Why do rails level to -0.20?

[JAMEZ001]

This is really bugging me. I create a graded line, press the level ground beneath track button, and it levels to -0.20 below the rail height, so I'm left with the option to either raise the ground below the rails, or increase each spline point by 0.20 - is there any easy way around this? Surely content creators are aware of this and have tried methods to fix this, or has nobody ever been bothered that you can see under the ballast?

If this is an inbuilt programming bug in TRS, is it possible to just create track that sits -0.20 below the ground height so that when you hit the level ground button if becomes level with the tracks intended height?!

 

[nicky9499]

This was initially built into Trainz to counter the ground "eating" into the spline edges. Now we're all trying to counter the effect. Try raising all the spline heights by 0.20 before smoothing the spline, then lowering them all to their original heights after. Remember straigtened splines effect the spline adjacent to them, not only in curvature but also in elevation.

Cheerio,
Nicholas.

 

[Dermmy]

It's a feature

Fixing the problem takes only moments. Get the track correct, hit the smooth terrain button ONCE for each section, then lower every spline point by 0.20m.

Then live with the complaints from folks who don't like the slight 'shimmer' along the transparent track edge...

Andy

 

[S301]

Myself, I have made my tracks counter this a little, for the TS09 versions. My VR track set is being made with an 'embankment' track, with the ballast going nearly 1m below ground level. This allows for making some slightly 'thinner' embankments as well, in both 10m and 5m grid modes.

But yes, it can be both handy and bothersome at times. But, if it is to fix other problems, I myself can live with it
Zec

 

[JAMEZ001]

Myself, I have made my tracks counter this a little, for the TS09 versions. My VR track set is being made with an 'embankment' track, with the ballast going nearly 1m below ground level. This allows for making some slightly 'thinner' embankments as well, in both 10m and 5m grid modes.

But yes, it can be both handy and bothersome at times. But, if it is to fix other problems, I myself can live with it
Zec

Really? Am I really the only person on this forum who finds this the most irritation thing about Trainz? I've abolished months of work on layouts because of this problem.

Simply changing the height by 0.20 doesn't fix every piece of track, when you use fixed track it has to sit at 0.00, so I'm either limited to track that sits nicely on 0.00, which is very few, or I have to deal with ugly narrow ballast with track that has banks that sit -0.20 below the ground height - 0.20 of glorious ballast gone to waste. :'(

I'm starting to think that I complain about a lot of things, but surely someone at Auran can see this problem now after the 'initial problem' has passed, and thinks, "well if we just change one number in the programming it will fix everything", or are they just too lazy? This would bug the hell out of me if I created it (HENCE WHY I HAVE NO CONTENT ON THE DLS, I'D BE EMBARRASSED IF I FOUND THE SLIGHTEST IMPERFECTION).

 

[Euphod]

This would bug the hell out of me if I created it (HENCE WHY I HAVE NO CONTENT ON THE DLS, I'D BE EMBARRASSED IF I FOUND THE SLIGHTEST IMPERFECTION).

Eh, you get used to it...

 

[Dermmy]

Sorry Jamez, but if this is your biggest gripe with Trainz then life is sweet indeed! You gotta understand that most lo-poly track if laid at relative height 0.0 strobes something shocking. Track which doesn't is usually relatively high poly. You pays your money and you takes your choice...

 

[cascaderailroad]

0.20

I imagine you could go to each and every spline point, and get a height reading, and subtract -0.20, and apply it to every one of you 400,000 spline points.

 

[007007]

You could do that....... or just use a track with a fill to it...

 

[narrowgauge]

The dimension that you list as 0.2m is there because 0.3m is fixed in the program code as the top-of-the-rail height above ground level. It is not possible to vary this height in the design of the track as any change means that the train wheels will run with a space underneath, it can only be done by adjusting the spline height.

This has been logged with Auran as a desirable change so that the running height is set by a tag in the config.txt. The transparency is there because it was mandated by Auran in the early stages to allow a 'soft ' blend between the ballast and the ground. What track are you using, it might be possible to remove the alpha texture or remove the alpha line in the texture.txt.

In any case, there is no need to reset the height value in the track menu, once set it will remain and a few extra mouse clicks are all that is needed.

Peter

 

[JAMEZ001]

I imagine you could go to each and every spline point, and get a height reading, and subtract -0.20, and apply it to every one of you 400,000 spline points.

This is the closest thing I have to being happy with my routes at the moment, unfortunately this isn't a complete fix, however Davido's "beta" chunky mesh track with matching ballast textures (to cover up the height flaws) has relieved me somewhat as it sits nicely at 0.00 with a wide enough ballast base, realistic width rails and it's not hi-poly - which almost all appear to have mipmap errors with loading in front of you in TRS2006, I have no idea about other TRS versions, but if you try Beton Hi Poly, or Zec's (S301) VR Hi Poly track - which looks lovely - both unfortunately load a different shade of colour about 50m in front of you.

 

[Dermmy]

...both unfortunately load a different shade of colour about 50m in front of you.

That is where the LOD kicks in - you couldn't run a hi-poly track layout (other than very simple) without it.

