Trs2010 Very Poor Draw Distance! Driver Mode Even Worse

[WindWalkr]

The point here is that if such a tick box or button were provided together with a warning, then a cusomer would not complain because... well a warning is a warning. Simple.

Except that it's not that simple, or we would have done just that.

Think over the consequences a little. Let's say that a user turns the option off while trying to rectify some graphics problems. Maybe it appears to help. Maybe it really does help. A month later, the game starts crashing for no obvious reason. Who will the user blame for the crashes?

Or another example. Content Creator Charlie makes really awesome scenery splines - fences, hedges, that kind of thing. They look far better than the built-in content, but they cause the draw distance to reduce a little. No problem! Just let everyone know to turn off the little switch in the settings. Your machines are powerful, they can handle it. Everyone starts using Charlie's content in their routes, because it's far better than the available alternatives. All the creators in the know, all the best routes use his splines. Now anyone who wants to use those routes is seeing draw distance problems. No worries! Just turn off that little switch. Except the game starts crashing on some machines. Still no problem, you say. Turn the switch back on! Except now we have a lot of users who are locked out of all of the good content forevermore. There's no reason they should be locked out- if the splines were built efficiently in the first place none of this would be happening, and frame rates would be better as well.


Your argument is "if you allow us the option now, some of us might be able to avoid problems running route X today."

My argument is "if we prevent the option now, everybody will be able to run all the routes in the future."


In both cases somebody loses out. In your scenario, some people win out in the short term and everyone loses in the long term. In my scenario, some people lose out in the short term and everyone wins in the long term. We're not in this for the short term.

Hope this helps you understand our decision,

chris

 

[norfolksouthern37]

If the content in use is built efficiently, then draw distance can be pushed out to the user's selected range and there are no problems.

i would like to see an example of such content. 5000m is around 3 miles, you cant even see that far on untextured baseboards with no objects at all (happy to be proven wrong). why give us that kind of distance option if it isnt even possible? is it expected that later on when we all have nicer computers that it might actually not limit itself enough to reach that distance? is that even possible? i seem to get the same results no matter what. again i would like to see some content you guys recommend that truly does meet the max draw distance on any completely finished route. ill bet you cant find any. once that is proven the case, what do you think we should do? should the draw distance really say 5000m even though it can never reach that far? unless this is some other distance unit i am not familiar with. i think before you say the demand from third party needs to be at a higher standard, the demand from your end needs to be twice as much. put simple, you are aware it is broken, and you need to fix it and all of your shortcomings as well, not pass any kind of blame off to third party developers, who quite honestly keep this thing alive. i am honored to be part of the third party developer crowd, but i am not telling any secret by saying that without such development, this game would have been gone long long ago.

some users want to push the limits, there shouldn't be any reason not to allow this, especially limiting them to what you think is best, unless as you said the game is written so that if it actually DOES allow this that it will crash. i understand the decision as made but dont you think that issue needs to be taken a look at? there is no reason there should be any crashing except for program inefficiencies, in that case the program needs to be fixed. you say the limiter is meant to stop that, and it may very well do so, but in either case it is still your fault, and while we should demand efficient content items, you are still to blame for the crashing. i think demanding better content from the developers as well is in order.

your program already requires a ridiculous amount of computer to run for what it is. your scenario outlined above seems to think all users stick with the same pc forever and will thus be 'locked out' of improvements. and i brought this question up a long time ago - doesnt it take more resources to take away part of the scene and draw it back in repeatedly? you never answered me there...

i mean none of the offensively, just pointing out what i think to be shortcomings from the dev side. you cannot blame the third party developers for that.

 

[LieLestoSbrat]

I have to agree with NS37 that their are must be some short comings on the dev side in relation to how the distance limiter is programmed. I think the following 2 videos will demonstrate this.

The first video shows an 8 baseboard route with 10m grid that is blank other than 2 Giant Redwood Speedtree's placed 5000 metres apart. Timing from the moment the Surveyor screen appears on screen to the apparent time Trainz stops processing the view distance takes approximately 1:48.

8 Baseboard blank route draw distance time test. Note: I forgot to turn of my tunes on recording this test so if you don't like UK Hardcore press mute in youtube

The second video shows a WIP route that has over 100 baseboards and is based on DEM terrain downloaded of the DLS. The route has a 5m grid for the track to run across and 10m grid everywhere else. A large number of the content in the scene is build 2.9, their are a large large number of Speedtree's in the distance along with other foliage assets and splines. A few locos and rolling stock items are also present in the distant scene. Time again from Surveyor first loading to the draw distance stabilising is about 1:50

WIP route draw distance time test, no music in this video .

Now looking at these quick 2 tests in my view their has to be a problem with the way the draw distance limiter code is responding in relation to hardware resources available to Trainz. As we can see for both a blank route and a Wip route with some high detail the draw times are about the same. The hardware I'm using is up to the job of drawing these distances without problems, otherwise on the Wip route I would have expected it to stop halfway at least though the detailed section.
Screen1
Screen2
The above links show 2 screenshots of the detailed section visible in the second video. Screenshots where originally posted on the UK Screenshots thread.

Spec wise of my machine I'm running the following:

Intel i7 975 3.33.ghz
Asus Rampage II Extreme Mobo
2x Nvidia 480 GTX, SLi
12gb OCZ Platinum Triple channel PC3 10666 Ram
2x Intel X-25E 60GB SSD's Raid0 <- boot drive and programs
2x Samsung Spinpoint 1.5tb HDD's Raid0 <- Data/documents
OS Win7 64bit Ultimate
All the latest drivers are installed included the new Nvidia 258.96 drivers. Machine had a recent OS rebuild only a fortnight ago.

This computer can play ArmA2 on high details settings with 4500m draw distance without any problems or slow downs.

Rob

 

[Tidgney]

Im kinda half glad im not the only one experiencing this issue, needs sorting asap. Especially once people purchase new computers, as its the newer more powerful machines that seem to be having the problem..

 

[bolivar]

WindWalkr have you tried Trainz Tuner? Have you seen how it works? The doom and gloom scenarios you mention are just not present. This littloe utility can be switched on or off and one can set the draw distance parameters according to their computer's ability to process the graphics. You also confuse me as to why draw distance is allowed 5000 metres in Surveyor but down around 1500 metres in cab view in Driver sessions. Surely under your fears about people not being able to switch their settings back is also present while using Surveyor?

 

[jjeff1955]

For the last time! Trainz Tuner does not work in 2009 or 2010.

I have stated this at leaset 5 times that the Trainz Tuner does not work anymore in the TRS2009 or the TRS2010. Only in Trs2006 that is why I dumped the Trs2009 and 2010 as Auran went and did it again and changed his codes!:udrool:

 

[sparky15]

Sorry, but seems like a dog chasing it's tail.

I've used trainz tuner with excellent results. So now, same computer, same old content, the new version is hampered? Where is the efficiency if the new can't accomplish what the old did with inefficient content. That supposedly faulty content hardly gave 06 or TC a burp.

It does fall on Auran, they are the ones who built a better mouse trap. 09 was packed with older, faulty content. Are you saying 10 has to be dumbed down and that it's the third party's fault since they haven't produced new content?

Auran released the sim knowing full well the compatibility issues. All I see is an excuse and laying the burden on third party's feet.

Dave......

 

[jjeff1955]

Exactly Dave! You hit the nail on the head.

I was all excited about the Trs2010 for nothing at all. I guess I just wanted to waist some money, and many hours of aggravation.

 

[WindWalkr]

The first video shows an 8 baseboard route with 10m grid that is blank other than 2 Giant Redwood Speedtree's placed 5000 metres apart. Timing from the moment the Surveyor screen appears on screen to the apparent time Trainz stops processing the view distance takes approximately 1:48.

I don't really follow your point here. You're showing the Trainz startup sequence where the viewing distance is increased over time until the user's selected viewing distance is reached. We do this gradually to avoid the situation where the computer is overwhelmed by potentially massive numbers of draw requests and crashes before the limiter code has an opportunity to respond.

Unless the system is under very high load (as you point out, this is not the case on your system) this will take a fixed amount of time - the rate is limited by the code and not by the computer's technical capabilities.

The doom and gloom scenarios you mention are just not present.

Actually they are. The reason we added the limiters in the first place is because one of our localisation partners refused to ship TS2009 due to reproducible crashes on their test hardware. Their request ("stop it crashing") was quite reasonable, so we added the limiter. This isn't a hypothetical "it might crash" scenario - we have witnessed crash situations caused by excessive use of inefficient content.

kind regards,

chris

 

[norfolksouthern37]

i still would like to see it working somewhere... can we get a video or a screenshot or something of it actually working? is there ANY content that will allow the 5000m draw distance? none of this was addressed. the 'user's selected viewing distance' is NEVER reached.

fine you need a limiter, but WHERE does it actually reach the selected draw distance? it cant do it on an empty set of baseboards over 5000m end to end with just a ruler present...

why is removing part of a scene and drawing it back efficient? even not moving the "cam" view around the scene will remove and redraw distant tiles and scenery... you cant say this doesnt use resources better suited to moving my trainz around...

the very presence of this 'limiter' shows that the software needs work, not the content. if that is what you need to stop crashes then it seems to me that the software is in need of a revision. when can we expect a true fix and not a stopgap measure?

 

[WindWalkr]

i still would like to see it working somewhere... can we get a video or a screenshot or something of it actually working? is there ANY content that will allow the 5000m draw distance? none of this was addressed. the 'user's selected viewing distance' is NEVER reached.

I believe the videos above show this working correctly. Keep in mind that in Trainz, the scenery and track draw distance is slightly lower than the terrain draw distance, to minimize any cases where the farthest terrain section is culled and the scenery extends out into space.

An empty baseboard set definitely reaches the full range. To test this, just go into surveyor and lay seven additional baseboards in a line, then one "tail" to the side at the end (giving an "L" shape.) Standing at the other end of the map, you can see that the tail (at just over 5000m) is right on the border of being visible as you move around slightly.

why is removing part of a scene and drawing it back efficient?

It's not. When the limiter kicks in, Trainz will attempt to rapidly reduce draw distance (to avoid crashing) and then, once the critical issue is gone, it will attempt to slowly expand the draw distance out to reach a reasonable maximum. One point to keep in mind here is that this should ideally never happen- having the limiter kick in is a "uh oh, too much content, we're going to crash if we keep this up" moment. The priority for the game at that point is to get out of that situation as quickly as possible.

There is a reasonable amount of hysteresis in these calculations, to avoid oscillation while the limiter is active. Unfortunately, some content is heavy enough that a few additional items can jump right across the hysteresis range from "safe" to "danger" without ever hitting the "getting close" range. In this scenario, some oscillation is inevitable.

You'll also note that this is a lot more likely to occur in compatibility mode than native mode. Native mode is quite a bit more efficient out-of-the-box, which in most cases reduces this problem.

the very presence of this 'limiter' shows that the software needs work, not the content. if that is what you need to stop crashes then it seems to me that the software is in need of a revision. when can we expect a true fix and not a stopgap measure?

The software is working correctly. We are continuously working to improve the content available for the game- both internally, and through our content creation partners. Fixing the entire library of existing content is time-consuming, so we obviously prioritize content that ships with the game over DLS content when addressing this.

kind regards,

chris

 

[norfolksouthern37]

i see, thank you for answering.

 

[bolivar]

I am glad that you are taking the time to speak to us, Windwalkr. As you can see, quite a lot of irritation on the part of purchasers of this product(TRS 2010). Ok so this is the first I have heard re localisation partners. Again the question goes begging..what difference would it make if we, the consumers could control the limiter effect. Your localisation partners surely would be able to cope with that. Especially if a warning about setting the limiter too low would impact negatively on low end machines. As sparky15 mentions in his post:
"Are you saying 10 has to be dumbed down and that it's the third party's fault since they haven't produced new content?"

 

[WindWalkr]

I am glad that you are taking the time to speak to us, Windwalkr.

No worries

..what difference would it make if we, the consumers could control the limiter effect. Your localisation partners surely would be able to cope with that.

