[eric from trainsim]

Goku, on 26 June 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

That is why I think it's better to use 3d shape for a tie, not texture.

That's a lot of objects. between 3000 and 3500 per mile of track, with 10 polys per tie.

[Goku]

Good distance levels and it isn't bad.
Here you have 20 km of tracks with 3d ties and no distance level:
http://i.imgur.com/CzKPKZc.jpg

[Jovet]

Goku, on 26 June 2017 - 05:05 AM, said:

That is why I think it's better to use 3d shape for a tie, not texture.

So do your procedurally-generated tracks use separate textures, then?

[Goku]

Yes, it's possible.

[Stephen Hjellum]

Bump.
Any progress on this? I have my route work on hold because of the maddeningly slow output of sectional tracklaying. Maybe it's because RW/TSxxxx has me spoiled. Would love to hear any updates.

[Coonskin]

If ALL builders (routes, locomotives, rail cars, structures, vegetation, track, whatever) continue to act like there's NO limits at all on resource and merrily build intense model objects, and load routes with them, etc, it WILL COME HOME. You'll take a good 3D graphic engine and load it up to the point that we'll all be back to low FPS and "SLIDE SHOW" performance and whining about poor performance. Eventually the scenario will be that those that have the financial $$ to keep themselves in HIGH END, "latest and greatest" gaming computer systems will be the only ones that can enjoy the hobby.

Mark my word.

[SP 0-6-0]

Andre, Well said.

Robert

[Stephen Hjellum]

Personally, I wasn't complaining about anything. This is a subject I have great interest in, and I'm patiently waiting Goku's update on this. I certainly wasn't asking for a lecture on this matter, but I take your advice with the trust it deserves.

[Goku]

First step of procedural tracks is only procedural shapes. You still need to place track sections.
Second step is far future.

[Stephen Hjellum]

Goku,Thank you for responding. I do understand that this is not the same as the RW tracklaying system yet, but do keep in mind that it is very much desired by us route builders. My bump in post #45 (coincidentally my president's number, as irrelevant to this discussion as it may be) was meant to gauge how far along the first step is at the present time. Like I said, I am being patient, as I believe in your editors. Take care, now.