More on Terrain Extrusion & Object Conversion

[landnrailroader]

Colleagues,

KUJU's design team has been pretty quick in responding to some of my questions, and I thought I would share them with the group.

On conversion of objects: KUJU says that MS still owns exclusive rights to TrainSim and to avoid conflicts with MS, no converter will be offered to translate an object, for example a flagpole.s, .sd file into a KUJU flagpole. But they go on to say that they will provide complete documentation of their own object formats, which will be much better in detail level etc. than MS objects, and that it should not be hard for a freeware developer to create one. Well, if they provide data on their file format, that is one thing, but I have never seen documentation on .sd, .s file formats, although it is probably available in bits and pieces in the knowledge base of the MSTS groups. They also tell me that payware developers have agreed that because of the better definitions of items, it is better to redo them from scratch.

On terrain data. KUJU tells me that they chose 90M SRTM data beause it was free and covers the entire world at least as far as areas where there is anything other than penguins or polar bears to be seen. This was used to create their European routes. They also said that for their American route, they used the higher resolution data which is available in the USA, also free. This means, I would assume, that either 90M or 30M data can be used to extrude scenery, but probably not both at the same time. They also said that other formats may be supported through on going patches etc.

I have experience in programming and I have a legitimate copy of Borland C+ which I have not tried on XP-SP2, but I might look into getting either that or Visual Basic if anyone can come up with the definitions of the various parts of a .s/.sd file. I have an Express version of Microsoft Visual Basic also.

Jerry Sullivan

[cougar]

"They also said that for their American route, they used the higher resolution data which is available in the USA, also free"

Is Kuju already making an american route. The reason I am asking is because they havn't yet anounced a North American route.

It is also good to know that higher resolution SRTMs are likely supported in KRS.

[landnrailroader]

Evidently they are. They did not offer any specifics of it. I also don't know who their "developers" are, but I would assume that some of those are also American. If I were a current payware developer for MSTS, I would be busting my butt to find out what I need to know to make routes etc. for the new item on the block. Even though (as KUJU also said) we as users have taken MSTS far beyond it's original design, they still believe that their new item will be better. This was particularly in regard to their statement that developers who had seen their "tool kit" thought it would be better to start from scratch.
Even so, I would love to see someone come out with a translator for objects, even if the finished object was not up to the new standard because this would allow routes to be worked on using existing material from the start while new stuff was coming on line. I am thinking here, for example, of the special Milwaukee Road catenary supports that Tim Muir and Ron Picardi produced and which have been used in the hundreds, on my RMD routes. I want to do the rest of the Milwaukee Rd. western extension, preferably in whatever simulator is most up to date, but to do it fully from scratch would require all new <catenary supports> among a lot of other stuff.

Jerry Sullivan

[muskokaandtahoe]

The important question is what projection will be used to move DEM data into KRS. The projection method used in MSTS takes a diamond shape slice of DEM data and skews it into a square. Markers also get skewed to match the terrain -- that's why you rarely find right angle intersections when you look at your markers in MSTS.

I would very much prefer a projection method that retains the integrity of the angles. Is KRS going to do it that way? Or will Kuju continue to use the older, MSTS skewed projection?

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[cougar]

Good question. As far as I know, UTMs (Universal Transverse Mercator) are the most accepted projection methods yielding minimum distortions. However, they are regional. It will be interesting to see what they are using in KRS now. MSTS world is based on Goode Homolosine projection method which, unfortunately, causes undesirable skewed projections in some areas. Let's just hope that they have something better in KRS.

[Railfan727]

Why can't they just make the earth itself curved as it really is, and avoid the whole problem of map projections altogether?

[landnrailroader]

The statement that KUJU made about not wanting to use anything out of the old MSTS because of legal issues with MS, tends to make be believe that a projection will be used that has not been used before.

1. I don't care what projection is used as long as it is one that
provides minimum distortion.

2. I still would hope for some conversion process that would
convert MSTS objects to the KUJU format retaining at least the
present level of detail. KUJU remarked that that should not be
difficult and while they could not do it for legal reasons, there
would be no problem with a freeware person doing it.

J. H. Sullivan

[keber]

I think .S format is more or less open (changing textures and LODs within a text file is a matter of seconds), and if new Kuju shape format is open, then making a conversion between them shouldn't be that hard.

You mustn't forget, that authors of Shape Viewer and Sketchup->MSTS converter probably know, how S files work, so I don't see a problem, if Kuju format will be open.

[landnrailroader]

I do not know who it is in the design team that answered my E-mail, it just said "designteam", but the implication of their comments was that sufficient documentation would be provided so that a freeware developer could write a conversion program.

As I say, this would go a long way towards having freeware routes avaiable early. IMHO, it is not difficult to lay track on a route, I usually accomplisht that pretty quickly. Roads present a bit more of a problem, but still not so bad. But the detailing is something else again. The Milwaukee Rd. bridges for example are uniquely designed in several ways so that what works great on the Clinchfield would not on the Milwaukee (although Milwaukee trestles would work fine on a sim. of the Virginian or the Tennessee Cental). Timber trestles are more or less standard among railroads, so I created, with Ron Picardi's help, several basic building blocks that I use for all of my wood trestles. Even so, each bridge has to be fabricated to fit the location - as was the original.

Houses, other buildings, etc. can be generic, although to be precise, each railroad had a uniqueness about their stations, section houses, etc.

Jerry Sullivan

[oakpalms]

Jerry,
The recent comments concerning the terrain techniques and the possible object translations makes the earlier promises of KRS to be very clear and positive--as they said they would be. It is clear that Microsoft is still the thorn in the side, as usual. It would be nice if they would give Kuju more freedom to work with the original MSTS. Once KRS comes out, no one is going to be buying MSTS anyway. Well, maybe ebay will be flooded with offers for purchase, but it won't be Microsoft making the money.

KRS has been indicating American content for several months and some people will not accept that as coming about. A lot of doubting Thomases among our fan base.

I am hoping that even I will be able to build a route with KRS. I am gathering some information on the PRR in southwest Indiana from Indy down to Vincennes just in case it is as easy as they claim it will be.

Bob Edwards

[landnrailroader]

It is rather silly for Microsoft to hang onto and penalise purchasers of other products simply because they elected to not continue MSTS themselves, but being Microsoft, that is expected and I guess we would all faint dead in our tracks if it were otherwise.

Having said that, though, we need to encourage the FREEWARE developers, especially those who have already developed software such as Shape file viewer, who presumably know the structure of MSTS objects, to proceed with freeware items that will translate MSTS objects into KUJU objects, at least for the short-term. Note that the developer of the Shape File viewer had already developed a module that would produce files for the still born PI Engr. product or some facsimile thereof, so he knows how to do it. In order to avoid conflict with Microsoft, the translator has to be "freeware" or perhaps "shareware", but it cannot be a profit center for anyone else besides Microsoft, else the copyright attorneys get richer.

Like yourself, I await whatever KUJU comes out with and I hope that it's price is not too high to discourage some "tire kicking".

Jerry Sullivan

[muskokaandtahoe]

> Having said that, though, we need to encourage the FREEWARE developers, especially those who have already developed software
> such as Shape file viewer, who presumably know the structure of MSTS objects, to proceed with freeware items that will translate
> MSTS objects into KUJU objects, at least for the short-term.

No, we absolutely do not need to encourage people to steal designs, which is what an object to object transformation is. We need to encourage people to develop transformation software to take cad source files (e.g., native TSM, native Gmax) and produce KRS shapes. That way each author/owner can determine for themself whether they wish their design to be made available to KRS users.

Perhaps that's what you meant to write... but it isn't what you wrote and the clarification between the two is important enough to point out.

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[landnrailroader]

I meant what I wrote. TSM is very poor CADD, I know, I have managed Microstation graphics for 25 years (including it's IGDS predecessor) and I would suspect that only Abaccus knows the structure of it's files. Now if Abbaccus produces a translator, fine, and I am willing to pay for it - but they have previously told me that they have no interest in supporting (at that time it was the PI Engr. product) anything other than MSTS.

Jerry Sullivan

[ricksan]

...transformation software to take cad source files (e.g., native TSM, native Gmax) and produce KRS shapes.
We'd all like to have this kind of tool but it's not likely to happen. I have yet to come across any documentation of the .gmax format, or for that matter the .max format. (The structure of a .3ds (Max export) file is well known, though. If you're familiar with AutoCAD, .3ds is to .max as .dxf is to .dwg, except that .3ds files are binary and .dxf files are ASCII format.)

3D Canvas, we are told, will have the ability to export to KRS. Using the Flight Simulator gmax plug-in, it's possible to convert .gmax files to .x (native DirectX) format, which can then be opened in 3D Canvas. The procedure is described in one of the 3D Canvas forums. It works OK for single objects, but it seems that layered (hierarchical) models have to be converted one layer at a time. (At least I couldn't get them to convert directly.)

As for TSM, sorry, dead end. Better get familiar with 3D Canvas.

Kuju .s files are essentially the same, regardless of what tool was used to create them. Since they can be decompressed to plain text, one could say they're very well documented. They're not all that hard to decipher if you have a little knowledge of computer graphics. I understand that a program was developed to convert .s files for use in 3D Canvas, there to be massaged and converted to TMTS format. But I don't know the particulars, whether there are restrictions, or if it will ever be made available. Seems like something like that has the potential to let loose the reverse-engineering genie Dave alluded to.

Speaking of reverse engineering, why do we decry attempts to reverse engineer model meshes, but there's nary a peep about doing the same with textures? Kuju .ace files have been cracked since almost day one. Everybody uses TGATool2. Personally, I find there's as much or more artistry and time involved creating a good texture than there is for a model. Yet anybody can take my texture -- or yours -- change it a little and claim it as their own.

Rick G

[landnrailroader]

I have 3D Canvas, and find it rather hard to understand, but then TSM was a bit fluffy at first, so more education will suffice.

I am quite familiar with AutoCad DWF and DXF formats, but compared to Microstation, AutoCad is so poor, I won't try to describe it. In the railroad industry, InterGraph IDGS was the first entry (UP in 1976), then BNSF (1977), and Chessie System (1979). I was hired to manage the latter item in 11/80 and did so through all of it's convulutions until I retired in 2001, but I still use it every day at a signal design firm that I work for.

Jerry Sullivan

[muskokaandtahoe]

> Speaking of reverse engineering, why do we decry attempts to reverse engineer model meshes, but there's nary a peep about doing
> the same with textures? Kuju .ace files have been cracked since almost day one. Everybody uses TGATool2. Personally, I find there's
> as much or more artistry and time involved creating a good texture than there is for a model. Yet anybody can take my texture
> -- or yours -- change it a little and claim it as their own.

Yup. Says something about the ethics of some of this crowd, now doesn't it?

I wasn't aware that a Gmax file could, eventually, get over to 3dcanvas. That's good. I wish there was the same for TSM. I know there are TSM detractors out there by the dozens but there is a place for products like TSM -- fairly straightforward user interface and basic models. I wouldn't use TSM for a steam locomotive. OTOH, one doesn't need to learn gmax when all one ever wants is to do are houses.

While I'm at it, all of us would greatly benefit from a Google Sketchup to KRS conversion. Sketchup is ideal for structures.

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[landnrailroader]

Using 3D-S, is there any way to export to a MSTS format .s/.sd file.

Jerry Sullivan

[cougar]

'Using 3D-S, is there any way to export to a MSTS format .s/.sd file'

If you mean '.3ds' export file of 3dsmax, there is already a utility program conv3ds.exe that comes with MSTS in utility folder.

[ricksan]

The conv3ds utility works up to a point. It does a lousy job of preserving the smoothing characteristics of a shape, and it doesn't handle alpha sorting well. Both of these I suspect are due to shortcomings of the 3ds export format. For example, .3ds files don't keep track of the normal vectors, which are an integral part of any MSTS shape file and are what generates smoothing effects. Subobject creation? Forget it!

Those of us who started out working in Max and VIZ have long since migrated to gmax. Kuju's gmax plug-in handles all the issues I mentioned. You just have to learn to humor its idiosyncrasies, especially its seeming total lack of error trapping.