Trs2010 Very Poor Draw Distance! Driver Mode Even Worse

[norfolksouthern37]

I've just given you an example scenario (above) showing that it does. If you follow the few steps I've listed, you will indeed see a 5000m draw distance.

chris

i dont think you read my post(s) well enough. thats a blank baseboard scenario, i asked for an example of a finished route with assets that you approve of that does not cut itself off some 600 to 700m at some points. as i mentioned before 5000m is a nice limit to put there but it can certainly never reach that far unless as in your scenario you put untextured boards together and look for the edges from far away. this is exactly what i mean. you assume that the 5000m is reached when it is not. not even almost close on textured and terraformed baseboards.

you probably also misunderstood that i want 5000m at all times, which i dont, i just dont like to see the edge of the world right in front of my train. i am just pointing out that on blank boards with no scenery yes, the draw distance slider makes a difference, but on a finished terrain, you dont get really any improvements over older versions of Trainz as far as draw distance and sometimes, due to that limiter gimmick designed to hide program inefficiencies, you get much worse draw distance than the old versions.

 

[Isaacg]

Hi guys, I thought I'd weigh in on the discussion here. I had these issues before, with draw distance. Has anyone tried the DirectX vs OpenGL in the launcher "options" dialogue? I can't say that it will work for anyone, and it may have only just worked for me, but as far as what I've experienced since I changed over(I'll check what my current status is, whether DirectX or OpenGL), the draw distance is now greater from what it was before, and I can view the land and objects from the cab. I don't know if that works for you guys or not, but it did for me. Sorry if this theory has already been suggested, I was too bothered to look at the earlier posts in the thread.

 

[WindWalkr]

i dont think you read my post(s) well enough. thats a blank baseboard scenario, i asked for an example of a finished route with assets that you approve of that does not cut itself off some 600 to 700m at some points. as i mentioned before 5000m is a nice limit to put there but it can certainly never reach that far unless as in your scenario you put untextured boards together and look for the edges from far away. this is exactly what i mean.

Fair enough, although that was not what was stated earlier in this thread. I will stand by the comment that a modern route with well-built content will reach the full 5000m. I completely agree that existing routes may have trouble reaching the maximum range in some areas - it depends a lot on the choice of content in the scene. It often takes the community several years to build a route, so we are just now starting to see the outcome of projects started on TS2009- certainly the majority of routes included in TS2010 were started well before 2009 and while we spent a lot of time bringing the content up to standard, they are not perfect examples in every regard.

you probably also misunderstood that i want 5000m at all times, which i dont, i just dont like to see the edge of the world right in front of my train.

That's fair enough, and it's what is offered by the built-in routes. In native mode, draw distances on the TS2010 routes will vary between about 3k-5k depending on the scene.

i am just pointing out that on blank boards with no scenery yes, the draw distance slider makes a difference, but on a finished terrain, you dont get really any improvements over older versions of Trainz as far as draw distance and sometimes

The maximum draw range allowed by the old games was 1.5km. The minimum range allowed by the newer games is 1km. So yes, it's theoretically possible to have a scenario where the range is reduced below the old maximum draw distance if the content is sufficiently inefficient. You rarely see this in practice and it's trivial to fix if you pay attention to the Surveyor performance stats and fix or exclude the most inefficient of content.

It's also worth noting that the modern versions are substantially more efficient at rendering large amounts of content than the older versions of Trainz. You don't have to take my word for this- there have been plenty of posts on the forums discussing it.

chris

 

[norfolksouthern37]

actually i did ask for that. again i appreciate you taking your time to answer these questions. is it in your interest to present a fix at some point that will reduce or remove the 'limiter' as it were? something that will cause the game to render properly without crashing? i - and surely many others - just dont see the limiter as a permafix and i hope you dont either.

 

[WindWalkr]

is it in your interest to present a fix at some point that will reduce or remove the 'limiter' as it were? something that will cause the game to render properly without crashing?

