collisions

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.

Explosions, violence and destruction etc, would ruin this great game.
Not to mention change the family G-rating.

Say NO to collision detection. :)

Alan

Collision detection has more purposes than just crashing. As discussed in this thread: http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?t=3278 bounding boxes could prevent particle effects from moving through solid objects. It's just not realistic for a steam loco's smoke to go straight through the deck of an overpass.

And simple bounding boxes wouldn't have much in the way of explosions, violence and destruction etc, just cars piling up on each other.
 
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
 
A long time ago the original power behind Trainz decided we don't need blood & gore in Trainz, hence, we don't need trains crashing into each other. I voted for the idea then and I still think it was a good one. There's too much crashing and problems in real life. Let's not bring it into Trainz...

Barney
 
A long time ago the original power behind Trainz decided we don't need blood & gore in Trainz, hence, we don't need trains crashing into each other. I voted for the idea then and I still think it was a good one. There's too much crashing and problems in real life. Let's not bring it into Trainz...

Barney


I also agree with you SFC, I mean who wants a sim just to see explosions and people flying all over the place, I believe there are plenty of other game platforms for that right now.
 
Whatever the outcome of this thread is, there is one feature of MSTS I would not like in Trainz (actually there are a few, but let us not dirverge too much) - if a single wheel leaves the track in MSTS the session is ended, and it can sometimes be an AI train (which is infuriating :mad:).

More solid models in Trainz might be a good development though, to prevent running through a train as in John's example.
 
ohhh!! i run through trains all the time its quite fun! :eek:
but i think that if one car comes off a few cars on either side of that car should come off... but not the whole darn train!! come on if one train comes off , every one behind it falls off at the place where the last car came off... its quite infuriating when all you've got is a single main line route! maybe we could have a "breakdown train" come and "fix" the wreck or at least the track so that other trains could go past that point! thats a good idea!:D
 
The main issue I would have with having more extensive physics is the extra load on the computer itself, plus the extra development time required to implement it.

This is relevant if (like me) your computer is marginal at running TRS2006 in the first instance.

warrior
 
And you hit on the very thing that swings the collision detectiion thing.

It's performance. The comp would hgave to scan hundrreds of assets to detect a collision and then act appropriately.

it's all down to performance and what people have in their PCs that count.

regards

Harry
 
I also hate the fact that whenever your train derails, the camera goes into "Free Roam" view. When I played the Trainz CE and UTC demo, the camera stayed lock on the train. Nowadays, this only happens in scenarios.
 
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.:eek: If you want smash, get another game, if you want to continue driving your derailed train....get a breakdown train and crew??
 
the early years

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.

:)
 
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. :D
 
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.
 
One other thing to consider:

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