View Full Version : Anyone Playing With Real World Topotgraphy in Trainz
03-01-2002, 04:33 AM
Tucson Coyote here
I was wondering if anyone out there is playing around with "Real World Topography" (By using DEMs or what not..
I myself am tinkering with it a bit and I do notice that it rougly takes about 9 baseboards in a 3x3 Grid to make fairly realistic Topotgraphy..
If Anyone else Is Timkering with topography I'd Like to learn some of the Tricks so as to get real world "digital Eleavation models " to work..
03-01-2002, 11:11 AM
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-02 AT 11:11AM (EST)[p]Hello TC. Yes I am using DEM data although I did not use it at full height. Check my site below for screen shots and Eme if you like. 24 boards with plans, perhaps, to expand it. I'm on the Trainz forum as dmdrake.
03-01-2002, 01:47 PM
Just beginning. My first planned route in MSTS (which will hopefully be done in Trainz first) was a section of the Denver and Rio Grande Western line from Canon City to Salida, CO. Follows the Arkansas river towards it's headwater near Buena Vista (but turns west at Salida).
I've got the 24K DEM Fremont county data downloaded, I've driven the route a few times and have Topo! 7.5 USGS maps for visual assistance. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out as my first project. I have a practice layout I've been using to get used to the tools. Hopefully the practice will pay off with my first real route.
I plan on doing a small road trip in the next week to video the route for additional help in populating as authentically as possible (I live in COS).
03-01-2002, 01:51 PM
Santa Cruz? Driven by there on my way to Montery Bay many times. I'll be downloading the route!
03-04-2002, 11:33 AM
By the end of March, a new release of TSTF will bring real world topography input to Trainz.
TSTF is already in common use by the MS Train Sim. community and allows you to use DEM files where available or traced map contours.
I will post here when the version is uploaded.
03-04-2002, 02:01 PM
Thanks zorcon, I'll look for it for Trainz. Meanwhile I'll go look for the MSTS version as well!
03-05-2002, 08:26 PM
This is one baseboard in N scale with metric units. The height tool say 315. But when an object is placed in of height 315*160 the terrain elevation is way below the height of this object. If rulers are used in a horizontal direction this relationship works out correctly. An object of length 384m in real scale appeared as a length of 2.4m in N scale. This is correct. So what do the elevation numbers mean in N, HO, O scale? Are they scale height numbers?
03-05-2002, 11:57 PM
Actually The Correct Formula is Actual Height Divided by 160 (or what ever Amount in What Ever Guage you are working in so in this case 315 Meters (in Real height would be roughly 2 meters in height (Just a little bit less than 2 as 320/ 160 is 2 Meters
if You multiply then 315 Meters multiplied by 160 would give you an answer of 50,400 Meters ... So remember folks Divine you actual Height by the Scale Ratio to get the actual Height..(Simple Math 101)
03-06-2002, 06:00 PM
I guess you did not read the first part of my post, but I do appreciate your responding.
If rulers are used in a horizontal direction this relationship works out correctly. An object of length 384m in real scale appeared as a length of 2.4m in N scale.
i.e. (384m in Real Scale)/160 = (2.4m in N scale)
It is the vertical scale that is the issue maybe I will have to post additional pics to clarify my point.
03-06-2002, 08:58 PM
Okay Since you want the Variables for Each Guage (How much you need to divide By Well Go From Smallest (Z) to Largest (No. 2 Guage)
Scale and The Number you divide by
No. 1 (Garden) 32
No. 2 (Garden) 22.5
Now I know the Valures for O, HO, N and Z are the correct values the Values for S, TT, and No. 1 and No. 2 Guages are right now not as Standardized as the other four as these are less Frequently Used Scales in Model Railroading
For Additional Info Here is a Link I found...
Hope that Helps
03-09-2002, 05:51 PM
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-02 AT 06:00PM (EST)[p]Thanks but you continue to miss the point, so here are the additional pics I promised. The issue is the contradiction between the horizontal measurement and the vertical measurement. Not the scaling factor.
These are two screen shots of the same object. One screen shot is in "Real-scale" and the other is in "N-scale"
I place the object in horizontal position and a vertical position in both pics.
In the "Real scale" the object is approximately 317m in the horizontal position and 317m in the vertical position(from the get height tool).
In the "N-scale" the object is approximately 2.0m in the horizontal position and 317m in the vertical position(from the get height tool.
My point is that in N-scale if the horizontal measurement of the object is 2.0m, than the vertical measurement of the rotated object should read 2.0m NOT 317m from the "get height tool". This is why I was asking about the units of the "get height tool". Maybe your "Math 101" is better than mine.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.