RW2 What should really be in it.

[bigvern]

Projected light/headlight illumination is featured on the RWSO Chinese locos.

[Wikkus]

Projected light/headlight illumination is featured on the RWSO Chinese locos.

It is? Isn't it the same as what Sly did on the BB/Challenger? In terms of 3D technical stuff I don't profess to understand it all, but my perception of what they've both done is to give the illusion of a beam of light, i.e. it's a transparent cone of "light" that looks like a light beam pattern, however, it doesn't truly illuminate anything...?

Cheers, Rik.

[sanyix]

Projected light/headlight illumination is featured on the RWSO Chinese locos.

Yeah it's possible, like on american locos, but it's still a hack, and you need the 3d model source to make it.

[TheTazman]

If that little lot can be sorted before I even add my selsection I would be happier. We have asked for these ages ago and nothing has come to light.

My view.
Sort out the distant White Hills.
Cab darkening and Instrument Lights coming on in Tunnels.
Snow or Rain not coming through Major Station Canopies.
A Dispatcher that does not throw a wobbler if you ask it to do something complex with Player Train or AI.
Improvements to Signals and the logic they work by.
Distance Semaphore Signals that do not register a SPAD if they are not keeping up with the Home Signals in front of them.
Kind regards James.

[karma99]

Projected light/headlight illumination is featured on the RWSO Chinese locos.

.... and you need the 3d model source to make it.

Actually you can do it with scripting and child objects.. it wouldn't be too much work to create the light beam images and a pastable piece of script so anyone could easily (if you know how to serz hack or can use RW Tools) add it to any loco.

[msmith4000]

Yeah and it will be faster for ONLY nvidia users(no, wont be multi core support even if rs.com wants, since nvidia forbidden it because without these artifical inoptimizations for cpu runtime, the gpu physics wouldn't be better than cpu physics, so the users wouldn't buy these "fantastic" grillforce cards) ... instead of replacing the physics engine with another engine what isn't so big pile of .... like the nvidia's physix.
For example even a 4 years old havok phyisics engine version would be better, since it used multi core at that times, and made better, much more noticeable (not just eyecandy) effects than physix do now on gpu-s.....

Not strictly true, I believe the latest PhysX takes advantage of new processors SSE functions to speed up claculations so there should be some improvement for everyone. Furthermore RSC should be able to offload the PhysX calculations onto another thread with the later version of PhysX SDK's which will be assigned to another CPU core by the operating system, so the Railworks runs on one core and the physx calcs are hopefully done on another core, unlike just now where Railworks and physx are both run on the same core. Essentially this would make Railworks multithreaded to a certain degree. So should be a fair bit of improvement and thats without even going to GPU physx processing. This prob wont even be necessary because hopefully that will be enough performance improvement to negate the need to go to GPU processing, that is if the Railworks Phys-X calcs are as little as you say and its the rendering engine that is slowing down Railworks.

I personally am not privy to how much proportion of CPU time is required to calculate all the physics for all consists in a scenario in Railworks over a certain period of time, however I am also sure you are not either sanix and therefore am going disagree with you! Even if the Railworks Phys-x will be offloadable onto a GPU, both ATI and nvidia card owners can make the decision to buy an additional nvidia GPU for their system if they wish otherwise make do with what they have.

I guess we shall see shant we when (and if!) RSC do update the Physx in Railworks

Respect to all

Malc