Official v645 Thread

[dcrails11]

Every time I ran the runactiviy.exe, somewhere along the lines, it had this message:

runactivity.exe : Error : 0 : System.ArgumentException: The device does not support creating a render target of the given format.
Parameter name: format
at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics.RenderTarget..cto r(GraphicsDevice graphicsDevice, Int32 width, Int32 height, Int32 numberLevels, SurfaceFormat format, MultiSampleType multiSampleType, Int32 multiSampleQuality, RenderTargetUsage usage, Boolean isTexture2D)
at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics.RenderTarget2D..c tor(GraphicsDevice graphicsDevice, Int32 width, Int32 height, Int32 numberLevels, SurfaceFormat format, RenderTargetUsage usage)
at ORTS.RenderFrame..ctor(RenderProcess owner)
at ORTS.RenderProcess.Initialize()
at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Game.Run()
at ORTS.Viewer3D.Run()
at ORTS.Program.Start(IEnumerable`1 options, String[] args)

What the heck does that mean?

[longiron]

runactivity.exe : Error : 0 : System.ArgumentException: The device does not support creating a render target of the given format.
Parameter name: format
What the heck does that mean?

The OR team has seen this XNA error before. It means that your video card does not support the minimum HW requirements to run Open Rails. OR requires DX 9.0c or better and Pixel Shader 2.0. This minimum is not met with some laptops with an embedded graphics card or older computers.

Here's a thread and link to check out your video card

https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?292910-ERROR-Device-does-not-support-render-target

[GoGoran]

Are there any known polygon or vertex limits in OR 0.645, similar to those found in MSTS ? Is there a limit on the number of subobjects per locomotive or waggon model ? Are there such limits for FreightAnims ?

I'm asking because a 92,000-poly-locomotive I created shows up just fine in ShapeViewer, but in OR many parts of it are missing, i.e. it is only partially displayed (just the main body and some parts are displayed, the bogies, wheels and pantos are missing).

Maybe it's because I set it up as a FreightAnim on an invisible waggon, which acts as the "engine." That's because I did not animate the trucks or wheels yet, and OR doesn't display the shape at all if i set it up as the main shape, without the "invisible-waggon/FA"-trick.

By the way, I would appreciate it if it was possible to create working locomotives which do not feature animated wheels/trucks. For me, these are details which are rarely noticeable.

[longiron]

Are there any known polygon or vertex limits in OR 0.645, similar to those found in MSTS ? Is there a limit on the number of subobjects per locomotive or waggon model ? Are there such limits for FreightAnims ?

You don't have to go to use FreightAnim and SubObjects with OR. I've loaded very, very large models that were a single hierarchy. FreightAnim is a mystery. They should display but they may not move properly with the rest of the shape.

May I ask why you need 92,000 polys? Having multiple units of such high polygon model will drag down the FPS performance for all but those with hi end systems.

[GoGoran]

FreightAnim is a mystery. They should display but they may not move properly with the rest of the shape.

My FAs DO move and show properly in OR 0.645, and they also turn correctly with the waggon they're placed upon in bends or at switches.
See the thread I posted about the German panzers and jeeps - all these FA are single-hierarchy shapes, each with some 16,000 polygons.

May I ask why you need 92,000 polys?

To properly model all the details ? What kind of question is that ?

Having multiple units of such high polygon model will drag down the FPS performance for all but those with hi end systems.

I noticed no drag in FPS with my test trains, as displayed in the "Achtung, panzer!" thread. Though the train got 400,000 polygons, I get the exactly SAME FPS with this polygon-heavy train as I do with a single, 5,000-poly loco !

And my system is nowhere near high-end, it's more than five years old, with a three year old graphics card !

You really should check it out for yourself - the number of polygons does obviously not influence the fps of OR 0.645 !

...

I would highly appreciate on-topic answers to the questions raised above, with accurate information on the capabilities and limits of the OR 3d engine. Maybe there are also limits to the hierarchy structure of a shape file, which might show in case of my loco model, which features lots of different groups and subgroups grouped together.

[soapbaux]

facts o' life

Every time I ran the runactiviy.exe, somewhere along the lines, it had this message:

runactivity.exe : Error : 0 : System.ArgumentException: The device does not support creating a render target of the given format.
Parameter name: format

What the heck does that mean?

It means you are out of the Open Rails project. End of the Line.

And you are not alone. According to the Wall Street Journal, the average age of a PC in service is 4.2 years. And for the 2005-2009 time period, when you and I bought ours, PC sales totaled 1.284 billion, worldwide. Last week, I'll bet you were eagerly awaiting the newest version of ORTS, having the right stuff to run v360; but now you have discovered that the software has advanced beyond your hardware's capabilities. Apparently our 360 stuff is not right enough for the 645. Be thankful we still have good ol' unwavering MSTS to entertain us. And if we want to rejoin this tantalizing discussion, all we have to do is add one more meaning for the 'O' in ORTS: Open wallet.

[longiron]

It means you are out of the Open Rails project. End of the Line.
And if we want to rejoin this tantalizing discussion, all we have to do is add one more meaning for the 'O' in ORTS: Open wallet.

Pixel Shader 2.0 was a general feature in most stand alone video cards by early 2004. Your implication that most existing PCs don't support Open Rails & PS 2.0 is not true. With v645, we optimized dynamic shadows for Pixel Shader 3.0, a standard by mid-2005. Where we have seen support challenges are almost exclusively with integrated video chips, not separate video cards. Upgrading to a middle-of-the-road video card that will run Open Rails costs about $40.

[longiron]

I would highly appreciate on-topic answers to the questions raised above, with accurate information on the capabilities and limits of the OR 3d engine. Maybe there are also limits to the hierarchy structure of a shape file, which might show in case of my loco model, which features lots of different groups and subgroups grouped together.

You missed my answer - you don't need to "feature lots of different groups and subgroups grouped together". That's a MSTS approach designed to get around its limitations. With OR, you can have a single hierarchy.

The Open Rails team doesn't create and test models to determine how high the software can go. What we do know is no one has reached it yet. I can only point you to this thread: http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtop...f=324&t=104007

[GoGoran]

The Open Rails team doesn't create and test models to determine how high the software can go.

Well, I just reached it now ! The very same shape does display correctly in ShapeViewer, complete with all parts and textures !

And I would assume that the software is not a blackbox, which works with magic and witchcraft, but a code of which the men who wrote it know what it can and cannot do, hence my questions about the specific limits of OR.

I can only point you to this thread: http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtop...f=324&t=104007

That thread shows a single loco with some 40,000 polygons. I got a 46,000-polygon loco which runs fine in MSTS ! Nothing impressive there, though it's a fine model shown there, for sure.

And I already tested OR with a train of 400,000 polygons, so the total sum of polygons seems to be irrelevant (I'm sure I could drive that count up into the millions of polygons, without experiencing worse framerates).

[longiron]

Well, I just reached it now ! The very same shape does display correctly in ShapeViewer, complete with all parts and textures !

And I would assume that the software is not a blackbox, which works with magic and witchcraft, but a code of which the men who wrote it know what it can and cannot do, hence my questions about the specific limits of OR.

Large poly models work best in OR with a flat hierarchy - all individual parts parented to the Main. Not lots of subobjects and other hierarchies. While Shape Viewer may display something, that doesn't mean it's properly set up to be displayed within a game engine. As to what the limits are, it depends on your HW. I've built yards with 1+ million polys in it and OR ran fine. But FPS were just OK, and I have a very beefy system.

That thread shows a single loco with some 40,000 polygons.

If you read to the end of the thread, the single model was pushed to over 70,000 polys. But again, what's the point! We've got community members trying to run OR on laptops with 128MB of shared video memory. These kind of models will stop those systems in their tracks.

[GoGoran]

If you read to the end of the thread, the single model was pushed to over 70,000 polys. But again, what's the point! We've got community members trying to run OR on laptops with 128MB of shared video memory. These kind of models will stop those systems in their tracks.

The game engine should run on all computer platforms, up to 5 - 6 years of age. Which is precisely what OR does. But even OR requires some minimum features, like PixelShader 2.0 and 512MB of RAM etc. ! It doesnÄt make sense either to try keep it compatible with 10-year old hardware !

The models and routes are a different story - the fact that some users try to make the game run with inadequate and downright ridiculous hardware should not keep anybody from designing highly detailed, realistic models and routes which will not run on such underpowered machines.

[GoGoran]

Large poly models work best in OR with a flat hierarchy - all individual parts parented to the Main. Not lots of subobjects and other hierarchies.

Thanks, that's some substance for a change. I will reduce the groups of the model and try to convert it anew.

[csantucci]

I tried command Ctrl-E (Locomotive switch) with two different multiple unit consists, and got same ORTS freeze and same error as described in post #271, so I have the impression that such command does not work.

Carlo

Edit: there are cases where it works. I try to understand what works and what doesn't.

[OTTODAD]

We are having trouble reproducing the errors you're experiencing which may be related to some unique folder structure you have.

Would you mind taking a few screen shots or describe the hierarchy of your folder structure for your normal and mini routes? That way we could set up an identical structure to trace where the problem lies.

One last question: What's the OS of the computer you are having problems on? Win7?

Sorry about the delay, my Internet connection was down for a few days !

The O/S is WIN-XP SP3.

The MSTS folders hirarchy is exatly the same in my MAIN and MINI MSTS routes, only the contents of their TRAINS and ROUTES folders vary.

The problem all have is that some of these trainsets I have mentioned earlier can be used to run routes in EXPLORE mode but not when they are used as a Service in an activity.

O t t o

[Dralex]

Sorry, Longiron, for the long break. My broadband modem died, and just a few minutes ago I succeeded in installing a new one.
You mean the SD402.s? That's 6.13 MB, which is way beyond your upload limit. Even the zipped version is 460 KB.

Dralex