MSTS 2

[SPLITRAIL9362]

they have added some new screenshots on the msts 2 site for anyone thats intrested looks good

[oakpalms]

That first photo (upper left selection) with the trees really looks poor as far as the trees are concerned. The trees look like an amateur artist used a blob from the tip of the brush to compose the leaves. If the blobs are supposed to be leaves then they are too big. Some trees have more blobs than others, but the trees do not look all that much like real trees. Some trees have tops and bottoms with missing middle section. I've seen a lot better with MSTS as far as decidious trees are concerned. Many things look outstanding, but trees are a problem.

Bob Edwards

[High Iron]

I disagree, I think the trees look fabulous. A far cry from the four-six sided ones we have now. These trees are totally 3D. They for once look natural and not like twigs with a cotton ball stuck on them. Certain areas of the tree are barren along the trunk while other areas heavily covered, just like in real life. I failed to see any missing middle sections, just areas where the trunk is obscured by the foliage. Something currently impossible to represent up to now with the exception of RS. I can not in detail see any individual leaves to make the determination as to their size too big or too small. All I can determine is the leaf textures use several different shades to mimic the look of real trees rather than a solid colour, then again perhaps my 21" monitor is not big enough to see the errors you speak of. I for one can honestly say, that when I looked at the first screen shot, it was the realism of the trees that caught my attention first. But I guess in fairness the old saying holds true; one man's food is another man's poison.

Cheers,
High Iron

[trainboy46]

Did anyone else happen to notice some suspiciously familiar freight cars hiding out in the background of the upper right picture?

[saxmusickman]

After seven years, I was expecting a GREAT improvement in the looks of the sim, and from what i've seen, there is nothing to be impressed about. I know the pics are pre-production, but there is already a lot to be nit-picked about. The ties (or sleepers, if you will) look out of proportion with no tie plate or spike detail, the roadbed once again looks to be a two-dimensional flat object, and dad-blameit, there are those god-awful ugly BNSF locomotives again! As has already been pointed out, the rolling stock looks like re-hash from the first game.

On the upside I guess, there is going to be plenty for the guys over at X-Tracks to do with the new sim!

Lets all hope that a lot of work is still yet to be done before the final release.

[Claude350]

> After seven years, I was expecting a GREAT improvement in
>the looks of the sim, and from what i've seen, there is
>nothing to be impressed about. I know the pics are
>pre-production, but there is already a lot to be nit-picked
>about. The ties (or sleepers, if you will) look out of
>proportion with no tie plate or spike detail, the roadbed once
>again looks to be a two-dimensional flat object, and
>dad-blameit, there are those god-awful ugly BNSF locomotives
>again! As has already been pointed out, the rolling stock
>looks like re-hash from the first game.
>
>On the upside I guess, there is going to be plenty for the
>guys over at X-Tracks to do with the new sim!
>
>Lets all hope that a lot of work is still yet to be done
>before the final release.

One reason why I'm not overly hyped about the sim. Actually there is not hype at all.

[Gabbysdad]

Where are you seeing information On MSTS 2?

[Claude350]

MSTS 2 has its own site. Once there you can see screen shots and read up on the latest info pertaining to the sim.

[maddog_2020]

Jeez, you guys are already crying over some pre production screenshots. This is just pre-production, come on now.

[keber]

Sleepers look too much out from gravel. It can happen as in the screenshots, but it is not usual.

[ChrisS68]

I can't figure out why anybody bothers to offer work-in-progress shots

[keber]

It is good to point out mistakes before actual product release.

[oakpalms]

I am sure glad you think they look great. I see tree leaves without any connection to the trees out in front of a train car, I see leaves out in mid air without any limbs. Maybe we aren't seeing the same things so take a look at the area using a good program like Photoshop Pro.
I think your comments toward trees as "twigs with a cotton ball stuck on them" that have been uploaded to the forum is a slap in the face to some really great contributors. I find that many of the trees, shrubs and plants that came original with MSTS are still being used by many route builders even today even though newer files have been contributed with better images.

I see missing branches from some trees. Decidious trees do not have leaves without a branch. Take a look at the tree hanging out in front of that autorack. They must not have used any real photo to make that image! That location and others leads me to believe they used brush strokes to create leaves instead of photos.

By the way have you taken a real good look at that autorack? That car is almost as high as it is wide. You can copy the photo and enlarge it with a good photo program and then you will see just how high it is--I guess it must be a four tier autorack? No wonder it is up in the tree branches.

Whatever it is it sure looks too high.

Bob Edwards

http://forums.flightsim.com/ts/user_files/126956.txt

[ChrisS68]

That's what testers are for. All these sorts of work-in-progress shots do is give people the opportunity to tear apart something that isn't even finished yet. I've learned to rarely voulunteer a look at my works-in-progress.

Most complaints voiced by people here are nit-picks about cosmetics; things that are not necessarily a huge priorty in the earlier stages of development, and will likely be put in place at the appropriate time. Some of it is plain ridiculous. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about how the game actually operates, rather than how high the ties protrude from the ballast or whether I can see miniscule branches from 150 yards.

[maddog_2020]

>I can't figure out why anybody bothers to offer
>work-in-progress shots


Me either. Reasons why you shouldnt are provided in this thread.

[USRailFan]

To give the whiners something to whine about and spam down every single thread made in the future about how crap the new sim is going to be and how insanely MSTS rocks.

[Claude350]

Everyone will have an opinion whether we like it or not. The ones that complain about the complainers complain also.

