Unnecessary detail?

[ihavenonamenoreallyidont]

Different strokes for different folks: the relative lack of detail away from the immediate track side means that GARL and Edinburgh to Glasgow sit right at the bottom of my personal bang per buck ratio ladder.

[Andrew Page]

Different strokes for different folks: the relative lack of detail away from the immediate track side means that GARL and Edinburgh to Glasgow sit right at the bottom of my personal bang per buck ratio ladder.

Each to their own, as you say. My personal preference is very much for the Edinburgh to Glasgow approach (my favourite modern era route). Mind you, I drive pretty much exclusively from the cab. The accuracy of the cab matters a very great deal to me, but scenic detail beyond the driver's perspective is of little interest to me. I have to say that I had no idea that some folks drive from a helicopter (hope I've understood that correctly!).

AP

[transadelaide]

I thought the point of scenery detail was that all scenery could be placed with a detail level between 0 to 10 ?
Therefore scenery close to the track would be graduated out to distant scenery which would disappear if you turn the level down.
I haven't check if that was the way WCML was done but that would be the obvious way to please everyone and make lower spec pc's run some scenery better.
Or am I missing something ?

Thats how you'd think it would work John, but it doesn't. If you turn the detail down on routes, whole stations start to disappear. WCML, you HAVE to have it at 9 or 10.

The way it works is that there is a field for a number in the RHS flyout when you double-click a scenic asset which can be changed in the World Editor. Those items with lower numbers (lower priority) are the first to disappear if you have a setting less than ten.

What it appears has happened with WCML North is that neither the route's creator or anybody from RS.com went through the route and checked that all the items most critical to rail operations (like station platforms, electrification masks) had sufficiently high priority settings to make sure they would be the last items remaining on lower settings. It's a poor reflection on the route's creator that it was handed over in that state, and it's a poor reflection on RS.com that they let it go on sale without checking that.

Colton & Northern (by All Aboard, also distributed by Just Trains and RS.com/Steam) has a similar issue. Some of the bridges will disappear on settings of 8-9 while scenic decoration-only assets like trees and buildings hundreds of metres away from the track will still be there.

[hertsbob]

Bob, if thats you in the pic, i'd stay away from anything you'd had to do with anyway lol.

I was having a good day when that was taken.

Cheers

Bob

[almark]

The problem here is that it's hard to find a middle ground because you never know how people will react,take ECML for example,its fine for me but for some people its too sparse in the rural areas. It's all a matter of opinion.

[FoggyMorning]

Hi

I think you'd best steer clear of any route I've had dealings with then.

Cheers

Bob

Interesting that you'd say that Bob, as for my money Woodhead does strike a very good balance between scenic depth and not going "too far" from the track areas.

[msey0002]

I still think theres quite a jump between unenecssary scenery and the frugality of E-G. Its all very clever I grant you, but any kind of scenic screenshot is out.

The classic view of Waverly from the Castle... well try it

Well, I can't say that's much of a problem for me personally. I do love E-G, one of my favourites, however I am disappointed that the Scott Monument and Edinburgh Castle were left out, two landmarks starkly visible from cab and passenger seat.

Personally, I think this is a train driving simulator and should be viewed as such, even when building routes. Would certainly save time building them and make them more FPS friendly. But that is my opinion.

[bigvern]

Re the opening post, this is something I have been banging on about for ages and I even started a thread a while back about the merits of minimalistic routes.

We (route builders) are all guilty of overstuffing a little bit, it's the easiest thing to do particularly working from helicopter view as one does in the editor. There has to be a compromise and ultimately it is down to the individual. I hate to keep mentioning BrisCard for MSTS, but this route is actually an excellent example of how to do it. The use of good detail and many custom objects visible from driver's view tends to draw the eye, it's only when you look out the side window you notice the detail doesn't go much beyond about 500m from the track. Of course, that's the only way such a huge route would be practical without taking years to make.

The approach works well on fairly flat routes but of course some extra attention is needed on mountainous routes where you come round a hillside and see a valley laid out below, if these are not to look too bare.

However my bottom line is firmly of the view this is a cab view train driving sim, not a helicopter or Cessna sim and there is no need to lay out an exact duplicate of every town or village up to 2 miles away from the track. Road over the railway? If you're approaching looking out the cab you can see maybe a hundred yards either side, but nothing much over the hedges so detailed pavements, signs etc. not really needed.

An old cliche perhaps, but effectively it's a virtual film set, where you don't provide full structures if flat fronts will do.

[ttjph]

I does seem to me that intelligent use of the asset priority ought to solve the problem almost entirely - but as mentioned, that depends on someone going through every asset in the route and making sure it's set appropriately.

I generally drive from the cab, but there are times (e.g. when rattling along a particularly straight bit of the Newcastle-York) where I like to pop up in the helicopter for a few moments and admire the viaducts and rivers as I pass over them. As long as I'm fairly sure there are no adverse signals coming...

[bdy26]

I think Derek once posted that it's not about how many assets you use, but to use a smaller number intelligently to have maximum impact. I'd agree with that. CKPR definately overdoes it in places, but that's learning curves for you (though at the time there was much talk of improved distance vision!) so it was partly a conscious decision.

Its definately the right approach to have the detail near the track and less as you go further away, but there are things you can do to make it look like there's more than there is to decive the eye. using lines of trees, 2d hedges placed at certain angles and breaking up more distant plain green textures all help. Asset blocks and housing blocks (see Woodhead) are also very handy. There's a time advantage, but having just done a 15 mile section of Shap, the time consuming bit it not painting fields or laying walls but terraforming around the track and that is required no matter what approach you take to the scenery. Diverging slightly from the OP, but to encourage routebuilding then improve the tools and reduce the terrain mesh size.

Different people use the sim for different things. For some its a cab simulator (though frankly I'd consider BVE if that's your bag) but personally I like driving but also love screenshots and watching trains go past, particularly scenes that you can't see any more. This sim should be for all not just the cab dewlling.

E-G is a great route to drive, and is in some ways quite the art form of minimalism. I do respect it, but I think its a separate genre of route.

B

[theokus]

Different strokes for different folks: the relative lack of detail away from the immediate track side means that GARL and Edinburgh to Glasgow sit right at the bottom of my personal bang per buck ratio ladder.

Each to their own, as you say. My personal preference is very much for the Edinburgh to Glasgow approach (my favourite modern era route). Mind you, I drive pretty much exclusively from the cab. The accuracy of the cab matters a very great deal to me, but scenic detail beyond the driver's perspective is of little interest to me. I have to say that I had no idea that some folks drive from a helicopter (hope I've understood that correctly!).

AP

There even two helicopter views AP

[theokus]

Re the opening post, this is something I have been banging on about for ages and I even started a thread a while back about the merits of minimalistic routes.

We (route builders) are all guilty of overstuffing a little bit, it's the easiest thing to do particularly working from helicopter view as one does in the editor. There has to be a compromise and ultimately it is down to the individual. I hate to keep mentioning BrisCard for MSTS, but this route is actually an excellent example of how to do it. The use of good detail and many custom objects visible from driver's view tends to draw the eye, it's only when you look out the side window you notice the detail doesn't go much beyond about 500m from the track. Of course, that's the only way such a huge route would be practical without taking years to make.

The approach works well on fairly flat routes but of course some extra attention is needed on mountainous routes where you come round a hillside and see a valley laid out below, if these are not to look too bare.

However my bottom line is firmly of the view this is a cab view train driving sim, not a helicopter or Cessna sim and there is no need to lay out an exact duplicate of every town or village up to 2 miles away from the track. Road over the railway? If you're approaching looking out the cab you can see maybe a hundred yards either side, but nothing much over the hedges so detailed pavements, signs etc. not really needed.

An old cliche perhaps, but effectively it's a virtual film set, where you don't provide full structures if flat fronts will do.

So, that's why I admire Sad27, our Dutch friend.
Lot's of details, perfection in design of objects and scenery.
imho it's perfection all the way.
I quote him:
"For those who follow my works and blog..I am still active, but behind the scenes for some reasons.
I am working on a route with a new and large foliagepack loaded with new 3D-trees, trees for block assets, grass etc..
This route will be new and almost all assets used in it. Of course with the detail I am used to work in. "

"However my bottom line is firmly of the view this is a cab view train driving sim, not a helicopter or Cessna sim..."
That's your opinion, fine with me, but it's not a rule a bigvern

[theokus]

The problem here is that it's hard to find a middle ground because you never know how people will react,take ECML for example,its fine for me but for some people its too sparse in the rural areas. It's all a matter of opinion.

Yes it is all a matter of opinion.

[theokus]

I does seem to me that intelligent use of the asset priority ought to solve the problem almost entirely - but as mentioned, that depends on someone going through every asset in the route and making sure it's set appropriately.

That's right to the point.
RW2 is a great asset of the wonderful graphical display.

I generally drive from the cab, but there are times (e.g. when rattling along a particularly straight bit of the Newcastle-York) where I like to pop up in the helicopter for a few moments and admire the viaducts and rivers as I pass over them. As long as I'm fairly sure there are no adverse signals coming...

A sim has to be a feast for th eye; no matter where your are, in the cab or outside.

[cilldroichid]

[quote="theokus="bi"]"For those who follow my works and blog..I am still active, but behind the scenes for some reasons.
I am working on a route with a new and large foliagepack loaded with new 3D-trees, trees for block assets, grass etc..
This route will be new and almost all assets used in it. Of course with the detail I am used to work in. "
[/quote]

But here is the rest of the same blog post,

"Of course with the detail I am used to work in. When I see other routes, I admire the way the builders can make a route without being so detailed, so they can get a longer route for higher speed. I just can't do that, i want to paint an detailed environment. So my route is shorter, and for lower speed. Much te see in a local German atmosphere."

So even the brilliant Sad can see value in a economical scenery wise route.

It really is what your personal preference is, personally i like them all, highly detailed (although my computer does struggle with them), lightly detailed and everything inbetween.