[ebnertra000]

:offtopic:

For anyone interested in old-style traffic control, this site may be of interest:

http://trafficsign.us/oldmutcd.html

The 1942 edition is probably the most interesting because of the wartime features. Hopefully this isn't too far off-topic

[Genma Saotome]

 ebnertra000, on 26 January 2021 - 05:40 PM, said:

:offtopic:

For anyone interested in old-style traffic control, this site may be of interest:

http://trafficsign.us/oldmutcd.html

The 1942 edition is probably the most interesting because of the wartime features. Hopefully this isn't too far off-topic

<admin comment>
If wanted I can split off these street posts into their own thread. Send me a PM.

[ErickC]

I've been cleaning up the map now that I have a plan for switches that doesn't require the tie-less section of ballast. Now I'm starting to wonder if I really need the center section between tracks. The reason I think it might not be necessary is that I am uncertain how often your average route has multi-track sections composed of dynamic track. In that case, obviously, the ballast between tracks will be missing, so you could end up with periodic gaps depending on how the route was designed.

To be clear: all of this is bearing in mind the scope of the project, which is to create a drop-in replacement for the default track that will instantly upgrade existing routes. Obviously, new-build routes can just not use dynamic track, and I'd expect that people would probably use Scalerail for those applications anyway.

So - should I include the ballast between tracks on the multi-track profile or not?

[eric from trainsim]

I'm confused... are you referring to multi track sections or dynamic?...

I think ballast is important, but there are ways to overcome that.

[ErickC]

I am referring to the interaction between multi-track and dynamic sections. As it stands, I am building multi-track sections with ballast between tracks, however, sections of a route that use dynamic tracks will use the dynamic track profile. The problem is that if a route has multiple parallel tracks built with dynamic track, obviously, those sections will use the dynamic track profile and not the multi-track shapes, and the effect would be the same as if my multi-track shapes were built like the default - as two single track sections side-by-side without any ballast between. So if you have some portions of a double track main, for example, that use sectional track, with bits and pieces of dynamic track thrown in here and there, then some portions of track will have ballast between the tracks, while others will not. But I don't know how often this happens in your average MSTS route.

[ErickC]

Testing the single track tunnel section.



This test piece has a basic enclosure on the outside of the tunnel that was meant to make it self-shading, then I remembered that OR ignores track insofar as shading goes. So I'll save a few polys per section and delete the shell.

[Genma Saotome]

Looks good. Any idea how to represent concrete or rock lined bores so a mix can be used in one route?

Your question about ballast between multiple tracks; don't do it. There are so many possible combinations of track you will always get examples where the ballast should be present but isn't -- a 2t, 1t combination for instance where there is a switch and diverging path on the 1t, or the 1t is a rather short industrial spur. What then? And that doesn't address at all individual railroad standards where the area between tracks is either level or not. I think it's much better to leave a ballast gap between track and let the route builder deal with it, either with berms, painting terrain, or both.

[ErickC]

That's what I was thinking, even as a retrofit, it just doesn't make sense to span the gap.

For the tunnel pieces, I'd imagine you could copy the shapes, decompress them, change the texture name, recompress them, and then use those shapes where you need them. That would be faster than me reassigning textures and re-exporting with new file names because you can use Notepad++ to do it in batches once the shapes are decompressed. For the same reason, when I build freight car kits, this is how I do several instances of a model with different texture names. It's just easier and faster than re-exporting because you an replace all instances of a text string in all files with one click. There really isn't any room for a second wall on the map, either, so it's better to just use an edited instance of the main texture sheet:



At the moment, the next operation is to build the little triangular end extensions for the tunnel pieces that are used to account for grade changes. These will be a separate part to be attached to the main mesh when the basic work is done, that way they can easily be rotated and snapped into place.

[R H Steele]

 ErickC, on 30 January 2021 - 04:30 PM, said:

Testing the single track tunnel section....

Erick, that looks superb, nice work.

[ErickC]

Where tunnel pieces meet, there will be a small gap any time there is a slight direction or grade change. Thankfully, I've built many an airliner with flexing wings, which meant coming up with ways to fill the gaps between panels (before FSX, you couldn't use skinned meshes), and the techniques I used for that work just fine here. I created flared ends for the tunnel pieces. They angle outwards about 5 degrees grade-wise, and flare out 5 cm up and out. This spans the gap in a way that the flared pieces will not interfere with the main wall section, since the point where the ends cross is outside the walls a bit. On top of that, I am exporting each track piece 5mm longer than nominal to cover any gaps at the track level. This image has been lightened considerably, and shows the point where two sections meet and the grade changes: