PDA

View Full Version : Internal Test Build 79135



WindWalkr
October 28th, 2015, 06:33 AM
Hi all,

There's a new internal test build available. This is the first such build which is considered content-complete; that is to say that the included content set is supposed to be up-to-date and free of any technical faults. As always, it's yet to go through testing so your mileage may vary :)

This build improves compatibility with a number of older or unusually configured assets, as well as adding background loading capabilities in various areas of the game and fixing many of the outstanding issues with the Interlocking Towers support. The 'process objects behind camera' setting has also been improved.

kind regards,

chris

pcas1986
October 28th, 2015, 07:13 AM
OK. I've not been playing with interlocking towers since I don't know enough about them to comment. Does the "content-complete" comment address issues with missing or broken dependencies as discussed in the PC and TEG thread on DLS cleanup?

What's an "unusually configured asset"?

Is this version a pre-cursor to the next service pack or will that be a separate release?

Cheers

WindWalkr
October 28th, 2015, 09:33 AM
Does the "content-complete" comment address issues with missing or broken dependencies as discussed in the PC and TEG thread on DLS cleanup?

It is unrelated to comments on other threads, but simply an indication that this build specifically has a complete content set, where previous builds released through trainzdev where known to have incomplete content sets. How much difference that amounts to in practice is untested.



What's an "unusually configured asset"?

An asset which has a configuration which is unusual in some particular way. I'm not going to go into full specifics here; suffice to say that this doesn't affect most assets but you will notice improvements on a scattering of assets. (As opposed to eg. "all assets below 1.3" or "all assets with LM files" both of which are fairly common.)



Is this version a pre-cursor to the next service pack or will that be a separate release?

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Is this a beta? No. The internal test builds released to TrainzDev are specifically the latest builds from our main development branch for the purposes of allowing the TrainzDev community early access so that we can discuss changes to content creation processes and similar concerns. They are "fresh from the factory floor" and typically untested. :) We welcome feedback, but it's not a formal testing program and we won't necessarily fix bugs that don't relate directly to something that we're working on at the time.

These builds definitely include features that will make it into future product releases, but we can't say for sure which features will make the cut or when- that will come down to internal and external testing, available resources to fix any problems found, and so on. As an example of this in practice, the current test builds have the OpenGL renderer re-enabled. Will we keep that for the next release? Who knows. We'll test it out, get feedback, decide how much benefit there is in having it switched on versus how many problems or extra development cost it will entail, and then make a decision on that. This also happens with smaller features and changes. Finally, at some point the release build is locked down for final testing and only the most critical issues found after that point are addressed. Internal development keeps ticking along and TrainzDev will keep receiving builds, but none of the changes from that point on will make it into the release unless they're absolutely critical.

chris

rumour3
October 28th, 2015, 02:10 PM
As an example of this in practice, the current test builds have the OpenGL renderer re-enabled. Will we keep that for the next release? Who knows.

chrisEr, Chris

Tony appears to have committed to OGL as part of SP1- http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?123816-OpenGL-when&p=1453209#post1453209
:)

R3

JCitron
October 28th, 2015, 02:58 PM
Er, Chris

Tony appears to have committed to OGL as part of SP1- http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?123816-OpenGL-when&p=1453209#post1453209
:)

R3

You just beat me to this. Is this a case of marketing and sales getting ahead of developmet? :)

John

JCitron
October 28th, 2015, 03:08 PM
A couple things found so far:

1) The follow error appears in the logs when loading up...

- TrainzMeshCollisionData::GetRawData> No PhysX actor.
; SplineSpec29::Precache> Failed to get collision data for Invisible Spline - <kuid:401543:3122>
? TADGetSpecFromAsset> <kuid:401543:3122>
- TrainzMeshCollisionData::InitFromRawData> no input data
- SplineSpec29::Init> Failed to initialise collision data for Invisible Spline - <kuid:401543:3122>

2) Saving a route in Surveyor the first time defaults to the first route name in the list. In this case the C&O Hinton Division Route is the first one. If this was a user-created route, then there's a chance of overwriting a user-route which would be a bad thing.

whitepass
October 28th, 2015, 04:08 PM
I can run OpenGL but only at 1024x786 and it is very jerky.

pcas1986
October 28th, 2015, 04:28 PM
Chris,
Thanks for the detailed reply. From our perspective, or at least mine :), it can be confusing at times.

WindWalkr
October 28th, 2015, 08:08 PM
You just beat me to this. Is this a case of marketing and sales getting ahead of developmet? :)

Pretty much, yes :)

chris

WindWalkr
October 28th, 2015, 08:11 PM
- TrainzMeshCollisionData::GetRawData> No PhysX actor.
; SplineSpec29::Precache> Failed to get collision data for Invisible Spline - <kuid:401543:3122>

Yeah, this one has been around forever and is annoying. The error is quite correct, but also (in this specific case) quite useless. We're working on a technique to suppress it.

chris

pcas1986
October 29th, 2015, 04:08 PM
...

Is this version a pre-cursor to the next service pack or will that be a separate release?

Cheers


I asked this question a couple of days back and got told it wasn't. On downloading the SP1 beta as part of the test program I discovered the version numbers are the same. There have been various comments on this forum (http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?123942-TANE-Service-Pack-1-Beta-Round-1-Begins&p=1453603#post1453603).

So, I'll ask again - are they the same or not?

WindWalkr
October 29th, 2015, 07:28 PM
The answer has not changed, and will not change.

TrainzDev builds are as described above, no more. If QA later approves the same build for another purpose, that's up to them, but we can't make any assumptions about that. As above, TrainzDev builds are provided prior to any testing, for a purpose which is unrelated to beta testing.

Builds with the same number are the same build- if you download it from one source and it is later offered from another source, downloading it from the second source will change nothing.

chris

pcas1986
October 30th, 2015, 04:05 AM
The answer has not changed, and will not change.

OK, since you have a programming background you would probably argue that z=x+y and z=y+x are different. Technically that is correct but something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck is probably a duck. :)




TrainzDev builds are as described above, no more. If QA later approves the same build for another purpose, that's up to them, but we can't make any assumptions about that. As above, TrainzDev builds are provided prior to any testing, for a purpose which is unrelated to beta testing.

Don't have a problem with that.




Builds with the same number are the same build- if you download it from one source and it is later offered from another source, downloading it from the second source will change nothing.



Except that I wasted six hours doing exactly that. I should have looked more closely at the zip file name.

Anyway, I'll just go crawl back into my box and say nothing more on the subject.

whitepass
October 30th, 2015, 02:59 PM
CM View Asset has a bug with some bogeys, see pix, in game bogey looks and runs normal.

847

JCitron
October 30th, 2015, 03:10 PM
There's an odd lighting effect in the locomotive cab while driving. This changes as the camera view (user view) moves, and disappears.

848

WindWalkr
October 30th, 2015, 08:28 PM
OK, since you have a programming background you would probably argue that z=x+y and z=y+x are different.

More that z=x+1 and z=y+1 are different, and the fact that x and y just happened by chance to be equal in this case isn't very relevant.

chris

WindWalkr
October 30th, 2015, 08:29 PM
CM View Asset has a bug with some bogeys, see pix, in game bogey looks and runs normal.

Not really surprising. A bogey in-game is not simply a representation of the mesh. Feel free to open a separate topic and add details if this concerns you.

chris

WindWalkr
October 30th, 2015, 08:29 PM
There's an odd lighting effect in the locomotive cab while driving. This changes as the camera view (user view) moves, and disappears.

Not really sure what you're referring to here?

chris

JCitron
October 30th, 2015, 08:53 PM
Not really sure what you're referring to here?

chris

See here:

http://www.hostthenpost.org/uploads/e60724dc41a4839db7bbd6fb18d57823.jpg (http://hostthenpost.org)

That white curtain over the screen. It flickers like static-noise when the camera moves and when it appears on the scene. This I think is a rather odd way of depicting a sun ray coming into the window and reflecting on the windscreen. It's more obvious when you are in motion than in the still shot. :)

whitepass
October 31st, 2015, 12:51 PM
Getting a new Warning "! VE107: The high-detail meshes total more than 10000 polygons. This may have a negative impact on performance", I know it's just a warning but is that typo and should be 100000? It is also not showing on some kuids that are over 10000. I know the C&O 2-8-4 is over 100000.

WindWalkr
November 1st, 2015, 04:17 AM
Getting a new Warning "! VE107: The high-detail meshes total more than 10000 polygons. This may have a negative impact on performance", I know it's just a warning but is that typo and should be 100000? It is also not showing on some kuids that are over 10000. I know the C&O 2-8-4 is over 100000.

Traincar assets frequently go above 10k polygons so we don't warn in that case. Scenery assets should generally be well below that, so they get this warning.

chris

WindWalkr
November 1st, 2015, 04:19 AM
That white curtain over the screen. It flickers like static-noise when the camera moves and when it appears on the scene.

Please try:

1. Adjusting your shadow settings (in the launcher; you'll need to fully restart the game after each change) and seeing if this makes any difference.
2. Adjusting your post-processing settings (in game, you won't need to reload.)

