Question of Detail?

[MicroLynkx]

I would like to throw out a question to the readers.

I am modelling a large section of Colorado. I am creating a fictional railroad to govern my project but wish keep 90% of the trackage true to life. I am using Google Maps to use for trackage, road and industry/building reference, and was wondering: How much ancillary detail do you think is required?

Currently I am modeling the town centers and some of the suburbs leading into Denver. But, I do have to admit that it is a daunting task. I am trying to figure out what others think about leaving out some of the content and just having scenery between towns, etc.

Thanks for your comments ahead of time.

Billy

 

[Dermmy]

Compared to older versions of Trainz you can get away with quite a lot of detail in TS12. The basic premise though that the higher detail = higher load = slower performance still holds. Exactly where you draw the line is up to you (and your computer specs) but basically you want high detail near the tracks (no more than 50 meters either side and less is better) then reduce the detail as the distance from the track increases. Keep in mind how you intend to view the route, if cab view is your thing you can create a hi-detail very narrow 'tunnel' with almost nothing in the background; fixed trackside cameras need a bit more, but you still control the view; tracking cameras are going to see lots more and if you are into free roaming then you can see everything. It's hard to work to this rule in practice, but in principle if you can't see it don't model it...

Andy

 

[cascaderailroad]

Sometimes I ponder whether a true to scale DEM, with mile by mile (foot by foot) accuracies is worth the trouble when creating a Trainz route ... Sometimes an abreviated route, with only the important condenced railfanning scenes is all that matters for realistic and enjoyable operation.

 

[steamboateng]

TrainzDem offers the option to export a youte w/5meter gid on the route and 10 meter gid on baseboards farther from the track.
However, from what I can see, the resources a DEM demands, even on a large route, is minimal when compared to the resources TS10, and especially TS12 have available to it.
My NE Massachuretts route DEM requires only a bit over 1Mb per baseboard, including hundreds of UTM objects.

You would be lucky to a descent loco into TS12 for under 6Mb!

 

[Euphod]

I support the use of selective compression as is used in model railroading. I would rather use a route with exquisitely done "scenes" linked by miles of open countryside, than to slog through miles and miles of suburban sprawl.

 

[ray_whiley]

I support the use of selective compression as is used in model railroading.

I agree. Most of the interest is within station limits; my West Norfolk Railway (several years in the making and not yet finished as I keep diverting to making new content!) uses correct station layout plans with the distance between stations reduced to about 50% - and even that means a lot of scenery to add in the limited time I give to route creation! A possibility if this method is used is to adopt another model railway technique - the speeded up clock - I haven't tried this in TS2010 but it was certainly possible in TRS2004 to run time at double speed, which balances the track compression.

But, as ever - to each his/her own! Model railways and Trainz are supposed to be a hobby, and it's up to each individual to decide what to do.

Ray

 

[Deano5]

There is no real need for exquisite details right across the map, just the trackside and cab view for the fine details with low poly scenery filling in the distance.
Will you be doing the route to Southpark? :hehe:

 

[Dermmy]

...Most of the interest is within station limits; my West Norfolk Railway (several years in the making and not yet finished as I keep diverting to making new content!) uses correct station layout plans with the distance between stations reduced to about 50%.....

I think we are wandering off-topic, but in an interesting way...

My routes are all DEM based which makes it hard to 'selectively compress' the distance between stations. You would need to delete boards, merge, and then face the difficult task of cleaning up the misalignments at the join, all of which would probably take more time than just scenicing the original distance.

It is an issue though. I abandoned my proposed Paducah & Louisville route precisely because of the size of the project. The line has some fantastic yards and many other great features, but the distances involved were extreme. It would have become a never-ending project. One idea I did toy with for a while though was only modelling the yards and other 'good bits' and linking them with portals, effectively doing away with the long boring bits entirely. I never went ahead with it, but it's worth thinking about...

Andy

 

[bl4882]

If overloading your machine is your main concern, you can always divide the route into sections joined with iPortals. This could be a good alternative to selective compression if you don't wish to go that route. For example, if you are planning a route of 200 miles between two large cities you could have a route at each end of, say, 40 or 50 miles each, and then the middle section through the boonies of about 100 miles. This could also serve the purpose of selective compression by programming some sessions that would go directly from city A to city B, skipping the rural areas.

Bernie

 

[Dermmy]

If overloading your machine is your main concern...

The size of a route in raw mileage, baseboard count, whatever you measure by has absolutely no effect on performance. The size of a route cannot 'overload your machine'. What overloads a machine is content, and specifically the amount of content the machine needs to load to draw a specific view, and the content will be highest in the areas you are keeping! The long boring miles of desert/farmland/whatever are so lo-impact even with long draw distances they just don't matter. What cripples a machine are large yards with lots of trackage, hi detail industrial areas, swathes of hi-density housing around towns, and God forbid - cityscapes! They are the bits you will be keeping, and they are the bits that 'overload machines. In that sense size just doesn't matter....

Cutting out the 'bits between' is nothing to do with performance, it is to do with the endless hours it takes to texture and detail those endless miles. In one lifetime there are only so many routes you can build....

 

[Vern]

Generally speaking if you are going for quantity then it probably needs to be at the expense of (some) quality. Depending on how much time you can spare it's going to take at least a day to scenic a couple of 1km linear strips across your route, more in built up areas or where there is complex infrastructure, yards etc. That's a daunting task when you might be looking at over 100km - three months work minimum. If your route has a high maximum speed or tricky gradients, the focus of most users is going to be what's visible out the cab front and sufficient aids to operate the train properly - i.e. advance warning of speed restrictions etc.