tilted train if the consist file name has "tilted"

[csantucci]

There is a choice of track gauge, make it 945mm. There is no way to recover the correct gauge at this time, so you have to specify it.

Track sections have a width value, but most put it as 1.5 for standard, or 0.9 for narrow gauge. Using these values will not give us correct drawing of the tracks.

Track gauge for the Bernina railway is 1 meter (with the same measuring method standard gauge is 1435 mm). From you post I don't understand if I have to enter such value somewhere.

[jjtang]

The inner distance of track 3D models in Bernina is actually smaller than 1, more like 0.95 from my observation, the width value in tsection is defined as 0.9. So no where I can know the correct value.

OR has a track profile system, which you can define your own dynamic tracks.

[csantucci]

Can you tell me where I can find the track profile definitions in OR?

[neyland]

I am not familiar with these track systems, please tell me a free route I can download, so that I can try to figure out the problems.

It uses a default track profile, thus resembles the MSTS standard tracks. If you can supply a TrProfile in the route folder, it will use that to generate the tracks.

All from UKTS......................

Somerset & Dorset route
Thames - Trent route
Bristol - Birmingham route
Thames - Mersey route v4.2.1

First three use UKFinescale track
The fourth one default or x-tracks.

I have received emails today from the OR bug report site, telling me that the problem is either invalid or low priority.

[jjtang]

I think it is too early to call this as a bug as it is a new feature and we are still working on resolving all issues. We will make it work to the most extend based on current MSTS content.

[neyland]

Which will leave out any worthwhile UK route, payware and freeware using the UKFS track system.

[csantucci]

By getting info here and there I was able to modify a standard track profile file trprofile.stf to adapt it for the narrow gauge Bernina railway. By putting it in a newly created Trackprofiles folder into the route folder I was able to get superelevation on such route using such profile. Such file is quite rough and much refining is needed. Here a picture showing the effect.
Bernina_profile.jpg
Here I attach this draft file
TrProfile.zip
I however have two problems. There are more types of Bernina tracks, each with its own textures. So I selected the most used texture and herebelow the transition between straight track (below in the picture) and curved track is OK.
Profile_OK.jpg

Here however
Profile_NOK.jpg
on the right another type of straight track is shown with whiter ballast; curved tracks on the left should also have white ballast.
So I expect I should create more than one track profile, each with its own textures, and I should also let somehow know ORTS which tracks use which profile. How can I do it? Is ORTS able to manage such a case?
A second possible problem can be seen on the intermediate track in the superelevated part at the left. In the near part of the track white ballast is shown, and in the far part darker ballast. This is because ORTS anyhow displays also the original white ballast, with the superelevated ballast on top. Should I simply raise the height of the ballast in the profile?
JiJun, thanks for the good job.

[jjtang]

Which will leave out any worthwhile UK route, payware and freeware using the UKFS track system.

We need some time to figure that out.

[eric]

There are more types of Bernina tracks, each with its own textures.
...
So I expect I should create more than one track profile, each with its own textures, and I should also let somehow know ORTS which tracks use which profile. How can I do it? Is ORTS able to manage such a case?
...
JiJun, thanks for the good job.

Realistically, how many routes mix track systems like the Bernina does? In commercial software, you can spend 30-50% of your budget trying to fix something that only affects 5% of the user base.

Second, is the trProfile also how dynamic track is handled? I've removed all of it from my primary routes in work, but if the track profile were used instead of ugly flat track, then perhaps I might revisit this on future projects...

[jjtang]

It uses trProfile to generate super elevation curves.

[eric]

Ok. If it can generate a curve, could trProfile also generate dynamic track?... Yes, I know that's out of scope, but it seems to be a logical parallel process...

[csantucci]

Realistically, how many routes mix track systems like the Bernina does? In commercial software, you can spend 30-50% of your budget trying to fix something that only affects 5% of the user base.

I've raised a question, I haven't made a request. And by the way OR superelevation is intelligent enough to leave Tirano's FS station with standard gauge tracks (also in curves) while using my narrow gauge profile for superelevation in the Bernina railway.

[eric]

I've raised a question, I haven't made a request.

I know, I'm just asking a follow-on question... how common it is to mix systems? Is this a wide spread issue which needs a more intelligent solution (i.e. recognizing the track system type from the filename and applying the appropriate trProfile) or is it ok sticking with a one-size-fits-all approach?...

[neyland]

We need some time to figure that out.

No problem jjtang, i realise the feature is experimental.

But UKFS track is a must in any realistic UK routes.

I think all the Making Tracks payware UK routes use it, as do most of the later UK freeware route.

It is the UK equivalent to Marcs excellent Scalerail for the US routes.

[csantucci]

Track profile files for non-standard tracks could be developed by someone outside the ORTS dev team, so that the team can concentrate on development and on bug removal.