BRISTOL-EXETER

[theokus]

So, you never took a train from let's say Doover to London
This line I know.
In approaching London you see enough left and right:)

True enough, but this is not Dover to London, and the elevation of the tracks in real life allows for alternate methods in route building

Ok Mark.
I try to work in both way's.
A first finding in my route was indeed I saw too little (details) outside from the cab-view.

So I did something about it.
RW has enough to help you in this matter.
Even a bad (no good looks or wathever) environment can be made interesting without "raping" the reality
(sorry for the word with the "r" but you know what I try to say))

[wynnetom440]

Hey Darren,

Ever since I bought Bristol & Exeter route I haven't stopped playing it, it's definately my all time favourite. The scope for scenarios the route offers is great and the detail is brilliant. It was the route that made me purchase Railworks!

Would there be any plans/ chance that you may extend it further one day? E.g down to Paignton, Newton Abbot, Plymouth etc ? I would say Penzance as well but that is quite far.. haha


Tom

[pjt1974]

When building a route my philosophy is drivers view point.
I don't see the point of using the 'helicopter' views whilst driving.

I'm quite happy to be converted though, if someone who's 'pro' external view can convince me otherwise by explaining why they use it.

[phill70]

I used to know this, when I was at OOC, looks very good to me.

My view is, if you cannot see it from the cab, or possibly from views 2/3 then don't put it in.

As you may have guessed, I drive mainly from the cab, only using 2/3 for fairly slow speed movements.

[davejc64]

I tend to use cabveiw for driving, 2 or 3 for doing slow speed moves like shunting, 4 for dramatic views and screenshots and occasionally 5 for a realistic pulling out of station view, so I say if you can't see it from the cab, track-side or low level views you don't need it, also if I wanted to fly a helicopter I would play a flight Sim.

[bdy26]

It's always a balance when building a route. If you want something the length of B-E with 2 miles of accurate scenery either side, be prepared to wait as scenery is incredibly time consuming. More so if it's urban. If it's payware, be prepared to get your wallet out

[spikeyorks]

Someone said earlier that they were "on both sides of the fence".................don't know why they didn't want to "sit on it".........splinters perhaps?

I think I am the same. At the moment I am building a route where the scenery extends roughly 1 tile from the rails and that is regardless of whether the line is on an embankment or in a cutting. My aim is that, in this case, I want the line to appear to be part of the countryside (as all real lines are of course). To add to this impression I am also putting in little cameos throughout the route that are purely scenery based and are nothing at all to do with driving a train. You will only be able to see these cameos if you venture outside the cab but, to me, that is all part of exploring a route.

Also I like to venture out of the cab to take screenshots and like nothing more than plonking my camera down some distance from the line and composing a scenic view with my train in the middle of it.

However, on my next route, I am very tempted to try and produce a "drivers eye" route just so I can see the other extreme. I am curious to see how little you can put in to a route and still come out with a believeable result. Yes I will have to sacrifice some of my "aims" with my current route but I am sure there will be other benefits too (most notably the time taken to build the route).

So, personally, I think both approaches are completely acceptable. Build a fully detailed route extending out for miles if you want too, build a sparser "driver's eye" route if you want too. Both have their plusses and, perhaps, both have their limitations (I wouldn't say minuses as that sounds too negative). It all comes down at the end of the day to what you actually want from the sim.

Stay in the cab if you want to, but don't criticise those of us that want to go outside and have a look about.

Go outside of the cab if you want to, but don't criticise if sometimes there isn't much to see from afar because that was, probably, what the route builder intended.

Simples

(Now to get those splinters out my ar...........)

[Darpor]

(Now to get those splinters out my ar...........)

Arga?

[partyspiritz]

When building a route my philosophy is drivers view point.
I don't see the point of using the 'helicopter' views whilst driving.

I'm quite happy to be converted though, if someone who's 'pro' external view can convince me otherwise by explaining why they use it.

I am landscaping The Bacup Branch to make it look like picture the route contains some beautiful buildings all have now gone, This is one of the reasons it has taken so long. What you see outside the train set's the time frame and the feel of the route.

Yes its grim dark and cold but that is how I remember it as I small boy. Sadly that is still how it is today with high unemployment with lots of shops boarded up.

Regards


John

[partyspiritz]

Parts of the route I enjoyed but I like changing things anyway

Regards


John

[smarty2]

I personally think Darren has done an excellent job overall on the B&E and it appears to me that common sense was used in it's construction, it does as the popular vernacular says what it says on the tin.

[VernonDozier]

Im building a route some bits of which touches on the area Darren has done and I can say any short cut that is viable for keeping down unnecessary scenery is a sensible step that ought to be taken. Railworks still is not completely optimised for dealing with massive amounts of scenery. Put in any scenery where it cannot be seen is not really a great idea for all sorts of reasons. It makes producing the route take longer, saps your morale (and how!), and most importantly of all in the area in question, cannot be seen.
Looked at from the other perspective we had one payware route creator criticised because it was so highly detailed its was near impossible to run without turning your graphics settings down. Now we have another one criticised because he built something that we can all run. Its a bit unfair I think, particularly as some of the default routes that ship with Railworks are exactly the same. Has anyone looked to see how far you can move from the line in places on OxPad?

As for all the trees, its a sad fact the British railway network is beset by the bally things, a result of someone in the 1960s thinking lineside clearance was an unnecessary expense and saddling millions of commuters for the next 40 years with the popular catchphrase 'delayed due to leaves on the line'.

Its an accurate portrayal of an attractive route. The only criticism ill make of it is that he didnt use enough Lower Semaphore.

Interesting. I wish we had more tree lined railroads like that here.
As for this route. I'd rather the route perform well with no floating objects or other weirdness rather than a bunch of out of view assets that slow the computer down.

[stuart666]

Interesting. I wish we had more tree lined railroads like that here.
As for this route. I'd rather the route perform well with no floating objects or other weirdness rather than a bunch of out of view assets that slow the computer down.

They have tried to solve the problem numerous ways, including coming out with rail scouring machines to remove compacted leaf debris from the rail. But the only surefire way is to cut the flipping things down. So Darren is being quite plausible when he models it this way.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 955681.ece


I love the route personally. I dont play it as much as I should because im not a big fan of modern traction (no reason for me not to do some 1960s scenarios), but its very well done and the asset box is completely chocker with assets. Its nice to see a modern route that is not beset by cateneries, which whilst I love electric traction, hardly made modern railways look at their most attractive.

[theokus]

Today it is Pentecost.
Perhaps this sheds a new light on the events
Allow me again to talk about "helikopter view" and " outside cab view".

What is wrong if you want to take into account the provision of both options?
What is wrong to make sure that both, in "helikopter view" as in "outside cab view" the route has everything to satisfy customers.
The question is what is stopping you or us, to take that approach?
We all know the reasons.
The main reasons are the "stutter" and & or a computer with a rather weak performance.
The first is not in our hands and the second, we can fix it if financially feasible

If you look closely at a route which objects are most commonly used.?
Anything to do with folliage is a answer. (A answer, not THE answer).
If you look closely in de documentation that came with the "Folige Pack 01",
you'll find there some rules or suggestions how to place this folliage on page 8.
1. Trackside detail
2. Near distance fields
3. Filed boundaries
4. Middle distance trees
5. Distance trees.
* Each item has his own explanation how and where to us it.
Item 5 now, is interesting: ".... these distant trees are about 600m from the track".
And yes: "Far from the track the camera will never get close to this area when driving a train normally".
So I like to conclude that 600m scenery left and right of the track is enough with every scenery
on his place of preference. And I think that not many "helikopter viewers" will complain.
By doing so, this also reduces the chance of stutter: it is rather obvious.
(Using nearby scenery or folliage all over the place is not the best way to take)

I do not think we have a free choice if we are seeking to achieved the best result without having to use a compromise .
A least, that's the way I see it.

When creating objects is important to keep low number of poly's without having to yield to lower quality. (draw distance, lod's etc.)
All these suggestions will continue to apply even if the stutter will ever be solved.

For the rest it is very unfortunate that not every route builder can go out in full.
And it is a godsend for an artist or builder to give us a route with the least possible objects or resources to offer us a scenic or a beautiful route.

And yet, and above all, I do not want to spoil someone's hobby.
What I have in mind is to help with all my options as far as they are reaching.
I understand and find out that this sometimes turns against me. But then life is full of risks.
It is also my opinion to questioning everything and to think.
If you stop to think then you hold on to a spiritual existence.
Then, you are as good as dead.

[bigvern]

Ultimately the decision lies with the route builder as to what he is trying to produce and the target audience. This is nothing new as we saw the same approach in MSTS - routes like London to Brighton which worked extremely well from the cab (it had other issues which we won't go into here) or the original Maple Leaf Tracks Kicking Horse Pass. Substantial stretches of that were effectively an avenue of trees, in fact not even trees, used the criss cross 2D backdrop style foliage. However, viewed from the cab - it worked. AKA Did what it said on the tin - if the primary purpose of the programme is to simulate handling trains and dealing with operational challenges, descending a 2.2% gradient with 10,000 tonnes behind the locos requires all my attention on the controls and what I'm doing. No time for showboating or barnstorming.