Train Sim World

[BigVern]

Surprised not to have seen a discussion already kicked off on this though understandable if some who post(ed) on here are on the inside and bound by NDA.

This is a very welcome step forward for our hobby and as I've noted on other forums unlike N3V with their "target graphics" Photo-Shop imagery of Trainz New Era (never realised) DTG have waited until they have an actual Alpha of the product to make the announcement.

Specifically from the POV of our focus on this forum, I hope we find out sooner rather than later what the implications for independent content creation are, particularly at the hobby level of time and money investment. It would be almost inconceivable (although not unknown - Run 8, WOS) to have a premium train sim product without a route creation sandbox. However that will be of little use unless support is there for Blender, 3D Canvas/Crafter etc. as I certainly haven't got laying around nor would I wish to spend £1000's on 3D modelling and paint software just to put together a few station signs or bridges.

Anyhow exciting times ahead and hopefully we will learn more over the coming weeks and months.

[JamesLit]

Just a brief note to say my understanding is that the end user will definitely be able to create assets and routes. They are certainly creating development tools but are taking their time with them.

[malkymackay]

I don't know about 3DCanvas/Crafter, but Blender will happily export the .fbx files that UE4 needs. I've not really had a proper look, but using Blender 2.49 and textures created in Gimp, I was able to get my freeware Mermaid ballast wagon into UE4 without much effort. I didn't deal with the materials and physics side of things, but I bet there is no shortage of tutorials out there.

[Jordi]

I would imagine some form of scenario/route editor will remain free and available as part of the core game. Having said that, Asset Creation Toolkits for third party developers take a lot of development and investment, which I have a feeling they will want to ensure a return on.

[TrabantDeLuxe]

Saw the introduction video, and was positively impressed. The move to UE4 will mean that a lot of basic information will already available on the web. I've been quite impressed with the UE4 developer docs that are on the internet. So that's certainly a good thing. Moreover, many 3D packages will export to .fbx, opening up the way to asset creation for those who are not familiar with the currently supported packages.

Asset Creation Toolkits for third party developers take a lot of development and investment,which I have a feeling they will want to ensure a return on.

So much for freeware devs then. If DTG wants to take this route, I really hope that a free set of tools will be released for freeware devs, and that a licensing scheme will be set up for those who intend commercial use.

On the subject of dev toolkits, DTG, please do this.

[AndiS]

Coming months will see constant turmoil of speculation regarding the legal and technical side of content creation.

Getting stuff from Blender to UE is not rocket science and the UE people make sure you get your help if you try. I just say Blender as it is free, there is support for other packages. And UE has its own Materials Editor, so you can do all the definitions there. So the creation process is just (1) create shape and texture in any package and export to any of a set of formats; (2) import that in UE and do the clever stuff with materials there. So there is no limitation and not more learning curve than always when you switch to the next gear.

However, your asset must talk to the base system, to the software that DTG created. This is where DTG have some leverage.

It is clear that they want the maximum share of the cake -- they are a normal business setup and not a charity organisation, and developing the new thing did cost a hefty amount for sure. At the same time, they know that to maintain constant interest in the product, they need the self-exploitation of external forces. Call it freeware, call it 3rd party payware. There is lots of labour to be had for no money from DTG and it contributes to the attraction of the overall product.

And then there are the consumers who want to build their own layout for themselves. Since they buy engines and scenery assets, they are welcome customers, so they will be supported for sure.

Regarding engine scripting, we saw some attempts at locking down things halfway, which worked halfway. Or they simply cancelled the effort to document stuff, with the same effect, but without locking in mind. In recent years, official documentation detailed stuff that had been on the forums before. And for a while, there was this partnering scheme that must have given people early access to information that was available to the public later on.

My conclusion from the history of RW is that I know nothing about the future. My crystal ball says "early secrecy combined with premium arrangements for 3rd party developers, later-on formal documentation" but I say that some tarrying in the documentation department results in the same.

