[espee]

Sergio,

Try this:

Attached File(s)

•  RailRef.zip (87.23K)
  Number of downloads: 870

[sergio]

espee, on 18 November 2017 - 05:54 AM, said:

Sergio,

Try this:

Thanks for your help, you really help me.
I share a image of my wheels.
https://i.imgur.com/QPXZ1EC.png
https://i.imgur.com/pyiiOVb.png

[ErickC]

One piece of advice: unless you're building a high-speed trainset like a TGV or some other European alphabet-soup type, your wheels should have tapered treads (most MSTS and OR developers haven't figured this out yet). I measured the wheels off a GP7 recently (40 inch diameter), and found that they were four inches deep, with one inch flanges. The taper seemed to work out to about half an inch from the edge of the flange to the face of the wheel.

By the by, before any of the foamer police (every forum has at least one) bemoan that I was close enough to a GP7 to measure it, it was parked in a roundhouse and quite offline. Shop personnel were around and I had permission to be in and around it (and getting around the cab was really fun with the trap door out!).

[vince]

ErickC, on 18 November 2017 - 10:59 PM, said:

..................snip.........................
I measured the wheels off a GP7 recently (40 inch diameter), and found that they were four inches deep, with one inch flanges. The taper seemed to work out to about half an inch from the edge of the flange to the face of the wheel.
..................................snip....................................."

Hi EricC,
And here is the reason rail wheels are tapered:

https://www.youtube....h?v=WAwDvbIfkos

Think also of how rolling wood barrels are guided by two wood rails . . .same principle. http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/drinks.gif

regards,
vince

[ErickC]

Yes, he's absolutely correct. Most people don't notice it, but once you do, you can't unsee it. The taper will tend to vary with the application. Generally, the higher the anticipated speed, the flatter the wheel. High speed trains might have cylindrical wheels, or wheels that are very close to cylindrical.

[copperpen]

From a normal viewing distance, real world or model world, the taper is so small, it cannot be seen, therefore a bit pointless adding an additional complication to model making.

[captain_bazza]

But it creates a "creative itch" you have to scratch. ;)

Cheers Bazza.

[ErickC]

It's actually very visible at even normal viewing distances and doesn't add an iota of complexity to model building. You'd notice it long before before you'd notice the difference between 24 and 32 sides on the wheels, yet some developers have cylindrical wheels with a bazillion sides.

[Hamza97]

Quote

But it creates a "creative itch" you have to scratch. ;)

Cheers Bazza.

Very true...... :sign_rockon:

[darwins]

Quote

Any polys that are transparent, or have any form of shine or illumination and any polys that are part of a named part will all produce more Draw Calls.

Interesting to see the bit about named parts, it would be good to have further explanation of this - when is a named part (in a model making programme) a named part (in the final OR model)?

Related to this is the question - do we need Levels of Detail in models in OR or does the OR software decide what it draws depending on distance without the need for these?

I am still slugging along making models in TSM. Though having paid for 3DC now I need to start learning to use it!

In MSTS I made models with many shared textures - not kind on the graphics card, but it used less disk space when computers had less storage space and less working memory. So with new models in OR I will progressively reducing the number of textures per model.

Now the named parts bit has got me concerned. I generally name every part and parent parts in a hierarchy. This has been good for using PolyMaster to make LoD, but is this going to bad for OR? Would it be better to have all non moving parts parented to 'Main' and not bother with making LoD?