Road and track section definitions

[Railfan727]

Will ORTS sill make use of the tsection.dat file to define road and track section shapes?

The reason I'm asking is, will there be any way to define custom sections to be used at a specific place on a specific route without having to request an allocation in the standard tsection.dat file just for that one particular piece? On a route that I'm gathering information for, there are several roads that intersect at odd angles, and several roads that have bridge piers in the middle with the traffic lanes splitting apart to go around the pier then coming back together on the other side, which will require special road sections in order to look right. And for the road sections to be used at these places, it just seems kind of silly to me to have to go through the whole tsection.dat process just to make a custom piece to fit one unique situation on my route that no one else is likely to need in their routes.

Also, the default lane width of 3m for MSTS roads seems rather narrow. Will anything be done to encourage development of a new standard that is more prototypical for modern US operations?

Finally, is there going to be a new set of standard track sections that incorporates a prototypical ballast profile and rail section shape, as well as a more correct center-to-center spacing on multiple tracks (such as what 3DTrains has done with ScaleRail), or is everything going to continue to be built to existing MSTS standards? The reason I haven't used ScaleRail so far is that it isn't compatible with MSTS dynamic track, or XTracks, which are designed to match the standard MSTS track section profiles. And will ORTS allow dynamic track to be made with curve radii greater than 2000m?

[muskokaandtahoe]

At present OR uses whatever specifications are in the tsection file plus a set of data that defines a profile for dynamic track. The later can be altered if you want a different look -- for instance one of the OR team members just released a profile set for the UKFS profile. I expect somebody, somewhere, at some time will create a profile that matches Scalerail (I'm told it's not that hard to do).

There are no plans for the OR team to create a new suite of track or road shapes to supplement (or replace) anything that exists today. Some folks in the UK were kicking around some ideas for creating replacements for the Kuju shapes (to allow people to distribute routes to others who do not have MSTS) but I've not heard anything about that recently and so I don't know the status.

There has been discussion of further developing the concept of dynamic track (a.k.a. procedural shapes) but whatever features that might entail, none will be available before an OR route editor.

[Railfan727]

So will it be possible, then, to have more than one type of dynamic track in the same route? For instance, to be able to use different ballast textures on lines of different railroads (e.g., Conrail and Norfolk Southern through Muncie, Ind.; CR uses a mix of 3-4 different types of rock and NS uses pure white limestone)?

[twpol]

So will it be possible, then, to have more than one type of dynamic track in the same route? For instance, to be able to use different ballast textures on lines of different railroads (e.g., Conrail and Norfolk Southern through Muncie, Ind.; CR uses a mix of 3-4 different types of rock and NS uses pure white limestone)?

We certainly want to allow this. (I'm not entirely sure what we support with the custom track profiles presently.) In fact, I'd suggest that we should make all non-switch track dynamic track (but hopefully without some of the limitations from MSTS).

[OTTODAD]

At the moment MSTS specifies what trackbed is being used by all it's A*.s files which is the Acleantrack1.ace texture.

Some tracks like the Concrete ones have their own trackbed textures Concrete*.ACE files, but use the same rails as other A*.s tracks.

What I do is to replace the used by these tracks trackbed textures *.ACE files in their route's Textures folder with others and also doing that with Y-Tracks after changing them back to use their own YCleantrack*.ace textures can have a choice of 3 different trackbeds in the same route.

Also using UK-FS and Scalerail tracks in such a route adds 2 more choices of tracks !

When building or modifying a route the choice of tracks is determined by what is shown in the Route Editor's Placement/Track Sections sub-window Global\Tsection.dat tracks and unless more versions with their own trackbeds and rails are being added to it can see no easy method to allow a choice of what trackbed/rails to use when placing individual ones.

Railworks deals with that by having various Trackrules specifying all sorts of tracks which can be used in the same route, but in switches/points/junctions/crossings can use only the same type of track in order to construct them properly.

I would use a range of fixed switches with a choice of trackbeds and rails textures in a new train simulator and then use a Flexi/Dynamic tracks layer like Railworks does, allowing various choices of tracks.

O t t o

[davebridges]

We certainly want to allow this. (I'm not entirely sure what we support with the custom track profiles presently.) In fact, I'd suggest that we should make all non-switch track dynamic track (but hopefully without some of the limitations from MSTS).

