PDA

View Full Version : collisions



mastertom88
November 21st, 2006, 02:01 PM
:mad: :mad: the most boring bit of trainz is trainz just couple up even at 100mph they just couple....

anychance of a collision system?

it would make a nice update for trainz 2006

redline41190
November 21st, 2006, 02:26 PM
what if the cars didnt go flying all over the place when the train derails... how about some realism there... its annoying to see slate trucks go flying down an inclne slope hit the buffers and go flying all the way across the map... its bothersome.... I dont like it..

leader2302
November 21st, 2006, 04:50 PM
Exactly!
TRS04 and 06 both need a real collision model. It should model real world physics. I'm surprised this was not included in TRS04 or 06.

But they sure did include derailments at switches. If Auran included switch derailments, what happened to collisions??? Should be easy to implement in a patch.

UG_PL
November 21st, 2006, 04:54 PM
Yeah,It would be nice if you could make big crashes in Trainz :)
Head to Head collision at 200MPH ..LOL

ilovetrainz_UP
November 21st, 2006, 05:49 PM
I think if you go into the settings button or that button with the yellow paper on it and click edit on the driver settings or something....and go to realistic........

TrainMan12
November 21st, 2006, 09:25 PM
Collisions aren't the main part of Trainz, so I don't think Auran should have to waste their time for something that usually doesn't happen.

Forest_Runner
November 21st, 2006, 10:09 PM
The short answer to not having a collision system is that it is not the focus of the simulator. Driving, operations and route building are.

I would hope other potential real world type physics would be a priority if the Program was to be further patched or developed.

Dylanviey
November 21st, 2006, 10:39 PM
well the wey the TRS could improve is to improve there train derailments like to make the train cars interative when they come off the rails instead of haveing them just go thro each other. kind of like how the trains on MSTS that's the olny way i can see TRS geting better besides adding new trains to it. other wise in my mine it is the best train simulator out there.

Hentis
November 22nd, 2006, 06:21 AM
From what I recall the whole idea of trainz as mentioned above is the operations side of things and routebuilding. As with most railways accidents do happen. ----> http://timsrailpics.fotopic.net/c1139908.html (http://timsrailpics.fotopic.net/c1139908.html)

No one was injured it was an ECS move that went awry.

Now if Auran were to build a new crash model of TRSxxx then it would mean each item of rolling stock would have to have collision detection paremeters in the config. Which I am sorry you wont find coming anytime soon in a simple SP2 fix for TRS2006, Judging by Trainz classics release next year then I would say any further service paks for TRS2006 are a no no, but thats just my opinion and I could be wrong. Basicly if you want collisions MSTS style (and they were good, I once had the UP DD40x end up on its nose!!!) then expect a complete re-write of the code, Which I personaly dont think will happen.

Hentis

j_maybury
November 22nd, 2006, 08:28 AM
The short answer to not having a collision system is that it is not the focus of the simulator. Driving, operations and route building are.

I would hope other potential real world type physics would be a priority if the Program was to be further patched or developed.


If there were a decent collision program It would be far more of a challenge to run the game, which would make for a better sence of reality
in stead of running in to trucks in a shunting yard at 50mph with no after after-efects.:p

trainboy99
November 26th, 2006, 09:34 PM
trainz is rated g u know but its life so i think its ok so i think that to.

sfrr
November 28th, 2006, 05:27 PM
all we need is bounding boxes on the trains, buildings, and track items =)

mike.

Harry_James_Potter
November 29th, 2006, 02:07 PM
and a whole host of horsepower extra available to run the collision monitoring.

When I have a derailment in TRS, even when the program is minimised and I'm doing something else, It locks the machine for the next 30 minutes while it tries to work out which way is up...

and then there are all the code issues.

prolly best that TRS stays being exactly that... a simulator.

IT is worth pointing out that if you put the new train physics rule into a TRS06 session and config it right, when another train takes a hard smack up the back end, it can break the couplers and that is as good as derailing.

regards

Harry

Hentis
November 29th, 2006, 05:31 PM
all we need is bounding boxes on the trains, buildings, and track items =)

mike.

So who is going to put all those bounding boxes on the trains, buildings and track items + rolling stock, let alone the extra programming umph that goes with it , which will probaly include a re write of the code yet again which just happens to break several other things in the process. Nah I think you might have to wait till Trainz 2... but please for the love of god DOnt hold your breath :)

Hentis

Alan_Yeomans
November 29th, 2006, 08:32 PM
This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.

Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.

Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.

Say NO to collision detection. :)

Alan

leeferr
November 29th, 2006, 10:00 PM
I'm with Alan on this one. I hope what we're trying to do is simulate route building and operating trains, not create another smash 'em up game.

seward
November 30th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Trainz does NOT need any collision mode whatsoever. I always try to run my railway without accidents or derailments, and I get very annoyed with myself if a derailment happens.
Please leave that side of it alone. Once again, I repeat, Trainz is NOT a mere 'game', but a way of life for myself, and thousands of others.

Steamer13
November 30th, 2006, 08:08 PM
I admit that TRS06 is pretty sad when it comes to collisions or de-railings. It would be nice to have SOMETHING happen when shunting to fast. I donít know, maybe something that would cause the scenario to end.

spiffy101
January 17th, 2007, 12:51 PM
What I really dislike about the derailing is that if you hit the end of the track, the whole train derails. Why not have the cars come off one at a time and the track still be usable. I hate having a train derail on the mainline and leaving me unable to play. Maybe a setting where if you do hit the end of the track, the train stops.

Spiffy101:cool:

trainboy99
January 29th, 2007, 08:34 PM
I think it would make it more real.:)

RooRocz
February 4th, 2007, 01:11 PM
This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.

Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.

Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.

Say NO to collision detection. :)

Alan

Collision detection has more purposes than just crashing. As discussed in this thread: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=3278 bounding boxes could prevent particle effects from moving through solid objects. It's just not realistic for a steam loco's smoke to go straight through the deck of an overpass.

And simple bounding boxes wouldn't have much in the way of explosions, violence and destruction etc, just cars piling up on each other.

john259
February 5th, 2007, 12:22 PM
Razorback activities penalise you by reducing your score if you couple at too high a speed, and they shut down immediately if you touch any consist that you're not meant to. However, Trainz only detects couplers touching so sometimes you can scrape the paintwork of a wagon parked on the other track too close to a junction and get away with it.

John

michael2541
February 5th, 2007, 05:17 PM
i agree, plus, if theres a derailment, what about a way to clean it up?:D
Mike

Barney
February 5th, 2007, 06:53 PM
A long time ago the original power behind Trainz decided we don't need blood & gore in Trainz, hence, we don't need trains crashing into each other. I voted for the idea then and I still think it was a good one. There's too much crashing and problems in real life. Let's not bring it into Trainz...

Barney

samrec
February 5th, 2007, 07:10 PM
A long time ago the original power behind Trainz decided we don't need blood & gore in Trainz, hence, we don't need trains crashing into each other. I voted for the idea then and I still think it was a good one. There's too much crashing and problems in real life. Let's not bring it into Trainz...

Barney


I also agree with you SFC, I mean who wants a sim just to see explosions and people flying all over the place, I believe there are plenty of other game platforms for that right now.

BidMod
February 6th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Whatever the outcome of this thread is, there is one feature of MSTS I would not like in Trainz (actually there are a few, but let us not dirverge too much) - if a single wheel leaves the track in MSTS the session is ended, and it can sometimes be an AI train (which is infuriating :mad:).

More solid models in Trainz might be a good development though, to prevent running through a train as in John's example.

redline41190
February 7th, 2007, 02:04 PM
ohhh!! i run through trains all the time its quite fun! :eek:
but i think that if one car comes off a few cars on either side of that car should come off... but not the whole darn train!! come on if one train comes off , every one behind it falls off at the place where the last car came off... its quite infuriating when all you've got is a single main line route! maybe we could have a "breakdown train" come and "fix" the wreck or at least the track so that other trains could go past that point! thats a good idea!:D

newforestroadwarrior
February 7th, 2007, 05:32 PM
The main issue I would have with having more extensive physics is the extra load on the computer itself, plus the extra development time required to implement it.

This is relevant if (like me) your computer is marginal at running TRS2006 in the first instance.

warrior

Harry_James_Potter
February 7th, 2007, 07:59 PM
And you hit on the very thing that swings the collision detectiion thing.

It's performance. The comp would hgave to scan hundrreds of assets to detect a collision and then act appropriately.

it's all down to performance and what people have in their PCs that count.

regards

Harry

Moojgoo
February 7th, 2007, 08:48 PM
I also hate the fact that whenever your train derails, the camera goes into "Free Roam" view. When I played the Trainz CE and UTC demo, the camera stayed lock on the train. Nowadays, this only happens in scenarios.

lenice
February 7th, 2007, 09:55 PM
I think it would be nice to have something to rerail the train and be able to continue rather than shutting down the session or whatever and start again. In reality, Drivers don't go taking their trains cross country on pupose. It's a mistake (although at time a serious one with dire consequences) or glitch that makes things jump the track. I've had a few situations that I would have liked to have had something to rerail the train with and be able to continue rather that start again. If you want a smash derby then get the appropriate software i.e. a smash'em up drive sim or such, and play that. I'm sure we have all made a mistake in TRAINZ that would be nice to fix then get on with it.:o If you want smash, get another game, if you want to continue driving your derailed train....get a breakdown train and crew??

Jim_the_Bald
February 9th, 2007, 11:26 AM
This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.
Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.
...

If there were to be a "sub-set" of the railroad simulation for the era before air-brakes, would it not be important to consider 'crashes?'

Personally, I am interested in the era before 1860. The time when the rails were more wood than iron because they consisted of mostly of strap iron nailed to wood stringers. Then the train crew included a bunch of brakemen who had to crank the brake wheels on each car.

I know it's just a thought because there are few who are interested in that era.

:)

fec210
February 10th, 2007, 05:11 PM
I don't think we need blood & gore. But, we already do have derailment. Why not just add to what causes derailment, such as hitting another train too close to a junction as john259 points out. However, If this causes a performance issue, I can see that as a good reason not to do so.

I also agree with only derailing the affected cars, rather than the entire train.

On the issue of cleaning up the mess, there are a couple of items on the DLS that can be used. One is the Derailed Vehicle Eraser which deletes the offending train. The other item (and the one I like to use) is the Re-rail Portal which cleans up the derail and sends the train out of the portal like new. :D

charliebrown_34
February 11th, 2007, 08:48 AM
Razorback activities penalise you by reducing your score if you couple at too high a speed, and they shut down immediately if you touch any consist that you're not meant to. However, Trainz only detects couplers touching so sometimes you can scrape the paintwork of a wagon parked on the other track too close to a junction and get away with it.

John

Hi if only it was that easy in real life. Im a shunter for railcorp in sydney and my bosses get most upset when we just scrape the paintwork we dont always just get away with it.But it would be a good inclusion for this sim to have that bit more of a real touch.where after the side swipe or crash the wagons or locomotive has to be taken to the workshops to be fixed up anyway something to think about thanks David.

RooRocz
February 11th, 2007, 07:50 PM
One other thing to consider:

Even Transport Tycoon had rudimentary collision detection. Surely Trainz can do it too, 15 years later.

cookiemae
February 11th, 2007, 09:08 PM
Trainz isnt about crashing trains around. However, we should make it as realistic as possible because in real life crashes happen every once in a while. Things crash, its a part of life. I have had my share of yard accidents and mainline fender benders but that is not the objective of the game, or simulator if you will. If people think so, then take it as such.

tyard
February 12th, 2007, 07:22 AM
crashes are a part of life, no matter it be a car on te Xing tracks, or two trains colliding, its part of life, so if trainz is trying to be the most realistic RR sim, than it needs realistic derailments. BTW, trains dont usually explode, and you dont need to see blood, and probably wouldnt. and also there should be a way using crane cars to clean derailments, and there also should be cars that can end up on tracks when the train comes. BTW, there should be solid objects so trains dont go through eachother (when crashed) , or buildings, cars or anything solid.

Forest_Runner
February 13th, 2007, 03:37 AM
Doesn't NEED realistic derailments at all. Not having realistic derailments does not detract from the sim in any way shape or form.

As one poster has stated there would be a performance issue in order to replicate graphic derailments anyway, which becomes a pointless memory hog to the vast majority who utilise this programme as a driving sim and/or route building utility.

If you want realism fixed, go for something more obvious and glaring like fixing the issue we have with rain falling in tunnels. That's just outright ugly. Now that detracts from the sim experience as it simply doesn't happen.

Of the more technical......fixing the steam sounds that were broken in the update from TRS2004 to TRS2006, signalling issues and A/I issues. These are more novel and constructive ways to tidy the sim up.

Cheers,
Simon

nicklinn
February 13th, 2007, 09:08 AM
Personally I would love to see a decent physics system in the game. Not just for crashes but for realism. Having the train lean in a realistic manner on tight curves and depend on the weight of the cars. Gosh just bounding boxes would open a heck of a lot of possibility for people.

Harry_James_Potter
February 13th, 2007, 01:36 PM
If you want realism fixed, go for something more obvious and glaring like fixing the issue we have with rain falling in tunnels. That's just outright ugly. Now that detracts from the sim experience as it simply doesn't happen.

Of the more technical......fixing the steam sounds that were broken in the update from TRS2004 to TRS2006, signalling issues and A/I issues. These are more novel and constructive ways to tidy the sim up.

Cheers,
Simon

I agree with you on both the above counts. Plus... It is a 'G' rated sim and collision detection is an expensive waste of processor time. Transport Tycoon (13 years ago btw. published 1994) had collision detection and got away with it because it didn't need much in the way of a PC to run it.

I should know, I used to run it on a 486DX 33MHz machine with 8MB RAM. :P Oh the good old days of having to insert a boot disk to configure the memory just so that it could run it...

you lot with your modern XP boxes and stuff that works off the sheft without having to boot the PC in some special mode using some funny dos codes just don't know how lucky you are! :P

regards

Harry

Red_Rattler
February 13th, 2007, 09:19 PM
I also hate the fact that whenever your train derails, the camera goes into "Free Roam" view.But free roaming after a derailment allows me to see what went wrong & try to work out why, even if the whole session is on AI.

Collisions
I don' think the people (well most people) want to turn it into a game where the main purpose is to focus & make collisions. It's more the way that a derailment/collision is portrayed.

If their are some Trainz users that want to focus on making derailments/collisions, derailments, etc ARE accidents, & not "on-purpose".

What would have been better was instead of a whole train derailing, only have the vehicles that would have been affected derailed, & where you could detach a loco/power car & take it back to a siding, depot, etc, or to get another loco that could attach to the non-affected cars of the derailed train, so they can be moved to a siding, depot etc.

Simmons_Pacific
February 13th, 2007, 09:56 PM
If a collision happens it means that somebody screwed up thier job and probaly doesn't have it anymore.:D You shouldn't be wrecking, that's rule and goal one of a railroad. Safety First.
I think the game is fine the way it is.

Harry_James_Potter
February 16th, 2007, 09:26 PM
If a collision happens it means that somebody screwed up thier job and probaly doesn't have it anymore.:D You shouldn't be wrecking, that's rule and goal one of a railroad. Safety First.
I think the game is fine the way it is.

Agreed.

And I have some fine footage on DVD of a class 56 trying to tug a loaded PGA hopper out of a wood after an accident.

regards

Harry

RooRocz
February 17th, 2007, 04:32 PM
go for something more obvious and glaring like fixing the issue we have with rain falling in tunnels.


Well, there you go. Bounding boxes would prevent rain from going through them.

Collision detection is much more than just crashing. It would make the whole game much more realistic. Particle effects would be deflected by the bounding boxes, rain and snow wouldn't display underneath them, one could even use them to prevent the camera from going inside buildings. They'd open up hundreds of possibilities for content creators.

trainboy99
March 9th, 2007, 04:25 PM
We would not need blood and gore just trains exploading and stuff.:)

spiffy101
March 11th, 2007, 07:50 PM
This is what I say. I'm fine when the train derails and the track is damaged, but what if the train is on the mainline. An option to overwrite the wreck would be nice, or even just free up the tracks.

Harry_James_Potter
March 12th, 2007, 03:46 PM
We would not need blood and gore just trains exploading and stuff.:)

which will firmly place the game outside it's G rating...

regards

harry

perry_weekley
March 13th, 2007, 05:46 AM
This is what I say. I'm fine when the train derails and the track is damaged, but what if the train is on the mainline. An option to overwrite the wreck would be nice, or even just free up the tracks.
I could use this or anything to clear up derailed trains with out having to download something because i keep working on a layout where the trains usally crash ( most train drivers are AI )

RooRocz
March 13th, 2007, 05:30 PM
Think about games with bounding boxes. MSTS isn't an incredibly violent game, and it has bounding boxes. Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 actually has things exploding, and it isn't considered violent. I have compiled a bunch of ideas in another thread that had an entire system for bounding boxes.

Harry_James_Potter
March 15th, 2007, 05:52 PM
IT'S not about the violence but more about where you can afford to burn off processor cycles. The problem is that bounding boxes create a workload on the CPU. MSTS doesn't exactly put a fantastic load on the pc so it can afford to burn some processor cycles in bounding boxes and in the checking of such bounding boxes.

TRS, on the other hand, cannot afford to burn the cycles even with Dual-Core/Hyperthreading chips. TRS doesn't do dual-core or hyperthreading yet. if it did, you could run all the bounding boxes and physics on one core and the other core tells the rest of the machine what to do and when.

At the end of the day, with uni-processor boxes, bounding boxes are a waste of processor cycles best used for other aspects of TRS (like driving! Good train drivers don't need bounding boxes!!!!!)

regards

Harry

PS... Dratted French keyboard again...

lner
March 16th, 2007, 05:20 AM
What would be nice is if tere was a crane that could be used for re-railing the trains after they have derailed and the track not becoming completely usless for all other trains to use without restarting the sesion. I mean I cannot be the only one who like running a session for a large amount of time and finds it anoying because until the derailment had been able to 'properly' run the railway - just a thought either one or the other or both:)

RooRocz
March 16th, 2007, 04:03 PM
TRS doesn't do dual-core or hyperthreading yet.

Well, that's another ting Auran needs to fix. TRS2006 actuall runs worse on my new computer than my 4-year old one.


Good train drivers don't need bounding boxes!

At the very least, the derailment system needs to be redone. If I go over a switch wrongly, all of the train flies off the track, even if it's a two mile long coal drag.

Harry_James_Potter
March 16th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Agreed LNER.

Re6rail portal is good but we need a crane. Might re-rail a few derailments I've had just loading old sessions (not sure why it happens but it seems to be after I have loaded up a container train...

regards

Harry (now used to this french keyboard!!!)

Moojgoo
March 25th, 2007, 10:43 AM
For crying out loud, THERE WOULD HARDLY BE ANY PREFORMANCE LOSS IF WE HAD COLLISION DETECTION! MSTS has them, it's FAR older than TRS, and I used to derail ALL the time with HARDLY or NO proformance loss. And to add to that, I was running it on a LOW-END LAPTOP!

trainboy99
May 25th, 2007, 10:09 AM
When ever i see a radio in the cab of a train i just wish it would work but i do know there is a route that has a radio i think.:)

Blutorse4792
May 26th, 2007, 08:54 PM
We're not suggesting that we have a train derailment consisting of a train bursting into flames, and burning commuters splatter in all different directions.

We're suggesting that, say, if the 5:00 express goes over a switch the wrong way, it won't slide for 10+ minutes, even over mountains and through buildings. Or, if some car tries to beat a 120mph Acela train through the crossing, the train won't pass through the car.

It doesn't have to be a violent derailment, just a realistic one.

I also like the idea of not having the camera change to world view when the train derails. I think it'd be cool to be in the cab of the engine when it goes off of a cliff.

railbaron123
July 14th, 2007, 12:45 PM
ive got an idea the best crash effects ever if 2 trains crash into one another the can explode or they get realy damaged or maby both that would be cool if you dont like it just think about it for a moment or 2 reply if you want :)

WileeCoyote
July 14th, 2007, 01:17 PM
Isn't having a train crash something you want to avoid unless your some depraved 8 year old who can think of nothing better to do than make 2 trains slam into each other? I don't mind the crash effects as they are (weird though at times), I just think its kind of pointless to have major crash detail in a game where any sort of accident is meant to be avoided.

WileeCoyote:D

bnsf50
July 14th, 2007, 01:18 PM
When ever i see a radio in the cab of a train i just wish it would work but i do know there is a route that has a radio i think.:)

I can fix your radio for you. Download these kuids and follow the instructions in the readme file. 39134:100832, 100834:1, 100835. Three different radio chatters or radio traffic that can be installed in the engine.

Ben1337
July 14th, 2007, 01:34 PM
I think it would be nice to have something to rerail the train and be able to continue rather than shutting down the session or whatever and start again. In reality, Drivers don't go taking their trains cross country on pupose. It's a mistake (although at time a serious one with dire consequences) or glitch that makes things jump the track. I've had a few situations that I would have liked to have had something to rerail the train with and be able to continue rather that start again. If you want a smash derby then get the appropriate software i.e. a smash'em up drive sim or such, and play that. I'm sure we have all made a mistake in TRAINZ that would be nice to fix then get on with it.:o If you want smash, get another game, if you want to continue driving your derailed train....get a breakdown train and crew?? I would like to have that crane built-in so if you can't download it you don't have to.
what if the cars didnt go flying all over the place when the train derails... how about some realism there... its annoying to see slate trucks go flying down an inclne slope hit the buffers and go flying all the way across the map... its bothersome.... I dont like it.. Well I like that effect.
On the issue of cleaning up the mess, there are a couple of items on the DLS that can be used. One is the Derailed Vehicle Eraser which deletes the offending train. The other item (and the one I like to use) is the Re-rail Portal which cleans up the derail and sends the train out of the portal like new. :D I have problems with that portal (details are here (http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=12441&highlight=re-rail+portal)).
A long time ago the original power behind Trainz decided we don't need blood & gore in Trainz, hence, we don't need trains crashing into each other. I voted for the idea then and I still think it was a good one. There's too much crashing and problems in real life. Let's not bring it into Trainz...

Barney I agree with them and with people thinking the same thing we've got too many games with gore and stuff I mean have you seen any modern pc game except for trs and msts without gore. I am really disgusted with those games with gore. The most violent that ive ever been was with rocket trains and the rolling stock that I had used wasn't even passenger cars.

Dmonky
July 14th, 2007, 03:17 PM
which will firmly place the game outside it's G rating...

regards

harry

Whats so important about the G rating???

RooRocz
July 14th, 2007, 07:03 PM
Let's take a long, mature look at the features collision detection might allow. My vision for collision detection is this:

In the next version of Trainz, bounding boxes ought to be drawable in Surveyor. Bounding boxes could surround objects or trains, and could serve three purposes:

They could inhibit the passage of particle effects.
and
They could stop other bounding boxes (and objects to which they are assigned) from going through them.
and
They could optionally prevent weather happening inside them.

The advantage of this system is that you would only bounding box objects that need them. If an object is 20 miles away from any track, it needs no bounding box, so you wouldn't give it one. With drawable bounding boxes, a line of buildings could have one bounding box rather than 20 smaller ones.

Boxes could be assigned to trains as well. This would have roughly the same effect as parenting one object to another in a 3D modeling application. This would allow for crashes, obviously, but other features as well.

Bounding boxes would inhibit particle effects as well. That would mean no more smoke floating through overpasses or anything of that ilk.

A special type of box would prevent weather inside them and not impede anything else. This would let us prevent rain or snow in tunnels and under bridges.

They would, of course, be scriptable, so you could assign a myriad of effects to them.

One would go about drawing boxes by first drawing a two dimensional rectangle on the ground in Surveyor that would encompass the object to be boxed. Then you would pull it upwards. The system would be similar to that used to draw polygons in Google Sketchup. Once drawn, they would be treated as scenery and could be elevated, rotated, and rolled as scenery objects can, but the information window would have a setting that would allow you to edit it in the same way as if you were creating it.

You'd also be able to assign a box to a traincar. First, you'd draw the box around the traincar. Then, you'd go to the car's properties window and click the "Assign Bounding Box" button and click on the box or boxes you want. The boxes would now move with the traincar. There would be a button somewhere on the rolling stock panel in Surveyor allowing you to permanently assign a box to an item of rolling stock, so that whenever you place that item of rolling stock, its bounding box would appear.

There would, of course, be an option to turn them off.

For performance concerns, physics calculations could be run on a separate thread. Most people have multi-core processors nowadays, so this would be a viable solution. The physics calculations would be fairly lightweight, so single-core folks could still run the game.

I imagine that Auran could use a ready-made physics engine, like Bullet (http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet/) or Newton (http://www.newtondynamics.com/), both free for commercial use (I think). Bullet I know for a fact can simulate over 500 rigid bodies with minimal framerate loss. Using a ready made physics engine would speed up development time exponentially.

Mr.Jingles
July 15th, 2007, 03:41 AM
This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.

Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.

Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.

Say NO to collision detection. :)

Alan


Being a bit of a rebel I say YES to collision detection :D
Instead of rewriting all the code and creating a ultra realistic collision model with deforming and breaking wagons, etc (I am sure that won't be done ever for trainz), why not just improve the already existing collision and physics model that exists now ?
I for myself would be pleased already if wagons would stop running through each other while on track (-> bounding boxes !), wagons would stop running through most of the scenery objects (-> bounding boxes !) and of course would stop running up hills, flipping crazyly through the air, etc. etc.
Now if THAT could be fixed I would be grateful already, but the system as it is right now just isn't .. right .. and takes some fun out of the game for me.
Improving that system that already exists to the above points also would not break your "G" family rating or, if done well, also would not put any more stress of modeling on our hands (you could do some silhouette mesh detection and dynamically create a bounding box mesh once for each piece of content for example - or if you are lazy, let us create a bounding box mesh for our content).

Physics play a more and more bigger part in games these days and simple bounding boxes are extremely cheap to compute these days and for those people with less potent computers, why not just include a checkbox in the config screen to turn bounding box physics off (the JET engine should be able to do that) ?

Yes, it takes time to program that, but your fans would thank it to you.
Me for example I was planning to get any update you woud throw on the market, but seeing that trainz did almost stay the same after TRS2004 SP3 (the one with the new great interface changes, etc.) I am now waiting for a more feature rich version to come out.

.. just my thoughts ..
Speak your mind

Mr. Jingles

Gangsta_Boi
July 15th, 2007, 04:30 AM
As the game is called Trainz Railway SIMULATOR, I feel collision detection should be used, to SIMULATE the effects of a minor/major derailment (They do happen !) and to SIMULATE the real world effects of solid objects (i.e bridges, walkovers etc.)

+1 for collision detection !

Thanks,
Gangsta_Boi

ex-railwayman
July 15th, 2007, 06:40 AM
I am a little confused on this thread, is a derailment to be considered a collision?? I switch my derailment device on and off in driver depending on which route I am driving on periodically, which I find adds a bit of spice to simulating certain driving conditions, especially, when I am on my snowbound routes. It adds some realism to the expertise of the driver in being able to master the art of driving the loco over sets of points and junctions, whether he is driving a long train or just "light engine". So, in fact, we already have a derailment device built into the game, do we need another one?
As to a built-in collision support device on TRS as a whole, comments from everyone so far seem to be split 50/50, I would personally find it demeaning to this particular simulator game. There are plenty of other sim games on the market if you want to crash and explode things are there not?? I think there is enough blood and guts in modern real day life thank you very much, I personally don't want it to be involved in my relaxation period, when I can divorce myself for a few hours from the real world, playing this fabulous train simulating game.
Just my two penneth worth.

Cheers. ex-railwayman.

RooRocz
July 15th, 2007, 06:58 AM
There are plenty of other sim games on the market if you want to crash and explode things are there not??

We don't want to crash things. No one said anything about explosions. We just want to have the myriad of benefits collision detection could introduce into the game, one of which is better crashes. There are a whole host of others that I can think of, and I'm sure other people can think of even more.

Macan
July 15th, 2007, 07:21 AM
i would like it if you would crash in to cars if they drice across the rr-crossings when the booms are down

john259
July 15th, 2007, 08:13 AM
FWIW IMHO it would greatly improve the program if it could be modified to detect all collisions between rolling stock, not just collisions between their couplers as at present.

Handling road vehicles presents some very difficult problems, for example when there are level crossings on two parallel tracks.

What the program currently does in reaction to a detected collision seems appropriate to me.

John

Harry_James_Potter
July 15th, 2007, 06:54 PM
Whats so important about the G rating???

It's G rating means that the game can be played by all sectors of the consuming population between the ages of four and four hundred years old..

regards

Harry

Harry_James_Potter
July 15th, 2007, 07:12 PM
I still stand by what I said much earlier in this thread about Bounding boxes and performance loss.

My TRS is having problems coping right now. Chuck bounding boxes in on top of that and the whole show goes to hell in a handcart very quickly.

Maybe do it when the last of the single core processored machines have been quietly retired. Until then, we need fixes for things that are more important like sound (limitations on distances sound can be heard. To hear a Shed ying-yinging 10 miles away is not on!!), AI intelligence (hopelessly lost and helplessly hungry) and steam physics (which is disasterously unrealistic).

regards

Harry

Accipiter777
July 15th, 2007, 08:35 PM
G-rated
Blood and gore

Did not know that making collisions ment all this would HAVE to be included. I dont need the detail of body parts... but I'd like to see more accurate derails, and collision. If you DONT want your railroad to reflect this accurate, then make it an option. Well... at any rate... Microsoft Train Sim X is in the works... Would hate to see Trainz fall behind the times...

RooRocz
July 15th, 2007, 09:08 PM
Microsoft Train Sim X is in the works...Would hate to see Trainz fall behind the times...

I can see it now... Preliminary screenshots are amazing... New, crazy realistic features... Everyone runs out and buys Vi$ta so they can run DirectX 10 on their computers... It's finally released and costs $50... You buy it, come home, install it, and boot up... and...



















"Microsoft Train Simulator X has encountered an error and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."




Yeah, Auran really needs to learn to simulate those kinds of crashes to keep up with MSTS.:D

Accipiter777
July 15th, 2007, 10:09 PM
:hehe: LMAO! :D Your probably right!

joshjlawnjjl
July 16th, 2007, 09:16 PM
While I don't think it is nessesary to have realistic crashes, it would be nice though, if there was a way to fix minor derailments with out having to end a session. Like a working rail crain that would put cars back onto the tracks, Givin that the reck isn't to bad.

Just a thought

Blutorse4792
July 18th, 2007, 12:04 PM
One thing that bugs me is passing through a car on the crossings. Why not make it so if the train hits a car, the car will at least get pushed out of the way or something.

The main excuse here seems to be that "Trainz is an E rated game", and those giving it seem to be ignoring the non-violent suggestions being made here.

nfotis
July 19th, 2007, 02:35 PM
Something that bugs me is that people clamoring here seem to confuse collision detection = explosions/mayhem.

To clarify things a bit from my perspective, 'collision detection' is just a first step on realistic physics (= more prototypical train handling behaviour). You know, acceleration, friction, weight, dynamics of a train, this sort of things.

Bounding boxes are just a tool that helps in many situations:
lighting = is the item lighted by headlights or other light sources? Or it's in shadow?
collisions = is the locomotive sideswiping a wagon, or not?
LOD rendering = if bounding box less than a visible size (e.g. less than half a pixel), ignore item when rendering
coupling = 2D (two-dimensional) bounding boxes approach each one too fast, or not?

I think that we really want a better done physics model underneath Trainz, that would automagically correct many of the handling deficiencies in train handling due to obeying to laws of mechanics.

We do not care about twisted/deformed locomotives and wagons (even old MSTS handled derailments in a much better way, despite handling rolling stock as inflexible objects, and slack action worked more or less correctly in USA trains).
For people who do have a powerful CPU, give them this option.

Back to my HOT house,
N.F.

jivebunny
July 19th, 2007, 05:15 PM
RooRocz's lengthy suggestion earlier is absolutely brilliant IMO, I hope Auran take note of it as it sounds like a very clever and efficient way of implementing collision detection on only the objects that need it.

People keep coming back to the same topic: explosions and gore. That's not at all what this is about, it's simply about having realistic physics. When a train leaves the track in the real world, the derailed vehicles will continue to move for anything between a couple of feet and a couple of hundred feet, depending on the speed. They don't slide along for two or three miles as they do in TRS. The vehicles that aren't directly affected will come to a sudden halt, or continue a bit further down the track as the ripped pipes apply the brakes, they don't all derail.

Yes it's a simulator and the aim is to drive a train, but just like in the real world accidents do happen. It would be nice if when they did happen it at least looked semi-realistic. It's the same with smoke floating though concrete structures or out of tunnels, it just looks silly and if MSTS was able to do it efficiently in 2001 then there's no reason why TRS can't do it in 2007.

The point I really want to get to, and that a lot of people seem to be missing, is this: Look what happens in TRS when a train flies off the track, or when the camera's viewpoint comes into contact with the ground or a hill, or when you click to place an object like a level crossing or fixed track down. That's right, they all detect where sky meets earth, and pretty accurately as well. I'd like to know how this could be acheived if TRS didn't have some sort of (even rudimentary) collision detection system. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to apply this same system to objects as well as the ground?

Personally I would like to see a combination of the following options:

- Creating a bounding box in gmax for new objects (either using the standard "box" technique or by creating an "imaginary" box by placing an attachment point for each of the eight corners)
- Drawing bounding boxes in Surveyor as per Roorocz's suggestion
- Having the option to turn all bounding boxes off, for those with lower-end PCs


It'll be interesting to watch this thread develop but it's one of the things I really hope Auran listen to. I am now starting to "get" the whole TC idea, and it does seem to be a step in the right direction, but the current release of TC is a very very small one at best. With a couple of new simulators due to hit the market over the next year or two, Auran needs to concentrate on catching up with two of the more basic elements of simulation, namely sound and physics. It's sad to see that a simulator launched (and swiftly abandoned) six years ago can still do these far better than TRS can.


The changes to signalling and level crossing setups in TC will no doubt be welcomed by many, but it's major changes like those I have gone over that will get the long-term trainzers interested in the TC concept, especially when you consider that there are a number of people developing new ideas for signals and level crossings at TRS2004 / 2006 level.

JB

Forest_Runner
July 19th, 2007, 05:42 PM
Something that bugs me is that people clamoring here seem to confuse collision detection = explosions/mayhem.


It's because the thread started off in this manner. Reading the first two pages of this thread ingrains into the reader about making collisions more graphic.

Personally, I think a new topic thread titled "Collision Detection" with the first post providing the lengthy explanation of what it is about, and possibly what it isn't, would result in more constructive discussion on the subject.

Cheers,
Simon.

seany55520
July 19th, 2007, 07:52 PM
This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.

Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.

Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.

Say NO to collision detection. :)

Alan
The crashes wouldn't be violent or explosive or show major desturction or any of that. They would just be more beliveable.(Unless thats your view of beliveable.) My view of beliveable is if a train hits another train, the cars come off the track and either stop or continue rolling along the landscape, depending on the force of the impact. So if a train derails, it rolls of the tracks and does something realistic. Simply put, there would be solid objects instead of cars going through each other. Say YES to collision detection. :)
PS: don't comment on the spelling.

Spawn_of_Chaos97
July 19th, 2007, 07:57 PM
I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet, but TRS could be patched to run on the HL2 "Source" engine (with permission from Valve of course.) That would unfortunately require a large amount of recoding, but at least then it would be possible!

HL2 has more realistic physics than MSTS even!

jivebunny
July 19th, 2007, 08:17 PM
Half-Life 2 uses the Havoc physics engine so it's not Valve you'd need to ask. The trains in HL2 pretty much just move from waypoint to waypoint at a set speed, the animation is neither smooth nor realistic. As HL2 is a first-person shooter, the physics engine deals with stuff like skeletal animation (characters), detailed water animation, reflection and refraction, bullets bouncing off the ground, how objects break up when dropped / thrown / blown up etc... I don't see how any of this would actually be of any use in a train simulator. It'd be a bit like trying to make a realistic flight sim out of the rollercoaster tycoon physics engine...

seany55520
July 19th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Look! All these great suggestions about how making a trainz crash more realistic are out there and some of you guys are ignoring them saying "oh, trainz isn't supposed to have violance in it." and "We want to keep trainz G rated." These suggestions WILL keep it G rated! OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! It really bugs me when that group of people keeps ignoring all the non-violant suggestions and saying "It will make it to violant." Maybe we can make it a setting for those of you who like the way it is now or who want to avoid crashing or just don't like it being realistic. But there are hundreds, if not, tens of hundreds of people who don't want to spend that fortune on MSTS and who like to simulators that are REALISTIC! As it says in that new diet pepsi commerical, WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

Forest_Runner
July 19th, 2007, 11:52 PM
I posted early on in the thread. I'd prefer things like not having rain fall in tunnels, not having track and road float after it's been laid, steam sounds fixed (which I understand is improved in TC), signalling and A/I improvements......things like that.

These things are realism which impact the Sim all the time - rain/snow in tunnels dependent on weather of course. If people want realism because "it happens" these points listed above are surely better things to concentrate on, which benefits the majority of users.

I know crashes/collisions occur, but I haven't had one for something like over 18 months, so I personally don't care for it.

Cheers,
Simon.

Ben1337
July 26th, 2007, 01:46 PM
I wonder if auran could make 1 version involving collisions and see what happens.
Half-Life 2 uses the Havoc physics engine so it's not Valve you'd need to ask. The trains in HL2 pretty much just move from waypoint to waypoint at a set speed, the animation is neither smooth nor realistic. As HL2 is a first-person shooter, the physics engine deals with stuff like skeletal animation (characters), detailed water animation, reflection and refraction, bullets bouncing off the ground, how objects break up when dropped / thrown / blown up etc... I don't see how any of this would actually be of any use in a train simulator. It'd be a bit like trying to make a realistic flight sim out of the rollercoaster tycoon physics engine... HL2 has got trains,signals and stations is that enough for you?

jivebunny
July 26th, 2007, 02:04 PM
HL2 has got trains,signals and stations is that enough for you?

It might be if you can explain what on earth that has to do with collision physics... which is what my post was about (as is the rest of the thread, maybe you could take the time to read it?)

Ben1337
July 26th, 2007, 02:50 PM
TBH I miss my train game. details are here in the thread Comp problems (http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=13791).:'(

I would like to have the smoke disappear when the loco derails and the engine turns off.

Michael_Evans
August 18th, 2007, 05:32 PM
I read about the big debate about weather or not trainz should have collisions. I for one say it'd make a great feature. MSTS has it. You wouldn't even have to have exploding trains, just two trains hitting each other, and cars ending up in zig-zag fashion or flying all over the place. And one or two minutes after the wreck the trains and drivers would disappear. And what about rail/road accidents. Train hits car, car flys to side of tracks, one or two minutes later car disappears. And the collision feature should only happen to trains traveling over 20 m.p.h.

mastertom88
August 20th, 2007, 04:51 AM
trainz will still be g rated, unless things get bloody with passengers,

butter
August 21st, 2007, 08:03 AM
Look! All these great suggestions about how making a trainz crash more realistic are out there and some of you guys are ignoring them saying "oh, trainz isn't supposed to have violance in it." and "We want to keep trainz G rated." These suggestions WILL keep it G rated! OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! It really bugs me when that group of people keeps ignoring all the non-violant suggestions and saying "It will make it to violant." Maybe we can make it a setting for those of you who like the way it is now or who want to avoid crashing or just don't like it being realistic. But there are hundreds, if not, tens of hundreds of people who don't want to spend that fortune on MSTS and who like to simulators that are REALISTIC! As it says in that new diet pepsi commerical, WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!


think about it...........a train crash most likely will explod.

butter
August 21st, 2007, 08:05 AM
when the stupid cars try to run the tracks they should be crushed or damaged.

kcdowdy
August 21st, 2007, 08:12 AM
Butter, Please read this thread. AGAIN!

Mr.Jingles
August 21st, 2007, 10:28 AM
Why is it always that when people see the words "collision detection" they think about dead bloody corpses, explosions and other bad things ?
That has not even been asked for !

What has been asked for was :
- Bounding Box collision detection (and interaction) between game meshes (terrain, buildings, trains, wagons, etc.)
- more realistic physical behaviour of derailed objects (so they don't run up hills, flip around like crazy, etc.)
- More accurate derailemts (so that not the entire train automatically jumps off the rails)

What has NOT been asked was :
- Dead bodies and blood
- Deformed train meshes (or building meshes)
- On-Board death cam
- Fire and Explosions
- Move from an G-rating to a M-rating
- Extreme amount of particle -and soundeffects accompanying the crash
- a death counter

Collision detection (and interaction) and more proper physics, if ever implemented, should bring a bit more realism into the simulator and those expecting to see the elements that have not even been asked for (see list above) should not take that element away from these community members which are expecting to see more realism just because they have a wrong impression of what it would be like.
And if these people would still not like the fact that trains suddenly would not be running through each other, should be able to disable the Collision Detection physics in the options screen with a simple checkbox.

AND even auran themself has an entirely wrong impression on that suspect :

... Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating ...


This good (and in my opinion needed) feature discussion is going into an entirely wrong direction !

Tata
Mr.Jingles

jivebunny
August 21st, 2007, 10:44 AM
Hi Mr Jingles :)

Most of us are simply asking for collision detection. There are just a few who really don't understand the idea and think we are after blood, guts and broken limbs. I think it's best to ignore them. For a long time, Auran's excuse has been that it didn't want to lose its G-rating. What I would like to know is what makes them think they would lose their G-rating just for implementing collision detection. G-rated driving games have it, as do flying games, sports games, role-playing games, strategy games and, yes, Microsoft Train Simulator.

I really don't see where the problem is.

JB

Blutorse4792
August 21st, 2007, 10:53 AM
I feel that this belongs here so...

On the subject of cars at the level crossings, how about making it so if a train hits a car on the crossing, it'll just get pushed out of the way or something? No blood or violence necessary.

Michael_Evans
August 21st, 2007, 10:54 AM
All I want to see is two trains hitting each other and ending up in zig-zag fasion or flying all over the place and also the rail/road accident.

butter
August 21st, 2007, 11:43 AM
the car thing was my idea but i don't have time to read 94 posts.

Lo_Poly
August 21st, 2007, 12:17 PM
Personally I think it's pretty funny how if a train derails and goes into a small ravine, they keep bouncing up and down against the walls. :p

But no, this isn't a derailment or death simulator. If there were collision detection added, all that would be necessary would be bounding box collision detection (and interaction) between game meshes (terrain, buildings, trains, wagons, etc.) so that cars wouldn't just go through each other, more realistic physical behaviour of derailed objects (so they don't run up hills, flip around like crazy, etc.), and more accurate derailemts (so that not the entire train automatically jumps off the rails).

Alan, I do not believe a simple derailment physics improvement like that would change the rating or anything. But, if you were only against the dumb ideas such as "death and blood" and "explosions" I could see why, that stuff is completely unnecessary.


the car thing was my idea but i don't have time to read 94 posts.
Well make time for it. I read the whole thread.

john259
August 21st, 2007, 12:34 PM
There are two totally separate issues here:

When to detect a collision.
What to do when a collision is detected.It's very important not to confuse them.

John

Herb
August 21st, 2007, 02:39 PM
There are two totally separate issues here:
When to detect a collision.
What to do when a collision is detected.It's very important not to confuse them.

John
Thank you, John.:wave:

HiBaller
August 21st, 2007, 07:44 PM
When: A soon as anything moves into the path of a train a collision is detected REGARDLESS of severity.

What to Do: pop up a box saying that a collision has been detected between xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx -- what do you want to do about it? (options a-z or whatever).

The point is that the simulation can go on, after you make the decision as to what to do. One of the options could just be re-rail the train at the point of detection. My flight sim can do most of the above if you turn on collision detection.

Say, there's an idea. How about the ability to turn it on for those who want it?

Bill

kcdowdy
August 22nd, 2007, 12:00 AM
But, I agree but if you make the trains crash more realistic. :udrool:

"MSTS in my hands, Woohoo!" Would not be the way to explain it. (Even if i like to see BNSF shoot 5000 Ft. Above the air)

Therefor if you make more realistic crashes don't the games file size go up? It's 3,398,543,858 On mine now, I really would not want to deal with all that scripting going to to CMP as it is, Plus the fact that the poly count could go higher. Auran hasn't made CMP stable yet, So to think about what i'm saying here keep reading.

1. More Scripting to deal with, Meaning more Errors could come up.

2. I'm a person who would put TRS2006 In the trash if this happened, I don't like trains shooting over Buildings, Objects, I'd just go buy MSTS.

3. Think of the forums if this happened, De-Railment threads would always clog the forum.

I agree with Alan.
Say NO to Collision Detection


Sorry if i ruined somthing.

Mr.Jingles
August 22nd, 2007, 01:01 AM
... Therefor if you make more realistic crashes don't the games file size go up? ...


Not considerably, no. All that is needed is a 6 Polygon mesh that is used for collision detection and that's about 5 to 10 kb in size.



... I really would not want to deal with all that scripting ...


What scripting ? If auran would implement it in a meaningful way all you would have to do is to create a cube mesh with the same outer size as the object you modeled and give it a specific name, the rest should be handled by the game engine (to use that cube mesh for collision detection).



Plus the fact that the poly count could go higher.


Yes, 6 polygons (which won't be rendered anyways I guess).



1. More Scripting to deal with, Meaning more Errors could come up.


No scripting (see above), therefore not more errors than we already have.



3. Think of the forums if this happened, De-Railment threads would always clog the forum.


And how far worse would that be besides the 20 "CMP not working", 10 "Can't Login", 50 "How do I ..." which are explained already, messages that appear dayly in the forums ?
Threads like "Boah look how I derailed today" wouldn't make any difference to that chaos.

This thread could go on forever, so my suggestion is that auran REALLY objectively considers the cummunity's wishes regarding collision detection and gives us either a definite "yes" or definite "no" as to if we will ever see that in TRS or future products.
This could put an end to this discussion and what's the Suggestions Boxcar part of the forum about if nobody from auran is responding ? (Besides the post from Alan, obviously not understanding at that time that it was not for dead bodies, blood, explosions but only for, well, collisions and improved collision physics).

Tata
Mr.Jingles

kcdowdy
August 22nd, 2007, 01:07 AM
I guess that was dumb.


But a "Yes" Or "No" Would be nice.

HSSRAIL
August 22nd, 2007, 01:28 PM
Some thoughts.

I think the G rating is necessary to have maximum market appeal. Computer processing capabilities also restrict what can be done. I look forward to a future where computer limitations will no longer apply

mastertom88
August 24th, 2007, 06:49 AM
i regret starting this thread:confused: :confused:

jivebunny
August 24th, 2007, 12:53 PM
LVman, we're not talking about causing and showing damage, we're talking about simply detecting collisions. If Auran aren't even willing to listen to us on that then there's no way they're going to be willing to implement a damage system. Not only that but showing damage would put a lot of extra work on creators, and that's not what we want. We want a simple, rudimentary system whereby the simulator can detect when one object meets another, rather than letting them slide through eachother.


I think the G rating is necessary to have maximum market appeal. Computer processing capabilities also restrict what can be done. I look forward to a future where computer limitations will no longer apply

System requirements don't really come into it, the extra polygons (which aren't even rendered) really wouldn't noticeably affect performance. Depending on how detailed and busy a route it, is will mean something between an extra few dozen to few hundred polygons added to a scene. Also, a game does not lose it's G rating just because it can detect when two objects bump into eachother. All driving games can detect two cars making contact, all adventure games can detect two characters making contact, and Microsoft Train Simulator (a sim which none of the "G rating" brigade seem to have heard about) can detect when two trains make contact. Hell, even PONG could detect collisions between two objects.

Please everyone stop posting utter nonsense about G ratings.

JB

locdriver
August 25th, 2007, 01:55 PM
Besides what is said about the whole train that derails, they also all decouple at the same time...?? There are trains made that CANNOT decouple that way, like passenger trains that are attached rather than coupled, as seen on this picture.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n189/Ruzimo/Trains/ontsporingsprinter.jpg

The left one is a passengertrain that has no simple coupling mechanism and thus cannot decouple as sudden as happens in Trainz and the undamaged carriage was detached from the damaged carriage. It derails as happens in MSTS, where trains stay coupled during derailments, unless the mechanism breaks.
This way the cars uncouple right after an derailment in Trainz is not really convincing that they actually break.

I also agree with having a decend derailment with no carriages that go flying or move through each other. In the real world we say: deal with it and get it back on the track to fix the cars that are damaged and fix the track, maybe catenary too.
Why shouldn't we go a little in this direction and let carriages not move through each other... Besides, there are plenty of worktrains!!!!! :o It should be fun to see a few of those trains on the site (railcranes, catenary maintenance, scattercars to add gravel along the imaginary damaged track(s). Why not give them the sort of functionality they deserve?

Some of you say that Trainz is more than a hobby. Well, for me too and I know that a good derailment option lets you drive more careful and when derailed, you can see more clearly what has gone wrong. And some cars derail due to too much pressure from other carriages and get lifted out of the tracks or derail due to too much sideways pressure in a bend and then derail. If you don't want such derailments, than set the derailment option at NONE or ARCADE, instead of REALISTIC (which the realistic derailment option should get ;)) when Auran ever decides to implement the discussed derailment methods.
This way, people that have a PC that cannot run properly with the realistic derailments, can make use of the ARCADE derailment mode, as we have right now and this disables the scripts and other stuff that is used with the more decend derailments and runs Trainz better for them.

Mark

boy_hennah1989
August 25th, 2007, 02:18 PM
or this GNER class 91 when a junction failed as it left kings cross,
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39344000/jpg/_39344594_derailed_pa_big.jpg

i think someone said about random loco failer?? maybe when you set the train on your route, you can right click it and a box with different settings shows up, and you can set is 0%-100% chance fo the loco failing, 0 being the normal setting (i.e never fail) and 100% being a as soon as you get up to speed your going to break down, this could maybe have smoke coming form the motor (just so you know its failed, and your keyboard isnt jsut unpluged)??? so get in another loco and go rescue it :D

Spawn_of_Chaos97
August 26th, 2007, 12:46 AM
hey all

I mentioned the Source engine. I take it that (almost) none of you have ever played Garry's Mod? There is a map called rp_subtransit that has trains that do NOT use waypoints. Instead, you sit in the cab, throw levers, and make the train go or stop. This just goes to show you that it's not impossible to do a Trainz-style train in HL2. I will admit, this train was not a model or scripted vehicle; rather, it was a part of the map (as in the mapper created it and it only worked/was avaliable on that map). Fun map though...If for no other reason, you should ALL go buy Garry's Mod 10 (for $10.00 [SERIOUSLY!]) and try out rp_subtransit before you all go saying that Source can't do TRS trains.

Sorry for the sort-of-rant, but some people just don't know 100% what they're talking about.

Euphod
August 31st, 2007, 03:27 AM
I just read this in the Trainz Newsletter concerning Ship Sim 2008:

"NEW FEATURES INCLUDE:
# Ocean waves, with realistic ship motion # Advanced day, night and weather systems # Visible damage on ships after a collision # Long-distances trips between harbours (open sea missions) # Walkthrough options on all the new ships available"

Note the ESRB rating is "E" for everyone.

What's the reason for not allowing collisions in Trainz again? What was that? Oh, collisions in the water are gentle "bumps",....not like those nasty old trains banging together?

Ed:o

kcdowdy
August 31st, 2007, 04:26 AM
Well going to get ship simulator, Bye guys.

Forest_Runner
August 31st, 2007, 04:34 AM
LVman, we're not talking about causing and showing damage, we're talking about simply detecting collisions.

The entire first two pages of this thread doesn't comply with this statement.

New thread titled "Collision Detection" with clarity in the very first post on what it is and what it isn't is needed, if you really want this particular topic to be constructive. Request off topic posts to do with blood, guts, gore, and physical damage be moderated/removed it.

Cheers,
Simon

Spawn_of_Chaos97
September 3rd, 2007, 02:01 AM
Request off topic posts to do with blood, guts, gore, and physical damage be moderated/removed it.

Y'know...that's not a half bad idea. Someone who is friends with one of the mods should ask...

m3henry
September 3rd, 2007, 04:43 AM
We are all freinds of moderators :)
*goes and gives rai a big hug.

Sourdough
September 3rd, 2007, 09:43 AM
This thread could go on forever, so my suggestion is that auran REALLY objectively considers the cummunity's wishes regarding collision detection and gives us either a definite "yes" or definite "no" as to if we will ever see that in TRS or future products.
This could put an end to this discussion....
Tata
Mr.Jingles

I think Auran has learned by now that saying "no" to something suggested or wanted never ends the discussion.....:cool:

Dmonky
September 11th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Why would we need the G rating? It's not like 4 year olds are going to play the game.

