Grass discussion

[inc3pt]

Let me start by saying I began this conversation over at trainsim.com which was a mistake. I think I explained things somewhat well, so I'm going to copy the text I used to start the discussion over there and see if we can get something going over here.


As a very newb route builder, but also seeing many fine routes being worked on by everybody else here, I wanted to talk about grass and scenery, and how that's incorporated into the realism of a route.

Okay, to start off, I want to link a few screenshots. I regularly browse the Trainz forums just to see whats going on there, and sometimes I'm amazed at how real the scenery looks in some of the their routes (not the engines, some of which may look like toys to some people), just, the scenery.

http://www.jointedrail.com/images/norfolksouthern37_20090825_0003.jpg

http://checkrail.com/images/Payware/pw_055.jpg

http://checkrail.com/images/Payware/pw_108.jpg

http://checkrail.com/images/Payware/pw_045.jpg

http://checkrail.com/images/Payware/pw_049.jpg


Now, having said that, I FULLY realize that the more scenery objects around, the lower the framerates! This of course is the obvious tradeoff to making it look more realistic. I'm amazed at how much some real grass and shrubbery can change how believable something is, and I haven't even been able to come close to recreating what those screenshots show. Even as a one-off scene, much less a full route.

So, with that said, maybe we can use this thread to discuss the BEST tactics for using grass to make a scene look more realistic, while still making the route relatively usable by computers? Oh, and procedural flora probably doesn't count..although I like the idea, it seems to be have been implemented horribly. :(

I know we have grass assets available, and they look okay from "ground-level" (ie: person's view) but if you raise up just a few more feet they look obviously terrible. Can anyone who has built routes in Trainz and RailWorks comment on what might be different between the grass assets? Are the ones in Trainz static (no rotation based on angle of view, etc)? Why do they look so much better in those screenshots?

So, I guess, to make some cliffnotes of what I'm trying to figure out:

1) How do the assets in those screenshots and the ones available in RailWorks differ?

2) What assets do I need (or need to make?) to make a "one-off" in RailWorks, that matches the realism in those screenshots? (Ignoring framerates!!)

3) What do I need further to make a whole route that beautiful and realistic? (Ignoring framefrates)

4) And last, if 1/2/3 are answered, maybe we can discuss techniques of recreating that realism while paying attention to framerates? I would like to know, but I want to first know how to make it look the best.


Any help is appreciated I know that there are many more talented people over here and the discussion will be far more productive.

[inc3pt]

After some experimenting last night, it seems one approach is "more is better". I can't remember the exact asset name, but it's something to the effect of "fieldSmall01". It contains probably ten different little assets of grass in a cluster, but by no means is dense enough to look real. I decided to get click happy and laid down a bunch of these. Low and behold, it's a lot closer!!! I'm not sure what it will do for framerates as I haven't done extensive testing but I'll post some screenshots tonight.

[ilovesd90macs]

I unfortunately know nothing that will help you the realistic looking grass, but I'm interested in what other people have to say. In for updates!

[kin3]

What we have now is good for me if the line of site could be expanded. I would like to have small patches of grass to put on hills or have it contour to the terrain.

[ricksan]

All of the Trainz screen shots in your post were made at what you're calling "ground level," Tye. The grass assets in RailWorks look just as good as this IMO -- at ground level. As you point out they don't look as good as you raise the camera. You quickly discover they're made up of planes. Moreover, the planes maintain the same orientation towards the camera as it moves about, a technique known as billboarding. That's the way this kind of thing is usually done in video games. It's quite efficient and it generally works well. I don't know what technique Trainz uses, but I would be surprised if it's any different.

[g_nash]

I don't know what technique Trainz uses, but I would be surprised if it's any different.

There is no billboarding in trainz ( there is a sometimes successfull work around ) and as you pointed out the higher you get the worse things look . Geometery is the only way to get good results , but comes at the cost of reduced performance for most people. RW/RS gives far better visuals with the 2 supplied shaders .

.