.
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 245

Thread: collisions

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia, QLD, Brisbane
    Posts
    489
     

    Default Mistakes!!

    I think it would be nice to have something to rerail the train and be able to continue rather than shutting down the session or whatever and start again. In reality, Drivers don't go taking their trains cross country on pupose. It's a mistake (although at time a serious one with dire consequences) or glitch that makes things jump the track. I've had a few situations that I would have liked to have had something to rerail the train with and be able to continue rather that start again. If you want a smash derby then get the appropriate software i.e. a smash'em up drive sim or such, and play that. I'm sure we have all made a mistake in TRAINZ that would be nice to fix then get on with it. If you want smash, get another game, if you want to continue driving your derailed train....get a breakdown train and crew??
    "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Author UNKNOWN

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    U.S. of A., Colorado
    Posts
    8
     

    Question the early years

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan_Yeomans View Post
    This debate has been on the forums for years. Heck even in here, we cant agree on this issue.
    Trainz is a Train DRIVING simulation. Not a Trainz crashing simulation.
    ...
    If there were to be a "sub-set" of the railroad simulation for the era before air-brakes, would it not be important to consider 'crashes?'

    Personally, I am interested in the era before 1860. The time when the rails were more wood than iron because they consisted of mostly of strap iron nailed to wood stringers. Then the train crew included a bunch of brakemen who had to crank the brake wheels on each car.

    I know it's just a thought because there are few who are interested in that era.


  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States Minor Outlying Islands, Florida, Cocoa
    Posts
    30
     

    Default

    I don't think we need blood & gore. But, we already do have derailment. Why not just add to what causes derailment, such as hitting another train too close to a junction as john259 points out. However, If this causes a performance issue, I can see that as a good reason not to do so.

    I also agree with only derailing the affected cars, rather than the entire train.

    On the issue of cleaning up the mess, there are a couple of items on the DLS that can be used. One is the Derailed Vehicle Eraser which deletes the offending train. The other item (and the one I like to use) is the Re-rail Portal which cleans up the derail and sends the train out of the portal like new.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia, NSW, Tahmoor
    Posts
    37
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john259 View Post
    Razorback activities penalise you by reducing your score if you couple at too high a speed, and they shut down immediately if you touch any consist that you're not meant to. However, Trainz only detects couplers touching so sometimes you can scrape the paintwork of a wagon parked on the other track too close to a junction and get away with it.

    John
    Hi if only it was that easy in real life. Im a shunter for railcorp in sydney and my bosses get most upset when we just scrape the paintwork we dont always just get away with it.But it would be a good inclusion for this sim to have that bit more of a real touch.where after the side swipe or crash the wagons or locomotive has to be taken to the workshops to be fixed up anyway something to think about thanks David.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    881
     

    Default

    One other thing to consider:

    Even Transport Tycoon had rudimentary collision detection. Surely Trainz can do it too, 15 years later.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    633
     

    Default

    Trainz isnt about crashing trains around. However, we should make it as realistic as possible because in real life crashes happen every once in a while. Things crash, its a part of life. I have had my share of yard accidents and mainline fender benders but that is not the objective of the game, or simulator if you will. If people think so, then take it as such.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    MA/NJ (Uni), USA
    Posts
    850
     

    Default part of life

    crashes are a part of life, no matter it be a car on te Xing tracks, or two trains colliding, its part of life, so if trainz is trying to be the most realistic RR sim, than it needs realistic derailments. BTW, trains dont usually explode, and you dont need to see blood, and probably wouldnt. and also there should be a way using crane cars to clean derailments, and there also should be cars that can end up on tracks when the train comes. BTW, there should be solid objects so trains dont go through eachother (when crashed) , or buildings, cars or anything solid.
    Coffee.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia, NSW, Stuarts Point
    Posts
    1,214
     

    Default

    Doesn't NEED realistic derailments at all. Not having realistic derailments does not detract from the sim in any way shape or form.

    As one poster has stated there would be a performance issue in order to replicate graphic derailments anyway, which becomes a pointless memory hog to the vast majority who utilise this programme as a driving sim and/or route building utility.

