PDA

View Full Version : Getting Trainz to look and feel more realistic? Ala MSTS/Railworks? HOW?



Davie_UCF
October 24th, 2010, 12:47 PM
I've been using Trainz since the first version.. I love the functionability it has, for example I finally got my route to the level where I can feel its finished enough to set up AI for and i've spent weeks setting up automated schedules to bring it to life.

But one thing Trainz lacks that really grinds my gears compared to MSTS & Railworks is the realism.

Granted Railworks has near none of the functionability of Trainz.. Its just pretty and I guess good to drive in.

Thats my problem, why is Railworks so more immersive? Why does it feel like you're in that Black 5 or whatever loco of choice.. Why when you're on a platform does it feel like that beast of a locomotive is really there and is bigger than you?

On trainz locos still feel small, no matter how greatly modeled or textured. I've scratched my head over this for a few years now and I feel strongly this is one of the things Auran needs to sort out in the next version.

I'd like to hear your opinions on why Trainz still feels like a model railway where as Railworks & MSTS have that bit of realism and scale to them.
Is it to do with the camera field of view for example..


Heres two albeit bad examples of Trainz next to Railworks

http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz11/David_VI/Generaltrainz/Screenshot_BathGreenParkToTemplecombe_5107171--243480_16-12-24.png
http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz11/David_VI/Generaltrainz/Clipboard01.jpg
Better pic

Any tips on how to improve the realism & immersion factors in Trainz would be great...

mezzoprezzo
October 24th, 2010, 01:08 PM
Hi Davie_UCF,


You’ve not said which is which?


Both examples aren’t the best for a fair comparison (sorry:o ). Edit: Since replaced with new Trainz image - better angle, but that sky doesn't look good. Cloudy grey, like the top shot would look so much better.


Top picture is taken showing the loco at a low angle. That’s good, and makes the loco look bigger – more as you would see it standing at ground level.

Unfortunately the trees have vastly overscaled leaves, which make even the best presented model look like a toy. That’s why those barfy Speedtrees have to be set at the middle to far distance in any screenshot where they are/have to be presented. They still don’t look right yet – though I suppose they will someday!


The lower shot is viewing the rolling stock from too high an angle. The sky is also overstated – again making the shot look unrealistic.


I think we need to see a comparison of the two sims with just one loco at the same viewing angle and similar plain skies – and preferably with Tundra trees!


Cheers
Casper
:)

Davie_UCF
October 24th, 2010, 01:18 PM
Someone else should supply a screenshot from Trainz to match the Railworks one then... I know its not a good comparison but I was pushed for time ;)

I'll give it another go later on

LieLestoSbrat
October 24th, 2010, 01:24 PM
2 reasons in my view

1) Camara views

2) Model/texture quality.

Looking at point one, it can be harder in Trainz to get that low down shot like in railsim, due to how the players viewport behaves. A good example is when your in free roam view and you want to get a load down shot in a cutting, its almost impossible to get the view point to head level at the bottom of the cutting. The view point feels like an object the size of a battleship. Another factor against the viewport is the inability to zoom right up close to a selected item, the closet you appear to be able to get to is about 20m's away. Another point to remember is in Trainz the field of view is different in Surveyor compared to Driver.

Point 2 is slowly being addressed in 2010 and by content creators. The more people that are making content to 2009+ standards the better. Locos and rolling stock will look more impressive and the world around them will feel more realistic. This though will take time.

And 2 screens which I think shows Trainz does have a fighting chance.

http://www.lestorouteworks.com/images/routes/whereami-02.jpg
http://www.lestorouteworks.com/images/routes/lielestosbrat_20101024_0000.jpg

Rob

mezzoprezzo
October 24th, 2010, 01:32 PM
Here's one of my earlier ones.

TRAINZ

Cheers
Casper

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/545/steam1782.jpg

stovepipe
October 24th, 2010, 01:42 PM
I agree with Caspar, a poor example from both sims.

Why RW is considered more immersive based on that shot I really don't know. The loco has no headcode lamps or steam escaping anywhere. There is no boundary fence or telegraph wires, the ground textures are basic and the track is just "OK". If you could hear the loco, you know it would sound pretty poor. That said - it is nice looking model and maybe, ultimately, that is all that matters to some...

Edit: nice shot ^^

BobCass
October 24th, 2010, 02:04 PM
Hi All: It looks like to me the biggest thing is the depth of field..The 3D effect is not their, so it makes everything flat looking..I do believe that is true in Trainz..However, Trainz outclasses everything I have seen at this point, mainly because things that available from the DS..

Davie_UCF
October 24th, 2010, 02:05 PM
Updated with a closer pic..


Why RW is considered more immersive based on that shot I really don't know. The loco has no headcode lamps or steam escaping anywhere. There is no boundary fence or telegraph wires, the ground textures are basic and the track is just "OK". If you could hear the loco, you know it would sound pretty poor. That said - it is nice looking model and maybe, ultimately, that is all that matters to some..

Well what I mean, removing all those little things like headcodes and steam escaping.. somehow it still feels real, the loco feels big and when you're in it you feel like you're in control of something big... On Trainz I rarely get this feeling..

PerRock
October 24th, 2010, 02:11 PM
I think a fair bit of it has to do with lighting. RS/RW seems to have a better lighting engine then Trainz does. Things that are supposed to be shiny look more shiny then in TRS.

peter

Dermmy
October 24th, 2010, 02:17 PM
There is definitely 'something' about the lighting in RW that looks fantastic. Don't ask me to quantify it and on the whole I believe Trainz beats RW into a cocked hat, but there is still 'something'...

Andy :)

paulhobbs
October 24th, 2010, 02:22 PM
It's the lighting. Trainz models don't cast shadows on themselves which RW ones do. The new materials in TS2009/TS2010 help but its still not as good.

Paul

mezzoprezzo
October 24th, 2010, 07:04 PM
It's the lighting. Trainz models don't cast shadows on themselves which RW ones do. The new materials in TS2009/TS2010 help but its still not as good.

Paul

There may not be solid shadows, but there is a marked difference in the reflections on Trainz models depending on time of day.

Try standing on the south side (northern hemisphere) of a loco, then swing the clock around. The difference is very noticeable - the reflective highlights move around the model very effectively. Isn't this a form of shadowing?

Casper

Davie_UCF
October 24th, 2010, 07:26 PM
There may not be solid shadows, but there is a marked difference in the reflections on Trainz models depending on time of day.

Try standing on the south side (northern hemisphere) of a loco, then swing the clock around. The difference is very noticeable - the reflective highlights move around the model very effectively. Isn't this a form of shadowing?

Casper

I have noticed this, but maybe its not as good as what the Railworks engine has..

Plus I think Lielestosbrats thought might be it, something to do with the view anyhow..!

trainzamtrakfan
October 24th, 2010, 11:21 PM
its the fact that these other railway simulators focus on the " tallness of a locomotive" and other things that trainz doesnt, trainz is the easiest simulator in the world ( My opinion) and i do believe trainz is better than msts by ALOT :p but trainz focuses more on routes and trainz then just looking good, trainz could of sucked and still sold more than any other simulator

RRSignal
October 24th, 2010, 11:53 PM
It has long bugged me that even MSTS' lighting is better and more realistic than Trainz'. RW also has better lighting (and effects derived from it), based on those screenies.

505657j
October 25th, 2010, 12:05 AM
check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYH_0GqeYKM

Vern
October 25th, 2010, 02:47 AM
Possibly the fact RW is a newer graphics engine? I don't know whether Kuju started from the ground up or used their existing technology but I guess it was optimised from the start to represent the real world.

Trainz started off primarily as a model simulator and despite the overhauls of Jet and the great leaps in artistic creativity it can't, at times, shake that off.

I do know what the OP means though. A classic example for me are the RWSO Chinese diesels. Look good in TS2010 but the similar modelsfrom the same artist in RW are magnificent and just overpower you.

To get Trainz to look more realistic would I'm afraid probably require a rewrite of the core and graphics engine. The priority if Auran want to do anything though is to update the track placement so that points and switches automatically render with frogs and checkrails. That to me is the biggest single drawback that Trainz carries with it, bearing in mind that MSTS which pre-dated Trainz by a few months managed correct looking pointwork.

mezzoprezzo
October 25th, 2010, 12:41 PM
Thanks Jeremiah for the YouTube link to the Railworks video in your post #16. Very informative.

Lots of heads above the Railworks parapet. The crew there seem to be very enthusiastic. A great piece of communication. HD too! A well produced video which, on the face of it, implies a potentially good product.

However, it poses more questions than answers:

World Building? There was none (well not much) shown. Can you do textures, landscaping, add assets and build like Trainz? If you can, why isn’t this shown more fully? Is it because it’s not as good as Trainz? I’d have thought that this is a key feature required for any keen route builder. The “artists” just seemed to concentrate on loco design, or very basic route creation.

Those track textures below the ballast – what an awful looking pebble effect. In fact there seemed to be a distinct lack of good ground textures. Just lots of plain green with track overlaid, for the most part, which simply does not look real. Where there are bursts of under-track texture it looked too spread out.

40,000 polys for one loco! What spec PC do you need to run these heavyweights?

Is there a Railworks equivalent of the Download station?

If so, is it extensive and easy to use? If not, how easy is it to get 3rd party stuff?

I didn’t like the way of adding the splines, e.g for track and fences. Much better Trainz style where you can see exactly what you are adding and where, rather than laying some wire frame shape before seeing the result.

The trees don’t look real. Even when pushed into the background they make the locos and rolling stock look toy-like. Can billboard type trees be used?

Can you get buy a boxed set from a local store and play without being logged in to Steam?


Cheers
Casper
:)

nfitzsimmons
October 25th, 2010, 01:16 PM
Sniper297 (Jim Ward) can offer some input on this. He's worked with extensively with MSTS, RW, and Trainz.

Jim, ya there?

sniper297
October 25th, 2010, 01:59 PM
Not necessarily in that order. Well, some of this is opinions, I personally think Railworks LOOKS realistic, but that's all it has going for it. The 40k polys observation is also a factor, fill up a yard with 200 highly detailed freight cars and you'll need Alienware to get 3 frames per minute. Draw distance in RW is a lot lower, about 2000 meters max, the procedural flora looks yummy up close but fades out at 30 meters. Freight cars with 3D ribs look great close up, but the LOD makes the ribs "pop" in and out too close.

Question quotes;

World Building? There was none (well not much) shown. Can you do textures, landscaping, add assets and build like Trainz? If you can, why isn’t this shown more fully? Is it because it’s not as good as Trainz? I’d have thought that this is a key feature required for any keen route builder. The “artists” just seemed to concentrate on loco design, or very basic route creation.

Vern and I disagree on this, I like Railworks "world editor" a lot better than Trainz Surveyor route editing, to me it's easier to lay better looking track, Trainz lacks the ability to tilt objects, and the terrain sculpting tools are a lot smoother, easier to blend terrain textures. Vern has a valid point about the time it takes - Railworks don't have the all-in-one copy and paste, and when you select something like a group of trees to paste on a hillside you have to unselect and reselect what you pasted before you can level them to terrain. Vern has been telling them for years that it needs some type of automatic leveling and they just give him a hard time.

Bad news is the scenario editor - it's a ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraption, unnecessarily complicated and clumsy, ridiculously limited as to what you can do with AI traffic, and buggy as hell. I told them three years ago they needed to rip the whole thing out and start over, instead they kept adding more complex workarounds to try to overcome some of the flaws which added even more bugs. I'm a stubborn bullheaded SOB, if the Railworks scenario editor and AI traffic weren't completely hopeless I wouldn't even be here since I never would have tried Trainz.


Those track textures below the ballast – what an awful looking pebble effect. In fact here seemed to be a distinct lack of good ground textures. Just lots of plain green with track overlaid, for the most part, which simply does not look real. Where there are bursts of under-track texture it looked too spread out.

I created my own terrain gravel textures to blend in with the ballast better, that's a matter of the creator of the route, not a limitation of the game.


40,000 polys for one loco! What spec PC do you need to run these heavyweights?

Actually Railworks runs smoother on my five year old Dell than TS2010 does, Railworks actually requires less horsepower.

Is there a Railworks equivalent of the Download station?

No.

If so, is it extensive and easy to use? If not, how easy is it to get 3rd party stuff?