You still seem to be missing the point of the limiter. If the content is operating correctly, you won't know whether there is a limiter or not, so there's no need for us to ever remove it.

While the content is problematic for whatever reason, you will see the effects of the limiter but in this case it's a good thing (or: "the lesser of two evils") because the alternative is seeing crashes.

chris

 

[norfolksouthern37]

but what makes the content crash the game?

 

[socalwb909]

-this is completely off topic but since it is on the same topic as trying to get things fixed, what causes this to happen? (refer to screen shot) this happens when using replace assets option! is this another case of inefficient content?
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g76/socalwb/Stuff/a7f552b2.png
-back on topic... i just believe that there is something wrong that didn't get fixed or auran didn't want to fix it but it was so easy just to put this limiter in, it was done instead. i have yet to read a direct answer to norfolksouthern37's posts in which i would liked answered too! even better a video showing us the efficient content on a route with 4000-5000 meter viewing distance while moving up, down, 360, etc! that should prove to all content creators that technically this limiter doesn't exist and while having efficient content, that content will never disappear in a given area.
-Joe

 

[WindWalkr]

but what makes the content crash the game?

There are various limits to what your machine can handle. A very obvious example of this is physical RAM - there's only so much of it to go around, and once you reach that limit you can't go any further. Your PC may be incredibly fast, but if it's out of RAM, it's out of RAM, and that's it.

In the case of the limiter, we take a few different metrics of this type into account. RAM can have an effect but on most peoples machines that is not a real problem because they have more RAM than we need. There are a few metrics relating to resources on the GPU which are the usual problem cases. There are no documented limits to these resources but we know from field testing that if we use too much the computer is likely to crash.

chris

 

[mikeman]

I think what is going on here is a bit of miscommunication and a lack of information from Auran. I have finally gotten that the limiter is here to stay and that we need to create things that are more efficient but, does that mean they have to be inferior? What exactly makes up a "more efficient" item for 09/10 so that the limiter doesn't come into play? I think some of the frustration in the creator community is the lack of info or easily found info on how to make items the proper way for 10.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

i dont understand Chris... its not related to the computer performance but you dont know except that it will crash? this is just about all i can get from your comments, please explain...

 

[WindWalkr]

-this is completely off topic but since it is on the same topic as trying to get things fixed, what causes this to happen? (refer to screen shot) this happens when using replace assets option! is this another case of inefficient content?
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g76/socalwb/Stuff/a7f552b2.png

Which thing are you looking at here? Without before-and-after shots, it's hard to guess at what you're talking about? It looks like there might be a few deep pits in the terrain- if you're referring to that then the most common cause we know of is corrupted map data generated by third-party utilities. If it's not that then I'm not really sure what we're looking at here.

-back on topic... i just believe that there is something wrong that didn't get fixed or auran didn't want to fix it but it was so easy just to put this limiter in, it was done instead.

I've told you repeatedly that this is not the case. If you wan't to believe that I'm lying to you then that's your prerogative, but please don't waste my time asking me questions if you're predisposed to reject my answers.

..a video showing us the efficient content on a route with 4000-5000 meter viewing distance while moving up, down, 360, etc! that should prove to all content creators that technically this limiter doesn't exist

The limiter most certainly does exist. As noted in my previous post, the TS2010 routes give quite acceptable draw distances in the majority of cases, so it's easy for you test for yourself. Make sure that you're in native mode, as compatibility mode does carry a serious cost to performance and draw distance.

I don't have the setup or time to be making videos, but there are obviously a variety already on youtube, both from Auran and third parties. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_qHtw9672Y&feature=related

kind regards,

chris

 

[WindWalkr]

i dont understand Chris... its not related to the computer performance but you dont know except that it will crash? this is just about all i can get from your comments, please explain...

I just explained this one above, but to summarise:

* It's not related to performance in any way. You can reach a hard limit while at 120fps, if your computer is fast enough. Generally speaking, lack of performance does not lead to crashes - it just leads to a poor experience.

* There are a upper bounds on what we can ask the hardware to do. For example, you can't use more physical RAM than the system has available. It won't slow down beyond that point, the request we put to the system will simply fail. This failure may be expressed as a soft failure (the system tells us "no can do" and we proceed without being able to do that operation) or it may be a hard failure (either the operation was critical to the game and we are unable to continue, or the system itself dies when we make the request rather than reporting a failure to us.)

Unfortunately, we don't always get a polite note from the system saying "excuse me, but you'd better not use any more resources." Fortunately, if the content is built efficiently then we aren't likely to get into trouble because we're typically well under any practical limits.

I have finally gotten that the limiter is here to stay and that we need to create things that are more efficient but, does that mean they have to be inferior?

In the vast majority of cases, no. They need to be superior. The key here is efficiency; it's the computing equivalent of an "energy efficiency" rating for white goods - if it's built in an efficient way, it will use less power and achieve the same or better results.

What exactly makes up a "more efficient" item for 09/10 so that the limiter doesn't come into play? I think some of the frustration in the creator community is the lack of info or easily found info on how to make items the proper way for 10.

This has been covered in great detail a number of times. I'd suggest you start by reading our wiki page on modeling and paying attention to the best practices detailed there.

We also have a page on the in-game performance statistics display which tells you how to locate and fix problem content.

kind regards,

chris

 

[nikos1]

Since apparently the limiter is to stay in future versions without any sort of modifications, would it be possible to have a distant mountains feature similar to MSTS? I think that would solve some issues, as the mountainous routes are the ones that suffer most from the limiter, personally as a flatland modeler it has not given me too much problems but I personally can see why it can be a deciding factor for some routebuilders. I think Justin already touched on the idea, I dont see how rendering terrain beyond a certain distance with the low res minimap textures would have a adverse effect on performance.
Im not sure how exactly the feature in MSTS works but I would think it would be worth examining as so far it is the only train sim that has allowed for mountain vista's that are so important to many routes.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

It looks like there might be a few deep pits in the terrain- if you're referring to that then the most common cause we know of is corrupted map data generated by third-party utilities.

ROFL - the known cause for this is to replace terrain textures in surveyor, it makes these deep holes all the time, on many machines. i would think you would recognize that bug by now.

i guess that we are not getting far with this discussion, its almost like we are speaking different languages. you may feel frustrated by these questions but in a similar sense it seems that you are predisposed to tell us nothing is wrong when we all experience this and are not happy with it. all of your answers make it seem like there is no solution and it is a matter of resource use, but it does not excuse the 1000m or less distances.

i guess we have no choice but to believe you that the answer lies in the content used. i guess we all use bad content and may never experience the game functional as you have written it because we will always have inefficient content. since no examples were given i guess we may never know the real answer. at this point we need only have flat baseboards with nothing on them. not much fun for a train simulator....

 

[WindWalkr]

Since apparently the limiter is to stay in future versions without any sort of modifications, would it be possible to have a distant mountains feature similar to MSTS?

I'm not sure exactly what that feature does, but it sounds similar to our backdrop objects. You may wish to look into those.

I think that would solve some issues, as the mountainous routes are the ones that suffer most from the limiter

No type of route should really suffer more or less than any other- it all depends on the content in use. The maximum limit (5km) may still be too low for some truly mountainous routes, but that's a whole different issue.

I dont see how rendering terrain beyond a certain distance with the low res minimap textures would have a adverse effect on performance.

Performance is not the reason for the draw-distance limitations. Please read my posts above where I discuss this.

ROFL - the known cause for this is to replace terrain textures in surveyor, it makes these deep holes all the time, on many machines. i would think you would recognize that bug by now.

Don't know of that one. If you have a reproducible problem, make sure that Helpdesk is aware of it so that our QA can track the issue.

you may feel frustrated by these questions but in a similar sense it seems that you are predisposed to tell us nothing is wrong when we all experience this and are not happy with it.

I'm telling you exactly what is wrong and even how you might go about fixing it. ("you" meaning 'content-creators' here - if you personally only drive trains then I freely admit that I can't help you directly and that you should stick to routes that don't show the problem.)

all of your answers make it seem like there is no solution and it is a matter of resource use, but it does not excuse the 1000m or less distances.

I'm not trying to make any excuses; I'm telling you what needs to be done to fix the issue. I'm also telling you that the TS2010 routes, out of the box, do not exhibit "1000m or less [draw] distances".

since no examples were given i guess we may never know the real answer.

Again, TS2010 ships with numerous examples. I won't pretend that they're all perfect, but they're certainly nowhere near as bad as you are making out.

chris

 

[mikeman]

I just explained this one above, but to summarise:




This has been covered in great detail a number of times. I'd suggest you start by reading our wiki page on modeling and paying attention to the best practices detailed there.

We also have a page on the in-game performance statistics display which tells you how to locate and fix problem content.

kind regards,

chris

Thank you for the partial answer. Yes I know it has been covered in great detail in many other threads. I also know that there is a good deal of info on the wiki site however, there hasn't been a CCG made since TC and the wiki site doesn't cover everything that would be covered in a comprehensive CCG. As it stands there are things on the wiki, in threads in the forum and threads on the old Dev site that didn't make it over to the wiki site that you have to sift through to find the info your looking for for creating. What I am saying is if there was a concise CCG produced for creators to draw from I think a lot of this confusion would be alleviated.

 

[Scitimar]

What I am saying is if there was a concise CCG produced for creators to draw from I think a lot of this confusion would be alleviated.

Not sure how a "concise" CCG would help now , it did'nt do much good in the past when modeling was far easier .

brick wall thread

.

 

[WindWalkr]

Yes I know it has been covered in great detail in many other threads. I also know that there is a good deal of info on the wiki site however, there hasn't been a CCG made since TC and the wiki site doesn't cover everything that would be covered in a comprehensive CCG.

In most areas, it covers a lot more that was available in the old CCGs. In your specific example, it took me a few seconds to find the answers, and the explanations go far beyond what was ever in the CCGs. Yes, there's always room to improve, and I'd love to have the funding to supply more, but it's time that the "But there's no CCG" meme was taken out and shot.

kind regards,

chris

 

[socalwb909]

-My closing comments to this draw distance and other problems!
-Chris:
-I thank you for taking your time to explain and try to help, but from 5 full pages to this point we have gotten no where. IMO. It is what I like to call, "beating around the bush". Obviously there is a problem that so many of us in the community has questioned with no direct answer. IMO. I am a big fan of Trainz and probably always will be, everything else sucks. IMO. But just because something works and is not a problem to Auran, doesn't mean that it is the same for the end user. I a person who doesn't believe in perfect, but you have to be honest with yourself, when you have an X amount of loyal fans of Trainz telling you there is a problem, I would listen. Draw distance and your surroundings for a simulator are very important to me and if the next version of Trainz has this DD limiter in it, Auran does not get my money. I know that is my choice and I know it will not effect Auran one bit because there will be a buyer to take my spot. I am no one special, just one of many in the community, but lets face it, the sim needs work in many areas. I thank you though for giving me the opportunity for the tools to be what I am not in real life, an engineer, route builder, etc. Like I said, I don't believe in perfect and I know there is no way to satisfy everyone, but I just hope that Auran listens to the community and this, "beating around the bush" as I call it, comes to an end.
-Joe

 

[WindWalkr]

It is what I like to call, "beating around the bush". Obviously there is a problem that so many of us in the community has questioned with no direct answer. IMO. I am a big fan of Trainz and probably always will be, everything else sucks. IMO. But just because something works and is not a problem to Auran, doesn't mean that it is the same for the end user. I a person who doesn't believe in perfect, but you have to be honest with yourself, when you have an X amount of loyal fans of Trainz telling you there is a problem, I would listen.

I'll have to beg to differ on this. I've been very explicit about acknowledging that there is a problem and detailing the techniques required to solve it.

chris