Why use High Poly - Sketch Up ... instead of learnig GMax & Blender

The poly meter has been requested several times, but so far the closest thing we have are the performance statistics which are not too much useful: they state what the "heaviest" object is (track or some other spline, usually), but the rest of the data is meaningless to most of us (myself first :D).

I made a very crude "tool" for measuring the impact of downloaded content, placing multiple copies (1,296) of an object 20 meters apart on a single baseboard and measuring the frame rate with FRAPS as a single SD-40 travels along a track in the middle of the board. Using the "replace asset" tool, this provides me with a rough indication of the relative "weight" of new content: some days ago I used it to compare a new revised version of a building of mine (1,200 poly at LOD1, 3 LODs, one single texture) with the older one I made 10 years ago (5,400 poly, no LOD, 12 textures). Frame rate was in the high 60s, against low 10s for the older versions. Efficient design seems to have some effect on performance, after all.

I don't think the software you use is as important as careful design of an object: you can easily make an awful 75,000 trash can with 3DS Max or turn out a nice, efficient, properly textured model with Sketchup. Most content coming from the Warehouse (or from other sources of free 3D models) is utterly inefficient. It can come handy to turn Trainz into a PowerPoint slideshow :D.
 
If you make a model in gmax with the default settings, you'll end up with a poly heavy asset. It isn't the modelling programme that's the problem, it's neglecting the modelling guidelines as published in the CCG's and Wiki.

One thing I can't find, although I'm sure it came up in another thread, is the max polys that can be rendered in one scene.

Chris.
 
I use it and i have not down loaded anything up to the black pages just becouse i dont know about the rules of it, but i dont know how to use gmax or bender, i tryed i wanted to strat building peterbuilt fords chevy kenworth mack you know the stuff we are lacking in the trainz world and when i learned about this i was going crazy download. I to want to think mike for making this program, my layout now has the vehicles that are much need
 
Well, that went well... I don't think anyone has benefitted much from this thread at all - just thrown a lot of insults around, which doesn't really help anyone...

I wasn't going to bite, but I've held my toungue about as long as I could...

The problem with Sketchup is ultimately that it's actually quite hard to create objects in a way that is efficient, and easy to create objects that are high in poly count and texture count, relative to their appearance in-game. In other words, for a piece of content with an identical appearance, the SketchUp version will almost always be less efficient unless the creator is very cunning. Unfortunately, this rarely applies to 3DWH creators. Also, some creators who use SU becasue it is easier than GMax, may well not be prepared to embrace these somewhat trickier optimisation techniques (google ''SketchUp poly count'').

Of course, those with super computers might not mind that it takes all their systems resources to render a scene with just a handful of these objects in it, but consider what happens if a route is created, either for the DLS, or for a new Trainz release that includes a substantial number of these assets. Those running machines near the minimum specs for Trainz are going to see a slideshow (at best), and will probably blame the program, rather than the specific content.

Personally I download some of the SketchUp conversions, and test them on a blank board with the performance stats running. The majority get deleted, either because they are actually quite poor models, or because they have a texture count that is well into double figures (sometimes over 50). The remainder I keep because they provide something not available elsewhere, and I use them VERY sparingly.

So, I'm not sure what to conclude, but it seems that attacking SU users won't improve the efficiency of their work, judging by the very defensive replies from some above. I would seem more useful to point out why there is a problem, and to suggest that there are ways that SU can be more efficient - either by mapping texture maps to minimise material count, or modelling techniques to reduce poly count. A quick google search will reveal a lot of resources and discussion out there...

Paul
 
paulzmay said:
Well, that went well... I don't think anyone has benefitted much from this thread at all - just thrown a lot of insults around, which doesn't really help anyone...

I wasn't going to bite, but I've held my toungue about as long as I could...

The problem with Sketchup is ultimately that it's actually quite hard to create objects in a way that is efficient, and easy to create objects that are high in poly count and texture count, relative to their appearance in-game. In other words, for a piece of content with an identical appearance, the SketchUp version will almost always be less efficient unless the creator is very cunning. Unfortunately, this rarely applies to 3DWH creators. Also, some creators who use SU becasue it is easier than GMax, may well not be prepared to embrace these somewhat trickier optimisation techniques (google ''SketchUp poly count'').

Of course, those with super computers might not mind that it takes all their systems resources to render a scene with just a handful of these objects in it, but consider what happens if a route is created, either for the DLS, or for a new Trainz release that includes a substantial number of these assets. Those running machines near the minimum specs for Trainz are going to see a slideshow (at best), and will probably blame the program, rather than the specific content.

Personally I download some of the SketchUp conversions, and test them on a blank board with the performance stats running. The majority get deleted, either because they are actually quite poor models, or because they have a texture count that is well into double figures (sometimes over 50). The remainder I keep because they provide something not available elsewhere, and I use them VERY sparingly.

So, I'm not sure what to conclude, but it seems that attacking SU users won't improve the efficiency of their work, judging by the very defensive replies from some above. I would seem more useful to point out why there is a problem, and to suggest that there are ways that SU can be more efficient - either by mapping texture maps to minimise material count, or modelling techniques to reduce poly count. A quick google search will reveal a lot of resources and discussion out there...

Paul
Click to expand...

YES! +1

Its not going to get any better than this comment right here. I think everyone is aware of this problem, and I'm sure with time we may see a sollution, but any futher conversation really is only beating a dead horse...

Please lets just stop the insults and let this thread die!

cheers
 
paulzmay said:
I would seem more useful to point out why there is a problem, and to suggest that there are ways that SU can be more efficient - either by mapping texture maps to minimise material count, or modelling techniques to reduce poly count.
Click to expand...

Now, how could you possibly seem MORE useful than you already are? But thanks for that, nonetheless! ;)
 
Make a high poly car with 20k polys ,and a Guess this is already to much polys for a single traffic car or a static one, and use that without lods in a heavy populated layout,..
...now make other with 40 kpolys very high poly for trainz but with 5 lods, example stitched lods or with the lm txt file and with the distance 0.7 for the first lod1 with 20k polys , the lod2 with 10kp and the lod3 5kp and lod4 with 2.5kp, now compare them with fps activated or other tool.
I can say the overoull efficiency and better fps was for the very high poly car with 40 kp and 5 lods. in this case wee can use high poly models and very good detail ween you are at 10 or 20 meters distance but wee really need to make lods for then if wee want many high detailed models ones close to each others without affect the fps in the game.

my opinion about all that is ..dont download the high poly models if they are to much high poly if you think this going to affect your fps...
If they are people using sketchup with ruby exporter and they want export and use and also put in the dls they are welcome to, trainz game is for all and dls is for all to. Also remember this users probably using high end machines with 4 or 6 processors and for then this high poly models is nothing....
Wee can download a asset in the dls and check the polys with the tool Pev viewer, open with this tool the main img file in cmp associated to the pev tool viewer select mesh data and then decide if this is good or not for your layouts simple as that.
Some time ago i make some conversions from Warehouse with the tool ruby exporter and show some buildings from London, the bridge and the Big ban in the thread ruby exporter because i was a beta tester of this tool , but never put it in the dls because i consider that to much high poly and to much heavy in textures, later i receive a email from France of a retired man trainzer user ask me for that buildings if i really can sent to then this assets, i say to him this assets going to drop your fps to much because are extremely heavy assets. the answer of the French retired man user was....
i dont care about,.. im a collector of this icon buildings and i want to have it because is not for route layouts but for specific Small area scenery.
I think people forgot they are other people who use trainz not for routes and trains but for Small scenario for make close shots and pictures i already use trainz surveyor with architectural houses made in max and apartments to show to a client in 3d virtual reality this projects and all my projects for architectural houses are very high poly all of then, but run very well because is a localized Small layout.
also my opinion is several points here are......

Are your assets low poly ? yes low poly and med-poly with 4 or more lods

If one created using Sketch Up would it be a rediculously high poly count per asset ? not at all , this depends of the objective and purpose of the model creator, sketch up can create low poly for games if the creator modeling with this purpose, but is a limited program for trainz

There is much discussion about Google Sketch Up being used in Trainz ... I belive this is a bad program for Trainz as it makes extremely high poly assets. this is very controversy , they are low poly models in Google Warehouse but you must select then and search the right ones, unfortunately only less them 10% are low poly and acceptable for trainz games.
Skecthup models with the ruby exporter is like this>>>: my opinion,>>> give a m16 automatic gun to a child and see the results and compare if you give the same tool to a wise adult...

my opinion about the worst programs for trainz game and limitations in order of quality and efficiency and limitations

skecthup - very limited -9 points
gmax - limited +5 points
blender - less limited +7 points

3dmax versions 2008,2009,2010,2011,2012 no limitations +10 i work with this program versions only (max) to create and convert freeware models, the freeware models are for you people enjoy and me to, because i dont have time for doing all, i already have 600 models in the dls and i do not create all of then, if was all creations of mine you people dont have available now from me more then 100 or maximum 200 models in this 2 years, i made locos and wagons from the scracth only for payware and this ones take it my blood in max so i hope this message clear some points for some people on this fired thread.

so...dont worry to much ... be happy....

arraial
 
Last edited:
Probably the best reply in this thread, sums up my feelings on this.

martinvk said:
Anyone remember the dark ages of computer programing when memory was counted in bits and no effort was too great to reduce code size? Then as memory became cheaper and everyone wanted to write code Assembler and other low level languages were ignored by the new generation. Easy of use was the new mantra and so what if the code was bloated, just add more memory and faster CPUs. Of coarse it didn't last, no amount of hardware could compensate for really inefficient coding. People became tired of waiting while the computer struggling to execute the the programs that were badly made. Now everyone wants snappy performance. Wait for more than a few seconds for a webpage to load and people move on. If the next tablet doesn't work fast enough, it risks serious market share loss.

To a small extent I see the same thing here. The early models had to be so optimum because there was not extra power available to display them. Those that could shave off extra polys without affecting the look were idolized. If the next version of an object had fewer polys, it was praised to no end. Better hardware has allowed to poly limits to be relaxed. New easier to use software allows more people to contribute. This is all a good thing.

If some of the latest objects are rather poly rich, that's just a consequence of the same phenomena that coding went through. One or two super high ploy objects might work but even the best computers will be brought to their knees by dozens or hundreds. I think eventually when the software tools are better understood and mastered, minimizing render times and efficiency will once again be in style.

Meanwhile, as has been said, if it's too much for your computer, let it pass for now. I'm pretty sure when lower poly versions are produced, the market place will sort it out rather quickly. And if your favorite item is never made in a lower poly edition? . No one else seems to notice so you can do without or make it yourself.
Click to expand...

paulzmay said:
Also, some creators who use SU becasue it is easier than GMax, may well not be prepared to embrace these somewhat trickier optimisation techniques (google ''SketchUp poly count'').
Click to expand...

This also hits the nail on the head.

Also, 3ds and gMax, like any new software, including Trainz itself, are hard to use at first, but they really are easy to use programs. If you don't try to learn, by playing around, or whatever, you will still think its hard to use. I'm self taught on gMax and later 3ds, really easy programs to learn and I didn't use hardly any tutorials to learn how to get into optimalization of meshes. The more I use 3ds, the more I refine my skill, trying to make things different ways and mastering new techniques. If you just sit at the program and wait for it to throw an SD40 at you, you won't get anywhere and have an illusion that its hard to use. Start simple, and work your way up to the big stuff.
 
Last edited:
Yes, people CAN use sketchup ,Gmax, 3dsmax or whatever max. The problem that we are going to see down the road with people diving on sketchup and either not fully understanding poly counts or just ignoring them is route builders are going to have more and more problems with their routes and people not being able to run them. If a single car is 20k polys think of that over an entire route. That is just completely counterproductive to the trainz community. Now, a single car having that many polys isn't such a huge deal but what about buildings. What if buildings have that many or roads? We already have to allow rolling stock to creep up the poly count ladder for the sake of high quality visual models. If we are suddenly having 10,15, 20k or more items that aren't even locomotives or rolling stock how many people are going to be on here complaining because a route that uses these items won't run on their computer?

This is not an arguement about WHAT program you use it is an arguement about how you use that program. Please do your due diligence and learn about poly counts and how to reduce them in whatever program you are using so that we can all enjoy great routes to come. I am not even going to delve into best use standards.
 
Last edited:
Since I am the OP of this thread I am asking it to be closed ... discussion has been fulfilled.

I asked Ararial, and he too thought Google Sketch Up was rediculously high poly, even when you attempt to cut the polys to a bare minimum ... so Sketch Up IS High Poly.

Never before in Trainz was a program that made ludicrously high poly assets so endorsed, and actually appluaded ... have fun with your high poly assets.

Even I, if I wanted to create assets ... I would take the Quality, hard way ... and learn GMax, 3DMax, Blender, or another low poly program.

Look at all the fine locos on 3rd party sites ... were they created using Google Sketch Up ... The answer is NO !

Ludicrous Speed ... ahead Full
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7VWcuVOf0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI4tevra8Lg&feature=related
 
Last edited:
It is not about being lazy, in Australia over the last year or so Google Sketchup is being taught in all secondery schools ,,,high school as part of there learning programs,,, note not Gmax not Blender young people really have no experience in Gmax or Blender and as far as schools and teaching are concered Sketchup is the way of the future reguardless,

If they are teaching Sketchup in schools then which program do you think they are going to use? of cause the most simple.

so instead of knocking this very simple to use program how about trying to find a way to drop the poly count.
steve
 
Close the High Poly thread ! Everyone likes High Poly

Because ... with Sketch Up you can only take the poly count just so low, and can not lower it far enough to match GMax, Blender, 3D Max.

You will always have a high poly model using Sketch Up.

Talk about thick ... what part about High Poly do you not understand ... Sketch Up will always be High Poly.

What they teach in schools is an "easy way out" High Poly program ... It doesn't match the Quality, Low Poly of better programs.

You can keep on arguing every which way in the book, until you are black and blue in the face ... but Sketch Up will always be High Poly.

View hese 467 pages of Quality assets: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...r-modeling-program)-screenies-renders/page467
 
Last edited:
Heres a really simple solution to the problem. For every high poly sketchup model on the DLS, YOU need to create a low poly model created in 3DS, Blender or whatever YOU spend the time to learn. That way no one will ever need to use one of those sketchup models again. Good luck!
 
I have sat back and read these posts with amusement. In one camp you have the Sketchup fan club and in the other camp you have the Blender, GMax and 3DS fan club. Just for clarification I belong to the 3DS fan club. But I'm not one eyed about it. I happen to think 3DS is the best modeller, others like GMax and others like Blender. It is a fact that these 3 programs along with Maya and Cinema 4D are the only programs used seriously by the movies, graphic modellers and game studios. Sketchup doesn't even get a real mention. Another thing that has been missed here is that Sketchup comes in two flavors, free and paid. The paid version costs $495 USD. Now before writing this, I went and had a good look at the designs available and their quality. Lot's of designs, some quite good ones in fact, but they are about the graphic level of a program I used way back in 1990 called Generic Cadd. It was one of the first serious 3D modeling programs and this is where Sketchup fits in. It has a long long way to go before it can equal Blender or 3DS if it ever can. Both 3DS and Blender can do things that Sketchup can't even dream of yet, maybe never. Now I know I am going to get belted all over creation for what I just said but I do 3D modelling for a living so I stick with my opinion.

Peter
 
i think that this thread is arguing about two different things. so here are my opinions on both of them.

1. i think sketchup could be just fine for modelling if care is taken to do things the correct way.

2. i dont think google warehouse is a good soruce for trainz models, and i dont consider those who can simply import models from it to be content creators. they are simply content importers.

i am also surprised nobody in this community is mentioning or using the 3d low poly modeller called milkshape. you can so just about anything in it, and i have written plugins for it in the past and was very impressed with it. with the xml importer pretty much any modeller can be used now. i thought of this because some time back and for a totally different game i wrote a plugin to export models from milkshape. like the software that converts google warehouse models to trainz, it was used to import models from other games and from other places and the available content became so full of either old or low quality models i was kicking myself for writing it. imaging how much junk we would have in trainz if a straight import of MSTS models could be made to trainz... i wouldnt like it here very much i can tell you that. it was for the same reason i lost interest in railworks, because rather than focus on making good content, focus was put on importing obsolete content we already had into the new sim. i think what the OP was trying to say is this: start trying to learn how to create better content rather than trying to import lousy google warehouse items using sketchup. i dont see a problem with using it as a modelling tool, you can make crap with any modeller, its making the quality items that takes practice. ive been working in MAX on and off for about 14 years now, and i still have loads to learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

n3v_laurence
Trainz Plus Beta - PC & Steam (PC & Mac) 122127, 122137 & 121971
Replies
12
Views
2K
pware
P
M
TRS19 PBR Parallax Issue: The Moire Effect
Replies
16
Views
7K
hminky
H
T
A list of good DLS content makers
2
Replies
30
Views
16K
justinroth
J
B
Graphics Card; What's the best bang for my buck?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
10K
clam1952
C
S
A mini moan/rant/sigh of exasperation!
Replies
7
Views
3K
Smileyman
S
Back
Top