There isn't much free third party stuff. Main problem is experienced freeware developers had been developing for MSTS and Trainz for over five years when railsim first came out - in order to grab all those people railsim needed to be not merely better than the other two, it needed to be spectacular. It came up very very very short of spectacular, there are many things MSTS and Trainz can do that Railworks can NOT do, even after three years of development.

I didn’t like the way of adding the splines, e.g for track and fences. Much better Trainz style where you can see exactly what you are adding and where, rather than laying some wire frame shape before seeing the result.

I didn't have a problem with that, and I liked the ability to "loft" things so they followed the curve of the track. Might be a newby thing, I've only had Trainz for a few months so I'm still getting used to the tools.

The trees don’t look real. Even when pushed into the background they make the locos and rolling stock look toy-like. Can billboard type trees be used?

Again a matter of taste, to me they look more realistic than Trainz, and you don't get that alpha sorting issue where the branches turn blue against the sky.

Can you get buy a boxed set from a local store and play without being logged in to Steam?

No, you can order a boxed set online, my preference since Nels Anderson has been around for a long time and has a good rep;

http://www.fspilotshop.com/product_info.php?products_id=2425

But last I looked they weren't selling in stores anyplace. "Play without being logged into STEAM", depends on what you mean - you can set it to play in "offline mode" and disconnect from the internet, but only after creating a STEAM account, downloading and installing the STEAM launcher and registering the game with STEAM. AFAIK the game itself won't run without the STEAM launcher, but it's set up to automatically log you into STEAM when you run the game. Obviously that makes for longer loading times even running offline, depending on the system it can take 3 to 5 minutes before you're actually driving a train. There is no non STEAM version.

RRSignal
October 25th, 2010, 02:34 PM
AFAIK the game itself won't run without the STEAM launcher, but it's set up to automatically log you into STEAM when you run the game. Obviously that makes for longer loading times even running offline, depending on the system it can take 3 to 5 minutes before you're actually driving a train. There is no non STEAM version.

That's a complete deal-breaker then. I have been considering RW for some time. Unlike a lot of folks, I don't really mind running more than one sim, though I only intend to create for Trainz. But, I'm not even going to try RW for this reason alone.

Dermmy
October 25th, 2010, 03:04 PM
That's a complete deal-breaker then.

Ditto. Got caught with a game that needed 'Steam' registration once, absolutely never again...

Andy

djt
October 25th, 2010, 03:06 PM
Draw distance in RW is a lot lower, about 2000 meters max,


Really, talking with a well known RailWorks content developer he says that RailWorks draw distance is closer to 6000 meters, which is actually higher than TS2010's which is 5000 isn't it?

sniper297
October 25th, 2010, 03:11 PM
Yeah, again matter of personal preference - I don't have any problems with STEAM, but some people have had bad experiences with it. And if you want Railworks you have to have STEAM, there's no alternative.

Draw distance, I don't know about currently, but I measured it once with 500 meter lengths of straight track, came up with 4 visible sections, fifth one fogged out. It was a long time ago so it could have changed, likewise the 30 meter fadeout distance for the procedural flora weeds might have increased since the last time I checked.

djt
October 25th, 2010, 03:38 PM
Draw distance, I don't know about currently, but I measured it once with 500 meter lengths of straight track, came up with 4 visible sections, fifth one fogged out.


Must have been before the draw distance increase update with RailWorks back in 2009.


Well comparing how good a default route looks like in RailWorks compared to a default route in TS2010 is kind of a no-brainer.

I'm not saying the RailWorks doesn't have it's problems but compared to Trainz, the way it looks is not one of them -


RailWorks -

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/5847/railworksproc2201007190q.th.jpg (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/railworksproc2201007190q.jpg/)


http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1262/railworksproc2201007190e.th.jpg (http://img828.imageshack.us/i/railworksproc2201007190e.jpg/)


http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1336/doublestacksoncajon1.jpg




TS2010 -


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/3389/trainz2010060700474141.th.jpg (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/trainz2010060700474141.jpg/)


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/3956/trainz2010060701051655.th.jpg (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/trainz2010060701051655.jpg/)

Vern
October 25th, 2010, 03:39 PM
RW draws out to around 6km but the detailed distance is maximum 2km. The "distant mountains" such as they are display with a very stark plain texture and abrupt transition at the 2km mark. Not even as good as the DM's in MSTS which adapted your base terrain texture and were very effective. More noticeable on a mountainous route than in the plains, the latter TBH is more what RW is geared to taking into account the very basic copy and paste and poor terrain texturing (sorry Jim!) effects.

