Most practical way to model this area?

[SAR704]

I am still in the process of contemplating a future project, and the track in the attached image is one that I thought of modeling years ago, but didn't really get anywhere with it.

But anyhow, how does the pros in this game model areas with such dense catchment areas for buildings/houses? I have noticed that DTG use some kind of large block style asset in some cases, but I would like to know what other users opinions are in regards to the most practical way to model this town is, so that it can be depicted semi-realistically.

The alignment I'll be focusing is essentially the grey line that is just to west of the oval to the right of the map. It continues south, with a branchline branching off where it remains straight for a modest distance (will only be background scenery to the mainline). The urban sprawl ends about where the bottom of the image cuts out.

I am open to doing custom buildings, but I have thought about whether or not it is practical to spends several hours on a building that will be several hundred metres from the track. If I can refine these tactics, it will enable me to be more productive with this game before it does become obsolete.

Here's the image:

img52.jpg

And for the record, despite what it looks like, the other project hasn't been forgotten

[buzz456]

I have always used the theory when it comes to towns what can you see from the train is what we want to get as accurate as you can. Who cares what the house looks like that five hundred meters from the tracks unless it's up on a bluff so it becomes highly visible. Houses or for that matter other buildings just need something to fill in the space so you get the feel of the town being there. If there are trees it makes what you put down even less important because most of the stuff is only seen for a instant. If it's rolling hills you need more detail but flat areas look just fine with blocks or lines of homes. RCAP has a bunch of different choices or you make one of your own once and then put them down as blocks. That way you also don't end up with thousands and thousands of objects in sight choking your computer. There will probably be all sorts of differing opinions on this however this is .

[RailWanderer]

I agree mostly with what Buzz has said, and as far as buildings goes, I think anything beyond visual trackside, 50 meters or so, should be crackerboxes as you certainly won't have time to see those buildings anyhow. Trackside buildings in low speed areas need to be fairly detailed, and as the buildings move more out of that zone, they go into the realm of crackerboxes, lower detail. This is Train Simulator not Scenery Simulator, so treat your route as such to keep things running great. Creating scenery beyond the visual range of the train is a waste of time, 1000 to 1500 meters, and that's pushing it.

Most people have HSC, which is rather old now, but still can be a guide as to how to create scenery with a bit of expansion in regards to todays computing power and graphics.

In regards to roads, if they aren't up close to the tracks or visually important, skip them altogether. Mixing tree irregular asset blocks with some taller buildings can create the effect of far off city assets. Also, use the strip method of scenery creation, these strips run along parallel to the tracks. Up close there may be many, but further away the strips get less dense quick as you move away from the tracks. Like along large areas of open running there would be several overlapping irregular asset blocks, one for two styles of grass, then overlapping the grass one for 3d trees, and even bigger blocks for those ground covering 2d camera facing trees, remember the overlap. And don't forget those all important trackside assets like telegraph poles and procedural textures.

Anyway, hope that helps SAR704.

[SAR704]

Thanks for the advice so far.

As indicated in some of my posts, I do tend to use grass and trackside poles (when present). I also try to include utility poles and other essential items so as not to make the route look too basic. I do have Horseshoe Curve, so I will try to remember to compare what's in the route to what's actually there in real life.

I don't have a high number of generic buildings to fill in space, but I tend to model buildings without an overload of detail. IE enough to make them look like how they actually are, but without obsessing over things that are unlikely to be noticed. And please note that this is not a query in regards to scenery assets to fill a gap, as I am very unlikely to use ones that aren't mine.

I have a habit of spending up to 6 hours on one building, which is certainly an inefficient use of time when it's not a massive one. What puts me off modeling towns of any real size is the amount of hours put into custom objects, and your post (the above) certainly makes it ring a bell with me. Admittedly I did spend several hours modeling an unusually shaped house which wasn't right next to the track, but relatively close, when I could have possibly just made it a little more basic, despite it being near a small shunting yard.

I have a tendency to believe that one person might recognise something and badmouth the whole route over it, but despite one obvious error in an MSTS route, I have seen next to no negative comments that are not constructive criticism.

Anyhow, I will try to take into account that this is not Red Faction or GTA, just a train sim, and hopefully be able to come up with something that works in favour of a little something called efficiency.

[mindenjohn]

I'm with Buzz and John. In my book anyone who wants to badmouth anyone else's effort(s) have no right until if and when they have made that effort, no one forces them to download and install. Anyone can have bad manners and it is easy to be critical. I admire everyone who is prepared to have a go.

[jlms48]

In answer to SAR704,s original question-
You could try using 2D background scenery objects for the background urban scenery placed at a distance from the track. Place your 3D objects only in the foreground.
I have seen this used on some older European routes. I think it was effective when viewed from the train or trackside. This is equivalent to using a backscene on a model railway layout.

There are a few examples of 2D urban backscenes (in sunny Italy) , for use in TS 201x here.
https://tinyurl.com/y34783gc
https://tinyurl.com/yxmz292x

If you are into photography you might have some fun taking panoramic shots of Australian(?) city scenery to use in your route.
Cheers,
John