[JohnnyS]

Quote

DBTracks, narrow gauge and UKFinescale profiles would be nice too!

Hello!

DBTracks track profiles for dynatracks are publically available from the DBTtracks website, the file format is .dpp. Is this format compatible with OR?

Cheers,
John.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

JohnnyS, on 25 March 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Hello!

DBTracks track profiles for dynatracks are publically available from the DBTtracks website, the file format is .dpp. Is this format compatible with OR?

Cheers,
John.

No, John, the .dpp files are profiles for converting dynamically generated MSTS track into DB Track. If you have a model railroad, the dynamically generated MSTS track is equivalent to using a piece of flextrack to create some trackwork that cannot be achieved by using the track sections from your train set (or the MSTS/DB Track track sections).
The .dpp file tells the Dynatrax program how to create a custom piece of DB Tracks from a custom piece of MSTS track that was dynamically generated by the route builder.

AFAIK nobody has yet tried to create a "Default Dynamic Track profile" .stf file to "superelevate" DB Track. It is more complicated than ScaleRail still, especially the concrete ties with their contoured "troughs" that hold the tie plates.

However, using my .stf template anybody can try. I might even try myself over the next couple of days to "superelevate" my Scharzwaldbahn.

[JohnnyS]

Hi _o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha,

I suspected as much. Thank you for the info.

Quote

I might even try myself over the next couple of days to "superelevate" my Scharzwaldbahn.

I look forward to seeing your attempts at creating a DBTracks profile if you choose to do so. Good luck.

Regards,
John.

[dennisat]

Csantucci, on 24 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

....- due to the fact that in the .stf file only one type of track can be defined....

I can see this would be a problem with some UK electrified routes that use the 3rd rail. I have a 3rd rail electrified route with large sections of diesel operated non-electrified lines. UK Finescale has both types of track but OR would need to be able to tell whether a dynamic track section was 3rd rail or not.

Dennis

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

With the help of the Dynatrax profile of ScaleRail Marc Nelson sent to me I was finally able to match my WP Feather River Canyon track profile as closely as possible to the ScaleRail dimensions.

Here is the file:
 TrProfile (WP3rd_SRv3).zip (1006bytes)
Number of downloads: 643

A few things still need to be sorted: LOD's for greater viewing distances, since I experience fatal buffer overflow errors if too much superelevated track has to be rendered in one view of a very long train or of a large yard. LOD's with less detail will perhaps help. Also, the shadows still play their game on the rail sides when the headlight in on.

Given that the older Dynatrax (version < 0.52) .profile files are humanly readable, and that a UK FineScale profile as such exists, it wouldn't be too difficult to adapt my .stf file to UK FineScale. DB Tracks' material and geometry specifications are in a newer .dpp file for DynaTrax, and those .dpp are not readable by humans. No doubt DB Tracks' Norbert Rieger will supply you with accurate dimensions should you wish to create a pixel perfect superelevation profile for -one- kind of DB Tracks you use in your route.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Thanks for fixing the superelevated turnouts in x1539. At least in the player train path, the diverging track of a turnout is not superelevated anymore using my WP 3rd Sub ScaleRail .stf file.

I think it is generally a good idea to only have the path of the player train superelevated. That leaves all of the other tracks in place.
Perhaps in a later phase, the paths of AI trains within visual range, or in approach of, the player train could be superelevated as well.
Still later, when proper track profiles have been sorted out, an automatic routine could select the proper .ace files from original track the train is travelling over.

Don't know wether that will save on resources and CPU cycles, set off against the extra calculations and logic determining the paths.

Now that California Zephyr glides real smooth through the serpentine Feather River canyon, gently leaning into each and every curve. The ScaleRail track looks real good as well. Only some small gaps remain.
Are these caused by rounding errors, or is my texture alignment slightly off?
Only quibble are those dancing shadows when the headlight is on. Are the 'normals' in my file properly set up? Or is it a deficiency of the still experimental dynamictrack.cs and superelevation.cs routines when multiple light sources have to be taken into account?

So far, Open Rails has shown impressive progess from my point of view, and being able to browse the source code, I think I even understand how it is done. :dance3: :D ;) :cool3: :good2:

[markus_GE]

As superelevation seems to work from the "outside" now, I got one more question:

Will it once be possible, that similar to the cab sway option one could turn on that the cab is kinda "turned" when running through superelevated curves?

I know this already has been dicussed, maybe even in this thread, but I think it has to be talked about once more: from the inside, that cool option looks a bit odd - carbody tilting, cab not, eh?

Yours Markus


BTW: Can´t be mentioned once too often: great feature!!!!! ;)

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

No doubt it will be applied in the future, Markus.

The engineer's viewpoint must stay level and solid, only the cab needs to lean a little into the curve.
Could pose a few problems with the alignment of the instruments and controls in a live cab, from where you actually handle your engine by reaching for those levers and buttons.
Having a static cab lean a little is no problem IMO, but a cab full of controls?

So far we have no live '3D' cabs in OR and that feature will probably have to be implemented first.
There are still more important things to implement or improve, more eyecandy can wait from my part.

[markus_GE]

Yeah, can imagine from my own programming experiences (actually i´m envy on the people writing OR ;) )

I just thought of that again today when running through a curve and changing to the head out view: cab = horizontal, body = tilted. But I can live with it :D

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

markus1996, on 05 April 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

Yeah, can imagine from my own programming experiences (actually i´m envy on the people writing OR ;) )

I just thought of that again today when running through a curve and changing to the head out view: cab = horizontal, body = tilted. But I can live with it :D

If you are a programmer and into trains, why don't you join them?

Superelevation and cab sway/tilt is implemented in Railworks 4/Train Simulator 2013, but there are few routes with proper superelevated track.
I like the Open Rails approach and think it is well done so far for the existing routes. No doubt it will be refined over time.

We do need more track profiles, esp. UK FineScale and DB Tracks.
I got the rail shape from DB Tracks correct, but am still struggling with the ties, ballast and rail fasteners. Norbert Rieger has promised to supply Open Rails with proper DB Tracks profiles. Currently, it seems converting all of those X-Tracks pieces to DB Tracks keeps him fully occupied. So one should better wait for his official release.

I have no experience with UK FineScale. Can somebody recommend a route that uses it? Does it use bullhead rail with those wooden kegs? Getting those textures properly spaced is a PITA.

[Csantucci]

_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha, on 05 April 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I think it is generally a good idea to only have the path of the player train superelevated. That leaves all of the other tracks in place.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. On double track it's very nice to see also the incoming train superelevated, see e.g. my Youtube clip at minute 2:50.

[JTang]

_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha, on 05 April 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

No doubt it will be applied in the future, Markus.

The engineer's viewpoint must stay level and solid, only the cab needs to lean a little into the curve.
Could pose a few problems with the alignment of the instruments and controls in a live cab, from where you actually handle your engine by reaching for those levers and buttons.
Having a static cab lean a little is no problem IMO, but a cab full of controls?

So far we have no live '3D' cabs in OR and that feature will probably have to be implemented first.
There are still more important things to implement or improve, more eyecandy can wait from my part.

Check this video:

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

I understand, Carlo. Of course it looks strange when one train leans into the curve while the other doesn't.

That's why I wrote that perhaps the paths of AI trains within visual range should be superelevated as well. I don't care too much for 'static' track being superelevated or not as I would rather not have all that rusty ScaleRail yard track suddenly turn shiny.

What actually happens with 2t pieces? There isn't that much of it on the WP 3rd Sub, are both tracks superelevated in one go? That perhaps settles your wish?

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

JTang, on 05 April 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Check this video:

Sorry, JT. I didn't know of that.
There are a lot of cabs around, and I do prefer those that are photo-realistic.
It would probably require permission and cooperation from their authors if the 3D cab cannot be applied generic.

The 3D cabs are better saved for another thread, to keep this thread focused on superelevation.

[markus_GE]

_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha, on 05 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

If you are a programmer and into trains, why don't you join them?

Well, there´s just one problem: I´m 16 years of age, and all i can do i learned all on my own - tht´s just some basic skills in BASIC...

But maybe i´ll join them later on.. I´m planning to - after high school - possibly study software development (but it´s WAAAYYY to go ´till i´ll be able to do anything like the OR-code) ;)

Just wrote that line, ´cause i think I know the problems occurring while of coding (i can´t even write working buttons...)