PDA

View Full Version : LEGACY SHADOW MESHES - What impact on TANE



ianwoodmore
July 16th, 2015, 03:40 PM
While traincar and bogey shadows in legacy assets including TS12 SP1 HF4 were warnings, many assets were updated to include meshes and mesh-table entries. And so a mixture of some with and some without shadows existed with some very odd looking train consists (shadows on dependency bogies not visible) due to this inconsistent inclusion.

To a lesser extent some traincar assets have groundplanes.

Many of these assets were/are also PM meshes, and many had problems with uniform color black textures used with shadow meshes.

During TS12 development shadows were programmaticaly limited in maximum allowable polygons because of performance issues.

TANE uses a different lighting schema and thus shadows are generated differently from legacy assets.

Because of the requirement to ensure backwards compatability in TANE, many legacy assets are used either at their original trainz-build or had been upversioned previously. This process is continung at TB 3.5 and above, but we are still getting a mixture of traincar and bogey assets with or without shadows.

a. Does TANE require either the legacy shadow, groundplane mesh or associated mesh-tables?
b. Does TANE ignore these legacy meshes and mesh-table entries?
c. Is there a performance penalty for retaining them?
d. Would best practice recommend deletion of these meshes and mesh-table entries for assets used in TANE?

Currently legacy assets vastly outnumber TANE specific assets and will do so for many years. To date there are 57,716 category train vehicle and train bogey assets released via DLS or builtin, excluding those obsolete at TANE TB 4.2 compliance, and zero are at TB 3.8 or higher. I am currently working on 2,500+.

WindWalkr
July 16th, 2015, 06:32 PM
a. Does TANE require either the legacy shadow, groundplane mesh or associated mesh-tables?

T:ANE as in the rendering engine? No. Legacy shadows will be ignored. Groundplane meshes have always been a third-party thing, and I'm not really sure what you mean by 'associated mesh-tables'.

As in content validation? I can't say for sure; there may be legacy rules still in effect. If you find a rule that is clearly legacy and clearly being applied to a TANE-only asset, then let me know and I'll put in a change request.



b. Does TANE ignore these legacy meshes and mesh-table entries?

In so much as it does not generate shadows with this technique, yes.



c. Is there a performance penalty for retaining them?

Fairly minimal. They're not in use, so you'll pay a small validation cost at installation time and a small amount of disk space.



d. Would best practice recommend deletion of these meshes and mesh-table entries for assets used in TANE?

See answer to "a" above. If you're talking about a legacy asset, then of course it needs to still provide the necessary resources for TS12 and the fact that these are not used in T:ANE is irrelevant.

chris