[Csantucci]

In the OR code there is a "ShadowAllShapes" setting hidden. This setting is checked in the code for both forests and scenery. Why is this setting hidden?

[dennisat]

Csantucci, on 19 November 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

In the OR code there is a "ShadowAllShapes" setting hidden. This setting is checked in the code for both forests and scenery. Why is this setting hidden?

I've used this setting for a long time now, it improves the overall appearance of the scenery.

Dennis

[James Ross]

Csantucci, on 19 November 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

In the OR code there is a "ShadowAllShapes" setting hidden. This setting is checked in the code for both forests and scenery. Why is this setting hidden?

It may have started existing before we had experimental settings, but even so it isn't really experimental; the setting deliberately goes against the content creator's wishes (i.e. which objects cast shadows) at a (sometimes large) performance cost. As a result, on some routes, it will give strange shadows from otherwise-hidden floating objects.

[Csantucci]

James, thanks for the explanation.
Pls. let me object that there are already quite many OR optional features that cause the route to display differently from what the creator intended with MSTS: think only at changing the viewing distance (which lets you display standard terrain instead of DM, if you increase viewing distance, and that not always provides a better view - I know this from the Bernina freeware route), the OR-specific sky, superelevation... they are only the first ones I have in mind.
I got a request to add a checkbox to select such option from a valid content development team, and as I see above there is also someone else appreciating it.
So I would be in favour to add an experimental option checkbox for it.

[Hannes44]

I'm all for such a button to switch shadows on and off. I already suggested it with Trello board some time ago.

[James Ross]

Csantucci, on 19 November 2017 - 11:55 PM, said:

I got a request to add a checkbox to select such option from a valid content development team, and as I see above there is also someone else appreciating it.
So I would be in favour to add an experimental option checkbox for it.

I would add it next to the "Dynamic shadows" option on the Video tab, as the behaviour is not really experimental.

[Csantucci]

Thanks James,
trello box is now available here https://trello.com/c...ible-to-players
and blueprint is available here for formal approval https://blueprints.l...apes-accessible .

[Csantucci]

Menu.exe file for x.3985 including the added checkbox in video options
 Menu.zip (74.07K)
Number of downloads: 406

[Mikban]

Csantucci, on 21 November 2017 - 12:10 AM, said:

Menu.exe file for x.3985 including the added checkbox in video options
Menu.zip

Us, the builders of "Stockholmsrutten", have used this feature for more than a year, by enabling it in the windows registry file. We're thankful to be able to use a check box now next to the "Dynamic shadows" option in the video tab, in the future.

Its nice to see OpenRails continue the development on software and keep it up with time.
Thank you Carlo for your excellent work!

[Eldorado.Railroad]

Csantucci, on 19 November 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

In the OR code there is a "ShadowAllShapes" setting hidden. This setting is checked in the code for both forests and scenery. Why is this setting hidden?

I am sorry I found this a bit late.

Really, I would suggest that finer control be implemented. The reality is that shadow all shapes is a sledge hammer. I have used it many times but there have been many times when being able to have a finer control of what gets shadowed has been desirable. Shapes that use the shader that is normally used for tree/grass (single or forests) cruciform often do not look right with shadows attached to them. The ways forests are implemented in OR are not the same as in MSTS and shadows are hidden because of it at certain sun position angles (I wish we would use the MSTS double polygons at right angles instead). Also forest regions in routes often have a large number count (I have seen 2000+!!!) for which MANY shadows cannot and will never be seen. This is a huge penalty to render for no sound reason.

Regardless of how the author of the MSTS route decided what was best, a user can modify world files to suit their own tastes. But that means editing world files either by hand or with a route editor.

It would be great to have a few levels for shadow all shapes, namely:

Shadow all normal scenery shapes []
Shadow all cruciform scenery shapes []
Shadow all forest regions []

As stated without these finer controls, things that a user does not want shadowed, get shadows, and I have seen some VERY strange things in OR XNA! Finer control will also provide a performance increase as possibly less things will have shadows cast, which is VERY EXPENSIVE to do with multiple higher resolution shadow maps.

Gracie,
Steve

[vince]

I had recently suggested that the OR team look into a shadow all shapes within n radius of the player. Would that be possible?
Another . . . maybe shadow all shapes within n meters of a rail line?

I note that all shapes are shadowed in TSRE if selected in the settings. Forest regions look okay but i'd guess that Goku's editor uses a different method for shadow generation? example:

regards,
vince

[elvasleis]

I think shadows are excellent in OR and I liked them from the start.
The way the shadows are cast on to moving rolling stock from track side objects is great.
Another happy customer.

[Csantucci]

vince, on 29 November 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

I had recently suggested that the OR team look into a shadow all shapes within n radius of the player. Would that be possible?

I think it's a reasonable idea. I am testing a solution where all shadows, not only those generated if ShadowAllShapes is set, are displayed only if the object's distance is nearer than half of maximum viewing distance.

[Csantucci]

In my testing version I added a further option enabling shadows only up to half of the viewing distance. A first test shows that with this further option enabled together with the ShadowAllShapes, the FPS near those with such two options disabled. So it seems useful to have this further option, or even to have it as a hidden true default.

[James Ross]

Csantucci, on 01 December 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

In my testing version I added a further option enabling shadows only up to half of the viewing distance. A first test shows that with this further option enabled together with the ShadowAllShapes, the FPS near those with such two options disabled. So it seems useful to have this further option, or even to have it as a hidden true default.

This post is very confusing to me, as dynamic shadows already default to half the viewing distance! This is the actual code in RenderProcess around line 142:

            if (Game.Settings.ShadowMapDistance == 0)
                Game.Settings.ShadowMapDistance = Game.Settings.ViewingDistance / 2;

"ShadowMapDistance" is a hidden setting you can override, should half the viewing distance not be appropriate.