[Weter]

Well, I've just remember one tip, said to me by one route builder: during superelevation, ORTS substitutes your curved sections by dynamic track. The subject of that talking was the fact, that auto-berms disappeared under super elevated sections on his route. So his suggestion was turn it off.
The development of said idea: all dynamic tracks data of the route is recorded into "local" tsection.dat file - I.e. That one, which is in route's root folder.
Didn't You copy it during route cloning?
Long and complex dynamic curves refuse to follow prescribed elevation, but that's about shapes only: track vectors do. I've got about 1m vertical misalignment of shapes on my route in one place and less - in other.
Add:
Confirmation from other member:

some ET member said:

Unfortunately these superelevation tables only affect the physics calculations of the curve (which also affects curve squeal sounds if you have WAG/ENG SMS files with curve-force dependent sounds). Currently in ORTS, the superelevation table does not affect the visual appearance of superelevation in-game (although it most certainly *should*).

[FS.E652 091]

I copied the Tsection.dat at the time of cloning and rebuilding the TDB from the previous scenario.

Now my doubt is:

Should I delete it or do something else?

[eric from trainsim]

It's not the tsection. Your route wouldn't load if the tsection was bad.

Are you able to tell us which track sections are not elevating by shape name? It may just be the way it's defined for geometry.

[FS.E652 091]

eolesen, on 02 June 2023 - 04:00 PM, said:

It's not the tsection. Your route wouldn't load if the tsection was bad.

Are you able to tell us which track sections are not elevating by shape name? It may just be the way it's defined for geometry.

Well i know by the testings done early that the issue regards random tracks, so, how it can be a1t300r10/20, it can be an a1t500r5/10/20 track
Some shapes have superelevation, other not, in Open Rails, there are some tracks supposed to have superelevation On that strangerly remains flat ( for ex. A curved track that have the dynamic trackprofile for superelevation but remains flat ).

I don’t know what to do… i’ve tried also to delete and adding again the piece of a section fo try to fix it but nothing..
The stranger thing is.. the route works fine with no crashes and errors 😨

[Weter]

Congrats with 200-th post on ET, however.

[FS.E652 091]

Thanks, but I think until I solve this problem, I could even get to 500 messages :sweatingbullets:

[FS.E652 091]

Look, i've tried with autofix=true on TSRE5 but nothing has solved yet..


Off Topic: Yes, i still work on it for definitive modification ;-D

[Weter]

Have no any idea, what auto fix would do, for what it intended, so don't know, is it an appropriate way for solving that...
As I understand, TDB is okay there...

[FS.E652 091]

Yes, TDB is OK, i've done a test on Open Rails and it's all stable, no crashes, no errors windows..
The only visual problem is that.. some curved tracks remains with no superelevation..
the stupid thing is that, on the same scenario ambientend on nowadays, the same curved tracks are superelevated... so.. or Open Rails wants to play a game with me o he wants me to go in a sanatorium..! :D :D :D :D

[FS.E652 091]

Hi Guys, I'm dusting off the topic after a couple of months..
After days of constant surrender, today during some work on a scenario, doing some Tests, I realized that in some stretches of track, I used both 10mt curved sections and 5mt sections.. well, in simulation I realized that the superelevation works on the 20mt and 10mt stretches while on the 5mt radii it does not seem to digest it.
So, I changed the sections on the TSRE5 transforming them into 10 m sections ( eg* a1t375r5 transformed into a1t375r10 ), the result? WORKS.

therefore, this would seem to be the solution to the problem of the superelevation that doesn't work... evidently some 5-metre sections are not supported and therefore it is advisable to use 10 or 20-metre sections!