Why I'm getting disallusioned with Trainz.

[ajrf]

Each successive version has its added problems as well as capabilities. I happened to stop just before the Daimon was added, and have not missed it. Same with required additional hardware: sure, hardware is cheap and OSs are "free" - but they all come with problems. If I'm finally forced to upgrade my hardware, I'll continue running TS2009 - but blazing fast and with all its options turned up to the max (g) .

On the other hand, there's also something to be said for building each new asset a little better than the previous - but also like it's my last.

You're not the only one... by now

 

[clam1952]

Some of us are retired and managing to create assets and routes in TANE without any issues, just because one is getting older doesn't mean you can't learn. ;o)

 

[MTH_ELECTRIC_TRAINS]

Once you have spent some time in TANE it is very hard now to revisit the older versions.

TS12 49922 is nice and stable but you still have the problem of track disconnecting from interactive objects randomly, making use of the HOTT/Russian etc. switches (in the pre procedural track era) a no no. TS2010 has major issues with textures unless you tweak settings they will display black if at all. Both versions and up to and including the last version of TS12 leave splines proud of the terrain after adjusting the ground level, requiring manual adjustment of every road and rail spline point.

And thinking about it, TANE itself isn't actually young anymore getting on for two (or is it three) years old and likely to be superceded by "Next" aka TRS2018 (maybe) "coming soon" (tm). If only N3V had stabilised it at SP1 HF4 instead of the losing battle that now seems to be playing out to remedy the sins of SP2.

The thing that annoys me so much is that video game companies usually wait between 1 and 4 years to release another version of the same game. The ONLY main differences between T:ANE and TS12 for example is GUI layout, physics and graphics quality. Otherwise, it is basically the same exact game with a few new pieces of content plus the routes. So why can't they just improve the current games look and functionality through major updates? They already have done this in the past even with some locomotives in TS12.

 

[NICKEL]

The thing that annoys me so much is that video game companies usually wait between 1 and 4 years to release another version of the same game. The ONLY main differences between T:ANE and TS12 for example is GUI layout, physics and graphics quality. Otherwise, it is basically the same exact game with a few new pieces of content plus the routes. So why can't they just improve the current games look and functionality through major updates? They already have done this in the past even with some locomotives in TS12.

So to make money then they would have to charge for updates or go to a subscription based software. Basics of this a company has to make money to stay in business. That is the reason for a new version.

 

[MTH_ELECTRIC_TRAINS]

So to make money then they would have to charge for updates or go to a subscription based software. Basics of this a company has to make money to stay in business. That is the reason for a new version.

I know that is why they make a new version of a game every so often but it is annoying content makers to have to deal with newer specifications for content. That is the main reason why content creators either stop or slow down on making add-on content because they get fed up with a new version of the game coming out every so often and their old content may not even work in it from the get go. It was a nightmare when T:ANE came out because about all the DLS and 3rd party add-on content from TS10 and back didn't work. Am I right that only content from TS12 SP1 worked in it from launch day?

 

[oknotsen]

it is annoying content makers to have to deal with newer specifications for content. That is the main reason why content creators either stop or slow down on making add-on content because they get fed up with a new version of the game coming out every so often and their old content may not even work in it from the get go.

I would love to see the supporting research you did for that statement.

Am I right that only content from TS12 SP2 worked in it from launch day?

Since that version doesn't exist: you are wrong.
My guess is you mean content working for TANE: Correctly made content from UTC even works. Less then 5% of the content doesn't work in TANE.

 

[SailorDan]

My point is that there are many still using 2009 like me, maybe not so many 2004, 2006 now. I don't want to exclude the 9'ers from choosing their own year. This way if people want to choose this year and have a go at updating themselves for their own use then let them do so by all means.

That is still the case, and you made it clear why it isn't a problem. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating and repairing content for TS2009. The only thing that has changed is that updated or repaired content like that cannot be uploaded to the DLS. But the DLS is just one source of assets, and there have always been many other sources where those new and repaired assets can be hosted. N3V maintains special sections of these forums where people can be advised about what is happening with TS2009 assets, and where to find them.

 

[Mick_Berg]

I will probably make myself unpopular with this comment, but I don't think anyone should be using old versions of Trainz. If we want to keep Trainz alive we should buy the latest version to keep N3V in business. TANE is incredibly cheap for what it is, and it is way better than any previous versions.

The only argument in favour of old versions that I can think of is that TANE needs a decently powerful computer, but then so do all the other things we do on computers these days.

I'll get me rotten-tomato-proof coat.......:wave:

Mick

 

[ldowns]

I will probably make myself unpopular with this comment, but I don't think anyone should be using old versions of Trainz. If we want to keep Trainz alive we should buy the latest version to keep N3V in business. TANE is incredibly cheap for what it is, and it is way better than any previous versions.

I've been buying most versions of Trainz as they came out (though I did skip the pretty pointless ones between 2006 and 2009) for just that reason. The catch is that I don't install them until they're sufficiently ready for prime time. I have SP2 downloaded and set aside, and will do the same for SP2HF1, but have no intention of installing either until those who just can't wait report on whether it was a great experience or ate several years' work.

I've also said more than once on this forum that more attention needs to be paid to making the software sufficiently backwards compatible. I've had a copy of Adobe Acrobat 5 (the software, not the reader) which is really ancient by computer standards, but files that I create with it are still readable without problems by the latest Acrobat reader. My copy of MS word will open almost any word document as long as it's in .doc format. Many Trainz users are hobbyists, not gamers, who may work for years on a single route. Having it break because someone decided that they could save a few frames per second by making a basic change is more than annoying; it's motivation to stick with an earlier version of Trainz and stay there, which I'm sure is the last thing that N3V wants.

--Lamont

 

[pware]

I will probably make myself unpopular with this comment, but I don't think anyone should be using old versions of Trainz. If we want to keep Trainz alive we should buy the latest version to keep N3V in business.

I think that is a valid point of view so there will be no tomatoes thrown from this direction. Although I don't agree that it is the responsibility of Trainz users to keep N3V in business. It is N3V's responsibility to keep producing a product that keeps up to date with the technology (easier said than done with the speed at which technology is changing) and keeps users wanting to upgrade their existing product version and, if necessary, their technology to keep pace with the product.

I think that TANE, with all its "bleeding edge of technology problems", is meeting that responsibility and I look forward to seeing the next version.

 

[BuilderBob]

I think that TANE, with all its "bleeding edge of technology problems", is meeting that responsibility and I look forward to seeing the next version.

The question to ask, which is relevant to the topic of this thread, is "Does TANE Content Manager mark DLS content that is a higher build than your installed version as 'Not available for this version' and automatically select a version that is suitable?" The need for that functionality might not have been obvious in the past, but with the rate at which hardware requirements are climbing it is clearly very relevant now.

 

[pware]

I've been buying most versions of Trainz as they came out (though I did skip the pretty pointless ones between 2006 and 2009) for just that reason. The catch is that I don't install them until they're sufficiently ready for prime time. I have SP2 downloaded and set aside, and will do the same for SP2HF1, but have no intention of installing either until those who just can't wait report on whether it was a great experience or ate several years' work.

It would interesting to see how you define "prime time". When I read that I had a vision of a [very] rich person with a huge garage full of Maserati's or Porsche's (one of each model ever made) which he has never driven because they "were not yet perfect". An exaggerated thought I know.

I've had a copy of Adobe Acrobat 5 (the software, not the reader) which is really ancient by computer standards, but files that I create with it are still readable without problems by the latest Acrobat reader. My copy of MS word will open almost any word document as long as it's in .doc format.

Unfortunately, those ancient versions of Acrobat and Word will not handle documents which rely on using the features and options found in the latest versions of those products. Trainz 2004 was great in its time (and as time went by looked even greater to those of us who seem to have an endless supply of rose coloured glasses) but the sessions I am now creating rely heavily on features found only in TANE and the sessions and layouts would be frustratingly difficult if not impossible to create without the use of layers (a TS12 innovation if I recall correctly). Not to mention the sessions themselves (circa TS2009 or 2010??). New versions bring new features which quickly become mainstream, a product of progress.

Many Trainz users are hobbyists, not gamers, who may work for years on a single route. Having it break because someone decided that they could save a few frames per second by making a basic change is more than annoying; it's motivation to stick with an earlier version of Trainz and stay there, which I'm sure is the last thing that N3V wants.

Yes, and that is a valid reason for sticking with an older version of Trainz. What you are actually complaining about is a perceived lack of "forward compatibility" in Trainz versions. An asset that works well in Trainz 2004 may not work well in later versions - although as other posters have pointed out there is only a very small percentage of assets that have this problem.

Many posters have pointed out in these forums that the early versions of Trainz had very lax standards when it came to user created assets - they were very forgiving and the rules were often not very clear. We have been paying the price for this as those standards had to be tightened, and it was not just a simple case of breaking content just to squeeze a few extra frames per second out of the system. My pet hate are those very high poly assets created in SketchUp and imported directly into Trainz without the use of any LOD data so the system wastes valuable processing time placing them on the screen when they are so far away that they would occupy only a handful of pixels.

 

[PWeiser]

Respect them for that

I've been buying most versions of Trainz as they came out (though I did skip the pretty pointless ones between 2006 and 2009) for just that reason. The catch is that I don't install them until they're sufficiently ready for prime time. I have SP2 downloaded and set aside, and will do the same for SP2HF1, but have no intention of installing either until those who just can't wait report on whether it was a great experience or ate several years' work.

I've also said more than once on this forum that more attention needs to be paid to making the software sufficiently backwards compatible. I've had a copy of Adobe Acrobat 5 (the software, not the reader) which is really ancient by computer standards, but files that I create with it are still readable without problems by the latest Acrobat reader. My copy of MS word will open almost any word document as long as it's in .doc format. Many Trainz users are hobbyists, not gamers, who may work for years on a single route. Having it break because someone decided that they could save a few frames per second by making a basic change is more than annoying; it's motivation to stick with an earlier version of Trainz and stay there, which I'm sure is the last thing that N3V wants.

--Lamont

As a content creator (in a small, non-profit way) I've found it possible to create fairly complex assets which work both in TS2009 SP2 (my desktop version) and - according to those who keep "current" with the latest versions and HFs - on the leading edge. I've had to make some changes in how I do things (for example, working around changes in how T:ANE handles coronas and pantograph switches) but nothing that makes the assets unusable in either TS2009 or the latest HF (once the point men have tripped all the little bombs in it and I've made necessary adjustments).

I realize not everyone enjoys this continuous duel of wits (the OP, for example, does not) with the game programmers, but it's a lot like what I used to do in my last job before retirement: keeping databases working with the great new ideas credit card companies (for example) had about what should be in them and how they handled transactions. The programmers have never actually made compatibility impossible (at least for simple locomotives and rolling stock), probably because they'd shut out too much "outdated" content which is fundamental to keeping the game viable even for "cutting edge" and new users. They're torn (I venture an opinion) between the desire to *force* everyone to keep up, and the impossibility of creating enough content for decent variety if they actually disabled legacy assets.

It's tough on them, and annoyance sometimes shines through - but they really have little choice but to continue the balancing act. Respect them for that, everyone!

 

[BuilderBob]

Having it break because someone decided that they could save a few frames per second by making a basic change is more than annoying

There is a lot of content on the DLS that works perfectly well with T:ANE even though it was built for much earlier versions of Trainz. And most of the content that does not work properly is easily upgraded. The only real issues are with content types that are no longer supported, such as paintshed skins and scenarios (although a lot of paintshed skins can be repaired and upversioned). In general, if it was built correctly at the time, it will continue to work in the latest version. Only a very small percentage of all the content ever created for Trainz is unusable in the current build, and that is a standard that is not as widespread as your reference to Acrobat 5 implies.

 

[ldowns]

It would interesting to see how you define "prime time". When I read that I had a vision of a [very] rich person with a huge garage full of Maserati's or Porsche's (one of each model ever made) which he has never driven because they "were not yet perfect". An exaggerated thought I know.

I define "ready for prime time" as working as advertised without unexpectedly destroying hours (or days) of work, breaking features which users have found to be valuable and an essential part of their work, or crashing to desktop. Yes, SP2HF1 appears to be approaching this point of reliability based on the beta testers' comments, at which point I will happily install it. As for your garage metaphor, I would not trade in my 2003 Toyota Corolla for a an expensive brand new shiny vehicle with unreliable brakes, a leaking gas tank or sticking accelerator regardless of how fancy the touch screen AV system is.

Unfortunately, those ancient versions of Acrobat and Word will not handle documents which rely on using the features and options found in the latest versions of those products. Trainz 2004 was great in its time (and as time went by looked even greater to those of us who seem to have an endless supply of rose coloured glasses) but the sessions I am now creating rely heavily on features found only in TANE and the sessions and layouts would be frustratingly difficult if not impossible to create without the use of layers (a TS12 innovation if I recall correctly). Not to mention the sessions themselves (circa TS2009 or 2010??). New versions bring new features which quickly become mainstream, a product of progress.

Yes, and that is a valid reason for sticking with an older version of Trainz. What you are actually complaining about is a perceived lack of "forward compatibility" in Trainz versions.

Entirely. Missing. The. Point. At no point do I expect versions of Trainz (or Adobe Acrobat) to be "forward compatible." I expect new versions to be backwards compatible with files produced by them which is something completely different.

--Lamont

 

[MTH_ELECTRIC_TRAINS]

I would love to see the supporting research you did for that statement.

Since that version doesn't exist: you are wrong.
My guess is you mean content working for TANE: Correctly made content from UTC even works. Less then 5% of the content doesn't work in TANE.

Go and read the first comment, there is some supporting evidence. I meant TS12 SP1 by the way, I goofed with the versions.

 

[SailorDan]

Entirely. Missing. The. Point. At no point do I expect versions of Trainz (or Adobe Acrobat) to be "forward compatible." I expect new versions to be backwards compatible with files produced by them which is something completely different.

Ask around and get some real numbers. For instance, one statistic that has been passed to me is 1160 out of 436724 items in a TANE installation are build 3.9 or above. That means 435564 error-free assets were built for an earlier version! I think that pretty much qualifies as backwards compatible.

If you want to use Acrobat 5 (PDF 1.4) as an example then the equivalent comparison is probably Trainz build level 2.9. It always takes several versions to establish the base standard that future versions need to be compatible with. In fact, TANE is compatible with a lot of assets back to the first Trainz release. Does Adobe reader handle content as far back as Acrobat 1.0?

 

[WindWalkr]

If you want to use Acrobat 5 (PDF 1.4) as an example

To be honest, it's not a very sensible comparison anyway. Acrobat Reader has no "third party content support", so they have no third-party compatibility issues to worry about. If you're only talking about first-party content (ie. Surveyor and the built-in assets) then we have perfect compatibility ranging back to v1.0. The various mobile versions are a great example of this in practice- we combined older routes (suitable for the lower-performing mobile devices) with the new game engine, and had no difficulties in making this work.

Trainz' strength, but also a potential liability, is that we allow content creators to build their own content beyond that which is provided by the game. Acrobat has no comparable functionality. This is a strength because it allows content creators to do things that N3V never thought of, never cared about, or never had time for. It can be a liability, because N3V is expected to support that work even though N3V may have had nothing to do with its creation. We're not perfect here, and our content creators don't have a perfect track record either, but in practice things work out pretty well with the application of a little effort on everyone's part. The content creators fix most of the worst faults. We add code to work around some of the more annoying issues, and maintain legacy code which exists purely to support older content. The DLS content repair group work hard to provide fixes for content which falls through the cracks.

Currently we're looking at about 2% of the content created over the last 15 years having problems in the current versions of the game. That's not perfect, but considering the volume of content available, the variation in expertise of the creators involved, and the number of different versions of the game that it was created for, that's a pretty solid number. (Caveat: this is from content that is known to N3V; ie. built-ins, DLS content, N3V payware, etc. Obviously we have no numbers for content that only exists on somebody's personal hard drive somewhere, nor any way to help fix it.)

kind regards,

chris

 

[mikeaust]

My Tane SP! has mainly older routes from 2004 and 2010. They transferred to Tane with very few problems.
The main problem occurred when certain old builtins wouldn't show on the route.
They had been allocated a new kuid. I just added those kuids to the route and no probs.
Also I never update an asset if it is working in that version, just because it shows up.

Ihave Trainz Deluxe with mainly Tane assets and I just updated it to SP2 and have very few problems so far. Just a few CTDs now and again. I didn't start using Tane till SP1 came out as it had too many problems earlier.
I will not update further until it is proven reliable, or somebody has a route I really want.

I have always found the repairing of assets an enjoyable part of Trainz.
Over the 10 years in Trainz, I would say I spent more time fixing than operating, but still enjoyed the sim.
Cheers,
Mike

 

[pware]

Entirely. Missing. The. Point. At no point do I expect versions of Trainz (or Adobe Acrobat) to be "forward compatible." I expect new versions to be backwards compatible with files produced by them which is something completely different.

I understand what you are saying but my point is that the original standards under which those earlier assets were created were very lax. Those standards had to be tightened so the program could move forward - full backward compatibility can be a serious impediment. This has meant that some older assets would no longer work - hence the need for the work of the CRG or finding other alternative assets.