[Eldorado.Railroad]

?

[Genma Saotome]

There are indeed issues w/ lights and what you found may be a new one. (James will have to say one way or the other).

In the meanwhile, try this: Radius = 600 and angle = 4. Look better?

[James Ross]

The renderer only supports a single light cone at any given time so, while a single light cone with multiple states will animate correctly (e.g. a moving headlights), switching between two different light cones is abrupt presently.

[James Ross]

Eldorado.Railroad, on 22 October 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:

I always wished in MSTS that one had some control over the angle of inclination of the sphere of light (cone), this would allow the user to light up the proximity of the locomotive a little better. It always looks like there is trade-off between lighting for distance versus lighting for proximity. Maybe this is something that could be addressed in OR at some future release. What seems to be a partial solution is to not have the point of emanation too high off the ground (1 meter or so) which allows for a nice light cone on the tracks, of course the actual sealed beam on the locomotive is a lot higher than that!

I don't know if this was the result of some 3rd-party engines using it or not, but OR already supports changing the direction of the light cone; the middle values of Azimuth and Elevation are applied to set the horizontal and vertical, respectively, offsets from straight-ahead (in degrees, as with other lights).

Eldorado.Railroad, on 22 October 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

Would it be too much of a stretch to track the FadeIn/FadeOut conditions for all non-animated instances of the sphere of light (eg: FIFO comma delimited string/stack)? As I hinted in the OP, sequential FadeIn/FadeOut would not require that more than one sphere of light be rendered at any one time. eg: One sphere of light would FadeOut completely before the next sphere of light would FadeIn. Would this not be an acceptable solution without too much re-coding?

I will have a look at sequencing them, but it might be quite a bit of work. Also, the non-cone lights fade between states as well, so I'm not sure how it'll look with them cross-fading while a cone fades out, then - after they're done - another cone fades in.

Eldorado.Railroad, on 22 October 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

Yeah, probably I spent too much time observing what happens on either a DC or DCC HO layout. In the back of my mind I wonder if the direction lever of the engine could not trigger what lights front/back get the low/hi light treatment. Dreams...just dreaming out loud here! Maybe?

It would need to be a new light condition, but it could certainly be done.

[James Ross]

• We're not removing non-cone cross-fading.
  
• We intend to support multiple light cones in the future and any sequential "cross"-fade of them will only result in people writing content that looks bad when we do so.