Route builders , how far do you go?

dangavel

Well-known member
For me when making a prototypical route, I like to see off into the far distance,if there were hills 10 miles away , i want them there , otherwise its not prototypical. However, it does require a hell of a lot of work to achieve this affect and it also probably throws an extra load on the graphics card. But, because of this strategy, I end up with scenes like this ... the far distance has the minimal amount of items to make it look sort of convincing a mile or so away.

A0yahpm.jpg


I cant stand to see the edges of the route , it just kills it for me, but i realise that given the popularity of model railroad indoor routes here, i am in the minority, so my point is, how many other route builders here are as anal as i am in this respect. ?
 
I tend to raise some hills or something so the edges aren't obvious, but I sure like that screenshot!
 
I tend to raise some hills or something so the edges aren't obvious, but I sure like that screenshot!

I try to do the same if I can , some routes lend themselves to that , if the line goes through hills, its the endless flat lands that are the problem in this case. The other side of the line not in shot only goes back a few boards as it slopes up, but this side can also be seen from another part of the route where the line climbs. the country also generally gets lower too by about 10 meters , so if I limit the boards there's issues with sight lines further down the line. i think if i ever finish this i will do a freelance route, all narrow canyons and just a few boards wide :)
 
Yup I can relate...

I'll raise the land just a bit at the edges as if to appear like rolling hills even it it's the smallest amount.

I also detest floating roads and track and go through great lengths to tamp them down and fill in terrain if needed underneath.
 
While I can also relate it is not always an option. Here in Oz I have been in many locations where the land from horizon to horizon for 360 degrees was totally flat - like being in the middle of the ocean.
 
While I can also relate it is not always an option. Here in Oz I have been in many locations where the land from horizon to horizon for 360 degrees was totally flat - like being in the middle of the ocean.

Yes, i know that well, much of the South Australian interior is like that, i suppose in those cases , you have to draw the line after a mile or so, and avoid aerial shots .
Imagine trying to model the Nullabor plain ! :)
 
While I can also relate it is not always an option. Here in Oz I have been in many locations where the land from horizon to horizon for 360 degrees was totally flat - like being in the middle of the ocean.
Funny thing is, if its that flat, you can see the natural curvature of the earth.
 
I also tend to raise the ground at edges, but you can also lay in a long thick row of trees to hide the "edge of the world."
 
I also tend to raise the ground at edges, but you can also lay in a long thick row of trees to hide the "edge of the world."

They are very handy, as they can hide a multitude of sins, but alas, not a single tree in the entire stretch I posted earlier in the pic , so not an option I can take, its dry out in that part of Utah.....
 
With Transdem I will normally extract to 7 tiles either side of the vector line, which = around 5km in the sim. However anything beyond 2km normally only gets a wash of suitable terrain texture, similar to how distant mountains work in MSTS. Of course as view distance increases, even 5km might not cut it in really mountainous territory, but there has to be compromise between what you can see and adding another circle of tiles which could up the gnd file size by several 100Mb. The other view I take when route building, is I need to focus on what's visible from the cab, or carriage window essentially a realistic human real world viewpoint. This is supposed to be a train sim, not helicopter at 500ft sim.
 
With Transdem I will normally extract to 7 tiles either side of the vector line, which = around 5km in the sim. However anything beyond 2km normally only gets a wash of suitable terrain texture, similar to how distant mountains work in MSTS. Of course as view distance increases, even 5km might not cut it in really mountainous territory, but there has to be compromise between what you can see and adding another circle of tiles which could up the gnd file size by several 100Mb. The other view I take when route building, is I need to focus on what's visible from the cab, or carriage window essentially a realistic human real world viewpoint. This is supposed to be a train sim, not helicopter at 500ft sim.
But if you are a bystander you could easily be on a high vantage point above the track.Multiple camera angles are available if you want to shoot a video outside of the passenger or driver experience.
One of the best angles is looking down from nearby hills , its often used by people who document routes such as the Cumbres and Toltec, the camera might easily be 500 feet above the track , i try to cater for those sort of shots as well as low angle and track side stuff.
 
I prefer to concentrate on using the limited time that I can spend on route building to create scenery close to the tracks and simulate far-off scenery by using backdrops which I created from my own photographs.

Heacham.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

This is a view towards the Wash from Heacham junction station on the King's Lynn to Hunstanton line in North-West Norfolk (UK). I know that not everyone likes backdrops, but they satisfy me! - which as I do not publish routes is all that matters.

Ray
 
Funny thing is, if its that flat, you can see the natural curvature of the earth.

I saw that in TX while heading towards Carlsbad, NM back in 2009. It really was flat in that part then the land started rising up again to form rolling hills that got steeper and steeper in New Mexico. This was all limestone which lends me to believe we were again at the bottom of a great lake or the ocean at that point.
 
Also around 7 tiles either side.
Can I see it from any or all parts of the track?
Yes leave it there.
No delete the board(s)
 
I mostly get rid of the excess baseboards that don't have anything on them. To give you an idea of what I mean, here is my trimmed down, customized Kickstarter County...
My-Trainz-Screenshot-Image.jpg
 
Since I'm doing a deep Appalachia railroad I don't have vast flat areas to worry about. Like many here I to hate to see any edges of the route. When making the route I choose the distance of how far to go from track and railfan vantage points. This is the biggest reason I love this hobby over my old model trains. With my model trains I was always getting my head down to track side to see this perspective instead of a top down view. With Trainz I'm down in the action and for me the view track side is the most important.

Dave
 
delete....................................................................................
 
Last edited:
Since I'm doing a deep Appalachia railroad I don't have vast flat areas to worry about. Like many here I to hate to see any edges of the route. When making the route I choose the distance of how far to go from track and railfan vantage points. This is the biggest reason I love this hobby over my old model trains. With my model trains I was always getting my head down to track side to see this perspective instead of a top down view. With Trainz I'm down in the action and for me the view track side is the most important.

Dave

My area in New England, also a bit of Appalachia, but on the far eastern end of the mountain range is similar. The high hills are nice for hiding board edges, but then like you I have to contend with foliage. In order to achieve the look and feel of southern New England, I need lots and lots of trees, but putting in that number of trees means my computer will melt from all the geometry.

The B&M connected to the south... The valley is blanketed with trees as if the hills are covered in foam and shag carpet.
 

Attachments

  • 2015-12-14 005914.jpg
    2015-12-14 005914.jpg
    85.3 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:
My area in New England, also a bit of Appalachia, but on the far eastern end of the mountain range is similar. The high hills are nice for hiding board edges, but then like you I have to contend with foliage. In order to achieve the look and feel of southern New England, I need lots and lots of trees, but putting in that number of trees means my computer will melt from all the geometry.

The B&M connected to the south... The valley is blanketed with trees as if the hills are covered in foam and shag carpet.

Yes I'm having the same issues, but with sage.... at least trees have a fair height, if used carefully they can mask bare patches , but sage is so low you can still see stuff behind it , I've managed to create a reasonable texture for sage that can be used at a distance so can get away with texturing really distant hills and it doesn't look like a load of repeated spots in the distance. Tree textures on the ground rarely seem to work unless they are a very long way away, it nearly always looks like a texture, not a tree.
I've just been looking at how many boards wide my route is, its an average of 7 , a few places where hills allow it to be 4 or 5, but a few areas where its 12 due to the direction of the route , height of the track at summits, branch spurs etc.
 
Back
Top