Message Areas - "Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?"

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?"

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Previous Topic | Next Topic Conferences MSTS Route Design (Protected) Original message
sniper297 (972 posts)
Nov-28-01, 09:59 AM (EST) "Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" I was trying to build a wye without using dynamic track (too close to water, being underneath it!), and was playing with the 7-meter straight sections. I couldn't figure out why the length adjustments kept missing the mark, so I decided to see if 7 X 10 was still equal to 10 X 7. Apparently not. This could go a long way toward explaining why distance measuring or calculation sometimes has such strange results. Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: Track section lengths - is this... DKlemm Nov-28-01 1 RE: Track section lengths - is this... OkrasaGhia Nov-28-01 2 RE: Track section lengths - is this... sniper297 Nov-28-01 3 RE: Track section lengths - is this... SR1950 Nov-28-01 4 RE: Track section lengths - is this... sniper297 Nov-28-01 5 RE: Track section lengths - is this... LawrenceKellie Nov-28-01 6 RE: Track section lengths - is this... OkrasaGhia Nov-30-01 7 RE: Track section lengths - is this... LawrenceKellie Nov-30-01 8

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
DKlemm (735 posts)
Nov-28-01, 10:12 AM (EST) 1. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" Sniper;I use to add up my track laying to around 1650 meters for a mile and place a mile post. I always used my IC track charts to find a mile marker on a road or stream as a starting point. But like you found, I sometimes got off actual locations because of track length issues. So now I find my starting point and use the measuring tool in MS streets to find mile locations using the location sensor tool. Then I go along planting trees at those points and lay track to them, place a milepost and move on.David Klemm
Illinois Central Route
Illinois and St Louis Divisions
Ver 0.5 uploaded
Working on Decatur IL
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
OkrasaGhia (145 posts)
Nov-28-01, 11:29 AM (EST) 2. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" The ten is 10 meters but the seven is actually 7.2331 meters.
There are other examples also, the 1 track 250 meter radius curves are actually 247.5075 meter radius.
It would look rather strange with pieces named like a1t7.2331mstrt.
There are reasons for at least some of these strange lengths and that is to even out differences when you combine different track sections.

//Okrasa
Chief Engineer
okrasaghia @ yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/okrasaghia



Steam: 0-4-0T #9, 0-6-0 #12, 2-6-6-2 #37, 2-8-2 #40
Diesels: SW8 #16, F3 #53, F7 #54, FP7 #57, Budd RDC #61, TrainMaster #88 Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
sniper297 (972 posts)
Nov-28-01, 01:05 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" The listings look wierd anyway, Okrasa. Took me forever to figure out why the 250 meter straight was mixed in with the 2000 radius curves, son-of-a-gun, it's alphabetical order. And I still get a A1t1500r10d.s when I meant to use a A1t500r10d.s, altho don't do that as often as I used to! I once made a double mainline crossing using two of the 5 degree crossover sections and that was the first time I played with 7 meter straights. Didn't work, tho, they were just a little too short. I ended up having to use dynamic track sections without the curve enabled, and I think the length was set to 7.2 meters. Anyway, there's a bunch of different possible combinations, but I thought hey, I need 21 meters instead of 20, delete the two 10 meter sections, replace with three 7 meter sections, 21 meters. No wonder I was left scratching my head. The trick to any of this is to do it with the least amount of track sections possible, like in the above example if I needed 70 meters of straight track I would use one 50 plus 2 10s instead of seven 10s, because it reduces the object count in that quad by 4. The exceptions, of course, being special cases like this, or transition grades. Here's the solution I came up with, if anyone is interested, not very elegant, but no dynamic track. BTW, how's the turntable coming? Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
SR1950 (57 posts)
Nov-28-01, 08:20 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?"
>No wonder I was left
>scratching my head. The trick
>to any of this is
>to do it with the
>least amount of track sections
>possible, like in the above
>example if I needed 70
>meters of straight track I
>would use one 50 plus
>2 10s instead of seven
>10s, because it reduces the
>object count in that quad
>by 4. The exceptions, of
>course, being special cases like
>this, or transition grades. Here's
>the solution I came up
>with, if anyone is interested,
>not very elegant, but no
>dynamic track. Thanks for the data, Sniper. I tried copying the Wye at Kalispell and somehow always had to use a piece of dynamic track to finish it up! I've done three so far - same old grind.I wasn't even aware there was a 7-meter piece of track!! My eyes ain't what they usta be! Lew
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
sniper297 (972 posts)
Nov-28-01, 11:25 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" Yeah, I probably have more wyes per mile of mainline than any other route so far, and I used dynamic track for all of them until this one. Lawrence K once asked "How close is too close" about the dynamic track turning water white thing, but I don't think he ever got an answer, because who knows. I have one piece in the West Ogden wye that's been sitting there a few meters away from the water without any problems since version one, but another section where I was trying to lay it about the same distance away triggered the bug. Might have something to do with crossing the black tile line, one of these days I'll have to experiment with toggling water off and on under the little green trapezoid, moving the section over then off of the corner. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
LawrenceKellie (783 posts)
Nov-28-01, 11:38 PM (EST) 6. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" You're right. I didn't get an answer.I am currently working on a route that skirts a lake for many miles. I *purposely* did NOT use any dynamic track. Water still flickers! Further, it depends on the angle of viewing.So, whereas it appears that dynamic track is causitive, it also appears that it exacerbates, instead of causes, the problem.Lawrence Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
OkrasaGhia (145 posts)
Nov-30-01, 10:59 AM (EST) 7. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" My personal little theory about the toggling water is that it is triggered by too many polygons needing to be drawn. Dynamic track needs many polygons. You might get the toggling water effect also if you run a highly detailed train along water even though there is no dynamic track close by. If this theory prowes to be correct there is no straight answer as to when it is too close as that would depend on your pc, the detailing of the route, what train you're running a.s.o.

//Okrasa
Chief Engineer
okrasaghia @ yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/okrasaghia



Steam: 0-4-0T #9, 0-6-0 #12, 2-6-6-2 #37, 2-8-2 #40
Diesels: SW8 #16, F3 #53, F7 #54, FP7 #57, Budd RDC #61, TrainMaster #88 Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
LawrenceKellie (783 posts)
Nov-30-01, 12:16 PM (EST) 8. "RE: Track section lengths - is this the "New Math"?" Your theory is a good one. I noticed it with the latest locomotives that have come out. Now, I certainly do not know the poly count on them, but I do know it is occurring with them.Lawrence Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic