Taking shortcuts are wrong

[MNIBARI08]

Hi everyone!!!!

A lot of users are taking shortcuts on thier routes, I will not give usernames out for a sake of a route gone badly wrong,.

Some users do take time and make the route right . However its got me thinking why take shortcuts and gradients are not added and why its 0.00 all the way on the route when its not.

I already cought one user out will you be next?

grab books understand the route before creating it, as gradients will also need to be understood and the images will help any user. The gradients are also important so when creating it apply the gradients to your route.

yours Matthew

 

[pware]

While I understand what you are getting at, I don't agree with you.

Are the routes you have accused of using "shortcuts" being advertised as authentic, prototypical, accurate? If not then what is the problem?

Trainz is a simulator, not a recreation of the real world. If some-one wants to create a route with lots of "short cuts" then, as long as they do not attempt to pass it off as totally accurate, let them.

Not everyone wants to create routes that have all the hills, curves and other geographic features perfectly accurate. It takes a lot of time to get those details correct, even when using tools such as TransDEM, time that not every creator has.

Some people are more interested in shunting and other operations, not in looking at the passing scenery.

My opinion only.

 

[pcas1986]

I've heard of the term "rivet counter" but now I know there are "gradient checkers" as well.

It's a hobby. You can only go so far with prototypical. Start criticising route makers and no one will make any.

 

[ministerfarrigut]

I've heard of the term "rivet counter" but now I know there are "gradient checkers" as well.

It's a hobby. You can only go so far with prototypical. Start criticising route makers and no one will make any.

I agree with you. With my routes, I ask other people on other train forums to view them and I accept their feedback and make changes as necessary before I actually upload a route to my site. I think what MNIBARIO8 is trying to say is that some people are uploading routes saying that they are excellent and so worthy of driving and then when the person gets it, the route is complete crap. Makes me think twice about me own routes.

 

[cascaderailroad]

Not everyone is obligated by law to produce a route with gradients ... On my DEM it is mandatory ... I scraped my route at least 3 times due to improper gradients and tracklaying flaws ... I study track charts and find that a section of track goes: +0.21%, +0.41%, -0.34%, +0.12%, -0.24%, +0.38%, +0.41%, ... etc ... Even I take a shortcut and even it all out to a steady +0.41% ... as long as it looks good, that is good enough

I once had the entire East Slope from Altoona to Galitzin a steady +1.75% ... when it is in fact: 0.41% +1.00%, +0.12%, +1.75%, +1.25%, +1.75% ... and I fixed it to reflect these gradients (which probably still contain many shortcuts) ... but if anyone is going to nit pick that trackwork, and say it is totally wrong, bag that ... and DIY

I once downloaded a cross country Canadian route that had the Spiral Tunnels ... It had pathetic sharp curves, animated FT Switchs, and the tunnels and gradients had no resemblance to the prototype

 

[MNIBARI08]

Hi everyone!!!

I am glad to seen that some of you got good and bad points, ministerfarrigut has a valid reasonable point, as a whole.

 

[Kennilworth]

Hi

As someone who has no interest in driving Trainz but who uses AI virtually 100% of the time the main thing I look for is reasonably prototypical track layout. Gradients are very much a secondary matter to me. You seem to be making the mistake that many people make of assuming that the way that you use trainz is the only way to go but I can assure you that it isn't.

I already cought one user out will you be next?

A statement like that is presumably designed to ensure that route makers should only make routes the way that you want them which will only discourage them from making further routes available. I thought I'd have a look at the DLS to see how good your routes are but I couldn't seem to find any.

If you wish to make comments about routes in general terms then that's fine but your tone in your first post is beligerant and you seem to be threatening to name and shame anyone who builds a route that isn't up to your standards.

Please engage your brain before posting such as this. A couple of minutes reading through what you intend to post would perhaps give you time to reflect on how it sounds to other people.

Regards

Brian

 

[clam1952]

Personally I'm not keen on flat earth routes either however I would never single out anyone and criticise them for doing so, every one has different standards and expectations of what a route should be.
One needs to remember that most people make routes primarily for their own enjoyment, making them available for others is in most cases secondary.
One also needs to consider the skill level and probably the age of the routes creator, route making is a continual learning process and everyone has to start somewhere.

Constructive criticism along the lines of "have you considered......?" are usually fine and maybe helpful to a route builder, comments such as "this is rubbish because ....." are IMO not!

 

[MNIBARI08]

I agree, with clam1952 also, this is need to be looked into as every individual is different with disabilities or not, yes I also agree I'm not keen on flat earth routes either, its more hard work that way and confusing.

At this moment my route is in progress and not ready yet for the public.

There is one that beats as all, Sodor Island 3D has pull it off regurdless they are not on DLS.

 

[ministerfarrigut]

I totally agree with that. Sodor Island 3D is a premier engine builder, even though it's Thomas and Friends stuff, which I tend to specialize in. Their stuff is legendary.

 

[PerRock]

I already cought one user out will you be next?

Moderator Hat on Please avoid making inflammatory remarks on the forums.

There is one that beats as all, Sodor Island 3D has pull it off regurdless they are not on DLS.

The owners of the Thomas the Tank Engine brand keep their assets very well protected. SI3D has jumped thru their hoops & pays them in order to bring TTE content to Trainz, from my understanding part of the licensing that they signed bars them from uploading their TTE content to the DLS.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that while the Surveyor tool is probably one of the best map builders out there, it still has some limitations & so unless your route is prototypical flat & straight you will have to make some deviations from the prototype in order to work around the game's tools.

peter

 

[Vern]

What an absurd OP!

Routes come in all shapes and sizes as do the skill levels of those who build them.

Even if (as I do) I try to stick to prototype track layout and gradient profile there are obstacles to doing this:-

The best DEM and mapping doesn't always correlate with Victorian era gradient profiles which were plotted at ground level using the instrumentation of the time. Many routes especially those long closed or in obscure parts of the world do not have a readily public accessible (if one exists at all) gradient profile. At that point the skill of the route builder comes into play, assessing the terrain and mapping over a given distance with other factors to plot accurate heights and working out an average gradient. When I built my Far North route for MSTS I found the gradient profile simply didn't work and came out about half a mile short of where County March Summit is in real life. I actually agonised over that for quite a while but eventually decided if anyone is so pedantic they need to go through someone else's freely offered work checking such details, they must lead a very sad solitary existence.

15 years on I still hold that view to be true!

 

[JCitron]

What an absurd OP!

Routes come in all shapes and sizes as do the skill levels of those who build them.

Even if (as I do) I try to stick to prototype track layout and gradient profile there are obstacles to doing this:-

The best DEM and mapping doesn't always correlate with Victorian era gradient profiles which were plotted at ground level using the instrumentation of the time. Many routes especially those long closed or in obscure parts of the world do not have a readily public accessible (if one exists at all) gradient profile. At that point the skill of the route builder comes into play, assessing the terrain and mapping over a given distance with other factors to plot accurate heights and working out an average gradient. When I built my Far North route for MSTS I found the gradient profile simply didn't work and came out about half a mile short of where County March Summit is in real life. I actually agonised over that for quite a while but eventually decided if anyone is so pedantic they need to go through someone else's freely offered work checking such details, they must lead a very sad solitary existence.

15 years on I still hold that view to be true!

Well said, Vern.

 

[JCitron]

Doing anything in Trainz is going to be compromise no matter how realistic or unrealistic the route builder's work is. The real world has an infinite grid while we are stuck with a 5 meter or 10 meter grid no matter how much we would like a much finer one.

Our textures are limited to what's available or what we can provide and unlike mother nature, we can't blend infinitely, and we really can't add an infinite number of textures either.

Our tracks are splines and have limits on how they bend. We can't blend, again the texturing, the ballast and track so there are really smooth transitions between rusty track and a smooth spanking new mainline.

Trees, well they vary in quality and complexity. Choosing and using what's right for the purpose helps get over the glaring differences between the old billboard and flipboard ojects versus the sometimes oversized, overly complex, overly bright, and sometimes outright ugly Speed Trees.

Even those nicely built DEM routes are a compromise as well. If you recall, I did go through the trouble of writing up a TransDEM quick guide that I sent you (without a thank you by the way in return). If you did go through the trouble of reading through the guide, and looking at Roland's tutorials, you'll see that as nice as this is, it's not perfect like everything else in this imperfect world.

As has been said, the skills of the user vary from early beginners, even very young children, to those with many years of experience. Many people make the routes for themselves and sharing comes a bit later as a second thought. Then there are of course, those that make routes strictly for others to enjoy like an artist does as he or she shares their paintings, drawings, and sculptors.

Until you prove otherwise that your route building skills are far above anything that the community can produce, including those works from professional route builders such as the guys over at Jointed Rail, I think it's best that you keep your thoughts to yourself. In the end all you are doing is insulting people who in some cases are beginners, and insulting beginners drives them away so we may never, ever, ever see a nice route that you would consider "worthy" of downloading.

 

[ministerfarrigut]

Doing anything in Trainz is going to be compromise no matter how realistic or unrealistic the route builder's work is. The real world has an infinite grid while we are stuck with a 5 meter or 10 meter grid no matter how much we would like a much finer one.

Our textures are limited to what's available or what we can provide and unlike mother nature, we can't blend infinitely, and we really can't add an infinite number of textures either.

Our tracks are splines and have limits on how they bend. We can't blend, again the texturing, the ballast and track so there are really smooth transitions between rusty track and a smooth spanking new mainline.

Trees, well they vary in quality and complexity. Choosing and using what's right for the purpose helps get over the glaring differences between the old billboard and flipboard ojects versus the sometimes oversized, overly complex, overly bright, and sometimes outright ugly Speed Trees.

Even those nicely built DEM routes are a compromise as well. If you recall, I did go through the trouble of writing up a TransDEM quick guide that I sent you (without a thank you by the way in return). If you did go through the trouble of reading through the guide, and looking at Roland's tutorials, you'll see that as nice as this is, it's not perfect like everything else in this imperfect world.

As has been said, the skills of the user vary from early beginners, even very young children, to those with many years of experience. Many people make the routes for themselves and sharing comes a bit later as a second thought. Then there are of course, those that make routes strictly for others to enjoy like an artist does as he or she shares their paintings, drawings, and sculptors.

Until you prove otherwise that your route building skills are far above anything that the community can produce, including those works from professional route builders such as the guys over at Jointed Rail, I think it's best that you keep your thoughts to yourself. In the end all you are doing is insulting people who in some cases are beginners, and insulting beginners drives them away so we may never, ever, ever see a nice route that you would consider "worthy" of downloading.

This is the most true statement I've heard. I think we should just leave this as is. It doesn't need to go any further.