Trainz Model Railroad 2

[Vern]

Good points Martin. I have a number of plans which I would love to translate into the Trainz Model paradigm, but tunnels in particular make it impractical, as does building multiple overlapping tracks. Even scaling up the plan (I tend to set OO/HO plans to TT scale in Basemapz) doesn't always help. Several of the old Peco plans from the 70's are crying out to be done and I have a lovely plan of a layout based on Blair Atholl from an early 1960's Railway Modeller that has defied several attempts to reproduce.

[SharkNose]

Indeed. Terrain, IMHO, is the most deficient aspect of Trainz. Many a time have I brought a real world area in from TransDEM because I like the topography, but then abandoned it because it loses many of the details that I liked.

[SharkNose]

As an example of my previous post, here's a railroad right next to a shallow canal in Trainz.



I'm not about to adjust all that terrain to hide the "water corners". Nature does not design using pinking shears. Nor does she allow corners in only 4 compass directions. Sorry for the side rant, but this can apply to Trainz Model Railroad too.

[Vern]

Quite right Sharknose. In fact on my model projects I rarely use the "real" water but just use spline planes or even texture to represent it.

[kcwright_rm]

So for this debate over TMR2, i think it shouldnt be its own game, i think TMR should be included in the stock game (TRS 2023 i'm guessing for the next release), the content for building MRR routes would be included but the routes would be DLC (and then the regular game stuff would be a given)

[1611mac]

I asked some questions above and thought I had gained some insight on TMR but as this thread grows I just get confused again. With all the current Model Railroad routes available and all the assets currently available specific to Model Railroads (and more and more each week), why is a "TMR2" needed except, of course, for marketing reasons to sell more software? Sure, there can always be improved tools but why wouldn't improvements just be incorporated into TRS19 SPx? Again, I can see the sales advantage of a Model Railroad route bundle, but another build with features specific to TMR? Why, why, why (I ask myself.) (And I'm really just talking to myself here.)

[Christopher824]

So for this debate over TMR2, i think it shouldnt be its own game, i think TMR should be included in the stock game (TRS 2023 i'm guessing for the next release), the content for building MRR routes would be included but the routes would be DLC (and then the regular game stuff would be a given)

I respectfully disagree, and concede we may never know the 'best' answer.

But, it may be advantageous to release the TMR2 now or soon, and 'test the waters' with the new TRS19 SP2 build engine version 4.7, version 4.8 maybe for TRM2. Then still stay on target for TRS23 as you say. The producers get more money now, which can aid development, and when you get TRS23, maybe version 4.9 or 5.0, you will ultimately get a better product (hopefully )

To me looks like a 'win win'

[ricomon35]

As an example of my previous post, here's a railroad right next to a shallow canal in Trainz.



I'm not about to adjust all that terrain to hide the "water corners". Nature does not design using pinking shears. Nor does she allow corners in only 4 compass directions. Sorry for the side rant, but this can apply to Trainz Model Railroad too.

Ideas:

I'm thinking that having N3V add animated volumetric water like Cities:Skylines has, would solve 99% of the fudging work we all have to do when adding water features to MR layouts (especially edge of table areas).

First, form your water basin/way, texture, then plop a water emitter asset that has adjustable settings for depth/animation/flow rate and some really nice looking water areas could be made.

Of course, once we have this feature, then giving us resolution control over grid areas would be needed. I.e 10m grid in very flat areas, 5m for hills/shallow valleys, 2-1m for steep mountains, detailed rock work and shallow water areas i.e swamps, ponds, creeks, streams. Anything finer can be handled via PBR texturing.

This could implemented with a selection tool that would allow a route builder to marquee a grid areas, then apply the needed grid scale.

This is a dem based map I'm building in C:S of an area in Iceland, ice flows simulated by application of a custom normal map to the water texture set. Water is added via a large invisible water generator and flows to fill in the sea basin.





Much more intricate coastlines can be formed with finer terrain grid resolutions:







Rico

[martinvk]

It should be kept in mind that Trainz is first and foremost a train sim, and everything else in view is there to support that. Everything from distant mountains to detailed shorelines. It has been mentioned in other threads that it is hard to see the close terrain details when travelling at line speeds. Increasing the computational load to model terrain at sub meter intervals might look good when stationary, it will get lost in the blur when moving.

That said, in a proper TMR, which is restricted to very small routes, that load might not be so onerous. Without long distance travel, high speeds would not be an option so admiring the finer details of the terrain would be a a feature.

Looking forward to seeing this.

[martinvk]

With everything almost on top each other, using layers is a must in a TMR model map to avoid the frustration of affecting existing objects when trying to modify another. That said, a better layer interface is really needed. At the very least, the current layer must be indicated on the top menu bar. Even better would be a persistent layer window that could be located outside the main route window. When adding and modifying objects I'm constantly changing the layer properties. Having to open another tab, make a change and then returning to the object tab gets old real fast. Too often I'm on the wrong tab and have to waste time correcting.

[Vern]

I also find the current layer system work erratically. For example Basemaps, always located on their own (locked) layer. However it is not unusual for them to still lift up if you adjust terrain height, even though the whole point of locking them is so as not to disturb. Also the picker still defaults to listing the Basemap when trying to click on an asset in the main layer.

I think we also touched on splines, track in particular, previously when trying to create a multi level area, if you try and do the trackwork on the top level as a separate layer, the splines will still try and connect to those at the lower level.

I guess what I'm saying is that layers should be a total lockdown (!) of the assets or work done in that layer other than being visually displayed.

@ricomon35 Nice work there in C:S, in some ways titles like that or Transport Fever have superseded some of the tools we have in Trainz and it is really time N3V sat down and started to think how they can take the creation aspect forward, whether from the model or prototype paradigm.

[narrowgauge]

This may be of interest:-

Trainz: Virtual Railroading on your PC Download (2001 Simulation Game) (old-games.com)

Narrowgauge

[wreeder]

I asked some questions above and thought I had gained some insight on TMR but as this thread grows I just get confused again. With all the current Model Railroad routes available and all the assets currently available specific to Model Railroads (and more and more each week), why is a "TMR2" needed except, of course, for marketing reasons to sell more software? Sure, there can always be improved tools but why wouldn't improvements just be incorporated into TRS19 SPx? Again, I can see the sales advantage of a Model Railroad route bundle, but another build with features specific to TMR? Why, why, why (I ask myself.) (And I'm really just talking to myself here.)

It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Many of us have used Trainz to create virtual model railroads for years. But at least according to Tony it was more of a marketing decision than a design choice in the software for the early versions of Trainz. But a thread was created that showed some amazing layouts created as model railroads and that provoked N3V to produce a version of TANE with content and routes highlighting the Model Railroad theme. It is all about expanding the user base.

There is only one codebase for TRS19 and beyond. Any new features will be added to that codebase. I doubt that N3V would branch it off for this product. More likely that it would be a theme based spinoff. Maybe a Philskene signature edition?

William

[wreeder]

This may be of interest:-

Trainz: Virtual Railroading on your PC Download (2001 Simulation Game) (old-games.com)

Narrowgauge

Thanks Peter.

I remember the first version of Trainz was the perfect recreation of the model railroad experience. Visiting the Download Station was like visiting the hobby shop to see what was new. Surveyor was like getting started on a fresh sheet of plywood and laying the first few pieces of track before giving in to the desire to connect the power and run a train even if it was just back and forth. And the forum was the ultimate "bull session" to discuss new ideas and better ways of doing things.

William

[1611mac]

-snip-
There is only one codebase for TRS19 and beyond. Any new features will be added to that codebase. I doubt that N3V would branch it off for this product. More likely that it would be a theme based spinoff. Maybe a Philskene signature edition?
William

Yes, that is my understanding. It just seems like many in the community do not realize this.

I wish N3V would promote and package these clearly, making it plain that the core code is the same. If you look at banners in the Store you see "Trainz Platinum Edition" and "Trainz North American Edition" (etc) on equal footing leading the new purchaser and new user to beleive the apps may be unique to each.

If you are going to have "Platinum Edition" you should market regionals as "Trainz Platinum - North American Edition." Thus, a TMR edition would be "Trainz Platinum, Model Railroad Edition" - A simple change in verbiage, but it adds so much clarity for those trying to understand what they are buying.

Or perhaps I'm just overly nit-picky. I had a retail hobby store for five years and I found that it was best to be clear up front rather than have to explain a poor purchase later (and a possible refund.)