Backdrops -- Yes or No?

E

epa

Angry Trainz Nerd
For years, Trainz users have been placing backdrop assets in their routes. These flat objects are used so route builders don't have to build far from the tracks, and some just flat-out look cool. But I'm at wit's end here, trying to decide if I want to use them in my routes. Check out the two screenshots below (click to see full size). In the first pic, you can see that backdrops can add quite a bit of life to an otherwise plain background. The second, however, shows that they are absolutely worthless at short draw distances due to premature despawning.






Aside from laziness, I mainly use these assets because I think they help performance a bit, with the game trying to load a single flat wall with a texture on it instead of hundreds of extra boards of scenery.

How do you guys feel about backdrops? Do you use them? Should I use them? Do they have an affect on performance, either good or bad?

Matt
 
Well I use them as I am on a long route project although a time ago said I wished there scene that could be stretched rather than was a hill scene I had to repeatedly put in and slows your building a bit.
 
I do not like them when I use 1 one baseboard wide layout. If the person playing the route is moving around, I don't want them to see something like that backdrop. Sounds weird but there's a feeling I get when I'm on a route and I see those backdrops that ruins the feeling of a real-world environment.
 
I haven't used them in any of my routes, but my opinion is that they are like a lot of other content: the right asset in the right place looks stunning, but the wrong asset in the right place, or the right asset in the wrong place is a distraction. I don't think this is a question which has a "one size fits all" answer.

ns
 
Backdrops can look really pretty good. They can create the sense of depth at a distance and as already mentioned "life". Depending on what the backdrop looks like I see nothing wrong in using them. Having them close to a track depends on the visual quality of the drop and how it can be incorporated with other content to look realistic.
 
It depends how you use Trainz ... If you use rotating, or static, trackside camera's, when these are positioned down low at a railfans FOV, a backdrop can look very real

In my opinion, chasing along, following a train, pacing it with a whirlybird heliocopter is the most unrealistic viewing mode
 
cascaderailroad said:
...
In my opinion, chasing along, following a train, pacing it with a whirlybird heliocopter is the most unrealistic viewing mode
Click to expand...

Unrealistic - yes, but I like to hover out to one side of the loco remembering to duck back into the cab when bridges come along. Or, if I feel like Superman I'll just crash right through them. :hehe:

I think the backdrops look OK if a couple of baseboards back but they can look silly on a one board layout. The Model Railway layouts are different where you need them to give the illusion of being in a house or basement.

It would be better if you could stretch them like laying out a roll of paper. When I have used them, I spend a lot of time getting them to match up.

p.s. I don't feel much like Superman these days although even he must be over a 100 by now.
 
I definitely use them - my own - when creating a model railway/railroad. First I place a skyscene - I have three versions, one flat, one with a frame, and one with a frame with bevelled corners ( to ensure a smooth corner join). These are splines, or "wallpaper" if you like. In front of these I then place one of my conventional backdrops - trees, country, town, etc. These are planes which can be joined end-to- end and are in fractions of a baseboard length, for example 240 metres. I then add conventional trees etc. in front especially if there is any mismatch.

I emphasise that this is for a MODEL layout.

As for viewing, I consider that only chase view is appropriate for a MODEL layout. Model locomotives have been equipped with miniature cameras, but these are not the norm, especially for me and my preferred era in which I like to think I am building the model - the 1960s. Just one of my self-imposed model railway rules.

Ray
 
It's been awhile since I last used backdrops but IIRC were they not a "always render" item in that it would be drawn regardless of draw distance? In fact I remember one of my gripes with backdrops was exactly this; backdrops at a higher elevation would look like a floating white shape when viewed from a few baseboards away.
 
Strange, though the OP's second pic is intended to demonstrate the shortcomings of bground, it actually serves to illustrate very nicely one of the more positive achievements of TANE: improved distance view. Personally, I dislike bdrops. They tend to be tiled and whatever illusion they create in the short term is lost once they are seen for what they are. It is pretty easy to manipulate the midground using slopes and trees to block off the distance view. In this case, it is easy to create a far-off hills effect, for instance, by arraying empty boards behind the midground out to where you want those hills. This part of the world has purple hills at every horizon, but I have travelled in flat lands where there is just no horizon at all. A simple focal point, a spire, chimney or tower, serves very well to break the monotony here.
 
I tried to make a very huge mountains backdrop and placed it on baseboard which located far away from main route baseboard. And it looks pretty good I think. The route looks 10x larger.
But unfortunately, T:ANE no longer give support to backdrops-type scenery to have an ability for keep the backdrop always visible. So They will disappear when I set the draw distance option to low.

<click to see full size>
 
Those do look quite good.

I noticed a check box for routes/sessions overriding draw distances. I wonder if this feature could be used to an advantage, assuming the user has the option enabled to allow draw distance override?
 
Sometimes they work; sometimes they don't. It depends upon the situation.

The work well if they're tucked in behind foreground hills to add to the continuation of the landscape. What needs to be done is to choose the area carefully and blend stuff in with textures.

The problem though, is backdrops have issues. As Nicky says they appear as white slices in the air when placed up on higher elevations. They also seem to cause a performance hit, which I can't figure out why but when I remove them the framerates go up in that area. And then there's that repeated image. That gets annoying especially now with T:ANE having the longer draw distance.

It would be nice if they were more like splines which we could stretch to length so we don't get the repeated pattern of the same hill, farmhouse, and trees repeatedly down the length.
 
It has been a very long time since I did this but I used to create accurate backdrops for racing car games using google earth and a program from NASA who's name escapes me. Of course with a race track you could create a 360 degree backdrop, not so much for a 100 mile railroad.

TrainzItalia does a bang up job on their West from Denver route, carefully placed mountain backdrops lend a feel of depth that wouldn't be possible otherwise.
 
My model railway backscenes are splines, just sky with a few clouds (my own photos), and two include the timber framing needed for a "real" model railway backscene. They are 18" high in UK 1:76 scale and in front of them I usually place my conventional tree backdrops, which I made in assorted lengths to be placed end-to-end and then match. I then place scenery trees in front of these, especially in front of joins (although matching is usually perfect unless there is an overlap). I have also made town and country backdrops in series which placed end-to-end cover a full baseboard length without repetition - adequate for my modest attempts at a virtual model railway. Occasionally the backdrops show a white edge which disappears if they are removed and then replaced.

It is necessary for textures for backdrops to include "tile none" which normally avoids white edges together with very careful editing of the alpha channel - pixel by pixel - to avoid white spots. It can be a long job!

Ray
 
JCitron said:
...They also seem to cause a performance hit, which I can't figure out why but when I remove them the framerates go up in that area. And then there's that repeated image. That gets annoying especially now with T:ANE having the longer draw distance.

It would be nice if they were more like splines which we could stretch to length so we don't get the repeated pattern of the same hill, farmhouse, and trees repeatedly down the length.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to know which would cost more in terms of performance: a detailed backdrop, or extending the baseboards with either basic textures extending to the "horizon," or mountains with basic shapes and texturing to provide the same effect as the backdrop?

I also remember seeing somewhere that someone has developed some excellent looking mountain splines...

This is a great thread, folks. This is the kind of discussion that makes me check in a couple of times daily!
 
cressjl said:
I would be interested to know which would cost more in terms of performance: a detailed backdrop, or extending the baseboards with either basic textures extending to the "horizon," or mountains with basic shapes and texturing to provide the same effect as the backdrop?

I also remember seeing somewhere that someone has developed some excellent looking mountain splines...

This is a great thread, folks. This is the kind of discussion that makes me check in a couple of times daily!
Click to expand...

I agree this is one of those good conversations up here.

I agree that would be an interesting experiment. The problem is it's Trainz. Some things don't always cause a performance hit in exactly the same way because of the variations and locations of stuff on the baseboard at that particular moment or that particular route. I suppose to do this the right way we would need two kinds of routes at least with one route being stuffed with content and the other a bit lighter on the content side. At this point, I haven't used much in the way of backdrops since TS2010 due to this reason, however T:ANE may treat them differently so we maybe in for a treat now.

I remember seeing those splines too at one point, but never followed up on them.
 
Well as I indicated earlier I have been putting in an awful lot of backdrops as my large project is based on a realssystem and want the background to look reasonable. The one dashed thing that is awkward is that matter of dragging dozens of hill scenes to places and corners of boards. I do wish that there was a reasonable not too high hill scenery with ability just to stretch and bend at corners as the alternative is a nuisance and time consuming.

Maybe some kind and clever man will do such and if he ever comes here to Glasgow the centre of the universe be assured of a lovely meal in a posh restaurant.
:cool:​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Content for lower end machines.
Replies
0
Views
120
johnwhelan
J
P
DEM Earthworks
2
Replies
22
Views
764
JCitron
J
U
Mobile Apps are Janky as Heck
Replies
3
Views
481
PerRock
P
R
Asset texturing problem
Replies
2
Views
329
pcas1986
P
J
BNSF Fall River Division - a Route Inspired by John Parker's HO Scale Layout
Replies
3
Views
494
RetroRails12
R
Back
Top