LOD = Level Of Detail - High poly mesh close up, lo-poly mesh at a distance, sometimes with a medium-poly mesh in the middle. Most hi-poly models have it - look at a train composed of a long string the same car, you will usually see a distinct change in the appearance of the car a short way back the train. LOD eases the load on the graphics engine and is the only thing that makes hi-poly models practical...

Andy

 

[Dermmy]

I imagine you could go to each and every spline point, and get a height reading, and subtract -0.20, and apply it to every one of you 400,000 spline points.

Clovis2 - I didn't bother on Clovis1 and it looks like (you know). Clovis 2 has them all - including the C1 part - lowered

 

[JAMEZ001]

That is where the LOD kicks in - you couldn't run a hi-poly track layout (other than very simple) without it.

LOD = Level Of Detail - High poly mesh close up, lo-poly mesh at a distance, sometimes with a medium-poly mesh in the middle. Most hi-poly models have it - look at a train composed of a long string the same car, you will usually see a distinct change in the appearance of the car a short way back the train. LOD eases the load on the graphics engine and is the only thing that makes hi-poly models practical...

Andy

If that's the case HiPoly track is simply a waste of time, it reminds me of the early Playstation era when tree's would "grow" in front of you when you're playing a racing game!

 

[nicky9499]

That's draw distance, a little different from LOD. Draw distance is how far you can see instead of altering the poly count of models. Take for example a big route during initial loading in surveyor, most assets appear in their lowest level of detail. Trainz then 'realizes' where you are and everything looks normal. With regards to track changing color, that could also be attributed to improper anisotropic filtering by some old graphics card driver.

Cheerio,
Nicholas.

 

[American_Connections]

Why fix today what you can forget tomorrow!

Really? Am I really the only person on this forum who finds this the most irritation thing about Trainz? I've abolished months of work on layouts because of this problem.

Simply changing the height by 0.20 doesn't fix every piece of track, when you use fixed track it has to sit at 0.00, so I'm either limited to track that sits nicely on 0.00, which is very few, or I have to deal with ugly narrow ballast with track that has banks that sit -0.20 below the ground height - 0.20 of glorious ballast gone to waste. :'(

I'm starting to think that I complain about a lot of things, but surely someone at Auran can see this problem now after the 'initial problem' has passed, and thinks, "well if we just change one number in the programming it will fix everything", or are they just too lazy? This would bug the hell out of me if I created it (HENCE WHY I HAVE NO CONTENT ON THE DLS, I'D BE EMBARRASSED IF I FOUND THE SLIGHTEST IMPERFECTION).

They just make a new version, and forget to fix what they already have (been paid for).

 

[JAMEZ001]

With regards to track changing color, that could also be attributed to improper anisotropic filtering by some old graphics card driver.

Ok, so I've tried 3 different drivers, I am now and previously was running the latest driver for my card, I played with the anisotropic filtering on all drivers and every one of them look like this...

 

[narrowgauge]

Check the textures, it is possible that the darker section is that colour in the texture-page.

What track is it? What KUID?

I can see what you mean about the height problem. Probably it was never fixed because no-one complained.

Peter

 

[S301]

Sorry, forgot to explain that one.

The one your showing is an extreme case really... And one that doesn't appear to be implemented properly..

What your seeing is 'mesh reducing track'. It's a high poly track (sometimes fairly extreme poly track) in the foreground. The dark part is actually a low poly track. The problem is that, the lower poly track isn't getting the correct lighting. Now, it can be corrected a little by texture (I did the best I could with my set). But, it still isn't great. This is no longer a problem, thanks to the new methods introduced by TS09 for track LOD creation. Well, it's still a problem, but the creator has a little more control. And it's just a case of making the transition of 3D-2D less obvious, although this isn't as easy as it sounds for the most part...

That said, I ended up giving up on the VR tracks and just releasing them as is, since the 09 versions offered me more control, and the ability to make more versions of the tracks
Zec

 

[Shortline2]

Hello,

As Zec said above, the post above his showing the light then dark track is the result of a problem with Trainz handling of "mesh reducing track" (MRT) - very much visible when making track without ballast and ties/rails only.
When using ballast part in the mesh, it was possible to reduce the effect quite much I remember from when I tested out the MRT track a few years back - but I was never ever able to get away from the effect shown when using ties/rails only.

From the best I was able to figure out, it seems that when the low quality "far off" mesh kicks in, it's turned 180 degree light wise from the high qulity "close up" mesh.
Which is a Trainz problem we can't fix, and I doubt Auran will either.

Especially since TS2009 has a way improved - but much more complicated and still partly "undocumented" way of making great LOD track.
Maybe we even will get, as Narrowgauge said, a way to use a tag in the config to lower the track those 20cm it normally hover over the ground with.
Best aproach, work around it till TS2009 becomes the standard program and works like it should all the way - and creators has really made the track making, tree making, scenery stuff making stuff blossom with its normal mapping and all.
So, the lesser smart of us can copy their hard work and get back to play with creating ourself...

Best wishes

Linda