What is the point of HD Terrain?

[tirediron]

I am asking this in all seriousness... I was VERY excited when I saw the announcements for HD Terrain, and installed absolutely as soon as I could, and then.... 16 texture per block limitation?????? WTF???? I can easily have 20+ textures in a quarter-mile of track. I would love to take advantage of the benefits of HD Terrain, but in my view, the textural limitation negates any benefit from HD Terrain and I think at the "scale" of Trainz, more/varied textures produce an overall more realistic layout than more detailed terrain with fewer textures.

Why can't we have both? Yes, I understand it could take a LOT of processing power to render highly textured HD Terrain, but I would like to have the option of deciding where I want to prioritize my FLOPs.

Is there any workaround for this limit?

 

[pware]

The limit of 16 ground textures per baseboard (it can be 16 totally different textures for every baseboard) is a hardware limitation. Other sims/games that use HD terrain or its equivalent have similar or even more restrictive limits. Unreal Engine, for example, limits you to just 8 textures per "layer" - a "layer" is their equivalent of a Trainz baseboard. A few game development system, i.e. designed for use by game creators and not game users, impose no limits but leave it up to the individual game developers to "sort out" the visual and performance mess that the excess use of ground textures will inevitably create. Since Trainz is a sim deigned for both developers and end users, a limit has to be imposed.

I suppose when every user has a rig with an i15 CPU, 10TB of onboard RAM and an nVidia RTX13060Ti GPU with 1TB of RAM then we will be able to have both (I may be exaggerating a bit)

 

[JCitron]

There's no workaround and it's actually a hardware limit and not a software limit from what I understand. There's a special layer that can be placed on top of the limited textures (I can't remember what it's called) that can add additional color but the total number of textures is limited to 16 per baseboard. For those of us that use TransDEM and import topographic maps, this limit causes the topo-map images to blur or break up making them unusable. Importing an existing route has issue too if more than 16 colors per baseboard have been used. The additional textures above that limit are dropped and similar textures are replaced. This comes at the cost of missing textures and things that don't look good in all places.

I suppose HD Terrain is good for new routes. This was one of the old stretch-goals I think from T: ANE and N3V decided to go all out or is it all in? for the maximum limit rather than baby step it. I can imagine that in a few years, the current limits we have now with 16 colors and all that will be a flash in the pan and like other old technology, we'll laugh at it because we'll be using 16.7 million textures on HD terrain along with seamless TurfFX and other effects we haven't thought of yet.

 

[dangavel]

There's no workaround and it's actually a hardware limit and not a software limit from what I understand. There's a special layer that can be placed on top of the limited textures (I can't remember what it's called) that can add additional color but the total number of textures is limited to 16 per baseboard. For those of us that use TransDEM and import topographic maps, this limit causes the topo-map images to blur or break up making them unusable. Importing an existing route has issue too if more than 16 colors per baseboard have been used. The additional textures above that limit are dropped and similar textures are replaced. This comes at the cost of missing textures and things that don't look good in all places.

I suppose HD Terrain is good for new routes. This was one of the old stretch-goals I think from T: ANE and N3V decided to go all out or is it all in? for the maximum limit rather than baby step it. I can imagine that in a few years, the current limits we have now with 16 colors and all that will be a flash in the pan and like other old technology, we'll laugh at it because we'll be using 16.7 million textures on HD terrain along with seamless TurfFX and other effects we haven't thought of yet.

Harping back to our discussion re the paucity of decent looking foliage, I find it rather ironic that all this effort is expended on some areas of the game,which are admirable in some aspects, but which do also exclude those who use Dems or need to use a lot of textures.

Its also a feature that is only capable of being used extensively by those who have high end rigs due to the hardware requirements ...... yet other aspects such as vegetation which displays well in game ( which is really a feature in EVERY route , no matter how basic) , are completely neglected,with zero plans to address the problem, its very strange.
So far no one has stepped up to the plate and produced a series of really good looking trees/shrubs that don't bring a computer to its knees , a whole forest of 40mb PBR trees just aren't usable for the vast majority of users.

 

[JCitron]

Harping back to our discussion re the paucity of decent looking foliage, I find it rather ironic that all this effort is expended on some areas of the game,which are admirable in some aspects, but which do also exclude those who use dems or need to use a lot of textures. Its also a feature that is only capable of being used extensively by those who have top end rigs due to the hardware requirements ...... yet other aspects such as vegetation that looks eq correctly in game ( which is really a feature in EVERY route , no matter how basic) , are completely neglected,with zero plans to address the problem, its very strange.

Well said!

Maybe, oh maybe we'll get some decent flora at some point. I'm not holding my breath though.

On my i9, RTX3080, 64GB of RAM system, I had stutters and micro-stutters along with pauses while my video card fans cranked up to their maximum. This actually gave me a headache not only from the noise but also due to the fluttering and pausing, and I dialed back my settings even more from the lower-middle where I keep them but that didn't do much and it made the draw distance look awful.

 

[JAGG]

We are in the game which still wastes the computer resources heavily for countless number of materials for example so no wonder we are penalized by 16 textures only or removed support for 4k resolution. It speaks for itself.

 

[railroader86001]

Harping back to our discussion re the paucity of decent looking foliage, I find it rather ironic that all this effort is expended on some areas of the game,which are admirable in some aspects, but which do also exclude those who use Dems or need to use a lot of textures.

Its also a feature that is only capable of being used extensively by those who have high end rigs due to the hardware requirements ...... yet other aspects such as vegetation which displays well in game ( which is really a feature in EVERY route , no matter how basic) , are completely neglected,with zero plans to address the problem, its very strange.
So far no one has stepped up to the plate and produced a series of really good looking trees/shrubs that don't bring a computer to its knees , a whole forest of 40mb PBR trees just aren't usable for the vast majority of users.

We definitely need some decent looking trees and shrubs! If there was also better looking sky's and clouds, Trainz22 would visually look better than any of the other current simulators.

 

[philskene]

Getting back to the title of this thread, "What is the point of HD terrain?" the short answerer is "It looks so much better."

This shows one of the HD routes on the Download Station:

https://forums.auran.com/threads/trainz-plus-hd-layout-clear-lake-mining.174968/

Yes, there are some limitations. But provided you can work within those limitations the end results are well worth while.

Phil

Edit: Question. Are there any other HD terrain routes or layouts available?

 

[ZecMurphy]

I suppose HD Terrain is good for new routes. This was one of the old stretch-goals I think from T: ANE and N3V decided to go all out or is it all in? for the maximum limit rather than baby step it. I can imagine that in a few years, the current limits we have now with 16 colors and all that will be a flash in the pan and like other old technology, we'll laugh at it because we'll be using 16.7 million textures on HD terrain along with seamless TurfFX and other effects we haven't thought of yet.

This very much depends on how you approach it though John.

A couple of months back I did a test conversion of my Healesville TRS19 route to see how it went. Apart from replacing a few bits of gravel texture with the grass I used everywhere, the conversion was predominantly successful. HDT has actually forced me to have a look at what PBR ground textures I do have installed, and from that I've found a much nicer gravel/dirt texture that has successfully (in my opinion) replaced blending 4 different textures. Admittedly, that's a 'finished' DEM route, but it's a good example of upgrading an old route, considering it's been in semi-constant development since late 2008! As a bonus, it fixed a few issues caused by digholes around a few objects

Alternatively, I have a couple of other DEM based routes which I've tested converting to HDT. One of which is a 'traditional' DEM route, with just data painted on the map, the other two are the same but also have UTM tiles on them.

For the first, I simply replaced the 'white space' on the ground texture with a generic texture, and then replaced a few other 'informational' textures with suitable ground textures for those areas. For example I have a texture that I normally paint under roads; so I used that to replace all of the textures marking roads. I have another that is the base for waterways, so that goes in place of any waterways marked on the map, and so on. However on such a route, my personal preference would be to progressively convert the route to HDT as I progress along it. In some cases, I have the idea that doing 'basic' terrain and texture work on 5m grid and then converting that may be a useful method, as the 'broad strokes' of the 5m grid could make it a little quicker, not sure yet

For the latter two though, my plan is a bit different. Since they have UTM tiles on them, the 'map data' on the route itself has a lot less usefulness I'm finding (and this has been noted by quite a few friends that are using similar DEMs with UTM tiles). Based on this, before converting to HDT, I replaced all but the essential markings on the map with a generic grass texture I made or chose for the map. The only markings left were the track, the roads, and the waterways. Everything else I removed, as these were much more easily found on the UTM tiles. Admittedly, the sea of green grass was a touch intimidating after I converted it, but once I started working with it, it really did feel like a wonderfully blank canvas that I could start creating on I do personally recommend having a 'base'/'generic' ground texture for the route that can be everywhere, that is intended to be a part of the route, that way you don't have a placeholder (ie grid) using up one of your textures on the baseboard.

So in the end, from my own personal experiments and usage, HDT is definitely usable with DEM routes. However it may require changing your workflow a little, depending on the route, and definitely needs a little planning. Be it converting your DEM 'map' textures to legitimate 'ground' textures, or converting it after basic scenery on an area, or using UTM tiles.

Also to answer your question Phil, I was actually surprised to discover this nice little route is using HDT, since it wasn't mentioned in the thread! https://forums.auran.com/threads/aston-heights-small-switching-layout.176092/

The TMR2 Needles Division route in beta (hopefully released very very early next year!) is HDT as well. Beyond that, I've not seen any big routes released with it yet, but I'm sure it won't be too long before we see at least some upgraded routes using it

Regards

 

[JCitron]

These are helpful recommendations, Zec. The issue I ran into, outside of my hardware getting very hot, is the obliterated textures removed important details I need for a particular route I am working on at the moment and this route represents many of the projects I get involved with. The current project is a reconstruction of a rail line that was abandoned about 100 years ago when the middle of the line was buried beneath a reservoir. Using UTM tiles, while a great recommendation for a modern route, will not work for this because it's necessary to dig out the terrain to the original river depth. Using the map painted on the terrain, I was able to use the measurements given on the map and lower the terrain to match that level. I did this at key locations and then interpolated the terrain in between to smooth the hills. With this area completely buried underwater for a century, it was amazing seeing the landscape come back to life at that location even though it's not 100% accurate. In other another location, a prominent hill has been not-so-nicely sliced and diced by a sand quarry in recent times. This area too would be impossible to reconstruct with UTM tiles due to the tiles representing current day terrain rather than how it was in previous years.

In general, I still see HD Terrain as something for the future but it's not quite there yet, at least for the projects that I'm working on at the present time.

 

[frogpipe]

We can model pebbles, but street lamps still look like they are on a PS2 (no environment lights)

 

[JCitron]

We can model pebbles, but street lamps still look like they are on a PS2 (no environment lights)

The light cones from the 1990s are still the best. I was making those in 3DS R4 for DOS in 1995.

 

[frogpipe]

Oh they can look good, so long as your train doesn't pass under them. Then? Not so much.

Nothing like doing some nighttime shunting and having your train run black as night thru a yard light.

 

[JCitron]

Oh they can look good, so long as your train doesn't pass under them. Then? Not so much.

Nothing like doing some nighttime shunting and having your train run black as night thru a yard light.

I used some of those big yard lights and ended up placing way more than was necessary to light up my yard. I gave up on the night switching and driving and removed most of them for the sake of realism and now drive between the wee hours and dusk.

 

[martinvk]

Seems to me that we are mistaking this to be a full blown simulator when in reality it tries to be: a fantasy sandbox, a model railway, a sim of a simulator,. etc. It lets people create routes, create content and share it, and drive said content in their and other people's routes. And while everything has to be simulated, the level of detail sometimes leaves something to be desired so that a layer of imagination has to be applied to fill in the gaps. How thick that layer is depends on how many rivets you count. Plus the hardware you bring to the game will determine whether you look at a smooth rendering or a static image.
Any yet, I've had more than 21 years of fun on these tracks so It isn't so bad.

 

[PGibbons]

I cant see the point of HDT for anyone interested in viewing the landscape through the driver window. Charging thru the route at any speed you lose all fine details anyway and only notice more distant scenery. Using 1m definition DEM data provides plenty of landscape detail when used with many of the grass spline assets.
PG

 

[frogpipe]

I agree, I think the development has lost the plot a bit. Seems like they started as a model railroad sim (which it did) and now they are pushing toward a goal of being a train focused virtual reality.

While I have zero interest in it, multiplayer driver and surveyor made sense (virtual model railroad club), but was put ahead of things that would have made more sense (IMHO) like lights that actually cast light (that shouldnt require next gen Ray tracing BTW), or sorting out how 2D realistic controls are often at odds with whats in the cab.

Meanwhile PBR seems waaay overdone, so I leave it off to avoid jellyfish guts terrain, even tho when applied to flat ground it does look nice.

Surveyor 2, while it seems more capable than OG, is so different it leaves me cold, so that's not a selling point for me.

Personally, I feel like they should play to the strengths and focus on Trainz being a model simulation rather than a real world one.

 

[pware]

I cant see the point of HDT for anyone interested in viewing the landscape through the driver window. Charging thru the route at any speed you lose all fine details anyway and only notice more distant scenery. Using 1m definition DEM data provides plenty of landscape detail when used with many of the grass spline assets.
PG

The point is HDT is an option for creators, you can use it or not. Just like PBR ground textures, procedural points, industries, navigation points, speed trees, TLR, etc.

Your 1m DEM data would be reduced to 10m, or at best 5m, resolution when used in Surveyor without HDT. If that provides enough detail for you then go with it but there are others for whom the finer detail in HDT makes the landscape so much more realistic and interesting. But again, you have the choice.

 

[dangavel]

Question re HD terrain , I recently had to create a 500 metre, 68ft wide , 35 ft deep cutting , I did use 5m resolution , but it was a ridiculous amount of work to get it looking right and I'm still not 100% happy with it. . I usually create these items by using a road spline or something similar to get the gradient of the side of the cutting and then smooth or fill in until its correct. I've always found the built in displacement tools to be useless for doing these items ( when they actually work, in 2019 sp4 they seem to appear and disappear at random ), would HD terrain combined with S2 make this sort of terrain easier to construct ? Or does just s2 on its own enable accurate defined slopes to be created with out the HDT component? I have S2 in the 2022 platinum verison but I'm not using it for any of the routes i'm currently working on as I know most of 2019s quirks and for soem arcane reason the hemlocks I've used in the 2019 Alpine tunnel route show up as faulty in 2022, yet there seem to be no reportable faults, so I've put that in the too hard basket for the moment .

 

[1611mac]

I cant see the point of HDT for anyone interested in viewing the landscape through the driver window. -clip-
PG

I agree. However, a good reading of the forums seems to indicate to me that the most active and devoted "Trainz'ers" don't drive trains. They prefer to create routes and assets. No editorial here.. just an observation. As stated in other posts, if you want a sim where the train, train ops, and physics are the focus, the Trainz franchise is not going to answer your needs. It would be interesting to know how many Trainzers' consistanly run a train, and run the train from inside the cab. My guess would be very few. I have a lot of fun with Trainz, but when I want to truly sim I have another product I turn to which provides much more realism (but lesser graphics.) There no one "perfect" product becuase we are all different in what we are looking for.