Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Odd FA Problem

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brockville, ON, CA
    Posts
    2,653

    Default

    Not really sure what you mean Eric.

    After trying this about 50 time I now have no problem with this being an OR only set of RDCs and it that means the DARv3 activities are OR only, so be it.

    Paul :-)

  2. #12

    Default

    Here's what I was trying to describe... ignore the shape itself, since I don't have any of my Trainsim content at the moment, but that single line (which doesn't render because it doesn't have connected faces) from the 0,0,0 point on the model to one of the vertices on the model seems to have fixed some of my FA issues.

    I also do that for objects that need to be offset yet aligned to a track piece e.g. signal box, switch machine, catenary or trolley wire support so that they can share the track pieces XYZQ coordinates.

    Capture- 20200417-0834.jpg

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brockville, ON, CA
    Posts
    2,653

    Default

    OK, the object at 0, 0, 0 is the MAIN and it's parented to NONE. Just noticed something different on the RDCs then rest of the rolling stock I've drawn. My MAIN was never given a texture even though there are no polygons.

    Offset drawings. For years now with structure drawings that end up offset, or even something like a pole or trackside bushes that are only on one side of the tracks, I've been adding a 1x4 foot "board" 20 feet below the surface the "center" the drawing. I've been drawing entire city blocks for years and they usually require two of these but it's much simpler to add 4 polygons that are hidden then to move everything around.

    Paul :-)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    828

    Default

    Hi Paul,

    I've been thinking about your problem with the shape. The use of a Freight Animation should be avoidable unless you want to see it through the Cabview windows.

    Do you use the "Mastering Polymaster" method at Steam4Me? I would be surprised if Polymaster could not sort out the problems for you. I have 20,000+ poly models coming out of TSM and working in MSTS by using Polymaster. My most recent model has stalled due to the #5 passenger view clear windows issue in ORTS that Rick has dealt with, but MSTS seems to handle them ok.

    Using the Polymaster method at Steam4Me, I wait until the basic shape is all constructed and textured to my liking, and then start combining parts to form larger parts within the shape. My aim is to create a bunch of large parts, grouped by modifiers like Trans, Alpha, Smooth, etc. These are then combined again in Polymaster to form subgroups that are no more than about 5,500 polys each. MSTS seems to be able to handle this method, at least for the half-dozen shapes viewable at any given time in an activity. I did try to place about 55 of them in a yard to try to blow up ORTS and was quite successful!

    If you have not used Polymaster before and would like to give it a try, I would be happy to send you the necessary files to look at one of my models to see how I set them up and process them in Polymaster.

    TS Modeler is very frustrating at times trying to build detailed models for MSTS, but Polymaster has solved *almost* every problem that I've thrown at it, and is much more controllable than ShapeFixer.

    Tyler

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brockville, ON, CA
    Posts
    2,653

    Default

    My earlier thought that my MAIN object had no textures didn't work out.

    As for Polymaster, I've probably changed the RDC or taken out a part to see if it was the cause of not being able to get them into MSTS 50 times in the last four days with no joy. I have broken all my parts so they are below 1000 (probably below 900 by now), none of the binaries of the five show up in Activity Editor any more but you can double click them and a blue line will show up in the consist window at the bottom and they do show up and run normally in Open Rails.

    Haven't tried shape fixer in years, last time I really screwed up something and I was lucky I had made a copy of it just before my adventure with shape fixer.

    Paul :-)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brockville, ON, CA
    Posts
    2,653

    Default

    Five down three to go for this set.



    Paul :-)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    828

    Default

    That's a great looking set! You have a very impressive catalog of models, and I'm a bit envious that you can churn out quality content at such a pace.


    Someone please jump in to correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the way TSM compiles models to the binary is where the trouble starts.


    When you build a model in TSM, you have a bunch of parts. MAIN will be one of the parts. You have parts that might be SolidNorm, or windows that might be TransNorm or AlphaNorm. You can combine these parts in TSM to organize your model as you view it in the program. However, once you hit the C button to compile a shape for MSTS, TSM goes it's own way.

    The 1,000 poly parts that you have organized soon combine to become one subobject, with all of the SolidNorm parts going into one, all of the TransNorm parts going into another, etc. These subobjects are what MSTS loads in sequence to form the visible model. Now, if you have five 1,000 poly parts that are all SolidNorm, TSM will create the shape so MSTS sees this as one 5,000 poly part that it has to load. If you have 7 or 8 1,000 poly parts in the model, TSM will compile these down to a 7,000 or 8,000 poly subobject that MSTS tries to load. There are varying reports on how many polys MSTS will successfully load at once, and in my experience 7,000-8,000 polys is in the range when things go haywire.


    The summary is that MSTS loads subobjects, not parts, and that TSM does not organize the subobjects based upon your careful arrangement of polys in the individual parts.


    Polymaster uses a method that tricks TSM into leaving all of these parts separated so you can choose how they are combined after the shape has been compiled. If a part has a rotation motion specified, TSM will compile it into a separate subobject. The trick is to make a Dummy Rotation; basically a rotation that has nothing but 0.0 coordinates so it actually does nothing.

    You set all of your parts up with this dummy rotation that actually does not rotate the parts, and then TSM will compile a shape that keeps all of these parts separate. Polymaster then gives you the opportunity to manually select which parts go into a subobject, and can therefore create more subobjects than TSM would create on its own. TSM might create a 10,000 poly subobject which would certainly crash MSTS, where Polymaster gives you the control to split that into two 5,000 poly subobjects that MSTS can digest with ease.

    Polymaster will also delete these dummy rotations and also fix an Alpha sorting issue that allows scenery objects to be seen through the tinted windows. It also will create LODs if you're into that as well.

    The folks that make MSTS models in GMax or other programs have control of this stuff in those programs so Polymaster isn't needed.

    It's really an incredible tool and will save you many hours of frustration when building your detailed locomotives and rolling stock. I highly recommend that you investigate this tutorial: https://msts.steam4me.net/tutorials/...olymaster.html

    Again, I'm happy to package up a locomotive so you can see it in TSM and then see what I've done in Polymaster to make it work in MSTS. I can say that I've not yet had a 20,000 poly locomotive crash MSTS when properly set up using Polymaster.



    I've never used a zero-poly MAIN shape with no texture, so I'm unsure what the result of that would be. I use 2-poly MAIN and ALPHAMAIN parts that have textures when I set up my models.

    Tyler

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brockville, ON, CA
    Posts
    2,653

    Default

    The 0,0,0 MAIN shape is parented to NONE. Bogie 1 and Bogie 2 are parented to the MAIN. The truck parts are parented to their respective Bogies. Then you need a part like FRAME that is parented tp MAIN and the rest of the model is parented to the FRAME... of at least that how it's worked for me over the years.

    When I've been creating the model to become a Train sim object, I've been checking and TSM is creating the binary that should be showing up in the Activity Editor... but it just isn't showing up any longer.

    Both types are under 17,000 polygons and are all in one file. After tinkering with the F/A for a day and nothing changed, I gave up and put everything back in the main file and removed the F/A line from the engine file.

    Paul :-)

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    828

    Default

    I've run into problems with taking all of the detail parts and parenting them to FRAME. I'm not sure why, but doing this will also cause problems even when using Polymaster. Make half of them parented to FRAME and half of them parented to another large part like BODY, and then parent those two to MAIN.

    The reason that you are having trouble with the model in MSTS AE is that 17,000 polys is too big of a model for MSTS. I understand that the classic response to this problem is to split the model into a Main shape and a F/A shape. Polymaster is just an alternative way to get a model working in MSTS without splitting it in half.

    I started to learn most of this stuff the hard way back in 2012 when I did the SD39-40 models. I had a BNSF SD39+slug set that was causing me to pull my hair out. All the other models worked, so why didn't that one? It really appears to me that the limits of what MSTS can handle are not exactly set in stone. When you get close to the limit, adding certain parts will cause a crash while adding others won't. At the time it made me think that the parts were corrupt. Now, I'm more inclined to believe that the limit for MSTS is a bit flexible or arbitrary. Again, 7,000-8,000 polys is where I reached my limit for a model to show up in the AE window. The Polymastered SD40s that I finished last week are right at 20,000 polys and take about 6 seconds to load in the AE window but have no problems otherwise.

    I know that Polymaster changed the way I build models in TSM. I'll never have to rebuild anything 50 times to get it to show in MSTS ever again. It will slow your modeling process for about a day to learn how to properly use it, but I'm certain my life is easier after learning to use it.

    Tyler

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brockville, ON, CA
    Posts
    2,653

    Default

    So I finished my eighth RDC yesterday, then made another one to experiment with. I moved all the underframe to an F/A, then went back and changed the parenting of everything from the waist up to the ceiling which was parented to MAIN. No change, opened fine in OR and crashed MSTS to desktop. I changed the F/A so all the seating and carbody interior was in it and moved the underframe components back to the mail file (swapping around 3000 polygons) and again sme thing OK in OR but crashed MSTS. After trying different combinations for three hours with no changed I'm OK with these being OR only.

    Paul :-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •