Edinburgh - Dundee Route Test

Session - Endinburgh to Dundee Sleeper

Route installed successful. First impression was that it looked good and the opening sequence was impressive.

Drove to 1st stop at Haymarket Central. Very difficult to maintain schedule, certainly on 1st attempt!

After leaving Haymarket the following messages appeared before arriving at Inverkeithing:

Unable to plot route - Junction is missing lever after junction KIRKCALDY SOUTH J10

Unable to plot route - Junction is missing lever after junction 1935996

After travelling across the Firth of Forth bridge and driving through North Queensferry you enter the tunnel. The North portal of this tunnel is sitting too high.



At Inverkeithing you are asked to stop train just short of signalbox. Mileage stop at 13.6 miles. However there is no indication of trip log, that used to be in the HUD, that indicates just how far you have travelled.

When allowed to depart Inverkeithing, signal 88540 does not give a green so if you try to pass it you receive a SPAD and the session finishes. Looking at the junction, 298512 in Surveyor, just after the signal, it is just noticeable that the trackwork has been incorrectly installed such that if the point motor is showing to the right you actually travel onto the left branch which is occupied. This needs to be corrected before the session can be completed.



If you look closely at the screenshot you can actually see 2 tracks going from the point motor and the one on the right finally goes back across to for the branch line.

Will now try the Dundee to Edinburgh session.

Session - 1E52 09:10 Dundee- Kings Cross

The 1st time I started this session it was very jerky /stuttering while the scene was being established. I figured this must be due to caching so when I restarted it was much smoother and quicker in loading the set scene.

Finally underway and discovered that this session is not like the other session in that there was no point score and stars showing at the top of the screen. I was told I either added points or lost points during the run but I had no continuous indication of what the total points were. Interestingly I was awarded 5 stars and a perfect run when, as far as I was concerned as it was only a 1st run and I had no idea of the route, it was a pretty poor run!

Several items on note that I noticed were.

1 The 2 level crossing on the track just north of Ladybank appeared to be sunk into the track until you got close and then they appeared at the correct height but they did not open.








Eventually arrived at Inverkeithing and found that around 5 consists had banked up due to the inability to continue further north.

Crossed the Firth of Forth bridge an noticed this group of light headed passengers waiting on the up platform.

I'm not in the beta test, but has this seriously been pre-released with such glaring errors? Has the route builder not done a snagging drive and fly by of the route before offering it up for testing? I would be ashamed to put a freeware route out in that state, let alone something which will become a payware component of a commercial product.

Vern said:

I'm not in the beta test, but has this seriously been pre-released with such glaring errors? Has the route builder not done a snagging drive and fly by of the route before offering it up for testing? I would be ashamed to put a freeware route out in that state, let alone something which will become a payware component of a commercial product.

Click to expand...

Seconded Vern I am really looking forward to this one being not from the UK I was expecting big things from this Route, If the community has to re-build it we may as well of made it from the start.
Cheers Mick.

Has this route been constructed to TRS19 standards? I do not see any PBR textures or Turfx etc in the screenshots. If this is the case then I have to ask what is the point of having this route as built in TRS19? And further, many of the assets (ie platforms) are really dated now. Seriously, with the capability of TRS19 why is there not PBR standard assets like platforms at the very least?

Firstly, note the name of the form you are posting to... "Beta"!

The team who have been working on the route for several years would be disheartened to hear these comments from people who (I think) haven't even seen the route yet. I personally think the route captures the feeling of the area perfectly.

The whole concept of beta testing is to find these things prior to release (and the reason it isn't released to "the masses" yet is so that they cannot pick holes in a yet=to-be-completed product).

More info:

It was a late decision to include the route as originally it wasn't going to be ready by our deadline then after the deadline slipped, Stuart requested that it now be included.

It has been extensively updated with TRS19 features, so I'm not sure where the idea has come from that it isn't. There were a couple of junctions shown in the video that had been missed during the procedural track update and given the route was begun over 10 years ago, yes, there are still some older assets included (although many also have been updated).

Our decision was that it is better to add more content for a route that will be very popular, than it would by withholding it.

Youtube trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBlgGtsHoRU

We'll be posting screenshots of the route when we get some time.

Lastly, we could have gone down the "$49.99 for one route" road, but decided that $69.99 for 6 routes was a better option for our customers. We hope that people who understand the magnitude of creating routes of this scale understand that a few passengers ending up higher than planned (or perhaps it was the platform lower than planned) is not an unusual occurence - quite likely due to an attempt to fix some other bug in the area.

Ultimately, commercial realities dictate that if you want complete perfection, you will need to pay more than $15 per route.

You should run for politics Tony, And yes i do know what section i am posting in Beta for TRS2019 not Beta for a Route that has been supposedly years in the making by a supposed team who cant get a crossing correct or has a couple of American cowboys on horse's waiting to cross at that crossing, Let alone their track work correct.
Give Joe ( Socal ) a call or Andy Turnbal ( Dermmy) and get them on board this stuff is just route building 101 I would of thought.
But please don't try to sell me this we only paid so much but should of paid a whole lot more to get the proper route rubbish Tony.
Cheers Mick.

Tony,

This is a screenshot of my QR Route taken near Gatton ( I just happen to be working on it now). I do not claim to be a great modeller and I have been working on this route for many years as well. But you can see that I have updated to TRS19 standard as much as possible. My question is why in the screenshots above do we not see any of the materials available in TRS19? forgive me if the screenshots are not indicative but I see splines for grass, not turfx for instance.

Second that about the PBR etc. While noting Tony's response, the version of Edinburgh to Dundee released for RW/TS20xx by Just Trains quite some years ago, incorporated quite a few of the older Kuju assets. However it still managed to convey an up to date and largely error free impression when it came to driving. It's not like this is a huge route for length. Not belittling the builder(s) at all, but if you are going for commercial level content then you need to be on top of the game. That means checking, re-checking and going over every inch of the thing until you may be sick of the sight of it, but are content it's ready for the spotlight.

All this beta exercise has done is indicate that standards at N3V and among their associates are not quite what they ought to be (IMHO).

I'm just trying to provide the facts here. N3V spend the majority of our resources on development, testing, support and marketing. We have content partners who provide the majority of the content. We do provide support to those creators and this does include creating sessions, updating assets, polishing, updating routes etc.

Would we like to have a team of 10 people working on each route - absolutely. Can we afford to do that? No.

We're more than happy to receive top quality content from anyone, and you can make a decent amount of money from it too. So rather than providing us screenshots of your work, why not become involved in the next version of Trainz now and have your route included?

Check our site at: contentcreators.trainzportal.com

Tony,

As someone who does beta testing, although due to some major time restrictions here I did not sign up for route testing this time, I do know what a beta is. Beta means it works, but it might be broken too, and it's best to report the faulties now before they make it into the final product.

With that said. From looking at the screenshots above, I do see the route creators need to fiddle and fuss with the details. Among them are the usual candidates that get caught up in the process of route building. The same crossing needs a bit of straightening out too if possible. It's a couple of degrees out of alignment causing the tracks to swing a bit as the cross through the crossings.

Looking at the roads some more, there are some that are floating and need tamping down. This is more obvious now with the shadows appearing under splines. Believe me these were always my peeve with my own routes, and with the shadows it's more obvious.

If I were working on the route, I would not only check the roads, but also buildings too. There's nothing worse than noticing levitating buildings, or those that are sitting precariously on the edge of a slope. A little tapping down, tamping, squishing there, and that takes care of that. The same with fences, walls, and other splines. There's nothing worse than seeing the underbellies of spline objects, and houses without cellars floating in space.

Tunnels again... Is it a tunnel spline issue, or is it a route issue? I've come across this in a few places here and there on various routes I brought into TRS19, and I'm not sure if it was my fault, the content creator's fault, or the program, thus, nothing was reported in that area.

Other things like grass splines. They could be replaced with procedural Turf-FX grass. This is a big undertaking on older routes, I know since I started this on a route of my own and yikes that's a lot of grass! With that said, perhaps Stuart and the crew can plan on that in a future update.

But... it's the attention to the little details such as these which really make or break the quality of a product no matter what the cost. If the route, or whatever it is, is done well it will stick out in the consumer's mind, and the purchasing public will be more willing to go back for more. Take Jointed Rail's various routes for instance. The Coal Country and Eagle River, for example, are two truly outstanding works by Rich (Scratchy). There's a lot of attention to the details here to ensure stuff isn't floating, too obviously among other things.

And finally, during the beta, a critique is a critique, and use this opportunity to get these things fixed. We know it's hard work, and the better the quality in the long run will mean that you can justify the price that you really want to charge for the route and fewer qualms will be made over the price.

My two cents...

Vern --

Just to throw in my two cents worth. I'd actually be happy with no included routes. I've always been slightly disappointed by all of them and these long routes I find incredibly tedious.

All that I want is the tool box that provides me with the equipment to do my own routes and layouts.

Having said that, though, the absolute minimum requirement for routes included in TRS19 should be:

• All TRS19 procedural track.
• All PBR textures.
• All TurfFX grasses.
• All SpeedTrees.

My instructions to any individual or group offering a route for inclusion would have been "Make it so."

Phil

Opened the route, created a new session and went for an end to end drive from north to south using the default switch settings. That worked everywhere except for one place where I ended up in a siding. I don't know what the real route looks like but the one I drove looks and feels real. The landscaping is very well done with many small touches that add to the experience. Adding the extended runway lights at the end of the runway, the flowers in little corners, etc., it all adds up.

One area I feel needs some work is the track alignment or rather the lack of it at many turnouts. My vehicle would suddenly lurch sideways when traversing many of them indicating that two sections of straightened track were placed without a non-straightened section between them. If the two straightened sections are perfectly aligned, it would not be noticeable but any skew in the alignment makes it very obvious.

I also noticed the elevated tunnel portal but not any of the light-headed people along the route I traveled. Obvious but easy to fix.

The new PBR ground textures are nicely used near the tracks which really adds to the overall look. Too bad that in some of the higher embankments, the "lava flow" because of those textures is a bit visually jarring. I suggest that it would be better to use the older textures in such places to give a more stable ground at the expense of a less aesthetically pleasing look.

Somehow, this route looks worse than Kickstatart County. That's impressive.

Phil - those instructions are pretty much the way it is right now (and in fact, pretty much the way the routes are being delivered).

Regarding the "include no routes" that would work for the route builders like yourself, but that's still a [albeit significant] minority.

I have taken a close look around the route today and I agree that there are some areas that need more work (which was already ongoing, but has now been allocated further time).

Chris - while I totally disagree, do you really need to say that? Please consider how to make constructive comments or don't make them at all.

To those providing constructive feedback, thanks - it's easy to fix "track aligment at crossings" but impossible to do anything with comments like "looks worse than Kickstarter".

Dare I say that part of the problem is that many of these routes are being built in versions of Trainz before that of the current or intended future version. It is stated this route has been under construction for some years and I'm assuming it has been broken off from the behemoth but sadly dated ECML project to serve as a standalone section. That means its origins were probably in TRS2006 or to be kind TRS2010, ergo the floating roads and dated looking platforms from that era. You need to break that cycle so those offering to support the product by supplying "official" content have a SDK that advances the toolset, assets and any new techniques in the target version.

NB: There are some FMA UK platforms in both "MS" and contemporary style which would look much better if used to replace those the route author appears to have used. Small things like that can transform the TRS2010 look into something worthy of the current standards. Likewise, replace those awful dated level crossings with the newer TRC/DMT UK versions.

Vern said:

Dare I say that part of the problem is that many of these routes are being built in versions of Trainz before that of the current or intended future version.

Click to expand...

I agree but the problem is the lead time (in my case years) needed to develop a new TRS19 route from scratch particularly when many/most route creators are yet to master the new tools and techniques plus the very sensible reluctance of creators to start a new project in a beta version of the program.

I am currently in the process of upgrading an old TRS2006 route of mine to TANE standard and then, when I have enough confidence in using TRS19 Surveyor (the retail version when released), I will convert it to TRS19 hopefully with all the "fancy" addons but it will probably take an upgrade to my aging desktop before that can happen.

While I like the idea, I suspect that an TRS19 SDK may take too much time and effort to develop.

I would like to remind users that this will be the first version of Trainz (apart from v1) that uses the latest technology in the builtin routes that ship with the product. We;re way ahead of where we have been in the past (although short of where users would like us to be of course).

Historically the technology has been introduced and the updated routes would follow. For example, TS2009 delivered 5m grid capabilities, but no 5m grid routes etc.

Thie time around, we have new techniques, new materials, new lighting, and new tools all being used in the new routes.

From here on, things will only get better.

Add to that the ability to edit and share the builtin/payware routes and those of you who would like to see more of this, or less of that, can do so, and upload your own version to the DLS for the benefit of others.

In the future, lots of people will be able to collaborate on a single route and work together to produce a masterpiece that everyone in the team can be proud of!

Sometimes it helps to not have as good an "eyesight" as one might once of had, LOL. I did note some "floating track" out East of Dundee, also some stray "blue lines" laying in a field West of Dundee. But I made a little session to run a test train South from Dundee all the way down, set back and watched the scenery, saw many areas of marvelously complex track work, etc. It's nice to expect perfection, but sometimes I think people protest too much. I agree with Tony's latest post. This is a new engine, I suspect those clever people who have worked the route over x years, when given another year with the new tools we will be saying WOW. My eyes are already saying Wow!

Well I have done a complete flyby in Surveyor, may not have caught every little glitch however.
Appears to be a lot of TurfFx from what I've seen, however some of it appears to have been used over traditional splines.

Airborne passengers at:

Culpar - Platform 1.
Inverkeithing - Platform 1
North Queensferry - Platforms 1 & 2
Dalmeny - Platforms 1 & 2

Note. Not an excuse but easy to miss if checking in surveyor if you are not looking for it due to the overlays for the invisible platforms obscuring the view of the actual platform.

Sunken boat, spotted investigating smoke rising from water at Forth Bridge, south end.

No seen any issues with tunnels or bridges or floating roads apart from the edge of a plane being rather obvious on one tunnel or bridge, forgot to note however a slight tweak on the terrain would fix that.

Some slight track tweaking required, I've seen far worse and this is at present a Beta.

I'm pretty sure the ECML team is now down to just 1.