Detailed or simple - what does your computer like?

[trackdancer]

In making plans for future projects, I am trying to take into consideration the computering power owned by the majority of the people in this forum. Not much sense making highly detailed, high poly models if most peoples' systems cannot run them.

One point that concerned me when I was working on the 60042 was that several people pointed out to me that the model was beyond the capabilities of their systems to run smoothly.

So let's hear what you all have to say.

Do you want highly detailed, high poly models, with (nearly) everything modeled down to the last detail ... (3500 polys and up)?

or

Do you want simpler, nicely shaped models that uses texture to describe intricate details and which are consequently kinder to the average systems ... (2000 to 3500 polys)?

[saddletank]

You haven't included the option I would opt for which would come between your #1 and #2 - highly detailed models with a low poly count! It is possible if you are disciplined in your model building approach and clever with textures.

[decapod]

I agree with Martin (we work on the same project so we should agree!)

You also neglected to mention if it was stock or scenery (though I assume you mean stock)

It is possible to build high detailed, low poly stock simply by using smoothing instead of multiple faces, removing absolutely every hidden face and removing faces that point downwards below 1M - i.e. by being thorough.
(And don't use cylinders for wheels!!! use round textures on square faces)

Also I believe it is essential to include distance levels of detail for all models (including stock) - that cuts out TSM as a modelling tool - otherwise your 5000 poly model is still 5000 polys at 2km away when it's running as an AI train.

[trackdancer]

<i>You haven't included the option I would opt for which would come between your #1 and #2 - highly detailed models with a low poly count! It is possible if you are disciplined in your model building approach and clever with textures.</i> ... Saddletank

That would be option #2, my apologies if I did not make that clearer.


<i>You also neglected to mention if it was stock or scenery (though I assume you mean stock) </i>... Decapod

<b>With reference to locomotives only.</b> Me bad, should have made that clearer.


<i>It is possible to build high detailed, low poly stock simply by using smoothing instead of multiple faces, removing absolutely every hidden face and removing faces that point downwards below 1M - i.e. by being thorough.</i>... Decapod

These are assumed in the figures given above. I believe most of us now understand the importance of disciplined modeling. As for downward facing polys ... I disagree with this with regards to locos and wagons - they look silly if you look up from under a bridge and you see no bottom. Some of the most impressive sights in the sim is to "look up" at the trains.


<i>(And don't use cylinders for wheels!!! use round textures on square faces)</i>... Decapod

This one is "iffy", I want to agree with you, but can't. If you compare most of the more recent models on this site which are modeled solid with rims with the default Kuju ones there is no basis for comparision. Engines need to look "heavy" in order to look right; to do that they need to have 3D wheelsets.

The default GP38 uses a total of 16 polys for its (16) wheels. A single proper rimmed 3D wheelset (using only 8-sided cylinders) uses 19 polygons for a total of 304 for 16 wheels (only 160 with no rims). This seems but a small price to pay for a decent looking wheelset.

In real-life, the bogies and wheelset carries the weight of the engine. Models in the sim should have wheelsets modeled to look like they are carrying the weight. This means that at least the primary shapes should be model. Take a look at MShipman's beautiful work on the Class 40's wheelset and then again at the default Dash9's. There is just no basis for comparison.

Decapod, since you are one of the site's experts on Steamers, I believe, you are approaching this discussion from that angle. Once again I am at fault here. I started this thread with the focus on diesels. Steamers have much bigger driving wheels than diesels, so they look big and heavy to begin with, and with animated valve and rods to look at as well they look very much the business even when modeled with extremely basic shapes. Diesels don't have that advantage and need the 3D approach to look right.

Steamer and diesel models have very different approaches and considerations. With the additional strains that a model steamer puts on the computing power of our systems, squared textured wheels makes very good sense.

Good points to note for anyone thinking of building a steamer wheel with every spoke modeled ...

<i>Also I believe it is essential to include distance levels of detail for all models (including stock) - that cuts out TSM as a modelling tool - otherwise your 5000 poly model is still 5000 polys at 2km away when it's running as an AI train.</i> ... Decapod

Agreed, but I still like TSM. Maybe they will fix that in a later version.

Thank-you both for your keen observations.

[warriorgoku]

Just a brief comment, my class87 model (incomplete) has passed 10000 polys .

Everything is going to be 3d and I am unwilling to lower the detail in any area at the moment.

[decapod]

<i>It is possible to build high detailed, low poly stock simply by using smoothing instead of multiple faces, removing absolutely every hidden face and removing faces that point downwards below 1M - i.e. by being thorough.</i>... Decapod

These are assumed in the figures given above. I believe most of us now understand the importance of disciplined modeling. As for downward facing polys ... I disagree with this with regards to locos and wagons - they look silly if you look up from under a bridge and you see no bottom. Some of the most impressive sights in the sim is to "look up" at the trains.

There is usually a bridge in the way of the view and it doesn't happen that often - (though it's again probably more relevant with steam locos as a lot is hidden by the large wheels and buffers)


<i>(And don't use cylinders for wheels!!! use round textures on square faces)</i>... Decapod

This one is "iffy", I want to agree with you, but can't. If you compare most of the more recent models on this site which are modeled solid with rims with the default Kuju ones there is no basis for comparision. Engines need to look "heavy" in order to look right; to do that they need to have 3D wheelsets.

I think I wasn't clear here - I really meant don't use cylinders with round end faces - these eat up polys. use a cylinder for the rim, but put a square face on it for the wheel face - spokes can be added for steam loco wheels

e.g. http://forums.atomic-systems.com/viewto ... 853de6b9d9
here each wheel is only 108 "true" polys (triangles)

The default GP38 uses a total of 16 polys for its (16) wheels. A single proper rimmed 3D wheelset (using only 8-sided cylinders) uses 19 polygons for a total of 304 for 16 wheels (only 160 with no rims). This seems but a small price to pay for a decent looking wheelset.

Are you talking polys or faces here? - "true" poly count is the number of triangles that make up an object, this is actually what MSTS draws.
a single 8 sided cylinder is actually 30 polys (16 for the edge and 12 for the 2 ends)
When you say rim - are you talking about a flange too?

If anything, I'd increase the wheel rims to 16 sides and use a square face, the 8 sided ones look a little odd.

Decapod, since you are one of the site's experts on Steamers, I believe, you are approaching this discussion from that angle. Once again I am at fault here. I started this thread with the focus on diesels. Steamers have much bigger driving wheels than diesels, so they look big and heavy to begin with, and with animated valve and rods to look at as well they look very much the business even when modeled with extremely basic shapes. Diesels don't have that advantage and need the 3D approach to look right.

Steamer and diesel models have very different approaches and considerations. With the additional strains that a model steamer puts on the computing power of our systems, squared textured wheels makes very good sense.

I really don't think they're much different - wagons/coaches have the same considerations - the same techniques for efficiency are needed.
All I'm saying is that if I can build a high detailed steam loco in under 4000 polys, most modern stock, even at a high level of detail shouldn't be above 3500.
Probably time I built a diesel

[eddief]

How about doing 2 models? 1 high detailed and 1 low?. it should be easy to remove some of the parts from the high detailed model to make it run better or computers with rubbish hardware (like mine).

[kimdurose]

Or you could just buy a CPU and graphics card that allows you to run the game in a way in which it was intended !
Whilst it is very important to be sensible when building models (use transparency where it can easily replace polygons and elete ALL unseen faces), personally, I can't see any sense at all in holding back essential detail so someone can run it on "dad's old pc". I aim for a ceiling of around 7000 polys maximum. The Schools overshot this slightly, but as yet I have not had a single complaint about it sucking system resources. Either it isn't having a significant impact or people would rather not say!

[cua193]

I suspect, although nobody seems to know exactly, that about 7,500 polys is the most MSTS will accept.

For interest I tried to export the E6, slightly modded, that comes as a sample with Gmax on flightsim2002. Zilch - the old blank screen in consist trick! It's only just above the 7,500 mark.

Warriorguku - have you tried to export your model? You might have a disappointment in store. With the E6 I just mentioned TSM crawls.

If computers are slow could I recommend more memory - far the cheapest way of upgrading!

Although I'd like to agree that an upward view of a loco would be terrific as the track has already disappeared the illusion is already lost. There's a most peculiar shot in Tokyo when the train flies on an invisible viaduct high above your head!

regards
Richard Osborne

[decapod]

The limit depends on the video card and drivers in DirectX (although MSTS probably has a limit somewhere)

it is usually a vertex (a point in a shape) limit of around 32000 for each vertex buffer (which is usually a sub object in a model) so theoretically there is probably no limit to what MSTS can display if you use many sub objects in a shape - some of Terrys steamers are well up in the 9000-11000 mark.

If you want to run high poly trains at a reasonable frame rate, then make sure to turn down the scenery detail level (assuming the route builder has set all his objects detail levels correctly)

[saddletank]

Keeping the lower faces of all parts in the event that you will look up at the train when it's on a bridge is a bit daft - the only way to get the angle steep enough is to actually look THROUGH the bridge. The only bridges commonly used without sides in the Uk are...? I can't think of any other than some of Brunels timber viaducts - all UK bridges have parapets IIRC. I got below ground level when taking some screenshots on the Talyllyn route and I was concentrating on composing the shot so hard I never noticed any place on the engine where I was looking upwards at a bottom face. If you kill all downward pointing faces from a complex loco you may be saving yourself 100 polys. To me that is a station or a copse of trees I can plant by the line!

[eddief]

Or you could just buy a CPU and graphics card that allows you to run the game in a way in which it was intended !
I aim for a ceiling of around 7000 polys maximum. The Schools overshot this slightly, but as yet I have not had a single complaint about it sucking system resources. Either it isn't having a significant impact or people would rather not say!

If only it was as simple as that Kim, I am a jobless student (no jokes please) and find it hard enough to get through life and the spending problems it throws up (I hardly ever go out drinking as I can't afford it). Computer spending is not top of my list of priorities.
I have not tried the schools on my computer (I tried them on my brothers and they work fine there, but his computer is superior to mine). An example is I got 3fps with Leader running light through Peterbourgh on the Mid-East. I get 7 or 8 fps at best and that is with light engines in the middle of nowhere with little scenery.
I simply need a new and better computer (just don't stop building you fantastic models Kim, it is my incentive to upgrade, so that I can enjoy your locos properly.

[harveype]

Hi

My version 3s of the A4s are currently at 11000 polys, I redid the B1s because they where at nearly 13000, if I remove the solid wheels I made for the A4s that will remove 4000 polys. I like the way Paul designs his low poly rims but the reason I wanted to do solid rims was to get rid of more texture files. I have never had any one complain about my models and there always high in polys.

Peter

[trackdancer]

The most interesting aspect of this thread is it seems to highlight at least some differences in the way diesel modelers and steam modelers approach their craft:

<i>I really don't think they're much different - wagons/coaches have the same considerations - the same techniques for efficiency are needed.
All I'm saying is that if I can build a high detailed steam loco in under 4000 polys, most modern stock, even at a high level of detail shouldn't be above 3500. </i> ... Decapod

For a high detail diesel coming in under 3500, not likely, at least not with UK locos. Their lines are more subtle than most people think. There is a grace and form in the designs of UK diesels that gives them their special appeal and these need to be properly captured by their virtual counterparts.

[mikesimpson]

The only bridges commonly used without sides in the Uk are...? I can't think of any other than some of Brunels timber viaducts - all UK bridges have parapets IIRC.

Hi Martin,

The Royal Border Bridge at Berwick upon Tweed is 126 ft high and has no parapets, just a wire fence. My friend who is a local vet had to walk out into the middle in a gale to rescue a swan which had flown into the overhead power lines (they did stop the trains) Not a job for the faint hearted...