Why build a "Dead" route?

[davesnow]

Would someone explain something to me? Why would someone go to the trouble of building a beautiful and/or large route--- and have NO TRAFFIC on the roads? I call these "dead routes." Oh there may be a vehicle ot two at RR crossings, but they are there just static. They don't pull up to a crossing and stop, neither do they move after the train has gone by. I don't understand. I like my routes "alive" with moving traffic, animated assets, walking people here and there, etc.

Maybe it's just personal taste--- I don't know. But why have a "dead" route when you can have a "live" one?

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Euphod]

I've read that some route builders don't care for the moving vehicular traffic. They don't like the extra drain on computing resources and they don't find the cars to be realistic enough. They also don't like the erratic behavior of the Carz, either.

 

[Dermmy]

I've read that some route builders don't care for the moving vehicular traffic. They don't like the extra drain on computing resources and they don't find the cars to be realistic enough. They also don't like the erratic behavior of the Carz, either.

You must have read something I wrote LOL

Ed has it down pat - three outa three reasons why there is no traffic on any of my routes...

Andy

 

[Kon1786]

don't forget about the sounds as well

 

[JCitron]

Dave,

I know what you mean about realism and no cars. This does add life and a little spark as well. See my post on the swerving and creeping drivers in TS12.

I understand that with older computers the overhead needed to run cars was something to worry about. But today's computers seem to be better, or perhaps the sim is now better with more of the graphics pushed off to the GPU where it should be.

Now keeping this in mind, particularly with the complaints about performance with cars on the road, imagine if people moving around realistically, or perhaps the most-wanted realistic crashes were implemented. This would definitely put a bigger load on the cpu than any cars on the roads we have now.

John

 

[HiBaller]

We definitely considered moving traffic on the DHR. We ended up making all our traffic static because of the CPU/GPU drain. Since almost the entire run of 57 miles is adjacent (and sometimes on top of) a vehicular road it would have been a nightmare trying to keep traffic clear of the tracks. This is because there are NO guarded grade crossings on the DHR except for an occasional flag-waving guy standing in a traffic circle in Kurseong and another in Darjeeling.

Already as full of scenery as it could be without making it a slide show, we opted for no traffic.

Bill

 

[Euphod]

You must have read something I wrote LOL

Ed has it down pat - three outa three reasons why there is no traffic on any of my routes...

Andy

Yes, I was thinking of you and a recent post you made.:hehe:

 

[cascaderailroad]

If one created a route where all the railroads were torn up, and rails to trails were the only thing left ... the framerates would be absolutely fabulous !

Even better ... a route era of 1600, before the colonization ... when Pennsylvania was a vast woodland ... "Penns Woods".

All splines are framerate killers !:hehe:

 

[paulzmay]

I think it's got to depend on the kind of route and the era. A modern route with a lot of roads visible from the train will look odd with no cars, but a period piece with just a few grade crossings you shouldn't miss them.

Most of my routes have been modern street tramways, so the interaction with carz is a key part of the action, and the feature to control car speed in the road config is a huge improvement. I do wish you could disable overtaking though...

Paul

 

[H222]

Or get rid of overtaking altogether.

I don't see why overtaking is needed, it's never done realistically.

I use traffic, and it is usually 'Australian Modern Region' and add the tag 'ontheright' in the config for US routes

Jamie

 

[dricketts]

I'm not really concerned about the hit on performance but I understand that's a valid concern. I just can't stand the look of them. The moving traffic looks toy like and soo unrealistic. They move like a a row of mechanical ducks connected to a conveyor belt at the local carnival. They stop on a dime and appear and disappear out of nowhere.

I have a goal to create the most realistic routes possible. I want the user to feel immersed in a real world and Trainz moving traffic just screams TOY. Like putting a Tonka truck in the middle of a classic layout featured in Model Railroader Magazine.

Just my opinion...

 

[bchester]

OK folks, correct me if I'm wrong! I don't really dabble much with trainz anymore due to health and family matters, but memory tells me that car traffic is now a product of sessions! If you simply download the route, you do not, by default, get the session with it. At least this is how it has been for the handful of routes that I have downloaded. After download, I have, in all cases, had to create a session, then modify the session (open for edit) and set the region to what I wanted (Haven't played with trainz enough lately to figure out how to do it when creating the session).

Also, had to manually adjust the carrate in the config.txt of the session as well.

Bricey

 

[dricketts]

OK folks, correct me if I'm wrong! I don't really dabble much with trainz anymore due to health and family matters, but memory tells me that car traffic is now a product of sessions! If you simply download the route, you do not, by default, get the session with it. At least this is how it has been for the handful of routes that I have downloaded. After download, I have, in all cases, had to create a session, then modify the session (open for edit) and set the region to what I wanted (Haven't played with trainz enough lately to figure out how to do it when creating the session).

Also, had to manually adjust the carrate in the config.txt of the session as well.

Bricey

You can turn the traffic on or off with a simple click of a button in surveyor. I think Dave was simply making the point he enjoys the traffic vs route builders using static vehicles placed in various locations on their routes.

 

[bchester]

You can turn the traffic on or off with a simple click of a button in surveyor. I think Dave was simply making the point he enjoys the traffic vs route builders using static vehicles placed in various locations on their routes.

Actually, in my version of ts2010 (I think it is 44088 though that may have been an older version) the traffic toggle does not work until a region has been selected. The default region does not have traffic capabilities. This was something that drove me crazy for a while when I first installed 2010. Actually I think it is like that in 09 too but really can't remember that far back!

My main point is that the session does not actually come with a route so traffic by default will not work "out of the box" if you will after download.

Bricey

 

[RRSignal]

You can turn the traffic on or off with a simple click of a button in surveyor. I think Dave was simply making the point he enjoys the traffic vs route builders using static vehicles placed in various locations on their routes.

I have to say that even if it drops performance, I really do like a "lived in" feel. I quickly notice if I accidentally disabled traffic in Surveyor and am quick to jump on the button you mentioned.

 

[ex-railwayman]

It all comes down to personal preference, on many larger routes, the roads are nowhere near the tracks in some locations, so, you don't see any traffic anyway, I agree that in towns and cities it looks more authentic, but, I'd much rather creators leave the finer details to the end user to decide what cars and lorries to place upon routes, or, not too bother at all, I'm personally very happy with dead routes it gives us a blank sheet of paper to work on, and it also cuts down on the unnecessary downloading of content via your CMP if you don't have an FCT.

My two pence worth.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.

 

[dricketts]

It all comes down to personal preference, on many larger routes, the roads are nowhere near the tracks in some locations, so, you don't see any traffic anyway, I agree that in towns and cities it looks more authentic, but, I'd much rather creators leave the finer details to the end user to decide what cars and lorries to place upon routes, or, not too bother at all, I'm personally very happy with dead routes it gives us a blank sheet of paper to work on, and it also cuts down on the unnecessary downloading of content via your CMP if you don't have an FCT.

My two pence worth.

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.

That brings up a good point. Maybe I wouldn't mind having the traffic on certain roads in the distance or away from tracks but leaving it off for intersections or areas close to tracks. As far as I know it's all or nothing.

 

[nfitzsimmons]

There are some roads available that are setup for no traffic. If I can find one of the appropriate type I use those where I don't want to see traffic.

 

[sniper297]

I created routes for MSTS and railsim/railworks before I got Trainz, and I found that car traffic on roads always had an effect on framerates. More car traffic is worse, see Chris Cyko's MSTS Chicago Elevated route for the worst example - he has L trains running on the expressway median strip with 8 lanes of heavy traffic, and you had to lower the sliders to get rid of the traffic completely just to get playable framerates.

On my MSTS and railsim/railworks routes I faked in roads and streets by painting them on the terrain with parked cars here and there, didn't use any actual roads or vehicle traffic in either sim.

After I got TS2010 I assumed the same would apply here, but all the testing I've done I can't find any discernible difference in framerates with or without vehicle traffic. Recently I made a clone of my Chicago Metro route and the Tourist Freight session, deleted all roads and all intersections, and alternately tested the one with roads and traffic against the one without - same train, same path, same camera angles, zero difference in FPS. Defies logic, but there it is, and I have a 6 year old Dell clunkerjunker that doesn't actually meet the minimum TS2010 specs, so everything else has an impact on framerates on my system.

I'm a framerate junky, when forced to choose between eye candy and smooth gameplay I pick smooth gameplay. But before I give up eye candy I have to know for sure that I'll gain something from giving it up, and I don't see any gain at all from eliminating roads and car traffic.

 

[JCitron]

I wonder, Jim if in Trainz the auto traffic is actually sprite animations versus actual mesh objects running on a path like the trains. This would a difference in how they are handled in memory.

Sprites are two-sided objects that all act the same and are based off of a single mesh - this is almost like the old Paint Shed aliased rail cars and locos, and most likely how the Speed Trees works - Chris (Windwalkr) could clarify this for us if he wishes.

MSTS and RailSim may not have implemented the objects in the same fashion, therefore bogging down the system with extra overhead. I remember that Chicago EL route and the problems it had with the cars on the expressway.

John