New rail system
#1
Posted 19 March 2018 - 02:09 AM
#2
Posted 19 March 2018 - 03:19 AM
The practicality may be different. How would OR cope with vast quantities of dynamic track? Would it be stable?
Starting work in that direction might ultimately lead to some sort of spline track.
From curves and gradients initially, you may have to think about different track profiles and gauges, and on from there....?
Have you had a try in Goku's route editor to create a route based mostly on dynamic track?
It would have been unstable in MSTS, but may work well now.
By leaving whatever you do in the public domain you will allow others to take things further if they wish. So definitely worth a try.
#3
Posted 19 March 2018 - 03:55 AM
Yep - concur - we need to leave the old Kuju flat track far behind... Having a real berm like Scale Rail would be helpful as well - one that would still be in contact with the ground while being super elevated...
Also - might want to touch base with Goku as he mentioned making all track "Procedural Track" via his route editor which I am assuming may be similar in concept - eliminating fixed piece assets ?
Regards,
Scott
#4
Posted 19 March 2018 - 07:15 AM
#5
Posted 19 March 2018 - 08:09 AM
Just a heads up as I'm not sure you know that Goku is working on a procedural track system that will be incorporated into TSRE5. That being the case I'd suggest holding off a bit and see what come of that.
He has described the new system as being compatible with the KUJU/MSTS track system. I specifically asked him if the new procedural track would be able to connect to the present track system and he replied that it would. Yay!
I don't have the post but it's somewhere in the Route editing software development section of the forum.
regards,
vince
#6
Posted 19 March 2018 - 08:57 AM
This is the forum where Goku talks about his proposed procedural track system
http://www.elvastowe...__1#entry220776
Garry
#7
Posted 19 March 2018 - 09:45 AM
But I hope, TSRE tracks will be used by OR.
#8
Posted 19 March 2018 - 09:50 AM
Something to think about before starting.
#9
Posted 19 March 2018 - 01:04 PM
Christopher
#10
Posted 19 March 2018 - 01:13 PM
#11
Posted 19 March 2018 - 06:44 PM
Would either your proposed system or Goku's procedural track system allow for multiple types of track models and textures to coexist in the same route? At least in the US, a lot of tracks, even with concrete ties, still use wooden ties for turnouts. Likewise, different weights of rail are used for sidings vs. yards vs. mainlines, etc.
Both your proposed system and Goku's work both sound very promising!
#12
Posted 19 March 2018 - 07:58 PM
If the problem is the need for track shapes, I can build track shapes. What would you need? I can slice a generic piece of straight track into practically anything, turnout, crossover, and so on. My idea was to keep things as simple as possible to reduce the time requirement, hence not wanting to bother with sectional track. I also need to go out and take some photographs, and come up with an efficient profile. My original goal was to create something not too dissimilar from the track used in TS2018, still very simple, but with the correct rail width and a proper arch to the ballast. I'd create a basic track system and then upload the source files so other developers could build whatever switches or crossovers they might need.
I use GMax primarily, because nothing else I've used (besides 3DS) really meets my mapping needs, but I use MCX and 3DC for file interchange and texture baking, so I can import or export in any format. I'd have to hammer out the particulars, but it's certainly doable. I just need to know what's needed, and whatever references will make modelling it quickly easier.
#13
Posted 20 March 2018 - 08:09 AM
One wouldn't necessarily have to relay all their track. If the shape names are the same, they'll just overwrite the originals wherever they're found. If you do what Norbert did for DB/USTracks, you could change the shape name slightly (easy to do in TSRE) to get the improved shape. Or, you could do it scalerail style and get dedicated entries in the tsection. Of course, none of this matters if you do flex-track.
I would recommend the first or second methods, as those would be feasible for retrofitting. The third, whille useful for new routes, would be a nighmare for existing routes. In order to remove and replace track, all interactives would have to be removed from the area (eventually from all parts of the route you'd want changed). I don't know about you, but that's not something I'm prepared to do.
If you're not familiar with DB/USTracks, you can find his work at http://dbtracks.com. He got a good bit done before he passed away a few years back...
#14
Posted 20 March 2018 - 10:12 AM
ErickC, on 19 March 2018 - 07:58 PM, said:
Erick, you are not understanding: DT uses radian math to create their curves. Radians are mathematically incapable in RE to recreate sectional track curves whose length and curvature are calculated using angles. IOW you cannot replace any section curve with DT. Either the curvature will be wrong or the length, or both. In some cases it may be mathematically possible to do if you have something like a dozen decimal places of precision but RE doesn't allow for that. Perhaps TSRE does. Either way, it is not a drop in replacement.
Also, do understand it's not just the shapes -- the shapes are highly irrelevant to the sim itself -- it's the .tdb that counts and the notion of just yanking out a bunch of sectional tracks and dropping in DT has huge negative implications for the .tdb; Once again, it is not about the shape itself, it is about the ShapeIdx() value. Remove an extant value and you will break extant interactives.
There may be something in your idea that I'm not grasping but on the surface it would be entirely a disaster to apply to any finished route.
#15
Posted 20 March 2018 - 10:17 AM
I know route builders that succesfuly replaced standard tracks with DT.