PDA

View Full Version : What TMR2017 should be



edo
July 7th, 2017, 12:25 PM
Hi all. I'd like to talk about Trainz model railroad because in my opinion it could be really interesting if more different compared to T:ANE. The first point is that the player attention is not to drive train but look at around to enjoy landscape, trains and roads traffic and animations. I mean good animations for interactive industry; more realistic animation for passengers; a new look for people (modern people and not classic) it's time to change. Redesign cars traffic with more realistic system and not crazy overtaking cars!!!
In that way Trainz model it will be more targeted for specific players that like me, are not interested to only drive.
What N3V does think about?
Thanks

MNIBARI08
August 1st, 2017, 07:03 AM
I agree, but I know there are mega problems between TANE & TMR17 witch whats me to move back to TS12 or TS2010 or TS2009 but I will say this a lot of it is to do with the old content we have and what can we do with it now rather paying the price l8tr.

Yes I totally agree NV3 needs to look deeper and starting thinking backwords then forwords and take odds and ends to fix, what can be done.

I seen a lot in my time and TMR17 needs to stop and TANE to stop for a moment and focus what users brought over the years and seen what they brought and use a lot of becaucuse we will never buy Trainz in the future its going down hill and if TMR17 & TANE continue nothing will be there for us and content we all already got from past TRAINZ versions and DLC content and brought recently by new users


from Matthew

falcon500
August 26th, 2017, 04:41 AM
I always thought Trainz was fairly much a model railway sim anyway.

JCitron
August 26th, 2017, 12:33 PM
I always thought Trainz was fairly much a model railway sim anyway.

So did I. :)

The original advert was for that many years ago.

Vern
August 26th, 2017, 05:26 PM
Well from TRS2004 (Passenger Edition) onwards, Auran (now N3V) themselves were deflecting the product more in the direction of something which could simulate prototype railways and operations.

I do agree though that TMR should have been a far more radical overhaul of Trainz, specifically for model applications, whether in how the baseboard area is configured, scaling and as suggested "gimmicks" - a couple of UK examples being the Hornby Travelling Post Office and carriage washing machine.

Jayco-man
August 26th, 2017, 06:23 PM
Cant you set up any scale when you do a route in Trainz, and if so I don't know why you would buy a separate game to do the same.

JCitron
August 26th, 2017, 06:50 PM
Cant you set up any scale when you do a route in Trainz, and if so I don't know why you would buy a separate game to do the same.

Like the Trainz Classics series which came out in between TRS2006 and TS2009, TMR2017 is in the same vein. These were specialized Trainz versions with specific content such as for Trainz Classics 1&2 was for commuter trains and railroads around New York City for example.

TMR2017 also celebrates the 15th anniversary of Trainz as that was what it was back then - a Model Railroad simulator.

TMR2017 also comes with a lighter amount of content, which is aimed at those folks who don't want to start with the larger content set. This version is also slightly different than T:ANE, though based on the same underlying game engine.

zsuda
October 13th, 2017, 09:29 AM
I like the separated Trainzversion of modelling: TMR17
- specifically for model applications (Vern)
- lighter amount of content (JCitron),
so really without Kickstarter County, Milwaukee Road, Mojave Sub, Season Town and Warwick-Wallangara
(or at least separated in a special chapter or disable/enable (like in TS12: you don't see it anymore in route-select)
- interactive industry with good animations (edo): yes, yes, yes......
- animated passengers (edo): mwah... on a real modeltrack you don't see that either...
- car-traffic redesigned (edo): yes, yes, yes... in combination with the industry: trucks/trailers with steering/turning wheels....

I like the freedom of choosing.... TS12 or TANE or TMR or... reality or modelling .... oldfashioned or hypermodern ... be or not to be ...

daveric

Cakensmoosher
November 5th, 2017, 05:23 PM
I originally picked up tranz model railroader because I thought it would be a good alternative to making the model railroader I have always dreamed of. If would be cool if there were some trains and scenery that we based off of toys rather than being all realistic. Like have some Lionel inspired buildings and trains and maybe the ability to place track based off segments with specific radius in real life. Also a third rail could be fun. Right now the UI reminds me of building something in a 3D design environment like Maya and can be intimidating to learn.

JCitron
November 5th, 2017, 06:01 PM
I originally picked up tranz model railroader because I thought it would be a good alternative to making the model railroader I have always dreamed of. If would be cool if there were some trains and scenery that we based off of toys rather than being all realistic. Like have some Lionel inspired buildings and trains and maybe the ability to place track based off segments with specific radius in real life. Also a third rail could be fun. Right now the UI reminds me of building something in a 3D design environment like Maya and can be intimidating to learn.

Check on the DLS. There is some Lionel-inspired 3-rail track.

Building in Surveyor is quite easy, however, it takes time, a bit of patience, and practice to get the stuff to your satisfaction.

Start small, build a test route.
Open up other people's routes that you've downloaded and see how they've done things.
Modify their route, so you can learn techniques.
Start a project.

Stick to a theme and build your route slowly.

This comes from someone who has been building Trainz routes since December 2003.

Vern
November 6th, 2017, 07:42 AM
And if you're following a published plan, be sure to increase the dimensions proportionately to give more space. I started to have a look at the infamous "Aberbinear Bayfore" rabbit warren as published in the 1975 Railway Modeller. The original layout was on a 3' 9" x 1' 10" or thereabouts board but even expanded to 8' x 4' I couldn't really get it to work in Trainz. This is partly because many of the assets we use - such as tunnel mouths or industries - have a much larger footprint than would be the case on a model, also squeezing track splines to a small radius (less than 12" in HO or OO) without some means of fixing the curve is incredibly painstaking. It can also give a jagged effect on certain types of track where the curve interval (which is really a series of short straights) is too coarse.

Many of the plans published by the late CJ Freezer in various Peco books from the 1960's and 1970's have been somewhat debunked as not really achievable in the theoretical space allowed, with the model track infrastructure available either then or now.

martinvk
November 6th, 2017, 08:40 AM
Since most of the existing assets were designed at a 1:1 scale for routes with plenty of space, trying to squeeze them into a traditional model route with limited pace will always be a challenge. Looks like a new set of assets will have to be created with the model railroad constraints in mind, like buildings without back walls, tracks with very short segments to allow smaller radius curves, etc.

cressjl
November 6th, 2017, 09:23 AM
I suppose I am one that doesn't see the value of modeling on the small scale for a model railroad. Isn't this the bane of model railroading, having to reduce everything to scale? And yet, modeling 1:1 reality is the whole purpose of the hobby, unless you are creating a fanciful toy-land experience where scale doesn't make sense in 1:1.

I find it liberating to model as if everything is the size I would expect it to be, while being empowered to make the full scale model look like a model railroad.

What do they say, different strokes for different folks?

So far, the only advantage that I have found for TMR2017 has been that it is standalone. It has been a general pain in every other way, at least to me.

paulhobbs
November 6th, 2017, 11:07 AM
I suppose I am one that doesn't see the value of modeling on the small scale for a model railroad. Isn't this the bane of model railroading, having to reduce everything to scale? And yet, modeling 1:1 reality is the whole purpose of the hobby, unless you are creating a fanciful toy-land experience where scale doesn't make sense in 1:1.

I find it liberating to model as if everything is the size I would expect it to be, while being empowered to make the full scale model look like a model railroad.
There's no reason why you have to try and stick exactly to the original trackplan and overall size of the layout. I'd suggest you download and have a good look at 'Porchester and Bull's Wells' on the DLS (all assets are built in or on the DLS) so see how a model railway layout should be done in Trainz. You have all of the advantages of a model railway but with none of the disadvantages as it takes up a lot more 'floor area' than the original but captures the spirit of Frank Dyer's Borchester. In fact it's what he might have built given unlimited space and time.

The advantages by the way are that the overall layout is small so it can be built relatively quickly and performs better as there simply aren't that many assets in the field of view. It also concentrates on the interesting bits such as the stations and the goods yard instead of miles of boring plain line. However, as it's not a scale replica of a model railway there's enough line between the stations to give the impression of running through open country.

A huge disadvantage of TMR17 BTW is that you can't download Porchester into it, you need the full T:ANE. Even if you don't download it, at least have a look at the pictures in the Porchester thread, it's a masterpiece (and no, it's not from me but were I ever to build a Trainz layout it would be something like this).

Paul

Vern
November 6th, 2017, 12:05 PM
The advantages by the way are that the overall layout is small so it can be built relatively quickly and performs better as there simply aren't that many assets in the field of view.

This.

I used the MR principle to create my latest "Water Of Coate" route, which is an upscaled miniature railway. Although I planted it in real terrain rather than in a model railway room, careful (or arguably more by luck) use of terraforming around the edges created a quite reasonable impression of depth. This is far less than the 5 - 6 km I would typically try and put either side of the track on a prototype based route and which, more often than not, is the reason many such projects end up on the virtual cutting room floor.