Let me know what you find.

thx,

chris

whitepass
November 1st, 2015, 10:14 AM
I got the Warning on a mesh library for a Traincar.

JCitron
November 1st, 2015, 05:37 PM
Please try:

1. Adjusting your shadow settings (in the launcher; you'll need to fully restart the game after each change) and seeing if this makes any difference.
2. Adjusting your post-processing settings (in game, you won't need to reload.)

Let me know what you find.

thx,

chris

Hi Chris,

I did some testing...

1) Adjusting the shadows makes this quite noticeable from low to higher settings.
2) Post processing doesn't seem to affect this at all as the problem was there without or without the PP enabled.


Shadows High, PP Off
http://www.hostthenpost.org/uploads/148aec1a62b703dd4affbcc01fcf5c17.jpg

Shadows Ultra, PP Off
(http://hostthenpost.org)http://www.hostthenpost.org/uploads/ff206d41d9e5e5423353c828ee952325.jpg (http://hostthenpost.org)

Low isn't as bad, but it still occurs, and I couldn't catch the angle for that to get a good snap of it.

Overall, the shadows are just odd in the cabs still. In Ultra, even with PP enabled, they're too blocky looking in some cases. They also move too quickly like the timer is on super fast settings while in the cab. While driving, distant, under-tree shadows buzz and jump around oddly.

I hope this is helpful. If you need more I can do more fiddling with it.

John

WindWalkr
November 5th, 2015, 08:19 PM
Overall, the shadows are just odd in the cabs still.

This is expected; the amount of shadow detail required to render an entire world and the amount of shadow detail required to show fine detail in the cab are very different. Adding to that, the cabs tend to break a lot of the best practices for shadowing- meaning that many cabs would need to be rebuilt in order to produce clean results. For this reason, shadowing is disabled on cabs by default. Unfortunately a lot of "cabs" aren't actually cabs.



I hope this is helpful. If you need more I can do more fiddling with it.

Cheers. Just for completeness, which GPU and OS was this on?

chris

JCitron
November 5th, 2015, 11:27 PM
This is expected; the amount of shadow detail required to render an entire world and the amount of shadow detail required to show fine detail in the cab are very different. Adding to that, the cabs tend to break a lot of the best practices for shadowing- meaning that many cabs would need to be rebuilt in order to produce clean results. For this reason, shadowing is disabled on cabs by default. Unfortunately a lot of "cabs" aren't actually cabs.




Cheers. Just for completeness, which GPU and OS was this on?

chris


Windows 10 Pro

EVGA NVidia GTX780Ti

Thanks,

John

pcas1986
November 6th, 2015, 02:10 AM
... Adding to that, the cabs tend to break a lot of the best practices for shadowing- meaning that many cabs would need to be rebuilt in order to produce clean results. ...

chris


Chris,
As I'm about to build a cab, could you elaborate on the statement above? i.e. what would I need to change?

p.s. After John's comments I did take a closer look at shadows in cabs and what I saw (79199) looked reasonable to me. There were some jagged edges on shadows within the cab I observed but not as bad as I had seen earlier. I also use a GTX 780Ti with driver 358.87 (latest as of today). Ditto with Win 10 Pro.

p.p.s. Shadows, and performance generally, are pretty good for 79199 as was 79135.

rumour3
November 8th, 2015, 04:49 AM
Not sure how it's done, but the built-in Deltic cab has a pretty good self-shadowing effect, with only a slight artefact, similar to the one described here, above the driver's side window. I haven't had a chance to look at how this cab is put together but I wonder if it uses some kind of attached shadow mesh, possibly like the old 'shell cab' technique? I really hope that there is an officially sanctioned method to at least allow the main cab structure to cast a shadow, even if we don't have them for all the fine detail.

Edit: have now looked at the Deltic cab, and there are a couple of things- firstly, the tag "enable-shadows-in-cab 1" in the config, and secondly it has an exterior mesh attached. I tried just adding the enable-shadows-in-cab tag to one of mine, and (predictably) the results were horrible because the interior structure is modelled one-sided, so I guess any shadows cast by the main structure are cast outside and not inside. I'll have a go at knocking up a low poly exterior and adding this to the model.

Chris- is this approach officially OK, or is it using a loophole that you'll plug at some point?

R3

pcas1986
November 8th, 2015, 07:05 AM
After posing my question I recall this came up before and the answer was something to do with having an "exterior" to the cab. i.e. a cab shell viewable from outside while in cab mode. All my locos have this because I start my cabs with a copy of the exterior mesh. This makes sense for steam locos but perhaps not for diesels.

I looked at the Deltic and the shadows weren't too bad, but for my current build, after adding the shadows tag, I get some good shadows and some rather awful saw toothed shadows. My current cab build is rather rough as I'm still making the controls but if the saw toothed shadows continue, I'm inclined to ignore the shadows option.

The saw toothed shadows seem to have something to do with the angle of the sun and the closeness of the object that receives the shadow. A shadow cast on the opposite side of the cab looks better than those cast closer.

rumour3
November 8th, 2015, 03:38 PM
I've added a quick external mesh to my Cravens interior and although I like the extra contrast it gives, the result is pretty jagged and wobbly. I've also noticed another issue- the shadow moves as the viewpoint moves:

https://youtu.be/vO2NzXQ-tNY
Look at the bulkhead- as I pan around, the shadow of the side seems to become disconnected and allows light to reach the edge of the bulkhead. Any ideas what's going on here? (T:ANE build 78667 in the video, but the same problem is evident in build 79135).

R3

WindWalkr
November 8th, 2015, 08:07 PM
As I'm about to build a cab, could you elaborate on the statement above? i.e. what would I need to change?

You'd need to make the walls thicker and a few things like that. Possibly make some single-sided walls double-sided (and by this i mean two actual sides separated by a gap, not simply clicking the "double-sided" option.) Possibly change how you handle transparencies and rounded edges.

To be clear here, I'm not necessarily saying that you should do any of these things, just that the way that cabs are made currently conflicts with best practices for shadows. Whether they can be brought in line without compromising on the elements required for a cab isn't something that we've really tried to solve. You can enable shadows per-cab, which I believe we have done for exactly one cab, but that comes down to a personal judgement call about whether the result is better than simply disabling the shadows. When testing this kind of thing, be sure to test at various different settings (and especially at low shadow detail, low shadow texture size.)

chris

pcas1986
November 8th, 2015, 08:10 PM
For R3
I guess you are referring to the shadow on the right hand seat? The curve of the window is well represented but there's an edge (plus daylight) that shouldn't be there. I'm only guessing but I wonder if there is a break in the exterior mesh that ends just behind the curved window.

This might be a useful asset for N3V to check out. I suggest you raise the issue via Google docs at the Trainz Issue Submission form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1r9l4e80qvjoAwHSFZ19ZGVE4Hdk5CG3DG9xsMSh1V-o/viewform?c=0&w=1). That gets it raised formally.

Other than that, the shadows look quite good in your asset.

pcas1986
November 8th, 2015, 08:27 PM
You'd need to make the walls thicker and a few things like that. Possibly make some single-sided walls double-sided (and by this i mean two actual sides separated by a gap, not simply clicking the "double-sided" option.) Possibly change how you handle transparencies and rounded edges.

To be clear here, I'm not necessarily saying that you should do any of these things, just that the way that cabs are made currently conflicts with best practices for shadows. Whether they can be brought in line without compromising on the elements required for a cab isn't something that we've really tried to solve. You can enable shadows per-cab, which I believe we have done for exactly one cab, but that comes down to a personal judgement call about whether the result is better than simply disabling the shadows. When testing this kind of thing, be sure to test at various different settings (and especially at low shadow detail, low shadow texture size.)

chris

Thanks for that. I'm getting some odd patterns in my loco cab but it does sliding roof panels and the mesh construction around those panels may be contributing. This might require a rethink of the outer construction of the cab.

The shadows do add a lot of realism to a cab so some extra effort might be worth it.

rumour3
November 9th, 2015, 12:53 PM
You'd need to make the walls thicker and a few things like that. Possibly make some single-sided walls double-sided (and by this i mean two actual sides separated by a gap, not simply clicking the "double-sided" option.) Possibly change how you handle transparencies and rounded edges.

chris

Chris

I've logged my shadow problem (see above post) through the issue form. I'm interested in your comment about the changes to how transparency is handled- at the moment I use an alpha blend, and the shadows do look a bit odd on the glass. What's the recommended approach here?

R3

pcas1986
November 9th, 2015, 05:22 PM
I use a notex material for windows with 50% transparency and some dark grey so everything is in the material and no texture. This shot of my development loco cab shows a shadow on the glass of the cab door.

http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z410/casper131/Ashampoo_Snap_2015.11.10_09h09m37s_001__zpsrqwkqmi h.jpg

In game the shadows are shimmering significantly but the shadow on the glass looks much the same as the cab door. BTW the cab door and some other parts are using an unpainted texture with Blender's grid pattern so they look a bit odd. The cab itself has a look way to go.

Using a notex means the glass colour is uniform. Using the texture method means you can introduce some variation in the glass so I'm interested how they perform with shadows.