RooRocz
September 11th, 2007, 06:04 PM
Flat Out 2, has a simple script that allows the vehicles to take on damage when hit by other cars, or inanimate objects.


Things wrong with this statement:

1. FlatOut, being almost entirely centered around crashing cars, uses this as it's entire selling point. It is an almost incomprehensibly complex script.
2. Cars in FlatOut are made of anywhere from 15-20 parts, each with 5-6 levels of damage. Incorporate this into Trainz, and every single piece of everything needs to be redone.

Damage levels are far too complex to possibly incorporate into Trainz, and Bugbear Entertainment (who made FlatOut) ain't gonna just give Auran the source code. We just want a simple bounding box system which is relatively easy to implement, possibly using already existing free-for-commercial-use physics engines, such as Newton or Bullet.

kcdowdy
September 12th, 2007, 11:24 AM
No, The trains in Trainz are at 100% Just crash them to 10% With somthing that makes the 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% and 90% look real, Burbear and Empire might give auran the code. Might not.

You play Flatout?

john259
September 12th, 2007, 11:53 AM
I don't think we want a train crashing game. We just want a more realistic simulation. One wagon passing through another because their couplers don't happen to meet each other isn't realistic.

John

RooRocz
September 12th, 2007, 06:46 PM
Burbear and Empire might give auran the code. Might not.

You play Flatout?

You play the game of business?

If you had a closely guarded trade secret which is the only thing earning money and someone went up to you and said,"Hey, can I use your [secret thing]?"

you'd say,

"No."


Also, I play Burnout, which is the high-speed equivalent of Flatout.



The trains in Trainz are at 100% Just crash them to 10% With somthing that makes the 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% and 90% look real,


Do you have any concept of physics simulation? Here we have two options:

A. Make everyone redo their models to include 10 (10x the production time) entirely new damage levels. (Very difficult)
B. Develop an advanced softbody system (such as in Rigs of Rods (http://rigsofrods.blogspot.com/)) which can use Auran JET files. (Impossible without quantum computers and well over a terrabyte of RAM.)

It ain't gonna work.

Let me restate this: We want a simple bounding box system.

kcdowdy
September 12th, 2007, 07:05 PM
That would be nice, Also i was tired so i didn't think about what i was saying... :)

Mr.Jingles
September 18th, 2007, 01:40 PM
Let me restate this: We want a simple bounding box system.

Exactly. A simple Bounding Box Collision System with Objects interacting with one another, not just the terrain (and even that is behaving horrible right now).

It's not like we are asking for things like these shown in the Ageia Tech Demos (http://www.ageia.com/physx/tech_demos.html). (Dynamically Deformable Objects, Bending Metal and real Fluids)

We, the more realistical thinking ones, simply don't want to see trains running through each other anymore, or watching an entire 100 wagon train jump off its rails because the loco derails at 10 mph and then watch all these wagons run up hills, flip around crazily, etc.

Sane people are harder and harder to find these days. Congrats, you seem to be one of them in this topic :).

Tata
Mr.Jingles

OzBoz
September 19th, 2007, 04:46 PM
As has been stated already, Trainz is a driving simulator, not a smash-em-up demolition Derby. If you you experience a collision, you have failed.

I wonder what the reaction would be, if Auran managed to include a collision detection feature that, physically propelled the driver's chair into the nearest wall, and fried the computer's motherboard.

Now that would be a realistic simulation of a collision. ;)

Cheers

Mr.Jingles
September 20th, 2007, 05:05 AM
As has been stated already, Trainz is a driving simulator, not a smash-em-up demolition Derby. If you you experience a collision, you have failed.

And nobody was asking for a crashing simulator, were we ? No.
I don't know what people take to always come up with such assumptions. (Not trying to offend you)
And when I experience a collision, let me experience it and don't let the wagons phase-shift through each other and defy all laws of physics.

TRS is a Trainz Railroad Simulator, right ?
Wikipedia has a nice quote about "Simulation" : "A computer simulation is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer so that it can be studied to see how the system works."
Same thing refers to a Simulator.

I know, I'm getting down on a pretty "low" level with this ...



I wonder what the reaction would be, if Auran managed to include a collision detection feature that, physically propelled the driver's chair into the nearest wall, and fried the computer's motherboard.

Now that would be a realistic simulation of a collision. ;)

Cheers

That's an easy one, then Auran would have to face about 300.000 lawsuits for intentionally demolishing customers equipment and body injury. :hehe:

Tata
Mr.Jingles

OzBoz
September 20th, 2007, 08:00 AM
And nobody was asking for a crashing simulator, were we ? No.
I'm sorry. I thought this thread contained complaints about the lack of realism in simulating collisions.

I don't know what people take to always come up with such assumptions. (Not trying to offend you)
No offence taken, but if you like, I can cut and paste the statements that led me to this "assumption".

And when I experience a collision, let me experience it and don't let the wagons phase-shift through each other and defy all laws of physics.
That sounds very like you are suggesting a crashing simulator.


TRS is a Trainz Railroad Simulator, right ?
Not really. It's a computer game based on a simulator. A real simulator would cost you hundreds of thousands of bucks, and a good one, millions. Even then, the crash at the end, when you fail, is not that graphic.


That's an easy one, then Auran would have to face about 300.000 lawsuits for intentionally demolishing customers equipment and body injury. :hehe:
That's what would happen in a 100% accurate simulator. Tongue in cheek, I know, but I think it makes my point, even if taken to the extreme.

Cheers

john259
September 20th, 2007, 08:57 AM
My opinion FWIW:

It's the conditions under which the program detects a collision that ideally could be improved. At the moment a collision is only detected if the couplers meet, so rolling stock vehicles sometimes drive through each other without the program sensing a collision. What I reckon we want is that a collision is detected whenever any parts of two rolling stock vehicles meet, this being implemented by means of simple bounding boxes.

How the program reacts visually to a collision might be a bit fanciful at the moment but it is acceptable IMHO. I don't think this needs to be changed at all.

John

FSP
September 22nd, 2007, 03:34 PM
Perhaps I know false Informations:
Trainz Classic supports "crash boxes" and "steam boxes"
crash boxes for collision test
and
steam boxes for cover steam under bridges and tunnels.

Can anyone verify this?

Spawn_of_Chaos97
September 22nd, 2007, 07:50 PM
TRS supports "crash boxes" only around the couplers.

The steam boxes would only be useful for smoke. Nothing else. Really sux...

Spawn_of_Chaos97
October 7th, 2007, 03:04 AM
And here is a beautiful video of what is WRONG with the current collision detection system (just the pit and wall glitch parts):

Video link (YouTube) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Et8XIZr5dzs)

magickmaker
October 12th, 2007, 12:07 PM
I'm passing this on partly as just facts, and partly hoping it can explain some things. I haven't read all the posts, but that shouldn't detract from what I have to say.


Before coming to Trainz, I was a builder in MSTS. Much of my time was spent cutting my teeth as it were, building locomotives and rolling stock there. So, I became pretty experienced at dealing with the MSTS config files. I forget their exact name, but these files similar to trainz, have a ton of information in them.

When you build a Model in msts, you don't include the bounding box with it. In fact you don't include much beyond the naming convention. Wheels1, Bogey1, wheels2, bogey2, Etc.

The bounding box doesn't come into play until you get to the config file...and that's where things can get tricky.

In an ideal situation, your bounding box should be just under the size of the car's length over it's buffers or coupler. The reason for this was to allow a reasonably realistic looking coupling. The problem was, finding that exact size. In most cases you'd spend a good week toying with the box just trying to get everything set right. Apparently this box was figured into the mechanics of the game, making it automatic when exported using the MSTS exporter.

Now, the boxes on MSTS weren't perfect. you could seriously muck things up if you weren't careful. Get the box too large and it could conflict with another one. Too small and you have cars coupling into each other or worst case, derailing the instant the train started.

The whole config problems (getting it all perfect) actually spawned a group of people who only did that. The best of them was a lady who went under the name BNSFLady, but sadly she died middle of last year. I don't know who does it now.
________
Volcano classic vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/volcano)

RooRocz
October 12th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Ah, but bounding box technology has progressed in the last 7 years. You can just make one in the 3d modeling program.

Spawn_of_Chaos97
October 12th, 2007, 10:20 PM
Ah, but bounding box technology has progressed in the last 7 years. You can just make one in the 3d modeling program.

If the game engine supports it...

kbbarfoot
October 13th, 2007, 03:47 AM
wow tis thread takes a while to get all the way through...that being said, collisions need to be improved in this game badly, some D-6 sidebooms and a couple of 966s showing up to rerail stuff would be too cool, probably not very feasible...and sometimes, in the midst of frustration, being able to have a "Gomez Adams moment," might just add a little levity to a long day...

Dmonky
October 17th, 2007, 04:40 PM
I didn't read the entire thread, but how about adding more to the simulation, like breaking a coupler, breaking an axle, and hotboxes?

Spawn_of_Chaos97
October 17th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Well, you can break a coupler. Axles, not so much (though seeing wheels rolling away would be funny XD). And...what's a hotbox? http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9095/newbiehk2.gif:hehe:

Watch that smiley! XD

john259
October 18th, 2007, 12:52 AM
A hotbox is an overheated axle bearing. Razorback Railway activities include hotbox detectors :).

John

Spawn_of_Chaos97
October 18th, 2007, 02:10 PM
Ah, ok. Thanks John!

aodgh0st
October 19th, 2007, 02:27 AM
honestly, i prefer minimal derailments, much like the ones that the game has now. running thru switches, sideswiping trains, runnin over bumpers, heck, even humping cars to fast into the bowl, creates some sense of realism, however, i am honestly glad it doesn't do it alot easier like derailing cause of bypassed couplers in curves (wipes sweat off forehead) or kicking cars into another cut to knock the cars into the clear so i can keep switching. for what its worth, derailments are a headache, both in real life and on here. at work, we derail, gotta call the drug test lady, and the army of managers that make up the particular railroad i am employed by. on trs2006 i have yet to figure out a way to clean up the mess besides starting over, so while the realism is NICE, i have to say derailments completely suck. :mop: :mop: :mop:

Mr.Jingles
October 19th, 2007, 04:11 AM
... so while the realism is NICE, i have to say derailments completely suck.

It's ok, not everybody likes realism in a simulator, so that's why I was suggesting earlier that there should be a checkmark in the settings to turn these bounding box collisions and other improvements on or off for those who like it or don't like it.
The keyword here is : Choice :)

To clear up the mess after derailments within trainz you can use the Re-Rail Portal (trainz://install/%3CKUID2:116387:5:1%3E) or Re-Rail Portal Basic (trainz://install/%3CKUID2:116387:6:1%3E), which are on the DLS.

Tata
Mr.Jingles

RooRocz
October 20th, 2007, 11:29 AM
I wonder what the reaction would be, if Auran managed to include a collision detection feature that, physically propelled the driver's chair into the nearest wall, and fried the computer's motherboard.

Cheers

It's closer to reality than you might think. (http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/10/20/067259.shtml)

:eek:

Spawn_of_Chaos97
October 22nd, 2007, 12:21 PM
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I want that vest!

Wow...

Moojgoo
October 22nd, 2007, 06:38 PM
That is absolutely insane...........:eek:

boy_hennah1989
October 29th, 2007, 11:41 AM
maybe this video can show people who thing this is a bad idea what we mean, no blood and gor but its doesnt pass through other triains of building, but it does bounce a bit to much

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dNy-qq9dcqY

Spawn_of_Chaos97
October 31st, 2007, 12:02 AM
EXACTLY!blarg

bmckown
October 31st, 2007, 01:47 PM
I completely agree that Trainz needs to be as realistic as possible (after all it IS called a simulator--right) Include crashes, damage modeling, fires, smoke, etc.

boy_hennah1989
October 31st, 2007, 03:23 PM
I completely agree that Trainz needs to be as realistic as possible (after all it IS called a simulator--right) Include crashes, damage modeling, fires, smoke, etc.

people screaming, fuel going bang? bits of legs on the track? no!! we just need the basics, like not going through walls, buildings of orther trains and not bouncing around the place like a hyped up 5year old on a bouncy castle

Forest_Runner
October 31st, 2007, 06:40 PM
I completely agree that Trainz needs to be as realistic as possible (after all it IS called a simulator--right) Include crashes, damage modeling, fires, smoke, etc.

What if one doesn't crash at all??......then it becomes a needless memory hog, which will potentially impacts performance/frame rates.

Forest_Runner
October 31st, 2007, 06:43 PM
people screaming, fuel going bang? bits of legs on the track? no!! we just need the basics, like not going through walls, buildings of orther trains and not bouncing around the place like a hyped up 5year old on a bouncy castle

Then you'll get those who will moan, or want the fine detail like the previous post before yours.....that it's not "realistic" enough. Can't win....and thus continues the vicious, but pointless, cycle.

bmckown
November 1st, 2007, 01:38 PM
"Then you'll get those who will moan, or want the fine detail like the previous post before yours.....that it's not "realistic" enough. Can't win....and thus continues the vicious, but pointless, cycle."

So because people will continue to want improvements means that we just can't win and throw up our hands!? And that makes it pointless!!?? I'm sure glad you weren't in charge of designing early medical devices.

Forest_Runner
November 6th, 2007, 02:31 AM
"

So because people will continue to want improvements means that we just can't win and throw up our hands!? And that makes it pointless!!?? I'm sure glad you weren't in charge of designing early medical devices.

Bcmkown - you've missed the context of the post. It was about the inability to satisy ALL users ALL the time. Example - say Auran did upgrade the current G rating for Collisions to an M Rating.....this would satisfy some. However some will complain it is not enough and want the whole R Rating for collisions. Some will complain the M Rating is too much anyway. Whatever happens people will still moan depending on what the individual wants and/or believes.

Also, if you took time to read the whole thread and my previous posts, I have thrown up my hand for improvements - ie improvements to really tidy up the Sim like the rain in tunnels problem, A/I, Signalling, Sounds......the things ALL users will benefit from and make a pretty good Sim into an excellent one. Not for just for the FEW who want collisions, bounding and those very few who want the blood and gore.

I do however agree with you on the medical devices. I'm sure glad I wasn't involved in that gig either!!

mjolnir
November 13th, 2007, 09:54 AM
Well, I'll dip my oar in this water. I'd like to see two types of improvement in TRS. 1) A means of graduated collisions: in switching / shunting at low speed, derailments usually only cause a bogey or two to leave the rails, not an entire consist to derail, or cars to overturn, while a derailment at high speed because of defective infrastructure (e.g., a broken rail) can cause an number of cars to overturn, and leave the rails. I think it would be in line with the idea of a simulator to have different results based upon different conditions. 2) A means of cleaning up the derailment, and continuing the business at hand. Both of these would be consistent with a railroad simulator.

ns

Martynas
November 13th, 2007, 11:41 AM
What this game ? ( Boy Nennah 1989 yuotube link)

applegathc
June 13th, 2008, 09:36 PM
Dude. We need explosions. Every time I show this to my classmates their always like: Can they explode and crash? And I'm like: No they just go through each other. So we needz toz havez explosionz.

TRSEZ Trainz Railroad Simulator Explosionz Edition

lol:hehe:

freightcar2
June 14th, 2008, 01:48 AM
I think someone should make an update pack for trainz 2006 :D

You download it, install it, and what do you get? Drive a very fast train and drive the same train the other way and they run into each other and fly into the sky and blow up and then we get a screen asking if we want to re-rail the train every 5 minutes unless you switched to a different driver.
In other words: realistic and funny crashes and explosions.:hehe:

Someone please make a pack like this! If it's not possible, We want a trainz version called:

REALISTIC AND FUNNY CRASHES AND EXPLOSIONS TRAINZ 2006

You can import all the content you have in regular trainz 2006 into REALISTIC AND FUNNY CRASHES AND EXPLOSIONS TRAINZ 2006.

SOMEONE PLEASE MAKE ONE OF THESE!!!:D :udrool:
Say "We want REALISTIC AND FUNNY CRASHES AND EXPLOSIONS TRAINZ 2006"! Come on, say it!:) ;)

perry_weekley
June 14th, 2008, 10:44 AM
O_o


Some of you guys are out of your mind. Like the two above me.

Personally I'm stuck on real life crashes. If I have 2 trains head collision I expect them to crumple and buckle. If I have a train fly around a curve too tight as high speeds I want to see the train tilt and fall off the track crashing into any structures near by.

After playing GTA IV it's really hard to get rid of realistic crashes from my thoughts.

What's fun about watching a train crash and then explode if it doesn't have anything explosive in it?

Train cars with oil and other chemicals, if derailed, have a chance at explosion if damaged to much.
Engines will explode if their fuel tanks catch on fire.

When video games showed me life like physics and crumpling. I was hooked. Now lets see what it would be like for Trainz.

Iced8383
July 10th, 2008, 04:54 PM
:eek: MSTS derailments+collapsing buildings when a train hits one:o+shattering glass to!not to mention explosions!!

Iced8383
July 10th, 2008, 04:57 PM
TRSEZ Trainz Railroad Simulator Explosionz Edition

lol:hehe:

i like that...

TRSEZ

maxandfeeze
July 19th, 2008, 05:44 PM
WE NEED EXPLOISIONZ OKAY?
lol

maxandfeeze
July 19th, 2008, 05:45 PM
WE NEED EXPLOSIONZ OKAY?
lol

maxandfeeze
July 19th, 2008, 05:46 PM
oooooops
2 postz
But we need phisicks lick hl2

freightcar2
July 19th, 2008, 11:38 PM
I no like explosions!

I want trains that pile-up, buildings that collapse when hit, shattered glass in a wreck...etc..etc...etc...:wave:

collinsl
July 20th, 2008, 01:37 AM
Okay guys, calm down, we would like both, okay?

hpoznanski
July 26th, 2008, 08:19 AM
in the meantime try using the "Coupler mask" rule. mask the front couplers of each colliding train and DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Scoot
July 26th, 2008, 08:58 AM
here is what head on collisions should do. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39119000/jpg/_39119054_wreckafp203story.jpg

jadebullet
July 26th, 2008, 12:04 PM
I would like to say that i do feel a need for better collisions in TRS. Nothing as extreme as blood and gore, and i say that there should be no deformation involved at all(think of the people who make third party locos.) but i do feel the need for better physics. my train should tip if i run a turn too fast. I also dont really like how everything passes through each other train car wise. I can understand buildings but not rail cars.

applegathc
July 26th, 2008, 12:38 PM
TRS2006 should ask the MSTS programmers for some ideas. I kno wthis sounds stupid, but it might help. Cuz the derailments in TRS are stupid.

Dmonky
August 2nd, 2008, 10:11 PM
no kidding!

freightcar2
August 3rd, 2008, 06:30 AM
:D 100% agreed!:D:D:D

trainzbob
August 3rd, 2008, 12:19 PM
I really don't understand why you need detailed crashes because this is a train simulator not a crashing simulator and whole point is not to crash. I think it is really stupid that some people think that 'oooh it would be well cool if we had crashes and it all blew up' becasue we don't and there are alot (and I mean ALOT) of things that come before it in improving trainz.
This crashing thing is really stupid, I'm shocked how far its come and how people have supported this....:sleep:

My 2p
Robert

john259
August 3rd, 2008, 12:38 PM
There are two separate issues here:

1. Under what conditions is a collision detected. The current system only checks couplings, not the whole vehicle, so vehicles can partially pass through each other which is highly unrealistic. It would nice if this could be fixed in the future by using bounding boxes of roughly the same shape and size as the vehicles, provided that wouldn't impose too great a processing load.

2. What happens when a collision occurs. The current system often has vehicles flying about for great distances very unrealistically, whereas all that's needed in most cases is to simply derail the vehicles and nothing else. As Trainz is a simulator and not a shoot 'em up game, I wouldn't favour adding explosions and other such effects. Deforming vehicles would (I think) add enormously to asset creation complexity and to processing at runtime, to little good purpose. There are plenty of alternative computer games available for people who want to experience death and destruction.

Just my 2c-worth.

John

deeelare
August 3rd, 2008, 01:54 PM
I really don't understand why you need detailed crashes because this is a train simulator not a crashing simulator and whole point is not to crash. I think it is really stupid that some people think that 'oooh it would be well cool if we had crashes and it all blew up' becasue we don't and there are alot (and I mean ALOT) of things that come before it in improving trainz.
This crashing thing is really stupid, I'm shocked how far its come and how people have supported this....:sleep:
My 2p
Robert

Robert, I agree !
There are several things that are more important in a sim, to me, then realistic crashes. Hopefully the programmers spend their 'extra' time on these other items (whatever they might be) ?
Seeing if one can reach the highest unrealistic speed, seeing who can make an engine jump the farthest, are far from what I am interested in !
It will remain up to Auran .

My thoughts ---DLR

jadebullet
August 3rd, 2008, 03:09 PM
There are two separate issues here:

1. Under what conditions is a collision detected. The current system only checks couplings, not the whole vehicle, so vehicles can partially pass through each other which is highly unrealistic. It would nice if this could be fixed in the future by using bounding boxes of roughly the same shape and size as the vehicles, provided that wouldn't impose too great a processing load.

2. What happens when a collision occurs. The current system often has vehicles flying about for great distances very unrealistically, whereas all that's needed in most cases is to simply derail the vehicles and nothing else. As Trainz is a simulator and not a shoot 'em up game, I wouldn't favour adding explosions and other such effects. Deforming vehicles would (I think) add enormously to asset creation complexity and to processing at runtime, to little good purpose. There are plenty of alternative computer games available for people who want to experience death and destruction.

Just my 2c-worth.

John


This is exactly what i am talking about. i agree with the other posts too. We don't need explosions or deforming. Bit i would like a little more realistic physics when it comes to collision detection.

Yes i know that this is a train running simulator, not a crashing simulator. But as i have explained before, if i screw up i at least want to have the satisfaction of seeing the train derail relisticly, like if i run a closed switch with three cars it would be nice to see just those three cars derail slightly. Or if i dont pull into a siding far enough, and a train clips the back corner of the last car, rather than running through it, or derailing and the entire train derailing and running through each other, have it come off the tracks realisticly.

One of the reasons that i want more realistic collisions is i would like to set up a scenario where at the beginning, two AI trains hit each other and derail, then the user has to run a wreck train to the crash so that cleanup can begin.

Also when a train runs a turn too fast i would like the consist to tip, not just drive off the tracks unrealisticly.

deeelare
August 3rd, 2008, 08:31 PM
This is exactly what i am talking about. i agree with the other posts too. We don't need explosions or deforming. Bit i would like a little more realistic physics when it comes to collision detection. ---Snip---One of the reasons that i want more realistic collisions is i would like to set up a scenario where at the beginning, two AI trains hit each other and derail, then the user has to run a wreck train to the crash so that cleanup can begin.

jadebullet,

Something that I had not considered !
Possibly a less dramatic derailment and loose the exclaimation marks ??
But there are sooooo many things I hope are addressed first .

My thoughts ---DLR

jadebullet
August 3rd, 2008, 08:43 PM
Yeah there are things that need to take priority. This would pretty much be detail work.

freightcar2
August 14th, 2008, 10:53 AM
What we need is if trains hit buffers or each other they fly and do summersaults like in MSTS. Not deforming, not explosions. Just what i said.

jadebullet
August 14th, 2008, 03:08 PM
no doing summersaults is unrealistic. Ive seen a test vid of some brittish engine hitting a buffer and it just drove off of the track and just oblitorated itself but it didnt summersault.

Here is the vid. OK it was a railcar not a buffer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s7M

anyway, there should be no crumbling, the trains should tip when going around turns too fast, and it should be realistic physics. No sliding for miles after leaving the track. The train should pretty much slow down to a stop after a few hundred feet to a few hundred yards. Also the train cars should do similar to what the train cars did in the movie Hancock, (but only if it is feasable. As in the right speed, the right amount of stopping of the engine, ect)

Also if a car runs the grade crossing and gets hit by the train it should be flung by the engine(again no crumpling or gore) and the engine should have a slight chance of derailing, depending on what type of vehical it is. Also maybe have some spillable products. like when you make a product such as coal you have to make the spilled version of it too.

freightcar2
August 15th, 2008, 08:57 AM
Trains do Summersaults in MSTS. They fly up and flip.:hehe:

Martynas
August 17th, 2008, 10:49 AM
Today trainz simulator (UTC, Trainz 2004, Trainz 2006 and other versions) colision is grid black smoke and over? Yes. But grid smoke + damage sounds is better effects? Your comments please

Ricoaef
August 21st, 2008, 01:02 PM
the trains should tip when going around turns too fast, and it should be realistic physics. No sliding for miles after leaving the track. The train should pretty much slow down to a stop after a few hundred feet to a few hundred yards. Also the train cars should do similar to what the train cars did in the movie Hancock, (but only if it is feasable. As in the right speed, the right amount of stopping of the engine, ect)

Also if a car runs the grade crossing and gets hit by the train it should be flung by the engine(again no crumpling or gore) and the engine should have a slight chance of derailing, depending on what type of vehical it is. Also maybe have some spillable products. like when you make a product such as coal you have to make the spilled version of it too.
I agree 110%! If I'm chatting with my mate on teamspeak (and not paying full attention) and come around a blind corner to find a box car (or worse a loco coming the other way) what I DONT want to see happen is:

1) the 2 trains connect up and stop as tho nothing has happened (errr... right.... :o)
or
2) the 2 trains turn into ghosts and are able to go through objects and slide along for the next 2k's or so :hehe:.

Yes this is a train simulator (which is what I bought all of the Trainz for), and as such I want an accident to be that, not a 'time for all laws of physics to go out of the window' just because a single bogie has derailed. And also I dont understand why there isnt a train crane that can bring trains back onto the tracks and take them to a workshop for repair (would do well as a job), not the silly 'train uses star trek teleportation to get to a portal where it come out as good as new' technique.

As for it being too hard for a PC to do, if your PC cant do a simple thing as detect when 2 objects hit and act accordingly (and since u can run Trainz which does that when ur box car derails and slides up that 20foot mountain) then I say get a new PC, because any semi decent PC can do a simple task like that.

And no it wont ruin the 'G' rating, where the hell people got the idea that a carraige rolling on its side will make it M rated I dont know, Thomas the tank engine had scenes where a loco smashed cars apart, and it was a kids show. So get over it.

freightcar2
August 29th, 2008, 08:03 AM
jadebullet: If you want the train to tilt, or bank, you can make it do it at anytime with the banking consist rule, just go to the DLS, type in 'Banking Consists' (have '06 checked), select 'rules' for the category and there you go. http://forums.auran.com/trainz/images/icons/icon7.gif

jadebullet
August 29th, 2008, 08:40 AM
no, what i meant was when you go around a sharp curve to fast, the top of the consist tips and crashes.

Iced8383
August 30th, 2008, 12:08 PM
This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.

Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.

Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.

Say NO to collision detection. :)

Alan

you're right Alan.

the closest thing we can get to explosions in this game is just switching the derailment realism to arcade!

freightcar2
August 30th, 2008, 02:00 PM
you're right Alan.

the closest thing we can get to explosions in this game is just switching the derailment realism to arcade!

Um...no. There are no explosions in-game.

jadebullet
August 30th, 2008, 05:52 PM
wait, did someone actually say to "say no to collision detection?" That's retarded. so you want trains to be unable to couple. instead you want all of the trains to be permanent ghosts?

perry_weekley
August 30th, 2008, 06:06 PM
I Disagree. While Explosions would most likely take away the G rating what would Collision detection hurt? The only real problem would be those fools who think there are people in the cab.

If a train were to derail then the cars would get dented and smashed where they were hit. If a locomotive smashes into a wall after leaving the track then the front end should be damaged accordingly. What would even be top notch would be the ability to watch the locomotive plow into the ground if it crashes. Heck even knocking trees down when hit would be great.

This is a Driving Simulator. Simulate what happens when you Violate driving precautions. Heck even Driving Sims are doing that now. If Driving Simulator games are allowed to have dents, bumps, and loosing fenders then why can a train simulator have walls being broken into,dirt flying into the air, water splashing,and twisted metal on the front hoods?

Heck Burnout Paradise is more violent in the case of crashes yet it still has a G rating.

springtransit
August 31st, 2008, 07:40 PM
The trains shouldn't have to explode, just be sent flying! It happens in MSTS, so why not?

applegathc
August 31st, 2008, 08:03 PM
The trains shouldn't have to explode, just be sent flying! It happens in MSTS, so why not?

Exactly! Both trains should fly into the air!

leeferr
August 31st, 2008, 08:24 PM
I don't think such crashes and explosions is the intent of Trainz. I know that I as a content creator am not interested in spending creation time developing all of the meshes and the scripting that would be required just to simulate a crash. I'd rather spend my time creating more content. There may be those interested is such things, but I'm not sure that you're going to find much support for it from veteran Trainz creators. No, I'm not placing myself in the veteran category. I'm a novice at best.

I wish you luck in your quest, but don't be surprised if there's not much support for such things from the creators here.

Just my 2 cents worth. Happy Trainzin'
Mike:wave:

applegathc
September 1st, 2008, 07:40 AM
It was just an idea. For me it wouldn't be that I INTEND to crash them, it's just if a train goes on to the wrong track by accident, or they're on a accidental collision course, it would be realistic to have an real-life derailment.

But I respect what you said.:wave:

Truemac
September 1st, 2008, 11:29 AM
I would not mind having collision detection in Trainz. It would at least help in the realism department. Nothing major, just bounding boxes. I hate it when I accidentally run an express into the rear of a freight and they either couple up and continue on, or fly right through as if the other train wasn't there.

All I'm wondering is: Would it really be that hard to implement this into Trainz?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRomUocq07Q
(video is mine)

Iced8383
September 2nd, 2008, 05:09 PM
I would not mind having collision detection in Trainz. It would at least help in the realism department. Nothing major, just bounding boxes. I hate it when I accidentally run an express into the rear of a freight and they either couple up and continue on, or fly right through as if the other train wasn't there.

All I'm wondering is: Would it really be that hard to implement this into Trainz?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRomUocq07Q
(video is mine)

that would be nice.

i wish for head on collisions to be like that in trainz!

but explosions, blood, damage to engines (ok maybe that would be a bit nice to make more realism. who am i kidding? no to that too!) are wrong!

Elukka
September 3rd, 2008, 05:28 PM
I definitely agree Trainz isn't a "crashing simulator". However, accidents do happen, in real life and in the game. Right now, any kind of accident, except derailing on a switch is a total immersion breaker, and breaking the player's immersion is always a bad thing.

I don't see how making the cars and locomotives have more realistic physics would make the game more violent. It's just part of the simulation.

At least give the player a CRASH message like MS Flight Simulator and make the train disappear or something. Still a bit of an immersion breaker, but not as bad as it is now. I seriously doubt this would cause the rating to be upped. There's much worse (or rather, what the people who rate games think is worse) in other games.

Captain_Collins
September 4th, 2008, 12:42 AM
I definitely agree Trainz isn't a "crashing simulator". However, accidents do happen, in real life and in the game. Right now, any kind of accident, except derailing on a switch is a total immersion breaker, and breaking the player's immersion is always a bad thing.

I don't see how making the cars and locomotives have more realistic physics would make the game more violent. It's just part of the simulation.

At least give the player a CRASH message like MS Flight Simulator and make the train disappear or something. Still a bit of an immersion breaker, but not as bad as it is now. I seriously doubt this would cause the rating to be upped. There's much worse (or rather, what the people who rate games think is worse) in other games.

You could use a rule such as the derailed vehicle eraser to do what you are requesting.

Jim_the_Bald
September 7th, 2008, 10:53 AM
I definitely agree Trainz isn't a "crashing simulator". However, accidents do happen, in real life and in the game. Right now, any kind of accident, except derailing on a switch is a total immersion breaker, and breaking the player's immersion is always a bad thing.

I don't see how making the cars and locomotives have more realistic physics would make the game more violent. It's just part of the simulation. ...

I'm sorry! Is this simulator intended to envelop a player's mind to the extent that he/she loses track of the rest of the world? Are they to suffer a brain cramp if the power fails and the screen goes blank?

:confused:

Jim_the_Bald
September 7th, 2008, 11:37 AM
I don't think such crashes and explosions is the intent of Trainz. I know that I as a content creator am not interested in spending creation time developing all of the meshes and the scripting that would be required just to simulate a crash. I'd rather spend my time creating more content. There may be those interested is such things, but I'm not sure that you're going to find much support for it from veteran Trainz creators. ...

I thought Trainz was intended to be a "realistic" simulator of railroad operations. Now I see it to be nothing more than yet another "Disneyland of Uninterrupted 'Goodness' with a G rating." There are only a few creeps who want 'Hollywood' spectacular (and stupid) crashes. I feel I am average in wishing for only moderate realism in reflecting serious operational mistakes.

I have been suscribed to this thread for some time. I have also not been using any Trainz product for some time since my PC became obsolete to their reqirements. While planning to buy a new PC, I have been thinking about the Trainz technical equipment requirements.

Now finally I see that no matter how much I update my PC, the Trainz Program will not reflect my interest in realism - even at a moderate level. One potential user/customer makes no difference. Dizneyland makes millions from those who wish to hear only of Snowwhite. Too bad they have never heard of Rosered.

So I am turned-off by Trainz. But it will live on fed by those 'trained' by Walt Dizney. :hehe:

Elukka
September 7th, 2008, 04:16 PM
"Immersion" in this context doesn't mean you see only the simulator and get completely removed from the rest of the world, no.

If you like a game, book or movie, you get immersed in it, even if you don't acknowledge it. Bad design can break this immersion.

NTrainR160
September 7th, 2008, 04:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj4JnEdpaOs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj4JnEdpaOs&feature=related)◀ Back to results (http://search.msn.com/video/results.aspx?q=train+almost&FORM=ZQVR)

watch this drunk he's stupid!:(

sergeant_kenny
September 23rd, 2008, 11:13 AM
i was driving a virgin pendolino and crashed it into a dmu and the virgin train went flying and the dmu was derailed and moved a cople of cm:confused:

Iced8383
September 23rd, 2008, 07:30 PM
i will settle this arguement once and for all.

Trainz 2006 has a big derailment improvement over Trainz 2004.

i for one, only crash trains because i like to see how they happened (ok maybe i have gone overboard a few times.).

Trainz wasn't meant for the crashes, right?

deeelare
September 23rd, 2008, 08:49 PM
i will settle this arguement once and for all.
Trainz 2006 has a big derailment improvement over Trainz 2004.
i for one, only crash trains because i like to see how they happened (ok maybe i have gone overboard a few times.).
Trainz wasn't meant for the crashes, right?

Well , err, yeah !

---DLR

Iced8383
September 23rd, 2008, 08:58 PM
Well , err, yeah !

---DLR

LOL deelare, you just copied my custom user title!

Iced8383
October 6th, 2008, 09:52 PM
really guys, is this how you want trainz?:

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff327/Iced8383/sothisishowyouwanttrainz.jpg

jadebullet
October 7th, 2008, 08:56 AM
No, I don't want exploding cars or even cars bursting into flame before they get hit.


All I want is a little more realism with the physics, none of this ghosting BS that is going on.

Iced8383
October 7th, 2008, 07:50 PM
No, I don't want exploding cars or even cars bursting into flame before they get hit.


All I want is a little more realism with the physics, none of this ghosting BS that is going on.

i can remove the image if ya want.

I could use a lot more realism.

cvkiwi
October 27th, 2008, 07:08 PM
HI MATE'S (from NZ) IVE BEEN READING ALL YOUR COMENTS ABOUT CRASHING AND i HAVE TO SAY THAT WHEN I GOT TRAINS 2006 I GOT IT TO BUILD MY OWN ROUTES AND THE LAST THING ON MY MIND WAS CRASHING.......

DONT RUIN A GOOD BUILDING PROGRAM BY ALLOWING IT TO HAVE A CRASH PATCH BUILT IN LEAVE IT ALONE.

WHY DONT YOU SEE WHAT 2009 HAS TO OFFER.http://forums.auran.com/trainz/images/icons/icon12.gif

Iced8383
October 27th, 2008, 10:09 PM
YOU DON'T HAVE TO YELL!!

joking, but please use an inside voice...

Red_Rattler
October 28th, 2008, 05:25 AM
Cvkiwi, as Iced8383 please DON'T YELL. Using all capitals is considered shouting. Also I've seen some other postings of yours, asking for help, and then re-asking for help only 30 or so minutes later. Please give people time to reply. A reply may not be for hours or days.

sister
November 11th, 2008, 10:36 AM
Anyway I don't like to see locos able to go "through" other locos on the juctions as it is now. It should be really nice to have an improve on this side.

scorpio48
November 11th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Hi All,
I've mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here..
Lets talk realism; If a loco, car Etc is involved in a bad wreck, in real life they are usually written off.
So, if we pushed realism all the way, and each simulated loco Etc involved in a crash, could never be used again in your Trainz program. Would you still want Train Wrecks?

Cheers
Pete.

OMG_internet
November 11th, 2008, 04:31 PM
Simulation:
(computer science) the technique of representing the real world by a computer program.

Now, please show me some examples of ghosting happening in the real world.

Oh, i understand that some want complete realism, and some apparently want none.
So, why can't we reach a simple compromise?
Why cant we get rid of this ghosting crap and maybe have at least some realism in the derailments?

Mr.Jingles
February 8th, 2009, 12:28 PM
Allow me to bring this Topic back to attention.

Seeing that with TRS2009 the engine has gained quite some more capabilities (and performance), it might just be possible for the developers to spend the freed CPU time to finally spend the game a better physics implementation.

Again, please let me just quickly explain what I am looking forward to.

- By going too fast into curves, Trains and Wagons should "tip over" (YouTube Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PR58fqxgg) - Movie is from KuJu Rail Simulator, but is lacking mass and friction implementation, which could be improved on)
- Trains shall no longer pass through one another when they hit at junctions / crossings (not just buffer on buffer physics)
- When derailments occur, the entire train shall not just jump off the rails in the same second, but realistically keep its inertia and "roll along" the rails
- Derailed wagons shall no longer unrealistically run up hills or flip around, but come to a rest more or less quickly, depending on their mass and inertia
- Derailed wagons also shall collide with environmental objects (trees, houses, etc.)
- Derailed wagons should then be able to be set to "remain indefinately", "disappear after X minutes" or "re-rail after X minutes at portal / trackmark X"

Just for reference, I'm thinking about an somewhat improved MSTS version of hitbox physics, nothing more. (YouTube Demonstration Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSyYVMZbpWo))

This is not a request for a super-correct physics implementation with deforming meshes upon contact, bodies flying around, explosions, etc.
This is simply a request for implementing simple hitbox physics, because railcars passing through each another, unrealistic derailment and contact behavior and the like doesn't do this game the deserved justice.

Implementing said features will bring this simulator one step closer to being "untouchable".
If the collision meshes could be computed automatically by the engine (highly simplyfied "box" version of the lowest detail mesh of an object, taking the out-most-vertices for reference) would also mean that the community wouldn't even have to touch a single item to enable these "improved" physics.
Best of all, if this would work, there could be an option in the menu to turn "improved physics" on or off, depending on if the PC of the person can handle the additional system load or not.

(This engine also needs a new lighting model, which computes shadow meshes automatically instead of having to create a separate "shadow mesh" for each item, but that's another story).

It would be nice if we could finally get some sort of reply from an auran official on this matter, because to me physics do matter (it's called "Trainz SIMULATOR 2009" for a reason, no ?).
It's not an absolute must-have feature, but surely would be nice to see it being implemented.

EDIT: Hitbox physics implementation surely will not break the E-Rating, only explosions or violence would, but that's not even closely being asked for.

Tata
Mr.Jingles

jadebullet
February 8th, 2009, 12:38 PM
Thank you Mr.Jingles. That is what I have been asking for for a while now, but never new how to properly explain.

railbaron123
March 11th, 2009, 06:59 AM
GOT IT PHYSICS LIKE MSTS microsoft train simulator!!!!! :D

jadebullet
March 11th, 2009, 09:05 AM
If you are still not convinced that creating these hit boxes would be a good idea, I have another application for them. If hit boxes are implemented then bumping posts at the end of a spur would actually work, rather than the car or locomotive unrealistically just passing through them. There is nothing more game braking than pushing a hopper up the steep incline of a coaling trestle and to have it run over the car stop and roll off the end of the track at around 1 mph. (or to have the locomotive unexplainable fall through the trestle as a result.)

strench707
March 11th, 2009, 09:34 AM
I agree, this would be a great feature. Also if content creators don't want to throw specs in their engines for this kind of thing, then the game could at least auto assign an average spec table, that way at least the car will do something.

Davis

nicky9499
March 12th, 2009, 05:55 AM
Hold on a minute. This talk about 2009 not having hitbox is not completely true. The trains in 2009 do not all go through each other after a crash now (although the locomotives inexplicably would). I haven't tried out the working buffers and stuff, but the trains do derail more realistically, albeit giving the train in question (not the game) a slight stutter as the cars bump into each other.

Cheerio,
Nicholas.

jadebullet
March 12th, 2009, 02:25 PM
Really? What assets are these as I haven't seen it yet. We also still have the pretty big problem of the entire train derailing rather than a few cars that were involved. This is a good sign though since it means that we are slowly starting to get closer to realistic derailments physics wise.

Euphod
March 12th, 2009, 05:17 PM
I would like to see the game throw up a error message pointing out the derailment, and then shutting down for twenty minutes before the session can be played again.

jadebullet
March 16th, 2009, 07:21 PM
Just wondering. Why was this moved from the suggestion boxcar. It is a serious suggestion for better physics.

Ronayne
April 5th, 2009, 07:56 PM
I would love to see improvements in track, textures, locos and the whole thing really. It would be great if it was just like life!
Not collisions so much, but the quality and realness.
:) :D ;) :wave:

nicky9499
April 5th, 2009, 09:43 PM
When Auran finally gets around to not making the entire train come off the track when one car derails, then would come sessions and scenarios when you could drive a locomotive to recover the remaining cars.

Cheerio,
Nicholas.

Ronayne
April 5th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Why would you want to derail a tram!?

:'(

SantaFebuff
April 5th, 2009, 10:16 PM
My friend wanted to see if they could make a simulator with actual damage to locomotives and cars,<:udrool:> but it's simply too much... So I dismissed the idea, and he keeps wondering. Now, I'm thinking about it, and it would a be quite the show! I would like to propose something very radical. What that idea is simply: Is it possible to make a simulator with train damage? It would be very interesting, and for a more simpler programing, something of a repetitive form of damage is suggested. For example, the windows will crack the same no matter how different the derailment it. Although I ask that they (Or any other part of the consist) be damaged in only the inflicted area(s). A thing I've noticed in the first Burnout video game series, is that the cars broke in 3 series.

Light Impacts: Small damage; dents and window cracks; no headlights.
Medium Impacts: Exterior damaged quite a bit: extensive dents/buckling; windows cracked severely.
Heavy Impacts: Exterior crushed/buckled; excessive buckling/dents; windows shattered; car completely totaled.

Newer games have more graffics, but we're talking about computer simulators, not beefed up video game systems. It's radical, but very interesting, and with every-more amazing technology, is it really that far away? Simple improvements mentioned by Mr.Jingles are very nice too.

Something to chew on, isn't it?

Josh

Ronayne
April 5th, 2009, 10:22 PM
Still, don't hurt the trams!
:( :'(

Sampug394
April 5th, 2009, 10:28 PM
think about it...........a train crash most likely will explod.

Think about it, Most Derailments DO NOT Explode, Unless It's a Tanker Train full of Flammable Chemicals. :n:

Sampug394
April 5th, 2009, 11:47 PM
REALLY PEOPLE, I have Read Smart things and Stupid Things on this Thread that Easily make it Worthy of being a "Heated Discussion".

I live in Colorado, Love Trains, and Trainz, but I have a few Things to Say from Reading all of this: :o

Bounding Boxes & Collision Detection: INGENIOUS.
When any Trainz Loco, Engine or Car happens to Derail or be Hit by Another at any Decent Speed, (SINCE Trainz is a Simulator of Real Life Railroads!) It SHOULD Go Off the Track, Other Cars Coupled SHOULD React in a Realistic Fashion, the Cars/Locos Hit SHOULD NOT Go Flying Over Mountains, And Instead Slide along the Ground for a Little Ways. (Keep this in Mind: Do you all know how IMMENSELY HEAVY a Locomotive is?) Also, In Case The Loco or Car Happens to Come in Visual Contact with a Tree or Building, it SHOULD Have Minor Deflection from hitting it in an Angle, but Really, We DON'T Need to have Extra Resources for Making Buildings be Destroyed, Trees Toppling over, (Those things are Heavy Too!) and Trainz being "Damaged".

Ratings:
Quite Simple. You People need to STOP Complaining about it! If you don't want to see Trainz Realistically Derailing, TURN OFF THE DERAILMENT REALISM. Seeing Cars Pile up is Realistic, Seeing things Phase through each other is NOT. :n:
We already have enough Violent Games in the World. WHY ON EARTH do you people want to turn an Excellent Game like Trainz into one Similar to that of ones where you Kill people for Money, Destroy Property, and Basically Ruin your Surroundings and Mindset!!!
Trainz is Meant to be a Cool Representation of Utilitarian Transport by Train! NOT a Useless Way of Virtually Destroying the Mode of Transport We all have come to Love! FORGET VIOLENCE AND EXPLOSIONS. Trainz piling up is Realistic Enough!


So! I've come to the Conclusion that REALISTIC DERAILMENTS are Actually a Good Idea! We Can make the Experience of Running Trainz more Fun, Challenging, and Realistic. And there are Ways of doing so That DON'T Require Useless External Add-Ons, and AREN'T Gigantic, Memory Sucking Processes.

Basically, We all need to Come to a Civil Conclusion about this.

~Sampug394 - Nick Beecher

Ronayne
April 6th, 2009, 12:17 AM
I agree!
This simulator should not become a Trainz version of Grand Theft Auto!
Its a simulator meant for you to drive the trains and trams, not smash them into each other or drive off cliffs! Get my Point!

Sampug394
April 6th, 2009, 01:05 AM
I agree!
This simulator should not become a Trainz version of Grand Theft Auto!
Its a simulator meant for you to drive the trains and trams, not smash them into each other or drive off cliffs! Get my Point!

Quite Right!

It's Better to see THIS than A Bunch of Smashed up Freight Cars with People shooting each other in some Retarded Rail-Terrorist attack!

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt357/Sampug394/DavidGoliath.jpg

This is a 7ft Broad Gauge Train next to a 2 Foot 3 Inch Narrow Gauge Train BTW... :p

Ronayne
April 6th, 2009, 01:08 AM
You are right!
Its much better to see that then a terrorist attack!
:) :D ;) :wave:

I'm glad someone agrees.

Euphod
April 6th, 2009, 01:26 AM
Think about it, Most Derailments DO NOT Explode, Unless It's a Tanker Train full of Flammable Chemicals. :n:

Butter didn't say explode, he said "explod", and I'm pretty sure most derailed trains do.:eek:

Ronayne
April 6th, 2009, 01:36 AM
Yeah, I think he did say explod
If the train is carrying oil, fuel or any other sustance like that it will usually explode if there is enough impact and if it isn't carrying fuel or oil it still might explode on impact.

randknu
April 9th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Allright maybe i should explain a few things to you children. I have seen many trainwrecks and read many reports on them. Explosions NEVER happens when the train crashes, worst case scenario it starts burning. If it's burning from a tank car that is leaking then THAT tank car will not explode. HOW-EVER if that flame is heating up a tank car that is NOT leaking. Then the pressure builds up and unless you are able too cool the tank it will eventually explode.

The kind of chemical will only change how long it takes and how dangerous the smoke is.

DON'T LISTEN TO HOLLYWOOD. It's all drama, effects and lies.

And i don't want trainz to simulate this, collision physics, sure. but i have 100 things before that on my trainz wishlist. On the other hand it seems that it's popular among some people to crash trains (which is grounds for concern if you ask me) and maybe auran could sell the game to a bigger audience if it had this.

Red_Rattler
April 9th, 2009, 06:11 PM
. . .and maybe auran could sell the game to a bigger audience if it had this.No it would not, as it would restrict what is available from rail companies that exist in real life, in that many transport companies have a condition that they [the simulator company] only allow them to use their logo, etc on simulators, if you don't publish or show crashes, or similar wording.

baz66
April 9th, 2009, 11:01 PM
Definately NO!!!
baz

jadebullet
April 10th, 2009, 01:47 PM
Once again, collision detection and bounding boxes is enough.

As for trains exploding in a collision, I call BS on that. I have always been interested in train wrecks, their causes, what happened that whole thing, and an explosion of a railcar or anything is extremely rare. There have been some, sure, but they are rare and based on circumstances. (train coupling breaking and the second section hitting the first section when the engineer breaks and the car hit is filled with dynamite and gunpowder.) Even high pressure tank cars are designed not to explode in a collision unless there is a fire which would heat up the substance inside and cause it to expand, and even then there are safety valves. You people need to do more research.


All we need is collision detection and bounding boxes. As for the companies getting upset, I call BS on that too. Yes, they do not want to see deformation in crashes and explosions, but they don't seem to mind if it is something as simple as the trains bouncing off of each other. (see MSTS for proof)

Ronayne
April 10th, 2009, 11:16 PM
In my opinion, I want this to stay a train driving simulator. not a Trainz version of Grand Theft Auto!

j_maybury
April 12th, 2009, 09:32 AM
As I see it train crashes, can only be a good thing (not the hollywood type) such things as crumple zones would only add to the realisem of trainz, and there for, you would pay the price for coupling up at the wrong speed. and what ever hapend to link brakeage, they never seam to break no mater what speed you are doing. they just alternate from green to red then back to green, what good's that?
and if you could add random brakedowns, and salvage of de-railed trains to the list it would only enhance the tasks and trials you could undertake.
Makeing it a GOOD thing not a BAD thing.

Just give them switches so the NIMBY's that are useless at shunting can turn them OFF.

jadebullet
April 12th, 2009, 02:16 PM
In my opinion, I want this to stay a train driving simulator. not a Trainz version of Grand Theft Auto!

Correct. Bounding boxes and collision detection will add to the realism of the driving portion, and would NOT turn it into GTA trainz edition.

Seriously, why don't people get that. As a fan of wreck trains, you know the ones with the train cranes and everything, I fell left out because I cannot set up a scenario where you drive a wreck train out to an accident.

scottling
May 9th, 2009, 04:52 PM
I agree!
This simulator should not become a Trainz version of Grand Theft Auto!
Its a simulator meant for you to drive the trains and trams, not smash them into each other or drive off cliffs! Get my Point!

Yeah okay, we get your point, but you don't get it, do you? The real point is that it's FUN, okay? Just because this is a driving simulator, doesn't mean that there can't be crash effects in the game. Just think, in the real world, a crash or some other disaster happens once a week, so why can't we replicate it? Fun is more important than anything else. Thank you, you've been a wonderful audience:)
That's my point, you can't change it, so:p

Iced8383
May 10th, 2009, 11:13 AM
I agree!
This simulator should not become a Trainz version of Grand Theft Auto!
Its a simulator meant for you to drive the trains and trams, not smash them into each other or drive off cliffs! Get my Point!


I agree. When I play X-Plane 9 multiplayer on my iPod, I don't attempt to crash into a plane, I'm trying to get from one airport to another!

legolistic
August 8th, 2010, 07:44 PM
Its annoying when the trains run into cars or other trains at crossings a,d no realism there. No crash occurs.

drrt4
August 8th, 2010, 08:33 PM
you did it again. :o

DRGW480
September 18th, 2010, 11:07 AM
You idiots, have you seen the power of todays monitors? They can handel collision systems and they are getting more powerful by the year. Besides what are simulators? They are a program that represents real world objects and places. With railroading, especially in the 1800's, collisions are an everyday thing. In fact in the U.S, there are more than 1,000 incidents that involve trains. So think realistically, take out collisions, you take out a big part of railroading. And I think that if you had a collision with train and car, that would be a big step forward cause that happens every single day in America and having warning and signal malfunctions would also improve the simulations quality in real word experience. And that's why people buy this game because it provides them with a real world experience while your in the comfort of your home and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. So, who agrees with me?

legolistic
September 18th, 2010, 11:16 AM
Do you see a long train going through a small 270 degree loop with a cross track Running through its own train?

Red_Rattler
September 18th, 2010, 09:02 PM
DRGW480 (& others that believe that simulators should have crashes on purpose), I don't think you understand

But I think the point maybe that Trainz should be more realistic, IF (note the word "if"), a train/tram (or moveable vehicle) happens to come off the tracks OF ITS ON ACCORD, and not done on purpose.

Their are reasons - quite significant ones(1) that I will expand on later (but may require help of another transport forum), that ANY simulator should not be made to as a "crash test" simulator.

1. It may be the difference of not having a model or not that appears in the real world.