RW Feature Update

[AndiS]

I wonder how we can make new routes in RW....

What about the same way that is used in KRS: Hit the "new route" button instead of selecting an existing one?

I wonder, as obviously this is low priority on everybody's radar including the developers, are these nasty angular gradient changes, Rs had the tools for realistic gradient changes but they never used it in the routes in their own sim? Would be nice to see this implemented as there is nothing so unrealistic as angles for changes in height eeeugh. Bve does it though and that is ancient.

If you ask for the technology, Adam describes his way to create smooth gradient changes here:
http://gaugeirregularities.blogspot.com ... ients.html
If you ask for improvements on the default routes, let's hope he put blog to practice then.

[paulz6]

I wonder, as obviously this is low priority on everybody's radar including the developers, are these nasty angular gradient changes, Rs had the tools for realistic gradient changes but they never used it in the routes in their own sim? Would be nice to see this implemented as there is nothing so unrealistic as angles for changes in height eeeugh. Bve does it though and that is ancient.

If you ask for the technology, Adam describes his way to create smooth gradient changes here:
http://gaugeirregularities.blogspot.com ... ients.html
If you ask for improvements on the default routes, let's hope he put blog to practice then.

I would like to see a smooth gradient built in function. It is a nicety though as there are ways around it. I was quite interested looking at Adam's trick. I didn't realise you could delete these gradient points! Anybody wishing to give this ago should back up their route before attempting it. Applying the gradient tool to tracks which you have already applied specific 1inX gradients is potentially dangerous, as gradient changes laid this way don't have those yellow gradient markers. Make a mistake and you could re-gradient the entire route! Undo will not work in this case.

[Oldpufferspotter]

Smooth run-in to a gradient? No problem. Level track, then 10m length at 1 in 500, 10m length at 1 in 300, 10m length at 1 in 100, carry on at 1 in 50.
1 in -100 etc to smooth out at the top. And NO tender jumping up in the air as you get coming out of bath onto the single line!
regards Ted.

[theokus]

I wonder how we can make new routes in RW....

What about the same way that is used in KRS: Hit the "new route" button instead of selecting an existing one?

Andi, I mean without the route.xml.
And without using the tools of Mike.

[paulz6]

Smooth run-in to a gradient? No problem. Level track, then 10m length at 1 in 500, 10m length at 1 in 300, 10m length at 1 in 100, carry on at 1 in 50.
1 in -100 etc to smooth out at the top. And NO tender jumping up in the air as you get coming out of bath onto the single line!
regards Ted.

I'm aware of this way to smooth a gradient. That is why I call it a 'nice to have' function but do not consider it essential. I think Adam's trick is better a one though. It looks more flexible towards trying to get it right, and will be easier on curves to keep the curve radius smooth. The method does require some care when implementing it though. Essentially two gradient makers will have to be put in place on either outerside of the gradient change which are not moved to anchor the rest of the routes gradients in place. In this case Adam is actually deleting intermediate gradient markers to smooth the change rather than moving them, but care needs to be taken all the same.

[bigvern]

Smooth run-in to a gradient? No problem. Level track, then 10m length at 1 in 500, 10m length at 1 in 300, 10m length at 1 in 100, carry on at 1 in 50.
1 in -100 etc to smooth out at the top. And NO tender jumping up in the air as you get coming out of bath onto the single line!
regards Ted.

But unfortunately very time consuming. This is of course applicable to any train sim not just KRS but if you have frequent changes of gradient you will add significantly to the time taken (and the eyestrain, in the case of KRS). A compromise would be where you have a transition from a steep climb into an equally steep descent, to include a short section of level track at the summit (or base if the reverse applies). At least this avoids the obvious /\ or \/ at the gradient change but not so time consuming as hand applying a gradual transition.

[keber]

What could that mean?

We are looking to continue the graphical advances to such things as lighting/lights and the sky dome, whilst further increasing the practical draw distances we have already made.

Does it mean that they increased drawing distances? Because current 2 km/5 km limit is very unpractial for many regions around the world. Especially because distant mountains distances in old MSTS didn't have any limits.

[paulz6]

What could that mean?

We are looking to continue the graphical advances to such things as lighting/lights and the sky dome, whilst further increasing the practical draw distances we have already made.

Does it mean that they increased drawing distances? Because current 2 km/5 km limit is very unpractial for many regions around the world. Especially because distant mountains distances in old MSTS didn't have any limits.

I certainly hope so. Some of the 3D foliage objects have really low maximum draw distances, especially the IOW trees. It does lead to Woods popping up out of nowhere. The default Ash and Beech trees seem to have a much larger draw distance than the oak and sycamore types which is more appropriate. The bridge objects seem a bit noticeably short on maximum draw distance also.

[longbow]

Laying gradient transitions can be quite time consuming but in my view are well worth it if you prize well groomed trackwork. Sudden transitions are unrealistic, look wrong and are very obvious when driving.

BTW, if you are using three transition pieces to go from level to 1 in 50 as in the example above, you would actually have to grade them at 1 in 191, 95 and 64 to get a constant curve - see my Gradient Transition Tool at http://members.uktrainsim.com/filelib-i ... leid=19612.

Re draw distances the pop up problem referred to above relates to incorrectly set LODs. I think RS.com's reference to longer draw distances means extending the terrain draw distance, as has been done in the latest version of Trainz.

[CaptScarlet]

Re draw distances the pop up problem referred to above relates to incorrectly set LODs. I think RS.com's reference to longer draw distances means extending the terrain draw distance, as has been done in the latest version of Trainz.

I believe RStools allows you to edit the lod's on most content if you wanted too.

John

[bigvern]

What could that mean?

We are looking to continue the graphical advances to such things as lighting/lights and the sky dome, whilst further increasing the practical draw distances we have already made.

Does it mean that they increased drawing distances? Because current 2 km/5 km limit is very unpractial for many regions around the world. Especially because distant mountains distances in old MSTS didn't have any limits.

Unfortunately that also means even more workload for the route builder, unless the existing 2km detailed draw distance is retained. I already commented in other threads about the time taken to paint terrain textures so don't want to retread old ground but frankly it was doing my head (and eyesight) in painting out to just the 2 - 3 km each side of the track and one of the main reasons I chucked it in and uninstalled the thing. Increased draw distances are going to have to go hand in hand with more efficient and quicker means of applying the terrain paint and scenery items - maybe even some kind of autogen utility. If it's just the DM's then fair enough though one improvement would be an ability to specify the base colour (as in MSTS) rather than the current dull brown rendition.

[smarty2]

I wonder how we can make new routes in RW....

What about the same way that is used in KRS: Hit the "new route" button instead of selecting an existing one?

I wonder, as obviously this is low priority on everybody's radar including the developers, are these nasty angular gradient changes, Rs had the tools for realistic gradient changes but they never used it in the routes in their own sim? Would be nice to see this implemented as there is nothing so unrealistic as angles for changes in height eeeugh. Bve does it though and that is ancient.

If you ask for the technology, Adam describes his way to create smooth gradient changes here:
http://gaugeirregularities.blogspot.com ... ients.html
If you ask for improvements on the default routes, let's hope he put blog to practice then.

That's a nice find Andi, let's hope they used it in Railworks? I hate angular changes really makes driving a route naff and unrealistic imho, I doubt though that route builders will bother though if it's a pain to implement, pity we haven't got Anthony Bowden on board with an interest in Railworks!

Mart

[smarty2]

Re draw distances the pop up problem referred to above relates to incorrectly set LODs. I think RS.com's reference to longer draw distances means extending the terrain draw distance, as has been done in the latest version of Trainz.

I believe RStools allows you to edit the lod's on most content if you wanted too.

John

It does infact, but you have to be careful as you can kill the framerates if you go ott!

Mart

[bigvern]

KRStool2 works very well for auto generation.

http://jkansoft.mine.nu/cgi-bin/jkansoft.cgi?page=7

I meant a more dynamic style of autogen, similar to MSFS, where you define the scenery that should appear in a particular area rather than hard placement (I presume FS has some mechanism which "fixes" the appearance so it is consistent).

[phat2003uk]

I agree with Vern, some sort of autogen scenary facility needs to be developed. I mean, even if we just had countryside and cityscape, it would be staggering the amount of routes that appear because to be honest, I pretty much enjoyed laying all the track, signals etc. for my Midland Mainline route but scenary is just a sticking point which will probably just mean the route stays on my PC as I wouldn't really be that happy releasing it with no scenary apart from platforms and bridges. It's the miles of countryside I just can't really lay scenary for because it's seemingly so random, perfect for an autogen sort of facility . So if autogen could be used for the majority of a route and then hand made scenary for important features then that would be a pretty acceptable route!