After a bit the biggest problem with terrain painting in RW is not so much the techniques, which can be learned though still nowhere as easy to blend and mix as in Surveyor. It's the general lack of textures and those that are available tend to be too much of a contrast to blend successfully without looking splotchy. Fine close up or on level ground but approaching a steep hill where the tree cover hasn't popped into view, can look like your terrain has the measles! You can't easily add terrain textures in without a major setup exercise. Only one (to my knowledge) all new texture set has been created by a guy over at UKTS. That's something like a 300Mb download and you need to faff about with blueprints/xml files to get them in your route.

I haven't tried the latest iteration of the scenario editor in RW2. As Jim says though it's not very intuitive no way of saving chained driver commands and the AI will often trip over itself if it even thinks two trains might occupy the same block at the same time, rather than doing a bit of basic regulating. That said of course, once you've got a scenario and maybe some moving scenery (sorry, other trains) set up it is nice to be able to drive your train and have the despatcher/signaller take care of the routing. That's an ongoing major gripe of mine re Trainz, all that manual point setting and figuring out your path at major junctions. The system is a throwback to the original Trainz 1.0 model railway and should have been tossed out years ago for some autonomous route setting and traffic control logic.

Re Steam, can't say it bothers me as more and more none railway games are using it. Biggest bind is the lack of control over updates - you can't always keep it offline and sooner or later it will force you on to the latest version. Apparently the font change in the editor was a slip up although the clique still came out in force at UKTS to say how wonderful it was - will hopefully get nerfed in another update but makes you wonder at the amount of time spent on QA at RSC as opposed to selling DLC... :o :eek:

ivantr
October 25th, 2010, 03:44 PM
In my opinion trainz needs a sun.No a sun in the sky.Light day effects in the locomotives and the buildings.The shadows in trainz are good but they are on the ground.For more realistic the rolling stock needs light effects when they are facing north south east or west.Railworks is better graphical and realistic but for me is a very simple game.Is like a copy of trainz but with better graphics.I have see very real locos like the tcr amtrak and other F7s and the content of jointed rail of the content that was never released by corey.The acela is another example.I dont know if it has be exported from msts or its has be imported into msts.

For me trainz is a giant that has started being little
BYe:)

mezzoprezzo
October 25th, 2010, 06:47 PM
Thanks sniper297 for your detailed, informative post.

For me, generally, I much prefer the Trainz scenery.

DLS is a major plus. It stimulates creativity, makes the whole sim and forum much livelier.

The “Alpha sorting issue” is new to me. My (billboard) trees have never turned blue against the sky – or anything else.

Steam – not interested. Used it before with an FPS game – never again. Now prefer to be off line whenever possible.

Looks like I’m happily stuck with Trainz!

Good to see what else is out there though.

Cheers
Casper
:)

malikrthr
October 25th, 2010, 07:02 PM
Well there is one common way you should know on how to add realism to trainz. just make sure your computer specs are good enough though. Before you start trainz raise the resolution to it's highest settings, go to options and raise all the bars such as draw distance, scenery, and things like that to it's highest. Also, try tinkering around with open GL and Direct X. Open GL makes the water look realistic. That is all I can help with for now. For me, trainz looks almost realistic, mabe even the same as railworks when you mess around with the settings enough.:)

boleyd
October 25th, 2010, 07:44 PM
I would claim that RailWorks "looks" better. I believe Trainz suffers from an excess of color intensity and some goofy bright sun lighted textures. That may be caused by its long history where weak PCs restricted the number of objects so the tendency was to make those few allowed to stand out along with blotchy texturing to represent FPS expensive vegetation..

I can create scenes in Railworks, with the correct lighting, that feel quite real to me. Lighting being the key.

My personal limitation is that I cannot begin to invest the time to really learn a simulator unless it LOOKS real. I have seen others decry all scenery as useless with only an interest in functions. To each her/his own.

Having carefully listened to the statements of the management and staff at Rail Simulations my opinion is that the game is totally focused on driving a train. Whatever functionality might be added is only to enhance that experience. I do not like to drive trains. I want my own gigantic model railroad and RailWorks seems to have little chance in offering that.

Trainz grew from a model railroad on your PC to a respectable simulation of a real railroad. However, it is difficult to make it look as real as RailWorks. I have dumped and reloaded Trainz several times. I am now on my 4th try. I think that I have found some very few "speedtrees/ultra trees that look reasonable. Not as good as RailWorks but not bad. Most still do look bad. Ground textures must match the vegetation and the railroad's environment. I may have found a small set of those two elements that offer a nice visual experience.

Currently, I am learning how to mix vegetation (height and density) with a "matching, version 2010 hi-res texture for trackside ambiance. Since it looks fairly good I have begun the task of learning the rules and commands that should allow the making of a large mode railroad.

I continue to monitor the RailWorks forums but there is very little discussion about functionality which shows that the current customers are mostly train driver enthusiasts which fits nicely in the Rail Simulations business plan. That plan does not include my interests.

sniper297
October 25th, 2010, 07:48 PM
"Well comparing how good a default route looks like in RailWorks compared to a default route in TS2010 is kind of a no-brainer"

A matter of taste again, I'm inclined to agree with that but it's amazing how many don't. If Railworks wasn't so pretty it really wouldn't even be worth talking about in my opinion.

Funny thing, setting up AI traffic in RW you used to be able to spawn multiple trains from the same portal - but the procedure was pure insanity. Set a train on the track in front of the portal, attach a driver icon and give it a destination, attach waypoint instructions and set the priority and start time, then add it to the portal. If you want one train to spawn from that portal every 10 minutes for 4 hours, you need to repeat all those steps 24 times. And of course the last time I tried it, the portals generated more error messages than trains, the trains get confused and creep at 0.5 mph to the second signal, then vanish and reappear at the portal to try again, they stop at green signals and blow reds, collide with each other like kamikazes, I just can't figure how the AI "logic" would be acceptable to anybody.

I currently have a test session running in Trainz since 10:00 this morning - three portals, one spawning a through train from the south every ten minutes, one each from two north portals every 20 minutes, 12 trains per hour for 9 hours continuously, over 100 AI trains so far and it's still running. Portal north 1 drops off 10 cars in the first yard, runs to the second yard and drops off 10 more, heads for the exit portal. Portal north 2, a light engine MU, waits 10 minutes then follows him picking up the cars he dropped off. The player has the option of stealing some of the cars or adding cars to the ones that will be hauled away, thus adding realistic interaction with the AI trains, and it really don't take much time to set up and debug something like that. :cool: But the switches are still ugly. :hehe: Ideally, get the Trainz AI traffic into Railworks, or get Railworks graphics into Trainz, you'd have the ideal simulator for me.

djt
October 26th, 2010, 02:03 AM
But the switches are still ugly. Ideally, get the Trainz AI traffic into Railworks, or get Railworks graphics into Trainz, you'd have the ideal simulator for me.


Without being able to see the points on the switch and discerning which way the switch is lined the issue is a deal breaker as far as realistically simulating US rail operations go anyway.


The whole game engine problem with Trainz is very frustrating. With the capability of the editing tools and some of the other features it has the potential of being the most complete railroad simulation program on the PC so far, but that game engine just kills it.


Taking the core program, the editing tools and combining it with a capable game engine like this would be something and in the end I think many wouldn't have a problem paying even more for the program -




http://outerra.com/wgallery.html


http://outerra.com/wfeatures.html

airtime
October 26th, 2010, 05:41 AM
(snip)

Question quotes;

I didn’t like the way of adding the splines, e.g for track and fences. Much better Trainz style where you can see exactly what you are adding and where, rather than laying some wire frame shape before seeing the result.

I didn't have a problem with that, and I liked the ability to "loft" things so they followed the curve of the track. Might be a newby thing, I've only had Trainz for a few months so I'm still getting used to the tools.

(snip)



Sorry Snipper297, but I have to agree with Mezzoprezzo on the fencing alongside the track, the fencing is awful, if you drive along the London to Oxford route, and count how many times the fencing is in the air, not touching the ground, I've never seen fencing like it before.

I also love the way in the Railworks route, that the trees come litterally into the cab, especially around Didcot, the FGW HST is swamped by trees, I can imagine on board the train, the passenger being asked the question... Do you want leaves with your soup sir.?.:hehe:

Joe Airtime

boleyd
October 26th, 2010, 05:54 AM
The floating fence may be caused by a change to the fence after it was placed. I think I have seen originally placed splines follow the ground but if you move an end-point later portions seem to loose proper contract to the terrain. Adding some spline points and adjusting the height will fix that but on a very long spline you will need a lot of coffee. Maybe Auran recognizes that issue and can cause the spline function to rescan the terrain to make it stick to the terrain.

sniper297
October 26th, 2010, 12:25 PM
Trees too close to the tracks for seasoning the soup, that makes sense. I always thought the purpose was in case there was no toilet paper in the bathrooms. :hehe: Floating objects and foliage too close are a route developer's m!$t@k3, that type of thing happens in all three games. Altho sometimes the problem is unauthorized tinkering, like when someone replaced all the trees in Phil Skene's routes with speedtrees - when Phil originally uploaded those routes they didn't have trees on the tracks.

Movable points, how about it? IIRC Trainz came out about six months after MSTS which would make it around NINE YEARS with those fake switches, we're long overdue. I've been tinkering with workarounds but haven't found anything simple and fast yet. Replacing all the switch levers with switch target indicators helps in most cases, one problem being colors - a yellow target looks green until you get really close up. Green and red instead of green and yellow on the switchstands seems to work better, currently replacing those but still hunting for perfection - obvious which way the switch is thrown from a distance, but not so big that it's out of scale close up. Double head signals ain't working for certain track configurations either, on double crossovers I'm getting red over green regardless of which way the facing point is thrown. :'(

Vern
October 26th, 2010, 12:36 PM
The issue with fences in RW is that they are neither true splines as in Trainz, or telegraph objects which was the workround in MSTS. I suspect the problem stems from the base of the fence placing level with the height of the rail head rather than on the ground or preferably beneath it. Even worse is trying to free place i.e. snap to terrain as any imperfection punts every second or third piece in the air at a 45 degree angle. One of the reasons why, when you do see a fenced line, the fittings tend to follow the track as parallel lofts rather than being placed more prototypically at the base of an embankment or top of a cutting. In TRS it is much easier to get the fence splines to sit in a more natural looking location.

teddytoot
October 26th, 2010, 01:23 PM
Jim
Andi06 has moving switches on the DLS (there are others by other people using his script) which do need wiring up with his junction track or invisible track. They are very effective and I use them a lot. Andi has developed switches that do not need wiring up but has been unable to finalise them because of Auran's reluctance (or inability) to answer his queries. If you do a search on animated points you will find quite a lot about them.

Stemwinder30
October 26th, 2010, 02:41 PM
One thing I think is the Enviromentals. The Sky can be too fuzzy and clear and cloudy skies don't have much difference. The Sun is also a factor I'd like to introduce. In Trainz, the Sun doesn't reflect off of much andis much too big and round as well as there's no moon. I think we need a bloom effect with the sun and make the actual "dot in the sky" a bit smaller.

Another thing in trainz is that nothing echoes nmuch. We need whistles to end when the button comes up, not when the sound file is up. The Steam effects can bee better too, because they are more in fuzzy dots instead of streams. Real darkness inside of tunnels would be cool, making all rollingstock inside look dark too instead illuminated.

Something neither has done is real wobbily old shortline rails. I would like to see that. Automobile traffic actually spinning wheels would be cool as well.

Davie_UCF
October 26th, 2010, 05:23 PM
I've used Andi's switches for past few years but I do wish they looked a bit better and had sharper newer textures :)

I seem to notice theres a lot more prototypical route creation going on in msts/railworks than on Trainz (unless its just me)... for example the line I live on is being done for Railworks and it does look amazing.. which makes me jealous :p.