[Jovet]

Coonskin, on 14 May 2018 - 06:03 AM, said:

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.

What does this have to do with procedural tracks?

[Coonskin]

Read closer: High poly track structure/etc is discussed above.

My observation is across the board, whether it's track/whatever.

[eric from trainsim]

Coonskin, on 17 May 2018 - 04:12 AM, said:

Read closer: High poly track structure/etc is discussed above.

My observation is across the board, whether it's track/whatever.

Yep. 3D ties and higher detail track are eye candy and make for some great screenshots, but in the end don't matter much when I'm in the cab watching gauges and forward for signals...

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

While I tend to gravitate towards being a poly miser - as silky smooth frame rates are essential to me - the basic track could stand a little work... I liked Erick's idea to upgrade the track as we really could use a standard berm system incorporated below the track... It's most obvious when attempting to utilize the "Super Elevation" feature of ORTS - well - that and there's too many pieces of track that don't super elevate properly spoiling the effect...

That said - I can see the advantages to procedural track - possibly speeding up the route building process and opening the door to even more automation when laying track... Does procedural track have to be "high poly" ?

Regards,
Scott

[Jovet]

Coonskin, on 17 May 2018 - 04:12 AM, said:

Read closer: High poly track structure/etc is discussed above.

Ahh, yes, discussed almost a year ago.

I'm not trying to argue with what you wrote, but I want to be clear that "procedural track" does not automatically equate to "performance hit" or "high polygon." High-polygon everything is nice, but priorities have to be made. High polygon track should not be low on that list, since it's a railroad simulator. The nice thing about dynamic features like procedural track is that they can be tailored in lots of ways. For example, the track could be made a lot more generic and low-poly when the player train is moving fast, and more realistic and polygon-hungry when the player train is still. As was stated, you won't really notice the track when you're driving your train around, but inching or stopped for a signal or station or something, you will.

There is a happy medium and play between performance and detail intensity. Any graphics system can be ground to a halt, yes, but not all graphics systems are created equal. On top of that, the law of economics, "You get what you pay for," has applied, applies today, and always will apply. If you want good gaming PC performance, you have to pay for it. The world of technology keeps marching forward and dust will eventually settle. The computers of today will not be able to do what the computers of tomorrow can do.

[Coonskin]

Last year or not, I still stand by my words. I also understand the "marching on" part.

I still say that the current systems will get loaded up to where many of the current developers for the OR community will simply have to retire from it, for being on fixed incomes (and MANY of the developers are on fixed incomes), it's just not practical for them to spend their fixed income to the tune of four digit figures in order to update their systems. (A system that will also quickly fall off "cutting edge" and become "old" within a year or two.) At some point in time, those of us not able, or willing, to spend the bucks (often) to try to keep pace, will simply have to say "no mos" and stand pat.

Can't speak for the other developers, but I'm getting to the "no mos" point in that I'm willing to stop the march personally. In my case, I have more than enough routes to busy myself with for years to come, and I have a pretty good selection of equipment needed to supply those routes, with more in the pipeline. For those of us V scalers that are similarly minded, very likely we'll simply enjoy our niche among ourselves and be happy.

This "moving on" part turned out to be a hidden pitfall of V scale for me that I didn't fully realize at the first. I've since decided that I'd rather spend the four digits in some other interest of mine that is more lasting.

Of course, other's mileage can, and will, vary.

[ebnertra000]

You know, Andre, I was able to get a rather good video card pretty cheaply. A local computer shop installed it, and the whole thing cost about $80 (the card's RAM went out, but thank God for warranties - they replaced it without cost). The same shop built my computer for about $150. Good deals are there if you know where to look.

But I'm getting a little off topic here. I would say that while I like the idea of procedural track, and I think it could be pretty efficient if done right, it may not be worth it in the end if it can bog down all but the highest-powered systems

[mopacfan]

Hi,

I'm looking forward to eventually using the procedural track function to covert the track on the route project I'm involved in with track that has thinner rails.

[Jovet]

The nice thing about the procedural track talked about in this thread so far is that it would be based on a model template. The model template can be changed. It could be made as simple or as complicated as one wishes. It could even change on the fly. (I really like my speed-based idea.) A virtually-unlimited number of templates or track profiles could be used on the same route.

[Goku]

Jovet, on 19 May 2018 - 12:24 AM, said:

The nice thing about the procedural track talked about in this thread so far is that it would be based on a model template. The model template can be changed. It could be made as simple or as complicated as one wishes. It could even change on the fly. (I really like my speed-based idea.) A virtually-unlimited number of templates or track profiles could be used on the same route.

Yes. That is the goal of first step in procedural tracks.