Custom track error

[SAR704]

I've spent several hours trying to get some custom track into TS, and all I see when it's exported is a flat blue rectangular shape. The track is exported from 3D Canvas 7. I've checked all the details, and the textures. I've followed the UKTS forum regarding track creation, and I've also deleted the exports from earlier today, which may not have been overwritten.

Here is an example of the setup in 3DC. The rails are a child of the ballast as suggested in the tutorial.



Not sure what to do here.

[SAR704]

Does anyone know how to enable the function that shows (in the blueprint editor) what the newly exported file will look like in the game? This may sound very dumb, but I used it earlier today, but for some reason, I can't find it.

[Bananarama]

Track is finicky about object naming. I use the following for my own:

• Ballast
• Rails

Other parts can be added with whatever naming you choose. For switches, you'll need the following:

• Ballast
• Rail
• Gravel (optional)

Note the differences between Rails and Rail. IIRC, other part names used in switches are ignored, however.

[GreatNortherner]

I think what Marc said is probably the cause (though maybe you have set the correct node names in the 3DC custom fields already). With that and 3DC's own quirks in mind, check the following:

- move the main model group and its subgroups out of the "import" group, put them directly under "scene" in the hierarchy
- rename the model's groups as Marc suggested
- BTW, for the basic track loft, it is also possible to use only one group "1_2000_track" and put both ballast and rail objects in it
- the cap loft part (for switches) however absolutely needs the "ballast" main group and "rail" child-group

Other potential reasons for not or badly rendering lofts in the game can be:
- wrong shaders used
- make sure that your model does not contain any faces that are not parallel to the z axis (no "ups and downs" along z, no faces on the x/y pane)
- for correct blending of rail types and so that they align in both directions, pivots should be at z=[0 of object], x=[middle of loft], y=[surface of rail head]

Cheers
Michael

[SAR704]

Thanks for the replies so far, but I may need more info to see what I've done wrong. The 1_1000 thing is something I haven't used in the object fields in 3DC for a while. I'm following the tutorial at http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 2&t=102124 . This may be designed for earlier versions of the game, and therefore, I'm making some mistakes by going by the tutorial directly. It just tells you what to name the objects in 3dc, so I haven't actually named it 1_1000 track. Is this vital?

It's been a couple of years since I've managed to export track into the sim. Is there anything in the tutorial that I shouldn't do that is indicated as something that's necessary? I know this will require checking the it, but it will help me in the long run.

[GreatNortherner]

Hi,

Just skimmed through the UKTS thread but I think it should still be up to date. I would guess that the error is somewhere else, like object center/pivots, the hierarchy, non-horizontal faces or stuff like that. Any untextured faces maybe?

Could you post another screenshot of your 3DC project, its hierarchy and object properties?

1_1000 thing

The easiest way is probably to just add it to the group names in the hierarchy and leave the RS custom field emtpy. If you don't add anything, the exporter will just automatically add 1_1000_ to all groups, which is far too distant for small and detailed parts.

For example, if your main group is called "scenery", make it "1_1000_scenery" (or whatever LOD distance/setup you want to use). That way it's also very simple to setup multi-LOD configurations, just make the closest one your main group, and add the distant ones as children. Like so:

1_0100_scenery
2_0500_scenery
3_2000_scenery

Cheers
Michael

[Bananarama]

I'm making some mistakes by going by the tutorial directly. It just tells you what to name the objects in 3dc, so I haven't actually named it 1_1000 track. Is this vital?

Yes. See my post above.

[SAR704]

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

However, none of the textures seem to be appearing on the track. It seems as though they haven't been successfully exported to TS/RW, despite them appearing in the correct form in the assets folder. That seems to be the issue that I've had in the last few days. No matter how I export the track, the textures will not appear with even a single one of my exports, and therefore, I can't see if there are any other issues with the track. It just shows up as a blue rectangular shape. Here's an example -




I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but anyhow I've imported the track from TSM, and some polygons are merged with a single texture showing as the one applied in the texturing window, but multiple textures are visible.

[GreatNortherner]

That screenshot looks like the geometry does render okay, and that the issue is with the textures.

One thing to check is whether you've used the correct ACE format (Ace2). If you converted your textures with RWAceTool all should be fine, but check if a legacy MSTS ACE file found its way into your source folder, which would not export correctly to RW's own format.

some polygons are merged with a single texture showing as the one applied in the texturing window, but multiple textures are visible.

I didn't fully understand that, but it sounds as though there are "leftover" textures from your import applied to parts of the model. These must be taken out, as they wouldn't have been mapped with the specific requirements a loft object has (mapping along z axis, no vertical texture cropping as explained in that UKTS thread). My suggestion would be to use the Material Manager in 3DC or the objects properties panel and delete all material references, and then remap the model from scratch using only the loft texture.

Cheers
Michael

[SAR704]

Ah the RW acetool. Thanks for reminding me about that. i just remembered that there was an issue with ACE files imported directly from MSTS, and I just converted them using the program you mentioned, and now the textures are finally showing up. The points are rendering ok now.

However, there's one more slight problem. There are sleeper textures on top of the track texture under the points. How do i get rid of these? I'm only referring to those weird grey ones with black bits visible, not the one that have been textured into the ballast texture. They look like the textures from the default track.

[SAR704]

I've fixed the issue with the sleepers now. But there's one more issue. There seems to be some kind of flickering/flash when i move the window just above the track. it seems like there could be multiple textures embedded into the polygon or something. I'm not sure what it is though.

Here's an image. The rail to the right is showing this problem. The rails are probably a bit insecure at the moment, but the dogspikes will come later :P

[Bananarama]

The rails are having a z-buffer fit due to the close vertical proximity of the sides. DTG removed the backface cull (invisible back) feature on lofts, so the only solution is to minimize the effect by darkening the rail texture.

[SAR704]

Thanks for the assistance so far. I've darkened the textures on that track section, and it seems to have made the issue less obvious.

Not intending to be annoying here, however I'm having a bit of trouble with a standard gauge section of custom track (The track previously shown is Broad gauge (5`3). For some reason, the rails are not showing. I've converted the textures with RWace, and sized them to 512 x 512, and gone through every bit of this thread to see what I've done wrong, yet I can't seem to resolve this issue as shown in the below image. I've exported the igs file from 3DC the exact way that the other track that I got into TS, and I've check the blueprint and everything, yet I just can't get the rails to show up.

Here's what displays in the game.

[Bananarama]

What are the specific object names (rail, ballast, etc.) of the model?

[buzz456]

"Not intending to be annoying here" Not at all, this is good learning getting walked through this by a couple of experts. Stay on it.