Trainz Model Railroad 2

Same in New Zealand Ray. It's always been 'railway' here. If you'd said 'railroad' in my engine driver grandad's hearing he would have laughed at you if not told you straight that we only have railways here.

It reminds me of the old joke. We park our cars on driveways and drive on parkways.

But I was watching one of my favorite YouTube channels "Paul and Rebecca" where they explore the old stations and right of way of long abandoned railways in Britain. The old maps they use often have streets with names like Oxford Way but in modern maps the street is Oxford Road.

William
 
Bringing things back on topic (a bit)…

No response from N3V to my suggestion re tweaks to the base game to suit the MR environment better.

I don't consider my work good enough to submit but noted with some dismay, those of us on "Standard" editions of TRS2019 are excluded anyway - only the top end users can contribute. Had been thinking about altering my signature to something more positive, but think I'll leave it as is... :)
 
I am on basic TRS19 too Vern, hadn't realised that I am not able to submit without having to pay to upgrade.
Then after paying to upgrade I would also have to then pay for the new TMR2 on top just to see a route that I made!
I will be a bit annoyed if assets that I use for making my model railway layouts end up as payware!
 
That hadn't occurred to me, sadly the way of things with the DLS licensing arrangement. They could at least give anyone who's assets end up in a route a discount voucher off the final product.

For me, I'm happy to plod away in Coach Class TRS2019, doing my own thing - currently trying to breathe life into CJ Freezer's old L11 from Plans For Large Layouts (the one based on lines around Exmouth).
 
More likely to end up as builtin if they are on the DLS, non of my assets used in DLC are payware now but builtin and not locked and they are all now on the DLS, was a slight glitch on a couple which Zec sorted out quickly.

Besides N3V are going to be using a different method for payware as far as I can gather which might stop these problems.
 
I'd suggest Euromodeller's Gardenbahn layout for including with TMR2 to show that you don't have to be limited to the indoor model railroads. I've got a Model Railroadz that's been sitting on my computer for a long time that's TRS19-compliant that I'd like to submit to TMR2, but I don't want to update to Trainz Plus, since I've got the Silver membership.
 
More likely to end up as builtin if they are on the DLS, non of my assets used in DLC are payware now but builtin and not locked and they are all now on the DLS, was a slight glitch on a couple which Zec sorted out quickly.

Besides N3V are going to be using a different method for payware as far as I can gather which might stop these problems.

That would be very good news if they do Malc. The present system has caused endless problems.
 
I am on basic TRS19 too Vern, hadn't realised that I am not able to submit without having to pay to upgrade.
Then after paying to upgrade I would also have to then pay for the new TMR2 on top just to see a route that I made!
I will be a bit annoyed if assets that I use for making my model railway layouts end up as payware!

I totally agree, especially as I have always permitted/encouraged modification of anthing I have created.

Ray
 
Back on L11, the other update(s) that TMR could do with are in the spline department. Many plans utilise diamond crossings and while IT's provide a workround (up to the point the scripting seems to no longer work), they are no substitute for a proper crossing with checkrails and flangeways but most importantly recognised by the signalling systems. Many model railways rely on curved points and tight radius at that, to fit in the space and the current system offers no solution to doing curved pointwork.

It goes without saying these changes, if they happened would probably need to be reflected in TRS2019 and most certainly in any future mainstream release.
 
I'm still a little confused about the reasoning behind the possible development/release of TMR2. I have frequently questioned why I ever bothered to purchase TRM2017 (TRM1) which I never really used due to an interesting build in T:ANE at the time which was migrated shortly afterwards to TRS19 which itself followed close on the heels of TMR2017 and in most respects superseded it.

Unlike the static model most working model railways (railroads if you prefer) are a scaled representation of the real thing containing excess detail due to their restricted size many fine example of which can be seen within the threads of this Forum. However because of such scale and detail I question is there really sufficient scope and space to also include the likes of Turf Effect, Ground Clutter, etc. or appreciate Track Navigation Profiling, Physically-Based Rendering, Parallax Mapping and so forth assuming your computer has the power to take advantage of them.

So what will TMR2 actually offer? So far as other have put far better than I, an opportunity for Members to have their creations included in a possible future Trainz release based probably on a spin off of TRS19 hopefully with fewer issues that Gold Members have already likely reviewed. Or, perhaps a pre-release of whatever will follows TRS19, but either way as I said, I still just can't see where this is going and hence remain confused. Peter
 
I'm still a little confused about the reasoning behind the possible development/release of TMR2. I have frequently questioned why I ever bothered to purchase TRM2017 (TRM1) which I never really used due to an interesting build in T:ANE at the time which was migrated shortly afterwards to TRS19 which itself followed close on the heels of TMR2017 and in most respects superseded it.

