"i dont use transdem so i don't think we should cater to those who do" pware back it again with the greatest takes as always
Upgrading a route
- Thread starter jaur1
- Start date
Not my words. I have no objection to anyone using TransDEM, HOG, GMax, MS Paint or any other 3rd party tools in their enjoyment of Trainz. Each to their own.
I am just amused at the number of people who, seemingly, did not read or perhaps did not understand Tony's post in this thread. For their benefit I will repost the line for a second time.
Only one person, thank you wreeder, gave a considered answer to my question of how this hardware limitation could be overcome. One other gave a generic suggestion along the lines of "this limitation could be overcome" but with no details.
So chris2001trainz2010, what is your suggestion that would give us more detailed terrain (something that has been on the "must have" list for years) with an unlimited number of textures per baseboard, and all with the currently available hardware. I await your expert opinion.
capdiamont
Active member
Actually I have been giving lots of thought and responses in threads, including this one. You say we give no details on how to solve the problem, and yet we have no idea how to accomplish anything. There are no 3rd party tools that deal with HD terrain, and no idea what the plans are we can work with or any help on creating any utilities. Maybe TransDEM can be coded to use less textures, or no textures using the painting function. I've suggested overlaying image files, which is probably the simplest way to put maps on the terrain. Still complicated, but I think simpler for the user. I've been looking at the file formats, and they have gotten more complicated with the needed compression. HD Terrain routes are already large enough, I can't see adding more textures.
16 texture limit for 720m x 720m isn't that much. Some can make it, others cannot. It is a valid complaint. Yes, when building new, you will be prepared have have better tools, but after lots of hard work on old routes, it may not look the same. Now you go though to see what changed.
Thankyou capdiamont, that is exactly the sort of discussion we need. Like you (I assume) I know nothing about how the HD terrain is generated in Trainz (or anywhere else) and have no knowledge of any 3rd party tools that could help. Which is why I asked the question.
From my, admittedly, very limited experiences (just 2 cases) of converting old routes to HD, I have reached a tentative conclusion that maybe HD terrain is better suited for creating new routes, not for updating old ones. But that is just my opinion.
As always, I am open to all constructive ideas, even those which disagree with any personal opinions I may hold.
From my, admittedly, very limited experiences (just 2 cases) of converting old routes to HD, I have reached a tentative conclusion that maybe HD terrain is better suited for creating new routes, not for updating old ones. But that is just my opinion.
As always, I am open to all constructive ideas, even those which disagree with any personal opinions I may hold.
Its is good to have confirmation. After reading the above I applied the "Upgrade Route" option to the same HD route again and the Great Walls shifted - some vanished and new ones appeared and I also saw some shark tooth hills for the first time as well.
N3V QA came back with a response to my "Great Walls of HD" bug report. They had not seen that effect before and suggested that I wait for the coming beta update and try again, which I will happily do. The joys of beta testing are endless
It would be productive if N3V would release a beta update. There are several major issues that many of us are experiencing which they report have been fixed. This would help us focus on additional issues, or issues that have not been fixed, instead of continuing to deal with the older issues which are supposedly fixed.
Last edited:
Tony_Hilliam
Trainz Plus - enjoy Trainz from just 20 cents a da
Yep, totally agree and we're working on it! We're just trying to make sure that there aren't any backwards steps from the current build. We've been close to an update for several weeks now but each time there's been a hiccup.
ZecMurphy
Community Assistant
Hi All
In regards to the texture limits for TransDEM routes, this will depend entirely on how you have created the TransDEM route itself. There are quite a few different map data options available, and not all are equal. Having made a few routes using TransDEM, most of mine tend to have very basic map data on them, and so far it's been relatively easy to convert these to HDT since they rarely exceed the texture limit. A good start point for this is, before converting to HDT, replace a few of the less useful map details/textures with a base terrain texture (ie dirt, grass, or similar that you can use as a viable 'baseline' texture). I've found that there are a few details on maps that I simply don't need to have when building routes, as I can get that data more accurately from other sources; things like outlines of parkland or similar where it's not as accurate as we might actually need anyway.
However there is a second useful feature which is the 'basemaps' feature, which are separate scenery objects that you can put data such as google maps imagery onto. These don't use ground textures, and can already be a much much higher resolution than 5 or 10m grid could offer, and so won't affect the texture limits on HDT. As such you could, in theory, just have very very basic map data (ie just roads, tracks, rivers, and similar marked in - a bit like the old 'HOG' data/routes had) and even more greatly reduce the amount of textures used.
In regards to the 16 textures limit in general; this is unfortunately a limitation of hardware not software. A lot of people forget that the hardware in computers is finite; and that does mean that we need to build Trainz around working with the hardware that exists; and within the range of the system specs we support (including the detail settings being set appropriately of course). Unlike a lot of games we are able to offer a lot of flexibility when it comes to route creation, and content creation, but it's still incredibly important to work within the limitations of existing hardware. This does mean that some things will have limits, even if other methods may not have, or may have had different limits on them.
As an example, Unity Engine allows only 8 'terrain layers' (their term for terrain textures in this case) per tile. Some game engines don't impose a limit, but instead expect developers to limit themselves to ensure that they don't cause stability/performance issues. However as Trainz is a game in itself, rather than a game development suite, we need to impose suitable limits on some areas to avoid causing performance issues directly. This is why we have LOD requirements, don't allow 'free for all' on texture sizes, etc.
That said, having personally experimented with the HDT on my own routes, and those of a few friends, so far I've not seen any major losses to terrain texture details. There may be some but so far I've not noticed them. These are on fully finished routes, that used quite a range of textures for various things, including painted on roads and gravel areas in rail yards or industries.
Regards
In regards to the texture limits for TransDEM routes, this will depend entirely on how you have created the TransDEM route itself. There are quite a few different map data options available, and not all are equal. Having made a few routes using TransDEM, most of mine tend to have very basic map data on them, and so far it's been relatively easy to convert these to HDT since they rarely exceed the texture limit. A good start point for this is, before converting to HDT, replace a few of the less useful map details/textures with a base terrain texture (ie dirt, grass, or similar that you can use as a viable 'baseline' texture). I've found that there are a few details on maps that I simply don't need to have when building routes, as I can get that data more accurately from other sources; things like outlines of parkland or similar where it's not as accurate as we might actually need anyway.
However there is a second useful feature which is the 'basemaps' feature, which are separate scenery objects that you can put data such as google maps imagery onto. These don't use ground textures, and can already be a much much higher resolution than 5 or 10m grid could offer, and so won't affect the texture limits on HDT. As such you could, in theory, just have very very basic map data (ie just roads, tracks, rivers, and similar marked in - a bit like the old 'HOG' data/routes had) and even more greatly reduce the amount of textures used.
In regards to the 16 textures limit in general; this is unfortunately a limitation of hardware not software. A lot of people forget that the hardware in computers is finite; and that does mean that we need to build Trainz around working with the hardware that exists; and within the range of the system specs we support (including the detail settings being set appropriately of course). Unlike a lot of games we are able to offer a lot of flexibility when it comes to route creation, and content creation, but it's still incredibly important to work within the limitations of existing hardware. This does mean that some things will have limits, even if other methods may not have, or may have had different limits on them.
As an example, Unity Engine allows only 8 'terrain layers' (their term for terrain textures in this case) per tile. Some game engines don't impose a limit, but instead expect developers to limit themselves to ensure that they don't cause stability/performance issues. However as Trainz is a game in itself, rather than a game development suite, we need to impose suitable limits on some areas to avoid causing performance issues directly. This is why we have LOD requirements, don't allow 'free for all' on texture sizes, etc.
That said, having personally experimented with the HDT on my own routes, and those of a few friends, so far I've not seen any major losses to terrain texture details. There may be some but so far I've not noticed them. These are on fully finished routes, that used quite a range of textures for various things, including painted on roads and gravel areas in rail yards or industries.
Regards
I noticed a number of what I have come to call "The Great Walls of HD". Each occurs at a baseboard boundary (but not on every boundary). The curious thing is that they are visible from one direction only and disappear when you view them from the other side. They may be related to another known bug that produces small visible gaps on some of the baseboard boundaries.
Another "Great Wall" is also visible in the distance. Also shown in the foreground is one of the thin gap "artifacts" of the HD conversion process.
Progress, of sorts. These "Great Walls of HD" which, in the latest betas, are now semitransparent seem to be the product of the Upgrade process turning Legacy Water into an Legacy Water Import Effect Layer. They vanish when that layer is hidden and reappear again, but in different positions, when the layer is made visible again. Results have been passed onto QA Team.
pware said:
Try working on a TransDem route with topographic images in place. These are textures in various colors used to represent various things such as heights, water, etc. Depending upon the age of the maps, some are more colorful than others. When the route is converted to HD the textures are smeared to mush as the color table is reduced to 16-colors making the topographic maps 100% useless.
There is an alternative to using the in-place textures by using the UTM-tiles. These are essentially base maps with images on them that contain the images that were once placed on the route-grid instead. These are fine if the terrain is exactly the same today, or close enough but they make working on abandoned routes impossible if the route has been buried under a reservoir because the tiles, just like the terrain represent the current times and not what was once there. With the terrain locked at the current height, such as 400 meters for example, where the railway once ran at 50 meters below in a valley, it's outright impossible to work on without hiding the UTM-tile layer, turning back on the layer, measuring, hiding and digging. The measuring is done using the height lines given on the topographic map and the digging is done manually by setting the height in the topological tools.
Try working on a TransDem route with topographic images in place. These are textures in various colors used to represent various things such as heights, water, etc. Depending upon the age of the maps, some are more colorful than others. When the route is converted to HD the textures are smeared to mush as the color table is reduced to 16-colors making the topographic maps 100% useless.
There is an alternative to using the in-place textures by using the UTM-tiles. These are essentially base maps with images on them that contain the images that were once placed on the route-grid instead. These are fine if the terrain is exactly the same today, or close enough but they make working on abandoned routes impossible if the route has been buried under a reservoir because the tiles, just like the terrain represent the current times and not what was once there. With the terrain locked at the current height, such as 400 meters for example, where the railway once ran at 50 meters below in a valley, it's outright impossible to work on without hiding the UTM-tile layer, turning back on the layer, measuring, hiding and digging. The measuring is done using the height lines given on the topographic map and the digging is done manually by setting the height in the topological tools.