Time to get rid of those old 2D or 3D low quality people!

[Frank_Dean]

It seems that the trend now is to make very detailed objects with large textures, even more than some locomotives.
As an example, on the last day of February, about one hundred and fourteen 40ft containers were uploaded to the DLS, with lods and the main mesh of 6656 polygons. The problem is that each container, apart from being very detailed, uses 3 tga textures of 2048x2048, which implies that in folder format they have 40.9MB, if we download the 114 they will occupy 4.5GB in folder format.
Can you imagine a loading and unloading area with hundreds of these containers?

 

[jjeff1955]

Thank You MSGSapper for the High quality 3D people.
The older builtin low quality ones did not have any emissive color setting to be able to see them at night.

The <kuid:-25:1540> Auran's Prod Night Passengers 2020 have been updated this January 31st, they are more better to see at night than the obsoleted ones but they are still kind of dark at night, and they have that trainz.mesh files that I can not edit the emissive settings.
Kind Regards.

 

[MSGSapper]

It seems that the trend now is to make very detailed objects with large textures, even more than some locomotives.
As an example, on the last day of February, about one hundred and fourteen 40ft containers were uploaded to the DLS, with lods and the main mesh of 6656 polygons. The problem is that each container, apart from being very detailed, uses 3 tga textures of 2048x2048, which implies that in folder format they have 40.9MB, if we download the 114 they will occupy 4.5GB in folder format.
Can you imagine a loading and unloading area with hundreds of these containers?

I think you have to realize, along with everyone else, that technology keeps changing to include graphic standards. The days of TRS2004 and its low graphic standards are long gone, although too many seem to think they are still here.

What used to take only one texture file now takes three when it comes to PBR (Albedo, normal, parameters). Also the standard for texture maps in ther 3D design world is now 2K (2024x2048), although many are using 4K. As an example, when I purchase something from CGTrader I often have to re-scale the texture maps down from 4K to 2K, which is all that Trainz will accept. To create those texture maps a number of layers are involved, which is why those files are often large.

Bob

 

[MSGSapper]

Thank You MSGSapper for the High quality 3D people.
The older builtin low quality ones did not have any emissive color setting to be able to see them at night.

The <kuid:-25:1540> Auran's Prod Night Passengers 2020 have been updated this January 31st, they are more better to see at night than the obsoleted ones but they are still kind of dark at night, and they have that trainz.mesh files that I can not edit the emissive settings.
Kind Regards.

You are welcome!

The problem here is how Trainz handles light (ie; not very well in anything other then locomotives). In the last newsletter they indicated that light handling has become one of the most requested items and they intend to add it. That will make a big difference, but we will have to wait and see how they implement it.

Bob

 

[wreeder]

50000 poly people are obscene in just about any circumstance.

Your opinion and nothing more. The old rules about poly count were made at a time when Trainz was 32 bit and only used one core. No one bats an eyelash at having millions of polys in a scene when it is rolling stock and locomotives now. Bob's creations are accent pieces that create wonderful scenes to see from the cab window. I find that they have little impact on the performance of the game.

 

[fourteen]

i like them

 

[Paulsw2]

What used to take only one texture file now takes three when it comes to PBR (Albedo, normal, parameters). Also the standard for texture maps in ther 3D design world is now 2K (2024x2048), although many are using 4K. [...]

Bob

Thanks Bob, I think this is an important point. I can see how reducing texture sizes is going to save disc space. However, to what extent is there now a requirement for 2048x2048 textures? ie. is this now the Trainz standard?

 

[ZecMurphy]

Your opinion and nothing more. The old rules about poly count were made at a time when Trainz was 32 bit and only used one core. No one bats an eyelash at having millions of polys in a scene when it is rolling stock and locomotives now. Bob's creations are accent pieces that create wonderful scenes to see from the cab window. I find that they have little impact on the performance of the game.

Poly count still matters; if you don't believe it does then please don't complain when you get poor performance or stuttering!

Yes, we have a lot of very high poly locomotives and rolling stock around. And the same rules should be applied to them as we should be applying to everything else; LOD is essential to ensuring that your objects will perform efficiently. Our computers are still limited, just those limitations are greater than they were 10 or 20 years ago; but with the increase in detail and textures on content, it is still essential to make it efficient.

There's no reason for an object (of any type) to be the same poly count at 25, 50, 500, 1000, 150000 m away as it is when you are 1m away. Exactly when and how much the LODs are is up to the creator, but it's essential to make them as efficient as you can. Using a 50k poly person as an example (and this is based on my experiences making LOD for a few loco crew figures made using 'make human' a couple of years ago), ideally you'd be looking at something like:

0-50m	50-150	150-250	250-500	500+
50000	25000-30000	10000-15000	~500-1000	either culled (ie object disappears), or under 500

Note that depending on the person figure, you may find it can be culled after around 500-1500m, but some may be a little too obvious to fully remove, so having a 500 triangle 'blob' mesh that looks something like them may be a better option for 500m and further.

These aren't hard values, they're approximate distances to give a guide on what I would be aiming for personally, especially when working on my own content.

Regards

 

[MSGSapper]

Thanks Bob, I think this is an important point. I can see how reducing texture sizes is going to save disc space. However, to what extent is there now a requirement for 2048x2048 textures? ie. is this now the Trainz standard?

No easy answer here. Like everything else texture size depends on the complexity of the texture detail and what you need to get the job done.

2048x2048 textures are usually very detailed, and because of the size, easy to work with in various paint or texture creation programs. While I can't say it is a standard, many if not most of the CGTrader models I have purchased from various professional model makers over the last few years use either 2K or 4K textures for their models.

IMHO the old days of 256x256 low detail textures are long gone. After all textures are what make your model shine so using really detailed good ones makes a big difference.

Texture size is a subject that could be debated endlessly here with proponents advocating on one side or another for various texture sizes and formats. I would however rather not go there in this specific thread.

Bob

 

[dangavel]

No easy answer here. Like everything else texture size depends on the complexity of the texture detail and what you need to get the job done.

2048x2048 textures are usually very detailed, and because of the size, easy to work with in various paint or texture creation programs. While I can't say it is a standard, many if not most of the CGTrader models I have purchased from various professional model makers over the last few years use either 2K or 4K textures for their models.

IMHO the old days of 256x256 low detail textures are long gone. After all textures are what make your model shine so using really detailed good ones makes a big difference.

Texture size is a subject that could be debated endlessly here with proponents advocating on one side or another for various texture sizes and formats. I would however rather not go there in this specific thread.

Bob

Sorry Bob, I have to disagree, applying those size textures on small figures just isn't necessary in my opinion, having experimented with halving the sizes and seeing no difference at all in quality . If I was making routes for myself , I'd just go and modify the sizes on all your recent pbr models if I needed to use them, , but since I am doing routes for others to use for free on the DLS, I'll continue to be really selective regarding.the use of your models in my routes, I simply cannot justify the file sizes for such minor items, given that they are mostly going to be fleetingly seen from a passing train . An example, I have used a model," hanging up washing " which shows a lady with a clothes line, it's going in gardens next to the line but is never seen close up, no one is ever going to focus on this figure , so what is the point in making it PBR with a large file size? If for instance you had a whole train full of these PBR people , say 40 to a carriage,multiply by 10, 400 figures at an average of 4mb a model, 1.6 gb of memory just for one train! There has to be a better solution to our figure issues , I really don't think your way is feasible for many people who do not have really top end computers , but obviously you are not going to change your thinking on this matter so I'll leave it at that.

 

[MSGSapper]

Sorry Bob, I have to disagree, applying those size textures on small figures just isn't necessary in my opinion, having experimented with halving the sizes and seeing no difference at all in quality . If I was making routes for myself , I'd just go and modify the sizes on all your recent pbr models if I needed to use them, , but since I am doing routes for others to use for free on the DLS, I'll continue to be really selective regarding.the use of your models in my routes, I simply cannot justify the file sizes for such minor items, given that they are mostly going to be fleetingly seen from a passing train . An example, I have used a model," hanging up washing " which shows a lady with a clothes line, it's going in gardens next to the line but is never seen close up, no one is ever going to focus on this figure , so what is the point in making it PBR with a large file size? If for instance you had a whole train full of these PBR people , say 40 to a carriage,multiply by 10, 400 figures at an average of 4mb a model, 1.6 gb of memory just for one train! There has to be a better solution to our figure issues , I really don't think your way is feasible for many people who do not have really top end computers , but obviously you are not going to change your thinking on this matter so I'll leave it at that.

On this issue I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. How people feel about this seems to depend on how good of a computer system they have. I do agree that my computer system is rather high end and that is mostly what I build for. As I have often indicated over the years, I build these content items for my Trainz routes, but decided long ago to share them with others, if they can use them. If they can't, oh well....

BTW most of my people only use a single .onetex diffuse texture map and are not PBR, although almost all my people have multiple LOD support (usually LOD0 to LOD4).

Bob

 

[wreeder]

Poly count still matters; if you don't believe it does then please don't complain when you get poor performance or stuttering!

Well, I must be the luckiest man in the world because my 16 year old first gen i7 with a GTX 1050 Ti manages to run even the newest beta of Trainz Plus smooth as butter with no problem. I totally understand what you are saying and I agree that route builders have to be aware of poly counts to avoid making a slideshow but it seems to me that guidelines and suggested limits haven't been increased since TS2009 but draw distance has been expanded to 22000 meters.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Well, I must be the luckiest man in the world because my 16 year old first gen i7 with a GTX 1050 Ti manages to run even the newest beta of Trainz Plus smooth as butter with no problem. I totally understand what you are saying and I agree that route builders have to be aware of poly counts to avoid making a slideshow but it seems to me that guidelines and suggested limits haven't been increased since TS2009 but draw distance has been expanded to 22000 meters.

I'm curious what guidelines and limits aren't relevant now, that were back then? Currently, as far as LOD/poly count goes, there's really 3 hard rules:
1) LOD shouldn't increase poly count as you move away (this will result in an error; I find it's generally because I accidentally exported two LODs together!)
2) 20% minimum LOD reductions; this is the minimum each LOD must reduce the poly count by. A lesser reduction can have more of a performance impact than the poly count saving.
3) Maximum of 500 triangles at lowest LOD

There's no 'maximum' poly count specified for any asset, the goal at your highest LOD (as in closest LOD) is to have the required detail/poly count for what you need. A 50k triangle person is fantastic if you're going to see them in essentially 'first person' view (and that can include being in the cab of a locomotive stopped at a platform, which could essentially be 'any' person object). A 500k triangle locomotive is great, as you're often going to be looking very intently at this. Even houses, sheds, cranes, etc can all be relatively high poly, if you need it, at the highest LOD.

That said, something to be mindful of is that small details can have an impact on performance when they get too small (ie the triangle is less than a pixel in size); at this point the computer has to work harder to calculate that triangle than it otherwise would. So removing those small polys/details isn't just about 'poly count', but also the number of 'sub pixel size' polys trying to be rendered. For some games, this is a really important factor; in Trainz it's less so (ie we don't actively look at this when making content), but by creating LODs you are already improving this aspect on the content (especially if using 'decimate' or 'pro optimizer' or similar; where it starts merging/welding faces and vertices, resulting in 'larger' faces).

Regards

 

[JimDep]

I'm fine with the "old and outdated" figures. No funds for upgrading my 10 year old computer. I'd be more concerned about better looking passengers causing a slowdown on the graphics card.