Unlike the static model most working model railways (railroads if you prefer) are a scaled representation of the real thing containing excess detail due to their restricted size many fine example of which can be seen within the threads of this Forum. However because of such scale and detail I question is there really sufficient scope and space to also include the likes of Turf Effect, Ground Clutter, etc. or appreciate Track Navigation Profiling, Physically-Based Rendering, Parallax Mapping and so forth assuming your computer has the power to take advantage of them.

So what will TMR2 actually offer? So far as other have put far better than I, an opportunity for Members to have their creations included in a possible future Trainz release based probably on a spin off of TRS19 hopefully with fewer issues that Gold Members have already likely reviewed. Or, perhaps a pre-release of whatever will follows TRS19, but either way as I said, I still just can't see where this is going and hence remain confused. Peter
Sadly Peter, the cynic in me says another cash grab - selling content the community have produced with little or no effort required on the part of N3V - hence my comments about any changes to core code. The Emperor's New Clothes (again). N3V need to take a long look at where other train sim franchises are going, with what the likes of Run 8 and TSW(2) have to offer. If TMR2 is a stepping stone to funding a significant upgrade to the core programme for, say, a TRS2022, then I'm behind the idea but otherwise...
 
That's a good point Wilts. As a builder of Uk 1920-1930s era 'O' gauge model railways where I do my best to replicate the scenic methods used at the time I wouldn't have a clue what to do with Turf Effects or ground clutter or any of the other 'magic' stuff and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate for my time period. Possibly N3V are thinking of gigantic US basement layouts where the latest in scenic materials are used, - but how many of us want to build that kind of thing?
I own TMR2017 and I do sometimes use it because it's 64 bit, but simple with it without all the 'features' that were loaded onto TS2019 not long after it was released.
 
I, too, don't understand the need for TMR2. TMR17 turned out to be a complete disappointment and, since then, a number of good Model Layouts have been made for TRS19. Much like Vern, I feel that it is time that Trainz had a fundamental shake-up. A lot has been made of the PBR capabilities of TRS19, but at heart, the program has barely changed since the days of 1.3. There have been few significant changes to the Surveyor tools, Graphics needs to be brought up to modern standards and we need a better way of downloading content so that users are not constantly plagued by unknown/missing assets. The 'other' franchises mentioned by Vern are, at least in my view, better suited to the Driving aspect. Personally, I am almost exclusively interested in the building aspects.

Mike
 
That's my weakness, Mike. I build mainly in Trainz but rarely drive my or anyone else's creations. My driving at present is being done almost exclusively in Run 8 and TSW2, plus Open Rails for the MSTS Australian routes which are great (Coals To Newcastle, anyone).
 
Open post to N3V

Concerning the mentioned TCCP program (in original post) for which I have participated in as a tester. TCCP suffers from a lack of promotion and a lack of information for the testers. When I receive a notice that a new item can be "claimed" for testing I go to the website and view, but I am largely given no information. The description for the item to be tested simply says something like "large route with sessions" or "small route with sessions." I have "claimed" (tested) items that consisted of route only, route with 2 sessions, a single locomotive, and most recently a route with 35 SESSIONS! Yes, 35 sessions. Only after I "claimed" the item and downloaded did I find out it had 35 sessions! 35 sessions in 14 day? (the test period) - There is also no information about the type of route/sessions such as Region or whether prototypical or fictional or model railroad.

In short: There is simply not enough info available for the tester to intelligently select the routes/sessions they would like to test.

When I view the testing list in order to "claim" an item I have no way of knowing if the item is Model Railroad or not. The "Type" field (description) is approximately 25 characters and say typically "Large Route with sessions."

I am quickly losing my interest in beta testing as I would like to know what it is I'd be testing. I don't want to test a large route with 35 sessions in two weeks.

Take a look at the TCCP forum. Almost no posts. No comments by N3V. Very little promotion for the program.
 
Last edited:
mac --

I'll try to put this a politely as possible.

You might think that TCCP has deficiencies. What you experience is insignificant compared to that experienced by those of us who submit the content.

Last month I had to a hole drilled through a ceramic crown to drill out and pug the four roots of a tooth. I am only exaggerating slightly to say this was a more pleasurable experience than being subjected to the TCCP process. At least with root treatment you know what is happening and that there will be an outcome. With TCCP you are always unsure.

Phil
 
Last edited:
Back
Top