Blog Comments

  1. Ghost42's Avatar
    Immense help, all smooth running AI so far has been due to luck!
    Updated March 12th, 2015 at 03:20 PM by Ghost42 (Spelling)
  2. mezzoprezzo's Avatar
    Will shadows of the cab superstructure be cast into the cab relative to the direction of the sun?

    If so, will those shadows be altered in intensity and definition, e.g. in relation to medium or heavy cloud cover?
  3. Dap's Avatar
    When I am dealing with double track with cross overs, I use statigically placed track marks at the cross overs so I can keep the train routed on the track I intend. This does not give AI the option to make the decision of which route to choose. Nav via trackmark is the driver command I use. After reading this blog, I may go back to using Drive via. Seems like it would keep AI more under my control.

  4. ish6's Avatar
    ---- Thanks Tony!!! Good to know these things!

  5. Tony_Hilliam's Avatar
    The AI is crossing over because it wants to take the shortest route. The bi-directional track says this is fine. Your options are really to make the track uni-directional (using direction markers) or providing the train a more specific route path to follow using via trackmark. This will effectively add waypoints to keep it on the piece of track you want it to stay on.

    Normally the AI will path ahead so any last second change leading to a SPAD sounds like something else is happening/changing (i.e. why is the AI waiting until the last second?)
  6. Lendorf's Avatar
    Looking at a TS12 V3.7 spline like a tunnel or bridge as example, where the LOD transitions in the distance of the lower LODs are referenced as meters away, where this LOD change is happening, why can not the same/similar "distance in meters" referencing be made for some scenery LODs implementation in their configuration? The way this is done presently is an arbitrary non defined distance, depending on several things beyond the control of a creator of such scenery items.

    This would prevent the sometimes very visible "popping" between say, from LOD0 to LOD1 on some scenery items in TS12, when this happens to be VERY close to the observer. As a creator of such scenery items then would have a little control where such change of LODs should happen. Of course, good creators will not specify ridiculous distance away changes, only a little further away where this transition is not so noticeable. As it is not always possible to reduce a Hi detail LOD to the next LOD without making, as said, this visual noticeable "popping" effect.

    Remember, I wrote "not always", most of the time, yes, a creator can/should/must create a somewhat smooth transition from LOD0 to LOD1 and so on. With trainzcars a creator can control and specify the LOD change by the size of the object compared to the view available (size of the trainzcar seen on screen or something like it). Why not similar or as in meters for some specific scenery items, obviously trees and the like excluded?

  7. norfolksouthern37's Avatar
    I have a question.

    Lets say I have a very long stretch of double-tracked main line, it is bi directional on both tracks. Every so often there is a crossover point, where one train can go from one track to the other. If I simply route a train from one end of the line to the other, it frequently changes from one track to the next depending on what one it thinks is closest, even though we are on double track. So really all he is doing is unnecessarily blocking two tracks. I thought this could be fixed if I turned the crossover points from track priority x to one below or above, but that doesn't help, he still wants to go right over them. So my question is, how can I avoid having them go from one side to the other yet still leave the option to be able to do so (i.e not using direction markers that would stop the AI and foul the signals).

    Another thing this causes is that the AI train gets to the crossover point, and there is a signal in front of that junction, the signal will be clear for line straight ahead, but at the last second the AI will switch the junction causing the signal to drop to red and SPAD. This is highly annoying.
  8. pcas1986's Avatar
    For Lennard (and other interested creators)

    There are changes in the pipeline for AssetX to provide additional on screen help and a link to config.txt tag explanations in the TrainzDev WiKi. This will take a little time as the help tags in the supporting XML file have to be updated and verified, and AssetX also needs validation against the scripts, such as TARDIS, that depend on it.

    My part in this is to create the help tags and validate the links. This is slow going. Part of the problem is that there are some tags, such as those you mention, that are unfamiliar to me, or have incomplete or contradictory information on the WiKi. Recently, I have been updating the WiKi explanations to clarify a given tag's purpose. There are some help pages that do not exist and, if appropriate, I will create them. If I get some technical detail wrong then others are welcome to correct. It is a WiKi after all.

    I suggest these changes to AssetX will be very beneficial to those wanting to create an asset for an unfamiliar KIND. It will certainly address some, but not all, issues regarding finding information on the WiKi.
  9. Lendorf's Avatar
    Hi, a question regarding tunnel- and bridge- splines, specific about their configurations for TS12 V3.7 onwards, hopefully also for T:ANE too. The example files by Rob are very good to learn with and from, how to build these and more important, HOW to configure for TS12 V3.7, once Rob uploaded a tunnel sample file very recently. With a LOD1 as well, to see exactly what needs to be done with LODs.

    As there are really no other examples of such items on the DLS nor any references in the DevWiki, except my recently uploaded new tunnel splines for TS12 V3.7, how is one supposed to know all the "newfangled" way to configure with all the NEW tags now mandatory, if one DOES NOT KNOW these new tags and configurations in the first place?

    Isn't it up to someone on your end to at the very least to tell us content creators who are interested in building new high grade and new scenery and/or spline content, with normal mapping and LODs, how to configure this now from TS12 V3.7 onwards?

    Seeing some of the new tags introduced for TS12 V3.7, which are flagged as faulty if one tries to use these in TS12 V3.3 to V3.6, why haven't any of these new tags been updated yet for the DevWiki? It is SO FRUSTRATING, first of all finding a Max mesh file of a new way of building tunnels (not actually a new way as such) but having changed the names of the mesh parts now used for the tunnel (and I guess) bridge splines too, as I haven't looked at the new bridge yet. From "tunnel start", tunnel end", "initiator" and "terminator" plus some others as it was the old way to now "endcap" and "interior" plus other new tags introduced as well.

    It was taking me a lot of trials to exactly find out how all these new tags fit in, what they do and what to alter in the configurations so all still works correctly etc. Looking at the older CCGs (TRS04), where freely text and example pictures tell and guide a content constructor of how to build a, say, a bogey or such.

    End of rant , thanks to Rob again for providing us with an example file and I hope, in future this will also happen to any new way of building content introduced by you people and thereby for us mere content creators to learn from. After all, not many of us Content Creators are coders or scriptwriters, nor clairvoyants.

  10. ish6's Avatar
    Thanks! Very Insightful!

  11. ish6's Avatar
    Thanks! Very insightful!!!

  12. leeferr's Avatar
    I have found this to be very useful information and it probably clears up why I'm having some problems in some of my sessions that I couldn't figure out. Thanks for the help. I'll have to give some of these suggestions a try.
  13. martinvk's Avatar
    Good to learn what is happening under the hood, so to speak. I have always tended to give end-to end AI orders, trusting they will sort things out, they usually do, but sometimes they really become confused. Knowing what they are trying to do while waiting now makes it easier to give the appropriate commands.
  14. Anglian44's Avatar
    This is really useful as my main interest is creating routes then programming the AI Drivers to run services while I sit back and watch. I have been away from Trainz for a while and I am playing catchup at the moment both with route creation and AI Control and understanding more about how the AI operates is very helpful. I will now go away and update my test routes with revised trackmarks and change some of the driver commands in light of the information contained in the 2 blogs. Thanks once again.

  15. TrainzDev's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by TrainzDev
    That's why this is only part 1.
    Part 2 (dealing with some more complex topics) is here.
  16. TrainzDev's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill69
    However although the above is all true there are other things to take into consideration.
    That's why this is only part 1.
  17. Bill69's Avatar
    I think I understand the AI system fairly well. However although the above is all true there are other things to take into consideration. The main one being signalling, as signals must be placed to allow a given train to complete it's orders. This is even more important in TS12 than it has been in previous versions. TRS2004 and TRS2006 had a very good operating AI system and even TRS2009 wasn't bad but TR12 with SP1 and HF1,2 & 3 can be very difficult to enforce. In the latest version a train seems to be very reluctant to see a trackmark that is beyond two junctions therefore more trackmarks have to be used to keep the train on it's intended path unless additional orders such as 'control junction' and 'free junction' are used.
    There also seems to be a problem when a trailing junction set against the train is encountered, even when it has a protecting signal and a trackmark is placed soon after the junction. Earlier versions up to TRS2009 did not have this problem.

  18. WindWalkr's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by TRam__
    may it be, it will be usefull to make a function

    Soup Asset.GetExtensionsSoup()

    Because now the construction of Asset.GetConfigSoup().GetNamedSoup("extensions") is too complicated to write every time.
    Not really. It's a few extra characters to type. If you're using the extensions container heavily in your script, then you should follow two guidelines which will both save you typing and improve performance:

    1. Store a reference to the 'extensions' soup in a local variable, instead of looking it up again each time you use it.
    2. Read your 'extensions' data in your Init() function, rather than at runtime. Copy any persistent values into member variables once, rather than every time you need to use them.


  19. TrainzDev's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by vincentrh
    In the modelling of a locomotive, the cabin is by far the most difficult thing to realize. In this connection, I meet a difficulty with the internal lighting : while my models are correctly enlightened with TRS2010, everything is far too much pale under TRS2012. We can note the same phenomenon with the cabin of one of your own creation, the UP SD40 (good lighting of the cabin with 2010, effect of overexposure with 2012). Does a solution exist?
    That's actually a bug in TS2010 and earlier - meshes attached to a cab interior weren't being lit by the correct light source. That was fixed in TS12, but we discovered this caused some problems - some of the built-in cabs became almost totally black. We came up with a compromise where the black ones are now just a bit dark, and some of the others have become a bit bright - but at least they are all visible.

    The best method of avoiding this and getting a consistent appearance across different versions is to avoid the 'shell cab' technique, and keep as much of the mesh as possible within the interior asset itself.

    If you want to keep using the shell cab technique, you might wish to investigate tuning the material properties (in particular, the response to directional and ambient lighting).
  20. vincentrh's Avatar
    In the modelling of a locomotive, the cabin is by far the most difficult thing to realize. In this connection, I meet a difficulty with the internal lighting : while my models are correctly enlightened with TRS2010, everything is far too much pale under TRS2012. We can note the same phenomenon with the cabin of one of your own creation, the UP SD40 (good lighting of the cabin with 2010, effect of overexposure with 2012). Does a solution exist?

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast