BNSF Scenic Trestle Issue

[Don6218]

Hello, yeah, I am running Westbound Coal on BNSF Scenic. Anyone tell me what may be going on here with this trestle type? I already replaced one set, now it has occurred again, no big deal really, but sort of annoying because in different views it shows there and then not there! the train was not in motion for both shots.
The first one is out the engine window, the second is in view #8 key. This third view is from the #3 view of the end of the train.
BNSF Scenic Foss River bridge 1.jpgBNSF Scenic Foss River bridge 2.jpgBNSF Scenic Foss River bridge 3.jpg
It would appear that it only happens when a Locomotive passes over. The supports were in position until the Locomotives were on the trestle in the #3 view. When the coal cars were passing, no issue. Only when the rear locomotives passed on the trestle, same as when the lead locos passed on it.

[R. Steele]

Hello, yeah, I am running Westbound Coal on BNSF Scenic. Anyone tell me what may be going on here with this trestle type? I already replaced one set, now it has occurred again, no big deal really, but sort of annoying because in different views it shows there and then not there! the train was not in motion for both shots.
The first one is out the engine window, the second is in view #8 key. This third view is from the #3 view of the end of the train.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]78303[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]78304[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]78305[/ATTACH]
It would appear that it only happens when a Locomotive passes over. The supports were in position until the Locomotives were on the trestle in the #3 view. When the coal cars were passing, no issue. Only when the rear locomotives passed on the trestle, same as when the lead locos passed on it.

Very much known about...forgot why -- but nothing OR can do about it...if I remember, it's something to do with the way the route was built. Hopefully someone will post who remembers the reason it looks like this...I always wince whenever I run the route and this pops up.

[geepster775]

It was something wrong with the LOD shifts in the shape for the bridge pier or something like that. There was a fix passed around years ago via the old Streamlines forum (gosh, how long ago was that?).

Is this from an old installer, or from the free starter route - - which may have included the fixed parts?

[R. Steele]

It was something wrong with the LOD shifts in the shape for the bridge pier or something like that. There was a fix passed around years ago via the old Streamlines forum (gosh, how long ago was that?).

Is this from an old installer, or from the free starter route - - which may have included the fixed parts?

my emphasis
Now that's an idea...didn't even think of looking there for new shapes...I'll check it out.

[xcrosswitch]

I have a file in my archives called Scenic_patch1_1 dot exe.
If it's of any use I can post it to you.
Cheers
Rob Kenning

It was something wrong with the LOD shifts in the shape for the bridge pier or something like that. There was a fix passed around years ago via the old Streamlines forum (gosh, how long ago was that?).

Is this from an old installer, or from the free starter route - - which may have included the fixed parts?

[Don6218]

"I have a file in my archives called Scenic_patch1_1 dot exe"

Thank you for that info, Rob. You helped me find it quite quickly, I had it in an old file, all installed and I will see if that Patch does the trick. I could have been hunting for that forever, thanks again.

[paulytechnic]

Yes, it is indeed due to the way the LODs are done with the "trestle_support.s" shape file. You can see this in Shape Viewer when changing the LOD view. The "0m" LOD has the same number of polys, but the position jumps up significantly.

For those interested, here's what I used for a manual fix a couple of years ago. Not sure if it's the 100% correct method, but it seemed to work for me.

First, you'd need to uncompress the shape file in Shape File Manager, open in Notepad, then manually edit the code to completely remove the first LOD (not for the faint of heart). If you're not familiar or comfortable with editing code, then I would strongly advise against doing this, and just let the problem lie as it is. Obviously backups should be made before proceeding.

lod_controls ( 1 <--change from "2" to "1"lod_control ( <--remove entire "lod_control" section (several hundreds of lines) until you get to the next "lod_control(" section.distance_levels_header ( 0 )distance_levels ( 1distance_level (distance_level_header (dlevel_selection ( 0 )hierarchy ( 1 -1 )

[geepster775]

Another method is to fix it with shape file manager.

Use SFM to decompress the shape, then go to Distance Levels and set both LODs to 1000m. This basically forces the bad LOD to be visible all the time.

Then use the Shift function in SFM to shift the shape -23.0 on the Y axis and +2.0 on the Z axis.

Then recompress.

This same shape is used on the bridge just above Index and below Baring, and it looks okay there. The Foss Bridge still has them off a bit, but that is likely the result of bad (unsquare) placement to begin with.

[Don6218]

BNSF Scenic Trestle Issue

Ok, now I have installed that update and OR does not like it now. It will not even open the activity. I have a good copy saved, so I can still use the route. I will do the same as I did at one of the other trestles that did this, just replace the supports with a better & newer Shape File. But anyway I have included the error report from OR. They were old crappy looking supports anyway.
OpenRailsLog.zip

[xcrosswitch]

Glad I could help in some way. Cheers Rob

[csantucci]

Strange. I have the free edition (TS_starter_route). I have decompressed trestle_support.s, but there is already only one lod_control. However I have seen the problem.

[R. Steele]

Another method is to fix it with shape file manager.

Use SFM to decompress the shape, then go to Distance Levels and set both LODs to 1000m. This basically forces the bad LOD to be visible all the time.

Then use the Shift function in SFM to shift the shape -23.0 on the Y axis and +2.0 on the Z axis.

Then recompress.

This same shape is used on the bridge just above Index and below Baring, and it looks okay there. The Foss Bridge still has them off a bit, but that is likely the result of bad (unsquare) placement to begin with.

Thanks to geepster and paulytechnic for the methods...I used geepsters...all looks good now...I did notice the slight offset mentioned..yes probably due to original construction alignment.
I have no way of knowing which method is the proper method or if one method is "quick&dirty" and the other is less so ( or more so )...apologies to both geepster and paulytechnic...but end result --- problem solved.
HatTip.jpg to both of you!