If this is your first visit, welcome to TrainSim.Com! This web site is for you if you are interested in railway simulations. We offer a library of downloadable files, forums to exchanges messages, news and more. We do not
sell train simulator software.
For full use of the site please
register.
Until you do, you will not be able to download files or post messages.
There's not, but you could probably make one based on the dynamic track profile.
My licensed copy of Dynatrax no longer functions, so it hasn't been very high on my list.
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, items saved in our library or the ongoing development of our TSRE Fork, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
Yeah, I've noticed that, and have tried a couple different things but haven't landed on a good fix. The shadows are legit, and I suspect that the reason they're not appearing on dynamic track is that it may have been designed in a way it doesn't cast a shadow.
The problem is exacerbated by the USTracks textures and how alpha's are defined. The edges are alpha'd as you'd expect, but the ballast around the ties is also alpha'd out, which means it has to be drawn as three separate objects (slope, top, slope).
As three separate objects, there's no edge to un-crease or apply smoothing to. It might be possible to make it more of an arched curve, but that's going to increase the poly count for each shape.
That makes sense, and I feel that increasing the poly count for each shape would not be enough of a benefit to justify the hit on resources. So, since smoothing the ballast for the replacement shapes isn't really feasible right now, a good alternative would be to modify the dynamic track profile so the harder shadows are consistent with the replacement global shapes. (Again, I don't think they look bad, but I'd much rather that everything looked consistent so you couldn't even tell which track is dynamic and which isn't).
As mentioned before, such modifications are a bit beyond my expertise. But with some experimentation and a lot of fumbling, I think I stumbled on a solution. It looks like the "Normal" values control the lighting of the surface. So I replaced these values for the ballast slopes with values "borrowed" from one of the replacement shapes.
Are these the "correct" values? I have no clue...I'm just fiddling in the dark here. But the results in Open Rails are good, and dynamic track now seems to have consistent shadows as all other track...
So here's yet another Track Profile update for the USTracks default replacements...
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, items saved in our library or the ongoing development of our TSRE Fork, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
G'day Eric.
I am so please with this new Default track mod you done on this. It is absolutely magnificent and great for this Sim in particular. it looks nice and smooth when I tested it on the Australian New South Wales Southern Highlands route. it really look magnificent. Even provided the screenshot of your modded track below this message.
Big thank you for doing this, Glad the track pieces look more realistic than the default flat ones from kuji.
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, items saved in our library or the ongoing development of our TSRE Fork, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
Well, if you don't take into account that the new track profile is more accurate and isn't a flat texture with some boxes for rails, then yes, the track profile is the problem.
You can raise the road by 0.1 or 0.2m and it will be "fixed".
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, items saved in our library or the ongoing development of our TSRE Fork, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
Well, if you don't take into account that the new track profile is more accurate and isn't a flat texture with some boxes for rails, then yes, the track profile is the problem.
You can raise the road by 0.1 or 0.2m and it will be "fixed".
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment