I'm playing around with the starting of a route and was wondering if something like this piece could ever be implemented to aid in grade changes (this piece I've done quickly in Blender and is exaggerated), because it's painful trying to get smooth transitions. Just wondering is all, thanks.
What many of us have done for smooth transitions is to use short pieces that change the permille or angle incrementally. I use 10m or shorter sections to transition a grade on mainlines. For a turnout diverging path into a siding or branch line, I use 001m sections or 100r01d curve sections.
Yes, it can be tedious.. For tram, trolley or subway track, where the angles can be more severe than you'd see on a mainline, you might be able to use 0.3m or 0.5m sections for a similar effect.
As for your suggestion.... Yes, you could create a piece like that so that visually it looks good, but I don't think travel across it would animate the way it's drawn.
Curves which move left and right are supported by the TSection geometry. Changes in angle are limited to the starting and ending position of that sub-vector. That's not to say that ORTS couldn't come up with a way to support it in the future, similar to how super-elevation logic is being developed.
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, or items available in our library, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
For grade changes on mainlines, I usually use 10M pieces, increments at intervals of 0.1, thus you achieve a 1% grade from zero in 100 meters which is about right. The real railroad uses a vertical curve but my aim is to produce somethinig that while it may not be technically correct it is visually acceptible. Now on a branch line, or in a few places on this Alaska line I am doing the track for, I use 0.5 meter pieces. The only problem I experience, and it is probably my own fault, is that I'll be doing a grade and suddenly I do not see a change - well it is usually because I changed the setting, accidentally, from % to so much a mile. I have almost reached Healy on the Alaska line leavinig about 90 miles to go to Anchorage. Then there are a few short and one long branch to add. There is Hurricane Gulch and at least two other major bridges that I plan to create, as well as several more or less standard trusses. There are two pony trusses in use on the side of Healy canyon, one of which has three spans supported on steel towers, rather an odd arrangement. Then there are a few very large truss spans. And if the super-detailers that grab my tracks, pretty much only route concoction, they can have a few hundred visible pipes under the track. Drainage is a serious issue on this line.
As for your suggestion.... Yes, you could create a piece like that so that visually it looks good, but I don't think travel across it would animate the way it's drawn.
No problem, I'll keep going with the small increments, no point creating these pieces if they're not useable.
Originally posted by landnrailroader
For grade changes on mainlines, I usually use 10M pieces, increments at intervals of 0.1, thus you achieve a 1% grade from zero in 100 meters which is about right.
Ok cool, thanks, I'll try those combinations.
While I'm here, is there a way to have a new piece of track continue the gradient of the last one? I'll add a new piece to existing track, but it will be level, then I have to copy the gradient numbers of the previous one, to then copy them to the new one, have it the same as the last one, then adjust it to the level change, is it possible to clean up this process?
Like in this pic, I've added the new piece, but it doesn't continue downward.
I've been toying with the editor code to try and persist the previous angle used.
Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, or items available in our library, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
I think that would be a great enhancement, it would speed up track laying a lot, it would certainly take some steps out of my way I wrote above, though I know nothing of what it takes to make that change unfortunately. Cheers.
Yes, Vline45, I would like that too, but it gets to be so automatic, that I just key each value in piece by piece and have to be careful to actually think about what I am doing. It is one item on Eric's long list, but one that to me is less important than others. Personally, the most important for me is coming up with a better way to define cuts & fills. No matter what I try, the flat area under the track in either, is way too wide. For that reason, when I upload a unfinished route, like the Alaska line I am working on, I do not shape the terrain, just leave it as generated by Demex. Replicating the method used in MSTS would be great. For all the nasty stuff in MSTS, that was one part that, IMHP, was done right.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We do not share information about our users with anyone. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I UNDERSTAND" below, you consent to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment