Track directionality

[GenesisMan]

Up to a point Adam - but if you have mixed track rules in (say) a 3 mile section if you highlight that section you get a message about more than one track rule and cannot edit any entries in the pull out box. You need to proceed along the entire length doing short stretches at a time to change the speed limits.

That's why we must not mix trackRules on the same track system.
I also made this mistake because I wanted to have a choice of levers on junctions and I hit the same wall as you about the speed limit.

Adams Correct me if I am wrong but you told me RSDL are thinking of adding automatic and manual junction entity in the Track section blueprint to have a choice of levers in the same trakrule.

Hardly waiting for this and hoping it will be in the next update.
Any news about this Adams?

I would strongly urge the application of speed limits is reviewed for future patches/versions and revert to the traditional way of setting the speed limit by placing the actual sign itself. Maybe others have a different view so other route builders feel free to express your views...

For the speed limits, Phil, did you thought how to make advance speeds operational when placing the speed signs the traditional way as in MSTS?

As it is now, we can create speedsigns and the advance speed is shown on the sign by the use of the speed marker.

My opinion

[bigvern]

So far as I can see - the advance speed limits (inverted yellow triangle for the UK), you need to plonk the sign at a suitable distance from the parent speed restriction then drag the interactive thingamijig all the way along to the actual speed location for it to register correctly.

That's why we must not mix trackRules on the same track system.

Which again begs the question why have such a restriction on what we can do? If we want to electrify track then that should be available as a standard track section, no need for separate "rules". The minimum radius should be applicable to all the track available in the sim. I really cannot find a rational explanation to support the use of track rules over the system used in other editable sims. I started off using Bath Mainline but found the only way I could get points and crossovers to set correctly (another gripe) was to do those using the Bath Yard rule. So = Instant Problem.

hit the same wall as you about the speed limit.

RSDL claim there isn't a wall...but there is, as you say, if the highlight tool passes over more than one "rule" we're semi-stuffed.

I guess we have to be positive and learn new ways of doing things (how many more times will we say that). But why oh why didn't Kuju talk to us, the experienced route builders, as to what would work well and what wouldn't as it is the creation of new routes which will sustain the life of the sim!

[RSAdam]

Hiya,

Some more questions to answer I see

Adam - If some of the junctions you have liad do feature manual junctions, while others do not, I believe the missing ones are junctions that have not properly formed. Do the junctions without the levers have the moving point blades? Ensure that all the track involved in the junction is the same track type (bath wood old as you mentioned).

It should be easy to rectify any mis-formed junctions simply by splitting the junction neck and then using the weld tool to reconnect them. Just click on the little grey box above the junction when using the Weld Tool.

Vern - The track rule system is there in order to cover the bulk setup of track properties. It is merely a set of default values for the track you are laying. However you cannot have two sets of default values. So at the moment this is why we reccommend against using more than one track rule on the same network. However we are aware of the issue that people ARE still trying to use multiple track rules despite advice not to, so we have two options: Prevent track of different rules joining together; force the ability to lay properties across multiple track rules. Im pretty sure we want to go with the latter!

Mark - To access track sound properties, when in Track Laying mode press the spacebar 4 times. This will visually show the sound properties of the track. Using the selection tool, where a bridge is, simply select the sections directly over/under and change this property. You will note the colour changes.

If you look along the default routes in this mode you will see all the places we have changed the sounds. For reference - Spacebar track properties are: Line Type / Direcitonality / Speed Limits / Track Bed Rumble / Track Link Indicator / Fully Rendered

Genesis - Yep, we still have the suggestion in our database and I certainly think it is worth while adding more ability for variation in this area. Keep your fingers crossed for Upgrade Mk2

Vern - We DID talk to route builders, 3rd parties, european and US developers. We DID get people onsite to see Rail Simulator during development, and we DID constantly communicate with many people from the community websites.

[bigvern]

force the ability to lay properties across multiple track rules. Im pretty sure we want to go with the latter!

Assuming we are stuck with the Track Rule system (at least until RS2) then, yes, please.

It is only logical as there are plenty of circumstances where it may be necessary to lay to more than one rule - for example a route which is partly electrified where a different rule is required to generate the overhead catenary. Or, on the more mundane level, as already stated getting crossover points and junctions to take correctly.

We DID talk to route builders, 3rd parties, european and US developers. We DID get people onsite to see Rail Simulator during development, and we DID constantly communicate with many people from the community websites.

Without sounding arrogant, no one from Kuju approached me, despite having produced > 500 route miles for MSTS and a smaller amount for Trainz, to discuss the wisdom of some of the procedures adopted or to offer a beta test. Even without going that far, there was ample scope to canvas opinion via the "specialists' " forum but that lay largely disused for well over a year with little actual participation by Kuju.

[Retro]

Vern and others here have raised some important points her. I wanted an electrified section on part my route. I was using a modified version of the Bath Track Rule and created my own Two Blueprints based on the Bath Track Main and Bath Track Yard so I wouldn't have to select all the track in the yards and alter the speed limits and track type. This presumably is the reason for Track Rules. I then wanted a more modern section so I used the Oxford Electric Track Rule for this section for the none electrified part I use the standard Oxford Track Rule so by my count that is four different Track Rules.
If you are still with me I wanted a two track tunnel on both sections of the Route. For the Bath type track I was able to add the tunnel_track02 to my Track Rule Blueprint. The 02 track is in the ALL Track Rule but the separation distance is different to the Bath Track and the Oxford Track so you cannot join two sections which have 2 or more tracks layed together. So hence I added it to my Rule which then gave me the same separation as the Oxford and Bath Track. So I am in essence using still using the Four Different Track Rules. Apart from the obvious difficulty and time consuming method to set up properties without getting the Multi track thingy. Is there any other possible problems that could develop from using the different Track Rules together which relate to framerates or other major problems which we need to know about and could impact on Routes Being Built using the Route Editor.
Sorry if this is as clear as mud but is difficult to explain in words
Regards James

[AdamsRadial]

RSAdam wrote

If some of the junctions you have liad do feature manual junctions, while others do not, I believe the missing ones are junctions that have not properly formed. Do the junctions without the levers have the moving point blades? Ensure that all the track involved in the junction is the same track type (bath wood old as you mentioned).

The problem one did seem to have the moving blades, and was laid with the same type of track for both sets of rails.

It should be easy to rectify any mis-formed junctions simply by splitting the junction neck and then using the weld tool to reconnect them. Just click on the little grey box above the junction when using the Weld Tool.

That worked perfectly, as soon as I welded up after the split, the point lever appeared beside the junction. Thanks for the advice.

[markjudith]

Hi Adam

The symptoms when editing gradients you describe is evidence that you do not have Upgrade Mk1 installed. This issue was highlighted over christmas and we ensured it was fixed quickly.

I do have MK1 installed, the read me is there and Cajon won't install without the MK1 patch, so I'm sure it's installed.

Cheers
Mark

[letsRole]

I get what your saying, i ment change the track rule settings rather than change the rule bit of a typo in my post, dident make things clear.
the only question i have is what type of problems would we run into using more than one track rule, part of the route im building joins an electrified route, so i know im going to need a new track rule, but im a bit reluctant to start ths section due to the problems that may arise
phil

Phil. you do not need to change track rules in order to electrify it.. I have got both electrified and non-electrified track using the same track rule (Bath Wood new). all you have to do is make sure that when you want a section to be electrified, make sure that in the Track Properties Box (right-hand side) you have changed the box (with the little lightening bolt) to either 'Overhead Wires' or 'Third Rail' etc. But untill the third rail is sourted out i susspect u are wanting overhead wires.

then when you actualy want to add the overhead wires you have to use the gantry tool in the signals section of the left-hand flyout box.

Regards

letsRole

[Phil160]

Phil. you do not need to change track rules in order to electrify it.. I have got both electrified and non-electrified track using the same track rule (Bath Wood new). all you have to do is make sure that when you want a section to be electrified, make sure that in the Track Properties Box (right-hand side) you have changed the box (with the little lightening bolt) to either 'Overhead Wires' or 'Third Rail' etc. But untill the third rail is sourted out i susspect u are wanting overhead wires.

electrified track is defined in the blueprint editer once its been exported it cant be changed inside the editer, or i havent been able to, ive tryed both my hope valley rule and the bath main rule and no joy.
It sounds like you may have chosen oxford_paddington electrified rule then chosen the bath wood new as your track type hence why you have the wires.

ive had a look at the speed limits and i can see what people mean about the track rules it does look a bit of a pain. if things are done right you should be able to use more than one track rule but i wouldent advise it ether. my problem though is not so much the speed limits but the track network and getting this set up first. i cant avoid using more than one track rule for the electrified section i will be doing, which is ashburys east juction through to piccadilly.
phil

[RSAdam]

Ok guys. I think some valueable lessons are being learned here, but I think everyone needs to take a step back from what they are doing to properly understand the methods required to get what you want.

I have seen more than one person in this thread claim that using more than one trackrule is unavoidable. Im afraid this is wrong. RSDL, as well as all official documentation state completely the opposite. You should NOT be using more than one track rule per route. You are only going to run into problems.

I believe it would be a good idea for everyone to go back and re-read the responses I have made in this topic, as no sooner have I posted, people are contradicting the advice given.

[Retro]

I am not trying to be annoying Adam but I thought that's why Bath Main and Bath Yard Rules where produced so you wouldn't have to select all your yard track and alter the properties to say 15mph Yard and I thought the Yard track gave you tighter curves. Could the fact that I have several track rules in my Route be causing the problems I am having with Juddering or is it just the Multitrack properties that can't be adjusted that is the main problem.
Surely we need to know what other problems breaking this rule can cause before continuing to produce our routes.
Regards James.

[letsRole]

electrified track is defined in the blueprint editer once its been exported it cant be changed inside the editer, or i havent been able to, ive tryed both my hope valley rule and the bath main rule and no joy.
It sounds like you may have chosen oxford_paddington electrified rule then chosen the bath wood new as your track type hence why you have the wires.

No, I am using the '1 Default' track rule with these tracks so i can choose either to have or not to have electrified track in the right-hand flyout.

[bigvern]

If memory serves me correctly, the "default" track rule only gives you a minimum of 500m radius curves. Not much use for tightly curved lines and a real 'mare for doing points and crossovers.

Adam - I don't think anyone is trying to be vexatious or denying the advice that yes, ideally and retrospectively sticking to *one* track rule is the way to go. The point being made is this may not be possible depending on the nature of the route being built and indeed Kuju's own default routes appear to have gone against this recommendation. That being the case, IMHO future development of the product needs to move to an overhaul of the system (preferably do away with it altogether) and in the shorter term something in a patch that allows adjacent track rules to be updated with regard to speed restrictions etc.

[nwallace]

Simplest way of enforcing the 1 track rule per route is to update the schemas for track blue prints to state a track rule, then locking the route to that.

The problem I see with it is that if my mail line is mostly 100mph and electrified but I have a lot of branch line mileage at 40mph and not electrified that is a lot of editing to bits of route, which is a very tedious task especially as if you go too far down the track with the selector it breaks and doesn't do anything.

Using the track rule system which I guess is very easy to represent and implement in XML can get annoything

MSTS has the ability to plonk down a speed limit, set the speed and then all track ahead until the next limit is set is at that speed.

Even being able to set up track configuration by placing a marker at the start, and then placing one at the end of the section you want to update and then place an end point. Much easier than dragging the selection tool.
Also track being able to inherit the configuration of what it is connected to rather than the track rule defaults. This should mean you only need to select track and adjust the settings when you want to change the settings.

Soemthing else I have noticed is that when you create and compile a blueprint for route set up once you start writing to that blueprint changes you make to the blueprint do not apply to routes already created. This says to me there is a fault (maybe deliberate so that changes can't break what is already created) in the way the system is set up here.

[haddock1000]

Similar issue for speed limits as I have found on my West Highland route, albeit it appears these can be altered retrospectively.

Not having a go at RSDL over this (as another situation they've inherited) but once again an award must go to Kujumble for devising the most . eyed, obscure back to front way of doing things. The last thing on most route builder's minds when fiddling and swearing to get an odd piece of track positioned is to check you have set the sound rule or speed limit in the properties for that piece. I know they didn't want to be accused of plagiarising MSTS but the system for placing track sounds worked quite well, as does the system of placing speed limits - i.e. anything in advance of the sign is the specified speed until reaching the next speed board.

I completely agree. i have completely given up on this completely loonyish way of speed limits, this is one of the very few things that are better in MSTS in relation to KRS. Leas change it RSDL!!!

thanks,

dkchaddock