[coreynolds]

Issues with trees noted: NEXT!

I personally see that there is a great improvement with the images being produced, compared to those that can be produced from our computers. Let's not forget that part of what this game is improving upon, is overall realism, not just what the screen displays. Interactive dispatching, more realistic AI trains, Passenger loading and unloading, and many more features to be offered. As mentioned here before, there are more important things being developed at this time, probably such as the software to run the program and its interactivity. Performance is extremely important, and it is something that cannot be shown in screen shots. It's great just to see that there is work still being done on this, and that Microsoft (and friends) have invested this much time and effort into making this game. I'm constantly looking for progress reports, because as long as they keep coming, you may rest assured that this will not share the fate of the last MSTS 2 which never came to existence.

[saxmusickman]

>>>Frankly, I'd be more concerned about how the game actually operates, rather than how high the ties protrude from the ballast or whether I can see miniscule branches from 150 yards.<<<

It doesn't matter how it runs, if the train-sim doesn't SIMULATE the prototype, down to the details, then it's not worth having. This sim is going to require a few people to upgrade their computer system to even get it to run. It would be nice if the simulator could justify that expense by presenting a good graphical experience.

[coreynolds]

Then why are you here? Why do you use current simulators that are less realistic than this one is if accurate imagery is so important to you? Have you such an inept imagination that you need a computer to show you what an actual tree looks like?

I don't mean to be rude but come on now. And keep in mind too, that by the time this comes out greater technology will be more easily attainable. I can pretty confidently say that there's a good chance that my 6 month old computer will not get to run the game, as by the time it comes out, I will probably have upgraded.

I think many of us here are making it clear that the negativity is not necessary and not appreciated. It's good to discuss the previews that we are privileged to see, but quit the ranting, please! If you don't like the quality of what's being produced, QUIETLY don't purchase the product.

[High Iron]

>>"I think your comments toward trees as "twigs with a cotton ball stuck on them" that have been uploaded to the forum is a slap in the face to some really great contributors."

Please Mr. Edwards, do not add negative conjecture to my statements. I spoke nothing of the quality of the hard work of those who have uploaded improved material to any said site. My reference is purely to that of what was supplied with the default "out of the box" objects, which I must remind some folk is what we are looking at here. Not modifications or third party add-ons. My original statement without your implied "twist" still stands.

>>"I find that many of the trees, shrubs and plants that came original with MSTS are still being used by many route builders even today even though newer files have been contributed with better images."

This is true. Unfortunately MSTS has never really had a very large botanical selection. Auran Trainz blows MSTS off the map in this department. This often forces route builders to use items not because they are necessarily good, but because it is all they have to work with to create the diversity required for a decent route. URL's can also play a role as to why they are not used.

>>"I see missing branches from some trees. Decidious (Deciduous) ;) trees do not have leaves without a branch."

In the real world your statement is true. However in computer-land reality, to render the things would bring even the best computer to its virtual knees. When creating vegetation within the simulator a lot of visual effects to fool the eye must be utilized. Even some of the nicest trestles created have greatly used this effect. Closer inspection of these items reveals not all is what it seems to be. Microsoft is trying to make us a train simulator with some good eye candy, not a tree simulator that happens to contain a train. A balance must be struck somewhere.

>>"They must not have used any real photo to make that image! That location and others leads me to believe they used brush strokes to create leaves instead of photos."

Personally I'm glad they do not use photos. Photo texturing while very handy and ultra realistic at first, has it's shortcomings. Often it is dependent on the ambient lighting at the time of photography. Shadows can pose problems as can environmental lighting. Bright airy photoreal tree textures look magnificent when the sun is shining and the sky is blue but look rather awkward on a dreary rainy day. In summation photo textures cannot respond to ambient lighting within the simulator. The technique that has been used here at worst won't clash with it. The use of photoreal textures also brings on the dreaded "cookie cutter" effect that often plaques their use in clusters or high density. Of note in the screen shots, I have yet to see two identical trees in the foreground, and even in the distance when they do appear are well blended in. I can see no use of murals, although since we can't pan around can not say they are not there. However, since this simulator is based on FSX, I highly doubt it. Distant ridge tree lines also look very good and random. It also shows we are no longer bound by that dreaded 2000 meter object limitation; at least with trees anyway.

>>"By the way have you taken a real good look at that autorack? That car is almost as high as it is wide. You can copy the photo and enlarge it with a good photo program and then you will see just how high it is--I guess it must be a four tier autorack? No wonder it is up in the tree branches."

I had worked for CN and know first hand, autoracks are very tall. So much so that many tunnels ceilings had to be cut out to accommodate them along with high cube box cars and double stack intermodal units. Using the Schneider International trailers as a reference the autoracks appear to be correct height for two tier. I do have to admit though, that in one picture the autorack and the (TOFC) piggy car in front of it seem a little out of perspective. Note the perspective of the trailers in front and then suddenly the next one appears much narrower, but at the same height, along with the autorack. After those cars, things seem to be back into perspective again. Not sure why that is. I did note the autorack in the trees too. I assume it's a tree that has yet to be transplanted a little further trackside.

Cheers,
High Iron

[goldenpig]

In-progress pics are released as a courtesy to the community. You guys would be complaining just as much if they weren't showing you anything.

It also offers an opportunity for outside input. Whether they choose to to listen is their perogative since pleasing everyone and satisfying their critiques is a virtual impossibility.

They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

DBeck
=|GoldenPig
visit my new website! www.dannybeck.com
www.streamlines.ca