Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
2 GB, and theoretically you can clutter a single baseboard with that. Normally however you will probably not run out of space. Razorback Classic for example is around 65 MB.
That's interesting, how about the local-folder ??
2 GB, and theoretically you can clutter a single baseboard with that. Normally however you will probably not run out of space. Razorback Classic for example is around 65 MB.
The biggest one I've heard of was 1400 baseboards and it did fit within the 2 GB's.
HTH
I reckon your main problem however will be in game performance, before you hit the 2GB limit.
You'll need alot of RAM to run such a large route, strong processor and decent video card too, of course depending on how detailed it is.
Alex
My experience with Trainz is that very large routes take a while to load and then take a while before you can actually do any activity because of content still being loaded. However, once everything is loaded the only thing that effects performance is the settings of the performance sliders and the density and poly count of the immediate scenery. As an example, Montana Rail is about 170 MByte route, loads in 30 seconds and runs very fast because of sparse scenery. Ironbound Industries (kuid:106916:102086) is about 1.5 MByte, takes 2 minutes to load and is very jerky to run because of the dense scenery.
Bob
What I'm finding is that with a decent video card and a certain amount of restraint in piling up the polygons, the number of trains actually running becomes the limiting factor. I've got one of those 700+ board layouts in progress, and except for one or two areas where there's way too much stuff and the frame rate drops to about 2 fps (!), for the most part if I have 6-8 trains or fewer running things go very smoothly. As soon as a few extra trains kick in (from portals) I start to see more and more stuttering, until at 16+ trains things get very 'jerky,' even in areas where it's just track and bare baseboard for several boards in all directions. Apparently the limitation is on the processor here as it tries to keep track of the AI for all those trains, regardless of the number of polys onscreen. Does this match others' experiences?
Hopefully this means that as machines get faster the number of smooth-running simultaneous trains can also increase--but only if Trainz starts to take advantage of multiple threads on multiple cores.
--Lamont
My local folder is about 10 gigs...That's interesting, how about the local-folder ??
Good point Bob about loading-times since a route can look very nice even with sparse scenery and fewer dependencies. It pays of considering that.