    If you want realism fixed, go for something more obvious and glaring like fixing the issue we have with rain falling in tunnels. That's just outright ugly. Now that detracts from the sim experience as it simply doesn't happen.

    Of the more technical......fixing the steam sounds that were broken in the update from TRS2004 to TRS2006, signalling issues and A/I issues. These are more novel and constructive ways to tidy the sim up.

    Cheers,
    Simon

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States of America, KY
    Posts
    21
     

    Default

    Personally I would love to see a decent physics system in the game. Not just for crashes but for realism. Having the train lean in a realistic manner on tight curves and depend on the weight of the cars. Gosh just bounding boxes would open a heck of a lot of possibility for people.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom, Kent, Canterbury
    Posts
    594
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forest_Runner View Post
    If you want realism fixed, go for something more obvious and glaring like fixing the issue we have with rain falling in tunnels. That's just outright ugly. Now that detracts from the sim experience as it simply doesn't happen.

    Of the more technical......fixing the steam sounds that were broken in the update from TRS2004 to TRS2006, signalling issues and A/I issues. These are more novel and constructive ways to tidy the sim up.

    Cheers,
    Simon
    I agree with you on both the above counts. Plus... It is a 'G' rated sim and collision detection is an expensive waste of processor time. Transport Tycoon (13 years ago btw. published 1994) had collision detection and got away with it because it didn't need much in the way of a PC to run it.

    I should know, I used to run it on a 486DX 33MHz machine with 8MB RAM. :P Oh the good old days of having to insert a boot disk to configure the memory just so that it could run it...

    you lot with your modern XP boxes and stuff that works off the sheft without having to boot the PC in some special mode using some funny dos codes just don't know how lucky you are! :P

    regards

    Harry
    Owner of AD427 and six chat bans. Config file modifier/creator. Oh btw... I'm gay. Kuid No. 427

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , - Select -
    Posts
    2,952
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moojgoo View Post
    I also hate the fact that whenever your train derails, the camera goes into "Free Roam" view.
    But free roaming after a derailment allows me to see what went wrong & try to work out why, even if the whole session is on AI.

    Collisions
    I don' think the people (well most people) want to turn it into a game where the main purpose is to focus & make collisions. It's more the way that a derailment/collision is portrayed.

    If their are some Trainz users that want to focus on making derailments/collisions, derailments, etc ARE accidents, & not "on-purpose".

    What would have been better was instead of a whole train derailing, only have the vehicles that would have been affected derailed, & where you could detach a loco/power car & take it back to a siding, depot, etc, or to get another loco that could attach to the non-affected cars of the derailed train, so they can be moved to a siding, depot etc.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Where the big freights ramble
    Posts
    155
     

    Default Shouldn't happen anyways.

    If a collision happens it means that somebody screwed up thier job and probaly doesn't have it anymore. You shouldn't be wrecking, that's rule and goal one of a railroad. Safety First.
    I think the game is fine the way it is.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom, Kent, Canterbury
    Posts
    594
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simmons_Pacific View Post
    If a collision happens it means that somebody screwed up thier job and probaly doesn't have it anymore. You shouldn't be wrecking, that's rule and goal one of a railroad. Safety First.
    I think the game is fine the way it is.
    Agreed.

    And I have some fine footage on DVD of a class 56 trying to tug a loaded PGA hopper out of a wood after an accident.

    regards

    Harry
    Owner of AD427 and six chat bans. Config file modifier/creator. Oh btw... I'm gay. Kuid No. 427

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    881
     

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Forest_Runner View Post
    go for something more obvious and glaring like fixing the issue we have with rain falling in tunnels.
    Well, there you go. Bounding boxes would prevent rain from going through them.

    Collision detection is much more than just crashing. It would make the whole game much more realistic. Particle effects would be deflected by the bounding boxes, rain and snow wouldn't display underneath them, one could even use them to prevent the camera from going inside buildings. They'd open up hundreds of possibilities for content creators.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UP Joliet Sub Mile Marker 45.8
    Posts
    500
    Blog Entries
    1
     

    Default

    We would not need blood and gore just trains exploading and stuff.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •