Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: TSRE and Scalerail

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    965

    Default TSRE and Scalerail

    Decided to try something different. Normally I don't build routes with Scalerail or even Scaleroads. I like them, but personally felt they don't fit most of the railroads I like to run. Regardless, I think I may go ahead and just do so, as using Scalerail in the new TSRE, is a breeze compared to the standard stock MSTS offered.

    This took only 5 mins to lay out, versus almost 30 with the traditional stock on getting the "right" portion of rails to come together, especially the switches.

    https://i.imgur.com/LPZNEX4.png

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,309

    Default

    Scalerail is pretty nice, to the point that I've begun to use it more as well. I used USTracks for quite a while, and while it looks way better to me, its shape selection is quite limited

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York, USA.
    Posts
    1,956

    Default

    Hi Folks,

    Only drawback with SR is that it can’t be used with Super Elevation in ORTS... Recent discussions stated there is a way to make a SR profile so it is compatible - however - it alluded to some magical procedure that involved sacrificing chickens under the light of the full moon... LOL - no clear procedure was defined... If anyone figures this out and can share same - I believe it would be most appreciated by a number of people...

    Regards,
    Scott


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,309

    Default

    There are profiles out there, but the one I found has a slight visual issue

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    One other drawback with SR, one that history tells us loud and clear, is newer versions are never completely backwards compatible with older versions. Meaning routes built with SR at one phase in SR development have issues 10 years down the road when some noob installs it for the first time and reaches for the then-current SR packages available for download at the Banarama website and discovers "issues".

    Call me crazy if you want, but I for one think that lack of compatibility is intentional, meant to break older routes that have fallen upon controversy, especially ones like that Surfliner debacle that by now is heavily pirated.

    Install the Feather River in a test installation, and then install Sherman hill in the same installation. Go look at the roads in the (older) Feather River and see where they are broken now that the (newer) roads shapes in Sherman have overwritten them.

    The SR profile was so "proprietary" in the past that nobody could have the dynatrax profile for it unless they asked for it from the "proprietor". Now all of a sudden someone bypasses the "proprietor" and replicates the cross-sectional profile for SR used in ORTS Superelevation, and then a new version of SR comes out that "breaks" that trackprofile's use with any newer versions of SR outside of the older releases that were used at the moment in time during Feather River development. That brings us to "visual issues" and the sacrificing of chickens under the moonlight.

    Last fall, I tried running a Streamlines activity in Feather River and the act now bombs around Oroville Yard whenever Superelevation is on and the WP3 SR Trackprofile directory from ET is present. Remove the SR Trackprofile directory so Kuju track fills in, and it loads. Turn superelevation off so Open Rails is not offending by drawing a taboo cross-section of rail, and things work okay again. See this bug report https://bugs.launchpad.net/or/+bug/1850077

    So yes, employ SR in your routebuilding if you want to constantly chase that moving target or fight that "proprietary" battle or don't mind a potentially short shelf life for your freeware route that is bookended, time-wise, by changes in the SR base packages that is available in only one download location.

    USTracks may not be complete, but I will take that incompleteness and build routes around the missing elements, or ask Steven Masters (who has the USTracks cross section figured out) to build missing essential shapes. Even if it means fudging the route and using a different degree of curvature or a different type of turnout than what the charts show. Minor detours in accuracy to work around absent USTracks shapes are more than tolerable in my book.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Woodland, California
    Posts
    424

    Default

    I'm sticking with SR, mainly because I've put a lot of time and energy into using it, in addition to not wanting to bother going through the process of swapping out default track with USTracks.
    "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
    calrouteprojectmstsorts.weebly.com/
    californiapacificrailroadorts.weebly.com/
    Cheers, S. J. Hjellum

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    That "bother" needed to swap out track sections is actually the magic that sets us free from proprietary track systems.

    There actually is a deeper "freedom" logic behind Norbert's strategy of using the least proprietary of track systems we have, Xtracks, for the construction phase of new routes, and then relying upon builder-supplied or user-supplied 'kits' to upgrade to the new track profile.

    But I get it, in the days of MSTS, anything different from the default track was considered an improvement. We looked past any issues that went along with the proprietary nature of a different track system as long as it provided improvement.

    Today, we have choices, including an improved track system that does not have equally restrictive proprietary hangups. We also have a core application that can extrude its own track on the fly according to conditions, and that extrusion process must visually match the rest of the track comprising a route. The options we have now within the core simulator application no longer favors the use of proprietary track systems. Proprietary track systems are not an asset anymore, they are an albatross, limiting our use of new features which were long ago added to the simulator.

    Route design decisions made years ago are pretty much locked in to being a lost opportunity in the context of enjoying these new sim features. Decisions made for routes being undertaken today need to factor these new realities in. Until we have modern track systems that truly are public domain and not privately owned, we will continue to stumble when new sim features regarding track creation on the fly come into being.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA.
    Posts
    3,376

    Default

    PRR 133lb rail profile.

    AFAIK within OR, the Super-elevation only applies to dynamic track, but i wouldn't bet as much as a nickle on that.

    The real value of SR to the route design is the X-curves. These are congruent curves to the original radius and are marked with a single letter -- ABDE. For example, SR_XtCrv_c_00250r01dB.s is one position tighter than the usual 250r track. Think of the original curves as the C shape and you'll be fine. So the A and B curves are tighter, D and E are wider. Some radii have A-Z curves. There are even ABCD curves to go with the End track shapes. Hard to beat.
    Dave Nelson

    Seldom visiting, posting less often that that.

  9. #9

    Default

    Unless something's changed, super-elevation applies to any curve. That's why I disable it.

    Scalerail has allowed me to build 4m spaced mainlines (more prototypical to railroading prior to the 1960's), and without visible gaps in the track. It's given me working switchstands. It's a way for me to have two different types of ballast and/or ties.

    Sure, the Sherman Hill distribution created some problems, but that was easily fixed by treating it as a mini-route...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    965

    Default

    I do recall now, of course, now that it has been mentioned, the issues ScaleRail sometimes had brought. Open Rails does have the nice feature of super elevation, though sometimes it doesn't seem to be needed with every single curve, so having it disabled, isn't a bother.

    However, I did notice the LSRC route produced, using scalerail, always became broken when a new and updated version of scalerail came out. I got tired of having to fix it every single time. So with the option of scalerail, giving the nice look, the original default tracks will work best of this route. Only the Northern Sub portion has somewhat nice track, but not this nice I am afraid.

    As mentioned of course, using scalerails is such a breeze compared to using the other, when route building.
    https://i.imgur.com/LPZNEX4.png

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •