The trouble with Trainz . . .

[srude]

Hello;

Regarding content creation . . .

There are obviously as many, differing opinions, as there are, people, when it comes to what matters to a simulator player. A balance between detail and function are an ideal. Some content is easy to make and there are those who create trully impressive things. Clearly, this is a personal prefrence for everyone involved and, of course, what a vendor does, depends on what the market demands.

What does the market demand?

I find it interesting that Microsoft expended a lot of effort in resurrecting MSTS2, bragging about the photo quality of their new simulator. Yet, market pressures killed the product. So, photo realism wasn't able to sustain the project.

When it comes to creating content, the size of the models vary--from something very small, such as a chicken, to something huge, such as a skyscraper! And, I recognize, too, that content creators are not only individuals with unique perspectives, but also with various degrees of dedications to a given project.

Over in the TRS2009 Trainz-Dev site, trees are the big issue. More realism is the battle-cry. Rail Simulator and now, RailWorks, use the view-alinged method, which, when seen from above, turns the trees into simple planes. Is 2009 capable of using view-aligned models?

I know that there isn't an all-inclusive answer to the question of how much effort should be put into creating a model. Nevertheless, it would be nice if there was some way of knowing what a good balance is.

Ergo, this discussion . . .

Someone, who has a lot of experience with this subject, should write a book about it. All this is totally subjective, I know. So, I'm still left wondering how much detail I should apply to a model and how many people will care what my track looks like.

And, I, too, started with gmax then moved over to Blender. It wasn't an easy transition. For, me, anyway, it was a good move. I no longer need an external viewer to see what my models look like.

So, we'll probably never settle the issues around content creation. Still, it makes for interesting reading.

Thanks to everyone for the opinions, offered.

Best to all,

srude

 

[nfitzsimmons]

Concerning Microsoft and MSTS 2, it wasn't market pressure that killed it. It was the current economic climate. Not only did they kill MSTS2, they nuked the entire Aces team. This ended the flight Simulator series. one of the most long-running and successful simulators in PC history.

 

[bendorsey]

My thoughts on this subject (not necessarily in any order):

What criteria do I use to make a model?
A. Is it interesting. To me making things it Gmax and getting them to work in Trainz is a puzzle (I love puzzles). To a certain extent its a challenge (an exercise for the brain).

B. Can it be made. How does it work in real life and can it be made to work in Trainz. This is usually the biggest yea or nay decision. Some items are far more difficult to make and some frankly aren't worth the effort as the result wouldn't be very good. There are limitations (much as I hate to say that).

C. Do I have sufficient info to make it. I've been making more and more items by request of late. Usually all I get is a fuzzy photo and a hearty "good luck".
Photos and basic dimensions are better. I can make something from that fuzzy photo but there is no guarentee it will accurately represent the real item.

D. What kind of item is it. There are a few types of content I've never made. I don't consider myself sufficiently adept as yet to attempt them so if its one of those I have to politely decline. I don't do it often but I have done it.

E. Where does it go on a route. This determines the level of detail. A super detailled item that would never be closer to the tracks then 100 yards is a waste of effort. The details will show in Surveyor but not as well in Driver (and your supposed to be driving the loco - not oogling the scenery, lol).
As far as I can remember everything I've made is either close to the track (structures), on the track (railcars), or is track (bridges and trestles) so I tend to add as much detail as I can (keeping the poly count in mind).

F. How big is it. This determines how I make it (fixed item, spline, or a combinatiom of both). Length effects the level of detail since polys add up in a hurry. Surprisingly really long bridges aren't that much of a problem since the entire bridge will not be rendered by the video card all at once. A small very detailed building is probably worse then a 9000 ft long bridge. Hard to believe but it seems to be true.

Comments gents?

Ben