Message Areas - "Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?"

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?"

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
Norbert (12 posts)
Jan-17-02, 06:05 AM (EST) "Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?" From another thread I started (Design of Switches ...) I got the impression, that there is at least someone else in this world sharing my thoughts about the looks of the tracks MSTS provided as default (AURELIS, Im talking about you !)I think, all of us, we do not have the same approach to our hobby:- Some people may enjoy building big scenerys- some enjoy operating a loco - some like to have their modelling as refined as possible.In model railroading you find these different approaches and communities too.I want to raise the question, if there is any interest in a finescale railroading in MSTS, beginning with the design of tracks. (take a look at the posting of AURELIS in the thread 'Design of switches...' and you will know what I mean).If there is, I think we should try to set up some standards (cross section of tracks, parallel distances or whatever) that would ensure that there remains the possibility to exchange our work with others of the same interest. I would just hate the idea, that each and everybody does fine work but this cannot be used by anybody else, because the width of the gravel dam is completely different and looks funny when everything is put together ...
Dr. Norbert Aust, Maulburg, Germany Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ? OkrasaGhia Jan-17-02 1 RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ? tro1086 Jan-17-02 2 RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ? enocell Jan-18-02 5 RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ? Aurelis Jan-17-02 3 RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ? Norbert Jan-18-02 4

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
OkrasaGhia (211 posts)
Jan-17-02, 11:42 AM (EST) 1. "RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?" Doing better looking shapes does not upset the sim as long as the path is the same. If you like (but why would you?) you could replace the track shapes with shaps of crates or whatever (but for the switches of course) and you trains would still run happily over the route though it would look very strange.
I agree that some sort of standard for cross sections and such would be nice to have and I think much could be taken from the model railroder standards that are out there. But I think it should follow the standard set by Kuju if there's not any reason to break it (like the altitude of the rail surface).

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



Steam: 0-4-0T #9, 0-6-0 #12, 2-6-0 #25, 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
tro1086 (64 posts)
Jan-17-02, 06:23 PM (EST) 2. "RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?" im completely confused, heheTrevor Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
enocell (344 posts)
Jan-18-02, 11:57 AM (EST) 5. "RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?" I was hoping to get "dynamic" track/rail texture, shiny for main lines and rusty for rarely used lines. That would need new track sections so it's still a dream...
But maybe it's possible to have some weeds on the tracks, at least? Just a new object, some rectangles with transparent texture.Enocell Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Aurelis (5 posts)
Jan-17-02, 07:16 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?" Having been thinking about some of these issues for a while now, some of it is relatively easy to do, and other parts aren't. So far, I have been unable to change the shape used for dynamic track. Whereever that is determined, it is buried deep, and I'm afraid it is buried in the program executables themselves somewhere.So to use finescale/prototypical track will effectively require not using dynamic track. Personally, I will work around this by making additional track shapes as necessary for the various curves, and only utilize dynamic track as a tool for figuring out what shapes I need to create. However, this will be very cumbersome, and not easy to use.As to a more accurate cross-section, I've toyed with the idea. The .2m that the track based is raised is close the the thickness that the cross-ties would be. I've avoided it at this point because of the increase in triangles that would be required, and the potential impact on frame rates. Also, until I experiment with it, I'm not sure how visable the change would be .To maintain compatability, we would need to stick to the geometries developed by Kuju, replacing the supplied shape files with better ones. Changing track spacing will cause endless problems with compatability.Perhaps what will be needed to allow for more track types and different track spacings is a tool similar to (or added to) Route Control, which can update the global tsection.dat with a customized one for the route. Until then, I believe the choice comes down to maintaining compatability, or modifying/customizing for a route which is no longer sharable.John Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Norbert (12 posts)
Jan-18-02, 03:38 AM (EST) 4. "RE: Finescale Tracks for MSTS ?" Okay,It is my opinion too, that compatibility is of higher value than improved looks on tracks, especially switches and slips.So just let's stick tu KUJU - standards.I will keep you posted on my progress.Dr. Norbert Aust, Maulburg, Germany Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic