Atomic Systems

Just want it thank Gptech for his insightful reply - one thing I keep in mind is a saying I heard many years ago - anyone can be a critic, it takes a special person to be a creator-

I lack the time (and probably the talent) to be able to produce scenarios let alone complete routes - I have the route and while there might be a few glitches, I feel my money was well spent for the entertainment I have received from the route.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I certainly couldn't produce this with enough accuracy to please the average UKTS member; with correctly defined/implemented super-elevation; with every tree being the right species of tree to match it's real life counterpart;

No, neither could I, if I was getting it as freeware I would keep my trap shut, but since I'm spending my hard earned then I have every right to voice my opinion, I am in no way denigrating the immense amount of time and effort the author has put into it, by no means; infact I doff my cap to anyone who has the skill and patience to do it! However I would assume that if I was publishing something through my business I personally would make sure that there is a decent form of QC ensuring the suitability/quality of track laying and the possible over usage of unsuitable assets (RS) etc, also Gary I never mentioned that every tree should be of the correct variety or whatever! As for SE in the route, what I mean by poor implementation is where you get the transition from level to cant it jolts, not very realistic is it and SE is missing in other parts of the route altogether? I agree that these concerns should be addressed to the publisher/author via its support, well this was done with JT's Newcastle to Edinburgh route, this wasn't addressed in any update as that routes trackwork still remains lumpy and bumpy! I am sure there is a tool in the route editor to "smooth" out gradient changes? It obviously isn't a deal breaker for many that have purchased routes published by JT but for me it is especially, particularly when you get freeware routes like project Frieberg with outstanding implementation of SE and no lumpy bumpy track, obviously it is possible for an "amateur" to do it isn't it.

Do you think project Freiberg was done by a single person, the name certainly doesn't give that impression - then there's the fact that it was JT who took this on as a publisher, rather than the author intending it to be a payware route all along.

The lack of SE in some parts is doubtless down to a) whether it was available in the DLC used at the time and b) I'd imagine the author has picked up a lot of skills since starting 4 years ago and it's possible they weren't confident or able to do suitable SE in the route at the time.

Hi all,
I have the above route and on the whole I reasonably satisfied with it although I think that it was a little over hyped and people where perhaps expecting something a little better\different.
The only thing that really annoys me is that we seem to be getting more errors on material from JT than we used to so what's changed at JT? I admit that the do there best to rectify any problems as soon as possible but it now requires a complete re-download as before it was usually just a patch,
Regards,
Pete.

Do you think project Freiberg was done by a single person,

As far as I am aware yes..... And it took him several years to finish it, however the first iteration had the best implementation of SE than in "any" route at the time, so it is perfectly possible initially!
Plus, I am not asking for the crown jewels, all I am trying to get across is, if you want to implement a feature in your route then make sure you are proficient in its implementation; if not leave it out?

deltic009 wrote:Do you think project Freiberg was done by a single person, the name certainly doesn't give that impression - then there's the fact that it was JT who took this on as a publisher, rather than the author intending it to be a payware route all along.

The lack of SE in some parts is doubtless down to a) whether it was available in the DLC used at the time and b) I'd imagine the author has picked up a lot of skills since starting 4 years ago and it's possible they weren't confident or able to do suitable SE in the route at the time.

Names can be misleading, in fact originally it was one mans project, and it effectively still is, with a very few custom assets being provided by a community member to the builder who places them in route himself. The only reason for this outside involvement is that there are no suitable default assets, which is what the original route was created with to great effect.

Wanting to change the track underlay/terrian, can someone point me in the right direction? The ground which the tracks are placed on. Currently it's very bright, and I'd like it more darker, like the layout used on the RSC London-Peterborough line. I tried to change the <TerrainBlueprint> property in RouteProperties.xml with the Texturing.xml from the RSC-line, but that didn't work, the layout turned green with grass instead.

LundeSDK wrote:Wanting to change the track underlay/terrian, can someone point me in the right direction? The ground which the tracks are placed on. Currently it's very bright, and I'd like it more darker, like the layout used on the RSC London-Peterborough line. I tried to change the <TerrainBlueprint> property in RouteProperties.xml with the Texturing.xml from the RSC-line, but that didn't work, the layout turned green with grass instead.

Keep following the 'paper trail'
You've identified which terrain texturing blueprint is in use, so open that and you'll see the paths/names of the actual textures it uses. You should be able to work out just what texture does what and edit it to suit.

Now it gets complicated.....

If that file that defines the textures is from another route, then obviously editing it will affect that other route too---and any other routes that use it---so it's not the beat way to go about it.
You need to give the GWML it's own ground texture blueprint; simply copy the one it's using and create the appropriate folder in the assets folder for GWML.
for example, if the GWML assets live in

..\Assets\JustTrains\GWML

you need a folder thus:

..\Assets\JustTrains\GWML\Environment.

Once you have the folder just paste the file into it.

Now edit that new ground texturing .bin file to reflect it's for GWML and edit the path of the track underlay to point to the texture you want to use.

If the route already has it's own file then it's much simpler of course; I'd still recommend working on a copy of the original file, and rename that original by adding -ORIGINAL (or anything else that makes sense to you such as -DEFAULT) after the .bin extension. This makes it a file the game doesn't recognise so would never be changed by using any of the inbuilt editing tools.
Edit the copy you're going to use to point to the correct texture, even edit the displayed name so it shows as being an edited version.
You could even rename the file to make it obvious that it's an edited copy. A text file in the directory, suitably named, detailing what and why regarding the edit wouldn't go amiss either. All this 'covering yer back' malarkey does make reverting back to a known working (albeit not ideal if you want to change it) version without reinstalling stuff
If you do rename it you'll also need to edit the routes template .bin file and RouteProperties.xml file to point to the new texturing .bin.

Gary,
looking at your last post on editing would you be using RW Tools. Or manual editing the xml files.
Regards,
Pete

Either Pete, the choice of .xml editor is down to you. RW Tools doesn't have an automated routine to do any of it (other than calling on Serz.exe to convert .bin to .xml) so it's all a manual job.

Not entirely sure if a. it's relevant or b. it's already been covered, but JT announced this: http://justtrains.net/product/south-devon-mainline

Thanks gptech, got it working using the RivieraLine terrian files. I think it looks better now with a more darker land than the default bright one.

wild5551 wrote:Not entirely sure if a. it's relevant or b. it's already been covered, but JT announced this: http://justtrains.net/product/south-devon-mainline

Looks promising doesn't it. I'm looking forward to this one, lets hope they properly capture the atmosphere of this line! (And avoid the hideous red rock used on the Riviera line )

wild5551 wrote:Not entirely sure if a. it's relevant or b. it's already been covered, but JT announced this: http://justtrains.net/product/south-devon-mainline

Really excited about this, especially as it'll also be available as an extension to this route, hoping for a Penzance to Plymouth extension in the future and then I'll truly be in train sim heaven!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk