[ErickC]

I don't want to get anyone too excited, as work and school use up most of my time, but I have been considering creating a new track system to place into the public domain, with the intent of replacing the Kuju tracks and XTracks. But I don't want to go through the trouble of creating all of that sectional track, so I was thinking that I would create a dynamic track profile, and a set of switches and crossovers, and make the source files public domain should other developers wish to expand the inventory. In this manner, instead of using sectional track, developers could simply use dynamic track as they would use spline track in other platforms. I would not create bridge or tunnel pieces, but I would create separate bridge and tunnel models for route builders to place over or under the tracks as required. The goal would be to create something that could be retrofitted to older routes and used for new routes, even if it's not a direct replacement. This sounds like a good idea in my head, but most ideas that sound good in my head don't sound good to other people. Does this sound like something the community would be interested in?

[darwins]

The general idea sounds good.

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.

[scottb613]

Hi Erick,

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

[ebnertra000]

I must ask how this could be retrofitted to older routes if there are no sectional track pieces. I'm working on a route now that uses Xtracks because it allowed for more complex track layouts (I use only two pieces of dynamic track), and would love to do away with the 'french fry' rails and flat ballast

[vince]

Hi Eric,

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

[Garry]

Hi Erick
This is the forum where Goku talks about his proposed procedural track system
http://www.elvastowe...__1#entry220776

Garry

[Goku]

TSRE tracks will not be compatible with MSTS, so if you want to make xtracks replacement then go ahead.
But I hope, TSRE tracks will be used by OR.

[Genma Saotome]

AFAIK, if you wish to replace extant KUJU track and make your dynamic track use angles instead of radians then right off it doesn't work with RE. OTOH if you make your DT with radians you won't be able to replace KUJU track because you won't be able to match the length or curvature of the angle based curves.

Something to think about before starting.

[conductorchris]

Perhaps Erick can work with Goku on this project? Erick is pretty talented. I'm excited to see what will come of this.
Christopher

[Goku]

That might be good idea but only if he uses Blender or other 3d software that allows for import .obj files, so he can tweak TSRE .obj shapes.

[bobwdude]

Hi Eric,

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!

[ErickC]

I actually had no idea procedural track was in the works, what I was going for was basically a substitute for spline track using dynamic track as flex-track (which is how a lot of hardcore N-scalers do it, they don't use sectional track). The idea was that route developers could just re-lay all of their track to retrofit existing routes, and it'd be faster because you wouldn't be dinking around with sections (bear in mind, I am not a route builder, so I have no idea how the mechanics of route-building work). In my head, my approach seemed like a good analog to the way track is laid in TS2018 or Trainz, it seemed like it might speed the process up a bit.

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.

[ebnertra000]

Erick,

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...

[Genma Saotome]

ErickC, on 19 March 2018 - 07:58 PM, said:

The idea was that route developers could just re-lay all of their track to retrofit existing routes, and it'd be faster because you wouldn't be dinking around with sections (bear in mind, I am not a route builder, so I have no idea how the mechanics of route-building work).

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.

[Goku]

Radians are used by MSTS too. And the precision is "only" 6 digits. You can't use angles in degrees for math, so the values are converted to radians when tsection file is loaded.
I know route builders that succesfuly replaced standard tracks with DT.