Updating, is this why we need to spend £££££££ on a new machine ??????

[BLACKWATCH]

Maybe it's not N3V (Auran) 's fault after all.

I am in the process of up grading from 2004 to 2010. I am currently busy with downloading
the content upgrades to the basic install.

A question has come to mind, regarding the size of these "upgrades", why is it that
one upgrade of a ground texture from one person can be 125kb, whilst a ground
texture from another person (& there are more than a few) from 'Lotharhake' (as an instance) , run into
the realms of 3 - 4 - 5 MB plus ????????????????????

Why would any Trainz user use these over bloated files in a route ??????
Surely a route with more than the odd "once in a couple of miles" instance of
these items, would drag any (even super) computers to a grinding halt !!!!!!!!

It beggers belief that they are even allowed to be uploaded.

Or am I missing something ???

 

[tomurban]

Depends how much detail you need. More detail = More Polys = More MB.

 

[dnevans8]

That 3, 4 ,5 MB is before you download them. I downloaded one that was supposed to be 5.89MB and when I checked in the Asset window it had become 9.02MB. Not only was there an increase in size but the original rock texture had become a grass texture. There are several more rock textures that from the name of the update will become grasses so I do not think I will be downloading any more of Lotharhakes updates.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

Depends how much detail you need. More detail = More Polys = More MB.

If I need that much detail, I'll buy a ticket to the location & take a soddin' photo of it myself, it's ridiculous, this is what
puts people off buying the sim in the first place, the content may be free, but bandwidth & computer components ain't.

When will some creators get it into their heads, that most of us ain't as soddin' rich as they are & that most of us are just
ordinary Joe's who like trains, but have another life looking after our families, that costs money.

 

[johnwhelan]

One of the upsides of Trainz is that much of the content is free. One of the downsides is some content may not be built in a performance friendly way. At least TS2010 has DXT compression on the texture files so they only take up 25% of the space they use in TRS2004 plus it dumps more work down to the GPU.

I think some content creators are better than others at getting realism for fewer polys etc and I suggest you stay with them.

If you are running UK rolling stock I have some recent 5 and 7 plank wagons that should be performance friendly and there is a van also. If the skin you prefer isn't there yet it should just be a matter of copying the old skin over the new with GIMP or paint.net etc.

Cheerio John

 

[stovepipe]

Well N3V's own TS09 series ground textures are 10.7 Mb to download, but compress down to 2.5Mb when built-in. This is for 1024x1024 pixel normal mapped textures, built to current standards. Frankly they are a country mile better than 95% of pre-TS2009 textures.

 

[cascaderailroad]

Almost all laptops are pure bloated junk, some are so slow that they are lucky to run Word for a couple of years ... most desktops have a 300Watt PS, as not many people that are doing Facebook-Farmtown carp need a super fast CPU, or a lightning fast video card.

So if you want a high poly game like Trainz to run ... buy a $1200 laptop, or a $800 desktop, that has high quality specs (that has a 800watt PS, a CPU that is in excess of 3.2Ghz and a 2Gb dedicated graphics video card).

Buy an Integrated Graphics Open GL junky laptop with 8Gb RAM, for $999 and you will be guaranteed poor framerates !

 

[tomurban]

As BLACKWATCH so aptly put it, not all of us are independently wealthy. I suspect most of us are retired and living on a budget of some sort and cannot justify spending $800 - $1200 on a high end system.

 

[Retro00064]

<snip> Frankly they are a country mile better than 95% of pre-TS2009 textures.

+1.

Blackwatch, congratulations on getting TS2010. I upgraded to it from TRS2004 back in September 2011 and haven't gone back.

The support for high-resolution textures in TS2009 and up is a significant advantage (in my opinion) over earlier versions. While these textures do have larger file sizes than their low-resolution predecessors, the detail level that these textures can have makes it worth it. The difference between a good 1024 x 1024-pixel ground texture and an old-style 128 x 128-pixel texture is like light and day.

My high-resolution textures on the DLS are 1024 x 1024 pixels in size. They use small 128 x 128 "blank" normal maps (since my textures don't use normal mapping), which helps the file size. These are I believe only a little over 4 megabytes each. The sizes shown on the DLS Black Pages range from over 1 megabyte to around 3 megabytes.

I ought to take comparison screenshots in TRS2004 and TS2010 to show how much better the high-resolution textures are.

Regards,

Zachary.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

Seems then that I'm not alone in my frustration.

John, I only model British railways & 5-7 plank wagons are one of the mainstays of my freight workings
so will definately be looking those out.

I always said that I would update when the time was right for me, as it happened, due to myself not putting
things away properly & a young carpet crawler belonging to some visiting friends, my copy of 2004 died a
torturous death (it was the version that needed to reside in the drive), they don't seem to want to load when
they have teeth marks in them, so rather than buy another bargain bucket 2004, I decided to go up to 2010.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Hi Blackwatch
This is one of the 'changes' that will be seen with the higher quality content that is available for Trainz, especially since the introduction of TS2009.

For ground textures, these have gone from 256*256 or 512*512 textures to 1024*1024 or 2048*2048 textures. Allowing much higher detail on the ground textures (going from random green pixels to actual grass, for example). These textures also support a normals map, allowing the detail to be given a bit of definition. However, this does increase the file size quite substantially (a non normals mapped ground texture should be about half the size). However, the performance difference between a normals mapped ground texture, and a non-normals mapped texture shouldn't actually be that great, due to the way normals maps are handled.

That said, it was possible to make items with similar file sizes for earlier versions of Trainz, however the performance in those versions for the same items would have been worse in many cases, since texture compression (and a few other features) weren't available.

A well built/efficient item will likely have a greater file size than an item that hasn't been as well built/isn't as efficient, yet should perform better than the 'smaller' item. Things like LOD, a single high detail texture (vs multiple small textures), mesh libraries, etc can improve performance, but also increase file sizes. A mesh-library itself is a good example of a large file. The mesh-library itself could end up at 20+MB, in theory, for a large series of similar items. However, so long as it's been setup correctly (shared textures/materials as much as possible), you should see less impact on performance, since items that share that mesh-library (e.g. a series of houses) will actually be 'stitched' (effectively, if you had 1 texture over 50 items, they get loaded together as a single item).

 

[johnwhelan]

Seems then that I'm not alone in my frustration.

John, I only model British railways & 5-7 plank wagons are one of the mainstays of my freight workings
so will definately be looking those out.

I always said that I would update when the time was right for me, as it happened, due to myself not putting
things away properly & a young carpet crawler belonging to some visiting friends, my copy of 2004 died a
torturous death (it was the version that needed to reside in the drive), they don't seem to want to load when
they have teeth marks in them, so rather than buy another bargain bucket 2004, I decided to go up to 2010.

BR is a bit later than I usually do but I've just done the only 5 BR 5 plank I had. You can either wait for the DLS or pick it up here

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxVnTmG7VmshTmFJeUpsZFVUX0syNnl5TWFGTEpvUQ

The texture doesn't look ideal to me. If you happen to be carrying a camera and can get a decent side shot of a 5 or 7 plank I'd be delighted to get by hands on it. Ones found on the web can't be used unfortunately as we run into copyright.

The BR vans you'll need to clone and convert yourself unless I put them on TPR.

Cheerio John

 

[BLACKWATCH]

Zec, thanks for the explanation, it seems to be for the best, so will have to see how it all
works when I get started properly.

Thanks for the link John, I should have made things clearer though, when I said "British railways", I actually
meant 'the railways of Britain', as in 1930's to present day including preservation.

I should be getting out & about shortly now the weather is getting better, any shots I get of rolling stock, I will
give you "first dibs" on, no copyright probs then.

 

[KenGreen]

I think part of the problem of upgrading computers is than in the UK we still seem to have to pay through the nose for a decent spec eg Cascade was quoting $1,200 for a good laptop, I think for £800 in the UK you could only buy a mediocre laptop. I have just bitten the bullet and bought a new laptop, this was built and cost £1,600 and still I can't move from one A1 train to another without it taking 5-10 seconds to update. I suppose that is one thing you have to accept because generally the better graphics are well worth it. In TS12 the scene going into Newcastle is probably the best graphics available in Trainz, magnificent.

Ken

 

[Lataxe]

It does seem a bit cheeky to complain about how free content from hard-working creators is not good enough because it fails to meet the lowest common demoninator of computer hardware. On the other hand, perhaps the creators of higher-quality assets for Trainz might be asked to indicate the file-size or even a minimum spec for satisfactory running of their content?

But really, can the OP justify driving the quality of Trainz content down to match his personal PC budget? If this attitude was carried into other spheres of life there would be a somewhat poorer world. Imagine if all real train travel still required one to sit in an open-topped hard-seat carriage to keep the fares down to rock bottom.......

Setting a budget for items such as a PC is good housekeeping, true. However, you gets what you pays for and sometimes it makes a better economic case to save & strive to obtain what one needs rather than what our internal accountant says we should be allowed. I learnt the hard way that it is much more economical, in the long run, to save up for the best tool for the job rather than suffer a series of inexpensive but inadequate failures.

And, putting aside the pure economics, why settle for a degraded life experience just because our internal accountant is a peck-sniffer, eh, eh?

The PC I use costs around £1000 in today's money. It still has some components from the original PC bought 8 years ago (case, CD & some HD drives, TV tuner card, sound card, photo-card reader, USB front ports) with other components that have been upgraded if & when they failed. It runs Trainz and other demanding programs (eg photoshop) very well indeed. I don't expect to have to ever repace it. I might have to install a new part if one fails, at which point I will upgrade the performance of that part.

This is a good method for spending less-per-buy whilst still buying what's needed. It spreads out the cost of upgrading (is a sort of saving policy really) whilst allowing me to enjoy the performance level I want.

Lataxe, just a poor old pensioner but not content with only crusts & water.

 

[stationmistress]

Believe it or not, but my tower computer is a higher-end spec with quad CPU, 4 Meg graphics, Windows 7 home premium bought 2 years ago from Aldi for under £500 and still ahead of the curve. The nearest comparable competitor according to Computer Shopper was over £700 and still had less than my Medion. I run TS2009 SP3 by choice and depending on the camera angle, jerking can still occur.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

Lataxe, I don't think I'm being cheeky at all, my machine is a custom built desktop that has passed all the checks that TS2010 made
when I installed the sim, I also realise that it is my choice what items I download from the dls or elsewhere, BUT .................

.......... this is a new install, I have just upgraded from 2004, the items I complained about are the "content updates" that I HAVE to install
for the built in content supplied on the dvd to run correctly, most of it I won't even touch in a month of sundays, it's of no interest to me.

I haven't even ventured into 'Routes' yet, as I'm too busy downloading over 1200 of these 'updates', then I will sort out CM3.3 before
attempting anything else, hopefully that will save me from mucking something up & having to do a dreaded 'Re-install'.

I just didn't realise what the reason for these files being so huge was, thanks to Zec, I now have an insight.

 

[fran1]

Blackwatch,
The up dating shouldn't take to long (an hour ish). I've just re installed 2010 (5 days ago could be 7 I've lost track).
Just in case you don't know use CM, search feature, out of date =true, below that, location=local, apply or whatever. Once it spits the result out r/click and select all. R/click again and select view asset versions, r/click again and select all, r/click again and select download. Go to the pub.
When you return you'll have a whole new outlook and maybe double vision on the situation.

 

[BLACKWATCH]

Thanks for the tip Fran, but it wouldn't be any quicker really, I don't have a fct so the slow server is
dictating the time it takes to download these 1200+ updates, time I have plenty of at the moment.

Plus I don't think the wife would be too chuffed at me disappearing to the pub, as I always seem
to lose track of time (& pints) when I'm enjoying myself. :hehe:

 

[fran1]

Thanks for the tip Fran, but it wouldn't be any quicker really, I don't have a fct so the slow server is
dictating the time it takes to download these 1200+ updates, time I have plenty of at the moment.

Plus I don't think the wife would be too chuffed at me disappearing to the pub, as I always seem
to lose track of time (& pints) when I'm enjoying myself. :hehe:

I know it's more expense but a FCT is well worth it.
I think your wife's related to mine, very similar attitude but what does time matter when your enjoying yourself, she's non to chuffed on my return but the dog loves me, he knows that a-I'll drop some of my tea and b-he'll get loads of tit bits and the plate when I've finished.