Another aspect is all the bad publicity they got over the shape of KRS when it was released as it was in 2007. Giving the tools to a set of persons who agreed not to publicly rant about the bugs and delaying the public release until after "service pack 2" is not stupid. And it ties in with all of the above.

Almost 10 years ago, I read "engines are the star" of the game. So all the fighting over knowledge on system calls will happen in the field of engine scripting.

There is also some chance that DTG simply focus on exactly what sells best. They have sound data in this regard, having watched how their quite diverse offering sells. This knowledge base alone makes sure they get a nice share of the cake.

It will be a combination of all of the above, in the end.

What makes me even more relaxed is that all this was coming our way in some shape or another anyway. How long would anyone maintain a game platform that was not optimal from the start? 10 years are a fair age for any piece of software. So there is no surprise for me, there is just observing how it all unfolds over the next year or so.

(Edit: lots of sloppy mistakes, sorry)

[BigVern]

Nicely put, Andi.

Part of me is speculating this might follow the "RS" paradigm, where the user tools followed later and had to be effectively signed for.

I just hope if we do get a route editor it has decent optimisation, the current TS20xx one seems to have got worse over the last three years or so, to the extent it is hammering the hardware far more than even Trainz New Era. Even my new, so called gaming laptop, struggles with it. That combined with the lack of documentation on the new features, the god-awful terrain painting and limited palette (I don't mean to whinge but it remains a thorn in my side) has made it less and less useable.

[briyeo]

I don't think 3D Crafter exports in .fbx format,

[AndiS]

I find it important for everyone to stake their claims and then do the research. Most of us will stay in a no-worries zone.

Static shapes. No chance at getting worried of you just create your UV-mapped mesh plus texture. If you don't care about shine and clever shadows, you even stand a chance to get started really fast. Of course, your stuff will look similar to RW then. If you dabble into the field of making stuff look even better than before, then you will need to create extra texture layers. Compare ambient occlusion, either you do it or not. If you do, you have an extra step in the workflow and the result looks better. UE4 has half a dozen offerings like that. They are all optional, and depending on the situation, some pay off well while others can be ignored.

Animated shapes. Things will certainly become better (less simplistic) than before. However, I would rather wait for a bit of documentation before digging into the complexity of all that can be done in UE4.

Advanced stuff, i.e., all the things you were not able do in RW, like complex deforms. I would certainly wait for the documentation to arrive. Alternatively, you can start playing with the UE4 development tools. Optionally Blender, if you mind. But after the IGS & IA experience, I would first see what actually works in-game and then get your head around how to make that.

This page gives an impression on where the frontiers are, in terms of features. The more of that stuff you never use, the luckier you are.

[VictoryWorks]

I would be very surprised if the modelling process isn't totally open using the fbx format. You then wire your model (with animations, transforms, etc) into TSW using something blueprint'y much as we do now. Maybe some specific types for couplings (specifying link locations, pipes - really hope we have connecting vac pipes, etc) and other specific interactive objects.
As Andi says for static buildings I can't see it being any more complicated than it is now - the only thing that changes will be the export format and the options for texturing, and it would seem odd of DTG to limit the available shaders that can be used etc? I would think modelling will be entirely down to the user using everything available to UE.

My concerns at this stage are related to the limitations of the Blender fbx exporter vs limitations that DTG might place on what they "accept". e.g. DTG decide to only allow animations to work with Armature Instances, and then the Blender fbx exporter doesn't support this.
But at this stage it's far too early to let it cause too much worry as we know exactly ZERO on the behind the scenes set up

What we do know is that the level of detail is FAR ABOVE what we have in TSW now - even from those of us that see poly limits as a challenge rather than a warning
The locos in the video are SO MUCH more than anything we have in TS now, I think the limiting factor for TSW content won't be the difficulty of creating for UE or wiring it into TSW, it'll be the hours required to make something that doesn't stand out like a poorly textured sore thumb.