Metro Council LRT Simulator / Tuesday Discussion
Exterior + Environment Fidelity

Representative Fidelity Comparison

Three visual references for discussing the level of exterior vehicle and route-environment detail appropriate for the Metro light rail simulator.

Discussion boundary: The operator cab interior is expected to remain high fidelity. This comparison focuses on exterior vehicle and environment modeling, where fidelity can be balanced against recognizability, performance, production effort, and cost.

Side-by-Side Reference

Representative examples for conversation—not a specification or final visual target.

Low-fidelity representative light rail simulator view
Reference 01

Low Fidelity

A heroic defense of the polygon budget: boxy trees, reusable scenery, and just enough route detail to prove we did, in fact, leave Minecraft.

Medium-fidelity representative light rail simulator view
Reference 02

Medium Fidelity

Recognizable corridor features, selected landmarks, and practical environmental detail—enough to make the route feel right without modeling every shrub in Minneapolis.

High-fidelity representative light rail simulator view
Reference 03

High Fidelity

Every rail operator deserves a heroic entrance: bokeh, god rays, glass reflections, depth of field, and one lens flare away from a summer blockbuster.

Questions For Tuesday

Let’s agree on what needs to look familiar, where we can simplify, and where extra detail is actually worth the time.

What needs to look familiar right away to a Metro operator?
Where can we reuse simpler buildings, trees, and other scenery without making the route hard to recognize?
Which stations, crossings, landmarks, or other spots need to be built in more detail?
How busy does the world outside the cab need to feel?
How much detail can we show while keeping the simulator running smoothly for the whole route?
Where would more visual detail actually make the training better—and where would it just add time and cost?