it but having AI trains come and go while dropping off cars for you to switch is pretty neat. Very nice looking and thought out route for what it is. Kind of carrying the idea over into what I'm doing now. That capability is what brought me back to Trainz from RS (despite my rant over my current version).

I'm still trying to locate a plan from Jim Hediger's original Ohio Southern from the late 70's. It was in the first issue of Model Railroader I ever bought and has stuck with me. I still can't build a route like that for real but would love to do it in Trainz.

In my long winded way I share your interest in small routes. I too would be interested in "small route" assets as well.

Dave.....

 

[angelah]

Hardware

It has to be said, I suffered the very same problems with my own routes, they stuttered on run. To combat this I did several things. First I upgraded my PC to a 3.4 Gig Processor and had 4 Gig of RAM put in. The shop also installed a good video card with its own RAM on board.
Then, and as in real life I cannot see for ever, I went into Preferences and pulled on a fair whack of Daytime Fog effect and while I was at it reduced both Draw Distances because if the fog cuts down distance vision then you don't need full draw distance, do you?
These cured all problems. A bit expensive, but it worked. To do a job you need the right tools and for Trainz a PC with good specs. If you enjoy running it invest in a decent machine to run it on. It's your hobby after all and we all know how easy it is to get hooked.

I agree with the sentiments about not seeing a bucket in a garden as you whizz past at goodness knows what speed. So I put detail by the tracks and reduce it as the distance from them increases, and I reduce detail very quickly now. The one thing I do not stint on are trees, because they big and therefore are visible for a great distance.
The built-in view distance in 2004 (in which I build routes) is limited anyway, even at full stretch, so I put nothing at all once scenery reaches 1200 feet each side from track centres, there is little point, but I do put in a backscene.

The run my routes a little better just fiddle with the Preferences first, it works and costs nothing. And I find by removing the heads-up in Driver you get an extra notch on the frame rate. Yes, I do check frame rates, I know folk won't believe me, but I do! I have FRAPS running when I build in Surveyor.

The route I am working on now is the second section from Theale to Westbury which will butt nicely to the first part that runs from Paddington to Theale. It does, I tried it. UK of course, and on the line running from Paddington to Penzance. Because it runs west I called it WCL (west coast line, which it isn't of course).
For this section you will need the ATLS assets as they are fitted to the road crossings. These are good assets and will work with lift or swing bridges too.

Bless all Trainzers,

Angela

 

[sparky15]

Part of my save "routine" is to place a locomotive on the track and go to quick drive. I also place an object like a silo in the area I've just worked on.

Using the views of the locomotive gives me a good idea where to stop the detailing. Once I reach the edge of the camera view the detail falls of to just basic shapes, like a hillside and some trees to create a view block. When I move to the next section I move the silo along as a sort of gauge to give me a guesstimate of where to stop with the detail. Its the only way I know how to stop myself.

Dave...

 

[jadebullet]

Why not have detailed routes that run? Hopefully mine do!

Angela

You hit the nail on the head. I prefer my routes to have stuff to do, mainlines for just watching trains, and detailed scenery. In my opinion, if the scenery is bad, it will start to get to you after a while, and you will start detailing the area yourself... or is that just me.

 

[ray_whiley]

This discussion reminds of the difference in railway modelling between creators and operators. I count as creators those who enjoy making models - rolling stock, buildings, landscapes etc. - but are not particularly interested in operating, perhaps because they lack space for a large layout - I was one of these for over 45 years. Operators are those who, to quote Cyril Freezer, would be happy to operate a string of tennis balls as long as they observed signals, ran to timetable and obeyed the rule book.
Which brings me to the point of this contribution - would there be any interest in what I would call a basic layout? By this I mean the kind of layout which was the norm before the likes of John Ahern (Madderport) and Peter Denny (Buckingham), among others, began the trend for creating a railway in a complete scenic setting? This basic layout would have only the track, signals, platforms, station buildings including signal box and goods shed, in fact only items closely associated with the railway. This could be operated immediately, with the choice of scenic setting and level of detail left to the eventual user.
For example, in July 2007 I laid the track etc. for the West Norfolk branch from a junction at Heacham, on the King's Lynn to Hunstanton railway of the GER/LNER, to Wells-next-the-Sea (or Wells-on-Sea as BR had it) but have never got around to adding scenery as I started to use TACS, and making models again took over. I may finish it one day so I'm not proposing that one for the DLS until finished. But I often lay track, perhaps just for one station based on a model railway plan to see how it would like in TRAINZ with the much greater space available - would anything like this be of interest?
I won't ask whether anyone would like a string of working tennis balls ...
Ray

 

[wklang]

Ray, I for one, like your suggestion of a basic layout - a small one or two board layout that could be operated immediately, leaving the "model railroad' details up to the user.

As a 'wanna-be' creator of miniature train-related worlds, a small basic layout would not give me that feeling of being overwhelmed.

Wes

 

[Hot_Box_Detector]

I will vote for "fun". ... For instance, if the curves of the track seem realistic...

YES, I'll second that...I have and will spend many hours making the curves look right... on most of the routes I DL. In the real world, prototype railway tracklaying, there is a thing called a "cubic spiral". This is the piece of track that makes the transition from the "straight" part to the "curved" part. Unless this is used, there will be an appearance of a "toy" train moving through the curve.