LOCO Railroad Simulator

We had to deal with quite a wide assortment of areas of development: Unity, HDRP; implement our own physics simulation from scratch; basic PCG; “polish” bought 3rd-party Daz3D models in Blender (and their textures in GIMP) in order to implement LOD; compatibility issues, rendering bugs (discolored mipmaps), animation bugs (misplaced pivots/origins).

Simulator of railroad as entertainment for model railroad enthusiasts who can't afford building a physical model railroad.

How did we distinguish ourselves from competition:

• took the best parts from both worlds: beauty and heavy weight physics of railroad and convenience and freedom of model railroad
• more modern rendering in comparison to most famous simulators of real railroad; more realistic style (i.e. less stylization) in comparison to most simulators of model railroad

Initially a user is presented with a large square of mildly rough terrain that can be reshaped by brush-like tools. Then a railroad is created by placing straight, circular, turnout or other track pieces and connecting them with dynamic (auto-sized) C-shaped and S-shaped tracks. (Other track pieces are turntables, sheds, stops (dead ends), road crossings, cattle docks.) The terrain is automatically leveled under tracks.

At the same time, the user is placing purely cosmetic “scenery” pieces: buildings, trucks, footbridges, signals, trees, bushes, junk.

Then all these “static” parts are saved and the application switches to simulation mode. The user places locomotives and cars (wagons) onto tracks. They can be coupled and uncoupled by clicking on their chains. The user can drive any locomotive by GUI consisting of throttle slider and brake button. The simulation includes custom physics that I wrote from scratch.

In both modes the user can configure time of day (including night), sun direction, fog, cloudiness.

custom physics

Why we had to resort to creating our own physics:

• we tried to use built-in physics but it’s infamously inherently unstable (BTW, later I learned that there’s a mathematical reason of that)
• we attempted to buy a third-party solution; it had convincing store page and high review rating but, in practice, it’s of low quality; after this disappointment we didn't want to trust third-party solutions anymore

The gist of features and implementation details:

• Every locomotive/car is rigidly attached by two points to a single line in the middle of railroad. (Basically, there’s an invisible monorail between the cosmetic visible rails.)
• Impulse (and delta-impulse) is the “king” of physical state of every locomotive/car. All the forces, velocities and accelerations are converted into impulse (or delta-impulse) or deduced from impulse (or delta-impulse).
• Position and rotation is rigidly determined by the two attachment points. (Basically, position and rotation of a railroad car is an average between its two attachment points.)
• Collision detection, chain pull, impulse and the rest of physics simulation “happens” at railroad car body level.
• At every simulation tick impulse is propagated from locomotive to the opposite end, while the counter impulse is remembered. The remembered impulse is applied at the start of the next tick.
• In the end, this is still an Euler method with chains as the not-truly-rigid constraint. However, we use linear nature of trains to our favor. Propagation in linear order allows full rigidity of position/rotation led by “monorail” and of collision response. The fact that only coupling chains are “numerically unstable” and that they are also processed in linear order, with combination of the slow nature of trains, makes it’s impossible to destabilize physics of single train.
• Collisions with obstacles or other trains is the “weak side” of our physics computations. It’s possible to overcome this but we decided that it’s better for project’s budget to apply a “fix by game design” (i.e. by limiting user freedom slightly to force “edge cases” to be unreachable).

graphics

Achieving better graphics than the top few most popular railroad simulators was the goal from the start. Simultaneously with the opposite goal of relatively low hardware requirements asked by the target audience.

As usual with game engines, Unity is focused on games with static levels (meaning that ground, sky, time of day, buildings, grass, trees, etc. are chosen and placed by developer beforehand and remain mostly unchanged in runtime). Our almost completely user-authored levels, user-configured time of day, and the goal of good-looking and almost non-stylized graphics, is why we gambled on switching to HDRP even before it’s full release.

When it comes to rendering performance, our own content – typically trains and buildings – was the primary bottleneck. We intentionally bought highly detailed assets: they should be no less detailed than models used in real-life model railroads. As usual, the solution for level of details being too high is lowering it for objects farther from the camera. However, the “standard” approach of having multiple versions (for different LODs) of the same model wasn't cost-effective for us. Instead, we separated models into few polygon meshes in order to hide them by distance threshold. For instance, each locomotive/car has separate polygon mesh containing rivets only that is visible only when very close to the camera. Then, at middle distance, we can hide interior details (of both rolling stock and buildings). And then, at very far distance, on weak PCs we have to sacrifice window glass (leaving just openings) and even all non-moving parts of chassis.

The aforementioned content also forced us to do some technical artistry: “polishing” bought 3rd-party Daz3D models in Blender (and their textures in GIMP) in order to implement LOD, fix compatibility issues, rendering bugs (discolored mipmaps), animation bugs (misplaced pivots/origins).

other tough challenges

One half of other major challenges was the technical debt. At first, we didn't know if it makes sense to create a public prototype at all. So we had to begin by making an internal prototype with maximum cheapness “at any cost”. Then paying this technical debt consumed a lot of effort in the form of refactoring and maintenance. Later, we didn't know if I'm capable of implementing our own physics or if the result will be pretty and stable enough to justify the effort. Thus, again, the strategy had to be cheapness at any cost. And again the later payment of the technical debt wasn't pleasant. The other half of other major challenges was the dead-end experiments. They are the other side of the coin, when such approach is justified and does work: yes, we did “cheap at any cost” prototype; but no, we didn't proceed because the conclusion was further development is not worth it. For example, one such experiment was procedural generation of towns in runtime.