Diamond Crossings

[bigvern]

Has anyone had much success getting these to form without blocked flangeways? I'm finding it incredibly difficult to do so which I suspect is down to the default track spacing in the Bath Track Rules being too close together. Wish there was a way to change this but presumably that requires alteration of the xml files or a new track rule which is beyond me. I'm not sure if Paddn-Oxford has a wider "six foot" but unfortunately that "rule" is hampered by a 500m min radius curve.

In some respects, RS suffers from the same shortcoming as TRS in that you could have done with some fixed track pieces for items such as crossings and points to supplement the splineage.

[class43HS125]

Hi,
I would suggest looking through
http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showth ... trackrules

The topic gets a good work out and theres a solution tucked in there somwhere.

Ross

[bigvern]

Thanks for that - I was aware the topic has been discussed before but the results are still erratic. And as I said, hacking Bin files or track rules is not something I or for that matter any average user should have to do in order to get the pointwork to draw correctly. It's also the time factor - the 20 or 30 minutes I'm messing about with pointwork is time that's not been used to extend the track or work on other elements of the route. In MSTS you put the points down, filled in with the required bridging piece (or dynamic track) then moved on. In TRS, admittedly the default spline points don't have frogs but it is quicker again.

The crazy nature of this game is - even when spacing the track slightly wider, when I put in a crossover the frogs on both points are blocked. If I then remove one of the tail end straight bits (I was creating a goods loop) the turnout from the main line then magically appears with normal unblocked frogs. Go figure...

[Retro]

I produced my own Track Blueprint with slightly wider spacing using the Bath tracks and tunnel_track02 which I needed. But in the All Track Rule where tunnel_track02 resides the spacing seems to be slightly less. Hence I had to add it to my own track rule to enable joining the tracks. With this wider spacing the Diamond Crossing seem to form OK but it still can take a few attempts shifting the start position on laying the tracks to get the weld button and even then it does not always display properly which involves a bit more fiddling.
It can be pretty annoying at times.
Regards James

[AndiS]

In my experience, it is a bug in the drawing function which shows more or less often depending on the following factors
- track spacing (less is bad)
- minimum curve radius (less is good)
- whether you use the cross-over tool or you lay an S curve using snap-to-track (for switches, for diamonds, this distinction does not exist, of course)
- the angle of the tracks.

Since it is a bug, there is no documentation on it. Also, I found that I cannot reproduce the influence of all the above factors reliably.

[bigvern]

Yes you are right Andi, sometimes you will get a perfect crossover with the x/over tool, other times by creating points with the snap tool - then just as likely not. It is totally random.

And as I said, spacing the tracks further apart does not necessarily solve the problem! You wonder how they got away without problems on the default routes.

IMHO unless they could get the frogs etc. to draw reliably each time the game would have been better off doing like Trainz and not bothering with frogs and check rails on the default track.

It will be interesting to see how RSDL have fared themselves with the IOW though of course that is a very simple largely single track route with little in the way of complex junctions or diamond crossings etc.

[AndiS]

You wonder how they got away without problems on the default routes.

There is a fair share of bad spots in the default routes' trackage.

IMHO unless they could get the frogs etc. to draw reliably each time the game would have been better off doing like Trainz and not bothering with frogs and check rails on the default track.

I would not go so far. It is just a pity that all is so unfinished. But I would not want to go back to "undressed" switches. If you can add the details in your imagination, then you can also try to ignore the odd guiderails. But then again, this is a matter of taste, so no two persons will agree.

The naive game supporter in me still hopes that they fix it in some upcoming patch. Compared to train dispatching, drawing guiderails really is not rocket science. But then again, it is not as critical either. It just brings up my sadness that our guesses about a highly configurable, rule-based tracklaying system like they described it initially was not implemented. With the closed shop approach they picked in the end, we can just sit and wait.

If this were officially abandoned like MSTS, then it might pay to start systematic tests how you can get along with a minimum radius of 10m and a bunch of heuristics to get good results in 95% of the cases (even with UK track spacing). Or some George II might come along and find the bug in the code. But while we still wait for real fixes from the original creators (or official caretakers), such tiresome activity might be rendered obsolete within short time.

It will be interesting to see how RSDL have fared themselves with the IOW though of course that is a very simple largely single track route with little in the way of complex junctions or diamond crossings etc.

While I fully understand the valid reasons Derek gave for starting out small, their first route will only reinforce what we already know (they are great artists and KRS graphics beat other train simulations), but it will not help where it hurts (operations, tracklaying, efficient large-scale scenery placement).

[bigvern]

You wonder how they got away without problems on the default routes.
There is a fair share of bad spots in the default routes' trackage.

Or we could start a conspiracy theory as happened with MSTS that the default routes weren't even produced in what became the public editor, but made by hand coding the data!

[AndiS]

Given all the conspiracy practice, I don't see much demand for conspiracy theory.

But seriously, in the case of KRS and its junction dressing, such speculation is irrelevant. There is no information on switches in the data files. The storage entity is "ribbons", straight or curved, with defined locations. After loading them, some "intelligent" (but obviously not clever) code comes along and looks for joints of more than two pieces of track. There, it "dresses the junction" (or diamond), as they put it.

This means, that even if they did not have the dressing code in place, people will have been able to lay track. I just will have lacked the guiderails, etc. I vaguely remember some early sceenshot where there was a quickly added explanation that, no, this is not how the switches will look like. And later, there was a stream of official screenshots with blocked flangeways, and many shoots were cut just above the crossing rails.

[RSAdam]

I'm not sure if Paddn-Oxford has a wider "six foot" but unfortunately that "rule" is hampered by a 500m min radius curve.

Hiya,

Just thought I would correct you there Vern. The 500m radius limit you speak of is only related to the Mainline Track Type. If you switch to Yard/Pasenger/Freight line types you can make track as tight as 100m. This is all part of the Trackrule system. Each of the 4 default routes features these same values. Of course Rail Simulator does support down to 5m radius curves if you want to produce your own Trackrule.

To answer the main question though, the overlapping junction dressings is a bug we are aware of and hope to fix at some point. However it does not technically limit the creation of any track or running of trains. Any fix to this bug will also work retrospectively so there will be no need to relay any track when the fix becomes available.

Finally, in answer to the conspiricy theory that the default routes were made with a different set of tools to those provided. This is completely untrue. We at RSDL have no more tools available to us than the end users. The Island Line has been built with all the tools already available to Rail Simulator developers.

[bigvern]

Just thought I would correct you there Vern. The 500m radius limit you speak of is only related to the Mainline Track Type. If you switch to Yard/Pasenger/Freight line types you can make track as tight as 100m. This is all part of the Trackrule system. Each of the 4 default routes features these same values. Of course Rail Simulator does support down to 5m radius curves if you want to produce your own Trackrule.

I'm well aware of that Adam, but as pointed out in previous correspondence re changing track properties (speed, etc.), the official RSDL advice was not to use more than one track rule in any particular project. Mixing Bath Main Line and Bath Goods in the same stretch of track was the undoing of my attempt at the Mallaig line and led to the project being abandoned.

Finally, in answer to the conspiricy theory that the default routes were made with a different set of tools to those provided. This is completely untrue. We at RSDL have no more tools available to us than the end users. The Island Line has been built with all the tools already available to Rail Simulator developers.

I was speaking tongue in cheek...

Let's hope the point geometry fix appears sooner rather than later.

[bigvern]

Well I have thrown the towel in on route building for this game again. I was having a go at a semi fictional Glasgow to Edinburgh route, laid primarily with Oxford Concrete but using the Bath Main Line track rule to allow sharper curves and crossovers. Selected a section of track to see what options available to change track bed rumble and the only one on offer was..."Unchanged". No bridge or cutting etc. other sounds.

Uninstalled again in disgust and back on the shelf waiting a decision on it's fate (second time sold on Ebay??? ).