That is great news indeed! It would be even more wonderful if there were a way to dynamically define switches too (i.e., specify where the divergence starts and the frog angle, and let the RE do the math). And how will crossings be handled? Will it be possible to dynamically define a crossing on the fly by how the tracks actually intersect in the RE, or will we be restricted to pre-defined sections as we are now with MSTS?

And, while we're on the subject... what about a sound generator for wheels going over the flangeways at switches and crossings, to be triggered as a train passes?

How will the tracks handle "vertical curves" (changes in gradient)? Will it be done as in MSTS by rotating the section about one of its endpoints, or will there be a way to define true vertical curvature? And what about superelevation on curves?

May I assume that roads would be treated in roughly the same way as track?

[OTTODAD]

And, while we're on the subject... what about a sound generator for wheels going over the flangeways at switches and crossings, to be triggered as a train passes?

I have created a Sound Source which when placed at the frog of a switch or crossing creates a suitable sound when the leading loco passes over one, my GOLD-SPIKE-X route uses with all it's switches and crossings.

https://www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/video/...ints-sound.wmv

This video is from my converted to DB-Tracks Gold-Spike-X route which is not the one available from my web site which nevertheless has these sounds.

It should be possible to build into switches and crossings a trigger which creates this sound whenever a loco or wagon drives over it.

O t t o

[longiron]

That is great news indeed! It would be even more wonderful if there were .........

Thanks for the excitement about the future for Open Rails, we're excited too. Rather than just say "Yes" to your questions, I can say that there is a comprehensive technical specification for an Open Rails World Editor. But between now and when something might be available is a lot of work.

[twpol]

It would be even more wonderful if there were a way to dynamically define switches too (i.e., specify where the divergence starts and the frog angle, and let the RE do the math). And how will crossings be handled? Will it be possible to dynamically define a crossing on the fly by how the tracks actually intersect in the RE, or will we be restricted to pre-defined sections as we are now with MSTS?

And, while we're on the subject... what about a sound generator for wheels going over the flangeways at switches and crossings, to be triggered as a train passes?

How will the tracks handle "vertical curves" (changes in gradient)? Will it be done as in MSTS by rotating the section about one of its endpoints, or will there be a way to define true vertical curvature? And what about superelevation on curves?

May I assume that roads would be treated in roughly the same way as track?

So many questions!

Dynamic switches and crossings are a pretty involved area so, although I (and likely others on the team) have thought about just how you would do them (and the problems you'd encounter), I doubt we'll be able to include them with the route editor/new formats initially. We may not bother at all, and instead let someone (either in OR team or outside) make a tool that takes the OR track profile data, some switch/crossing geometry and produced a static switch/crossing shape from it, which you could then edit to add animations and flangeways and all the other stuff. It depends on manpower, time and other features.

Gradient curves ought to be fine, along with super-elevation curves; we have a few team members really knowledgeable in how real world track is designed and planned so hopefully we can enable decent prototypical track along all three axes. (Basically, if we're going to define proper curves along one axis, we ought to do all three and be done with it. Obviously you won't have to use all of them but they should be there.)

Roads currently are handled in a pretty similar way to track internally, much like MSTS's design in fact, and we will try and keep it up with the track features - i.e. multiple road surfaces, three axis curvature, etc. - if we can. There's also discussion about road "switches", but that's another complicated area so no promises what we can deliver there.

[csantucci]

All that sounds really attractive! I look forward to having such features available, even if I understand that quite much time will be needed.

[Railfan727]

...we have a few team members really knowledgeable in how real world track is designed and planned so hopefully we can enable decent prototypical track along all three axes. (Basically, if we're going to define proper curves along one axis, we ought to do all three and be done with it. Obviously you won't have to use all of them but they should be there.)

So does that mean we're going to be able to do proper spiral easements too??? This is getting exciting!!!!

[longiron]

So does that mean we're going to be able to do proper spiral easements too??? This is getting exciting!!!!

Yes, we have a lot of discussions on how to automatically do them as part of standard curve track laying. You will be able switch them off for yards and other needs.

[Railfan727]

And how about spacing for multiple tracks?

[OTTODAD]

And how about spacing for multiple tracks?

The spacing we have now in MSTS is pretty much adequate for routes everywhere.

What alternatives have you got in mind ?

O t t o

[davebridges]

I was just wondering if it would be handled automatically on curves and spiral easements...