Please re-read my post above regarding what we're trying to achieve in the long term. I totally agree that the effect is annoying- but I don't agree that a short-term solution for some users outweighs a long-term solution for all users. It's important to understand that there's no "good" reason why we should be seeing these limits- efficiently built content with proper use of LOD and other such techniques will not normally reach the limits until well beyond the performance capabilities of current PCs. The inefficiencies with the current content set is due to the fact that we haven't stressed the importance of efficient content-creation in the past, and because prior to TS2009 the options for LOD were limited.

Especially if a warning about setting the limiter too low would impact negatively on low end machines.

This is a misconception. The limits have nothing to do with performance, and we've seen related crashes on fairly high-end machines where low-end machines were having no trouble in a similar scene.

As sparky15 mentions in his post:
"Are you saying 10 has to be dumbed down and that it's the third party's fault since they haven't produced new content?"

No. We're saying that you have the choice of:

* Original Trainz draw distances with Original Trainz content.
* Longer draw distances with moder content.

We hope that in the longer term that all of the "Original Trainz" content (meaning, content produced prior to standards below build 2.9) will be superseded or updated to support the longer draw distances, and we are doing our part to assist in that process. We are not, however, going to take responsibility for updating the entire back-catalog of DLS items to modern standards.

chris

 

[norfolksouthern37]

content-on-baseboard draw distance aside... is there no way to improve the actual board ground drawing distance? i think this becomes one of the most important things,especially in hilly terrain. not even textured with any more than the default grid the distance seems very short, i think if this could be extended the drawing of items like trees etc would not be as noticeable as it is now where everything including the ground 'pops' in or out. i have also noticed that the terrain in the immediate distance appears to have full resolution textures (i keep my terrain detail on normal btw - to extend my draw distance. turning it to low causes too much terrain through the tracks). is there no way to draw distant terrain with the lowest resolution or basic color of the texture used, ala mini map? i only notice the blending going away, but the image itself seems sharp still. to me this is kind of unnecessary and makes the checkerd pattern more noticeable. would this improve life for us a bit or am i having the wrong ideas? i would think that improving the terrain distance over any of the content distance would be the best thing to give the right 'feel' to the sim while using it. i feel that one of my biggest problems is the 'edge of the world' look it gives at all times.

 

[WindWalkr]

is there no way to improve the actual board ground drawing distance? i think this becomes one of the most important things,especially in hilly terrain. not even textured with any more than the default grid the distance seems very short,

The maximum draw distance for terrain in TS2009 and TS2010 is 5km, up from 1.5km in the earlier Trainz versions. We also allow "backdrop" billboards which extend out to 15km which can be used to good effect to make the draw distance appear greater in some cases - I freely admit that this isn't a perfect solution for all cases.

True draw distances beyond 5km is quite difficult on consumer-grade hardware; single precision floating-point accuracy falls apart over this range.

is there no way to draw distant terrain with the lowest resolution or basic color of the texture used

As you've noticed, we already do this to the extent that it would improve performance. The issue with draw distance beyond 5km is not performance but rather precision.

i only notice the blending going away, but the image itself seems sharp still. to me this is kind of unnecessary and makes the checkerd pattern more noticeable.

"Sharpness" does not affect anything, i'm afraid. What matters for draw distance is the scale involved - there's an upper bound to what the card can deal with and it's a balance of precision versus scale beyond that. Whenever we increase the draw distance, we decrease the precision. This results in nasty z-fighting between nearby objects (for example, track or road splines and the ground under them.)

When you're not near any objects, it's possible to increase both the near and far clipping distance without really losing precision, which allows us to extend the draw distance. When you're inside the cab, we can't afford to substantially increase the near clipping distance because the cab itself would be clipped out. In this case we need to sacrifice either draw distance or precision.


kind regards,

chris

 

[socalwb909]

-My thoughts on this are, the draw distance limiter sucks! there has been so many times a screen shot has been compromised due to the, taking away and putting back way of trainz 2009/10. I don't have all day to wait for stuff to re-appear to get the shot i want!

-Chris: you said, "localisation partners refused to ship TS2009 due to reproducible crashes on their test hardware. Their request ("stop it crashing") was quite reasonable, so we added the limiter."

-seems to me not a lot of thought went into this limiter. sounds like it was put in with more force than thought. I'm upset cause it feels to me that everyone that is current with todays technology has to suffer because of people that are not. example: you can have the most top of the line computer but you won't benefit from it because trainz has to run on a computer with windows 95. you don't see a game like crysis making this sacrifice. i see it as simple as, if a computer doesn't meet the requirements the computer user doesn't get to play! but really what i see is that it really comes down to the money. make it available to everyone to maximize profits instead of sacrificing a couple bucks!

-I tried your test and this is what i came up with:
start: http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/5b01a2f2d06d3ff0898e8f7b7ea3cbcd.png
middle: http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/9b0d66419ad9fec209c5f93eb6224617.png
end: http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/dd22d75a807f3c92842e40ff5a8f5014.png

-besides one ruler and the tallest building i could find im coming up 500 to 800 meters short of 5000m. anyway!

-in no way i believe the 3rd party should be blamed for the draw distance problem. Chris, you said it yourself you were forced to put the limiter in or the game doesn't ship! all i ask for is options! with a proper warning in place, if the game crashes, its simply my fault! im not pointing fingers at no one but me.

-also ask yourself this. have you ever worked in surveyor in a heavily detailed area with the DD set to 5000m while placing objects, splines, moving up and down, in and out of birds-eye view? have you played avery to drexel and sat in cab for a while then leave and try to go outside? you don't have to answer those but think about it! the point is seems like a lot more cpu work to take away and put back, than just keeping it there!

-just my 2 cents on the matter!

-Joe

 

[Tidgney]

WindWalkr its nice to see a constant response as said above. But I still dont feel it works on all PC's. My PC has no FPS problems yet blinks everywhere, and is more high end machine than middle i would say. The limiter to me seems to not work properly i'll upload a video later on, showing what imean. I was on the ECML route, where all i could see was the rail from the cab sometimes, and at points nothing but the cab. I can never see above 1000M no matter the distance :S.

Processor: i920 Oc'd 3.6ghz
GFX: ATI 4890 1gb
Ram: 6gb
Vista 64bit.

 

[WindWalkr]

I'm upset cause it feels to me that everyone that is current with todays technology has to suffer because of people that are not. example: you can have the most top of the line computer but you won't benefit from it because trainz has to run on a computer with windows 95.

Again, you're working with the assumption that this issue is directed at low-end machines. It is not.

you don't see a game like crysis making this sacrifice.

You do indeed see games like Crysis making sacrifices. You can be very sure that the developers considered each decision very carefully to determine what the engine could support and what it could not.

i see it as simple as, if a computer doesn't meet the requirements the computer user doesn't get to play! but really what i see is that it really comes down to the money. make it available to everyone to maximize profits

Absolutely correct. We don't want to limit our market artificially.

-besides one ruler and the tallest building i could find im coming up 500 to 800 meters short of 5000m.

As noted above, scenery does not extend right to the edge of the maximum draw distance. The maximum number indicates the outer bound for terrain.

-in no way i believe the 3rd party should be blamed for the draw distance problem.

I am not here to lay blame. I'm here to explain what needs to change if you want to have stable and long draw distances.

Chris, you said it yourself you were forced to put the limiter in or the game doesn't ship! all i ask for is options! with a proper warning in place, if the game crashes, its simply my fault! im not pointing fingers at no one but me.

I've already explained why this isn't a good option for us.

the point is seems like a lot more cpu work to take away and put back, than just keeping it there!

Again, the limiter has nothing to do with performance.

kind regards,

chris

 

[WindWalkr]

WindWalkr its nice to see a constant response as said above.

Thanks

But I still dont feel it works on all PC's. My PC has no FPS problems yet blinks everywhere, and is more high end machine than middle i would say.

Again, the limiter is not affected by your PC's performance. It is an anti-crash device, not a performance-saving device.

I was on the ECML route, where all i could see was the rail from the cab sometimes, and at points nothing but the cab.

The limiter won't cause this effect. Something else is going on here.

I can never see above 1000M no matter the distance :S.

Are you running in Native mode? If you've switched to Compatibility mode, this may be reducing your draw distance substantially. The TS2010 built-in routes should never reduce this severely in Native mode. Alternatively, have you perhaps replaced some of the built-in content with third-party alternatives? If so, you may wish to try reverting those changes in case the third-party versions are poorly built and are causing the problems.

kind regards,

chris