UK FineScale

[danielw2599]

hi

Just downloaded UK FineScale and i have to say im very impressed!!! Ill never again use default track and im very suprised at how easy it is to use and it looks fantastic.

My question is... in regards to degrees why is 5 degrees the tightest on a 3 track section and 5 degrees on a 4 track section?? (if this makes sense to you) is there any plans in future releases to do up to 20 degrees?, as in the default (eg A4t2000r20d.s, A3t1000r15d.s etc etc)

Thanks and sorry if its been asked befor.


Daniel

[JohnKendrick]

I can understand your confusion. In UKFS 5 degrees doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the default track!

The 5 degrees is not the angle of curve, but the angle of arc. In other words, 72 sections of a 5 degree curve would give you a complete circle. (72 x 5 = 360)

To take an example, the ukfs_c_2x750m_5d means that the radius of the curve is 750 metres, and 72 of them would form a circle. Whereas 36 of ukfs_c_2x750m_10d would form an identical circle. The c_2 indicates that it is a double track section.

Using a bit of maths (C=2 * pie * R) would give the length of track for that 750 metre 5 degree piece.

Length of section = (2 * pie * 750) / 72 = 65.458 metres.

For a 10 degree section it would be double that length, but the curve angle would remain consistent (the same as 2 * 5 degree ones).

I'm sure everyone who uses UKFS for the first time would find that difference takes some getting used to. Tim's user manual describes it in much more detail so I'd download that if you want further info.

John

[danielw2599]

hi

Thanks fot the reply

didn'd realise it was that complicated. My maths isnt that great either

ill download the docs and see if that helps

[JohnKendrick]

Hi again,

It isn't complicated (really) once you get the hang of it. You asked so I explained! If I simply said that Kuju tracks were apples, and UKFS was oranges it may sound simpler but you wouldn't have been much wiser! Even if I just said the descriptions were different you wouldn't have been much wiser either.

You probably don't really need to know the maths but it hopefully explained what the names mean!

Best way is to try them alongside the default tracks and you'll soon get the hang of them. A good way is to build a short line using a variety of pieces and you'll soon get the hang of it. The docs would be useful though - I reckon you'll struggle without them. There are quite a few special items like single and double slips, 3-way points etc. so you need to know what the codes mean.

John

[timbooth]

The problem with 20 degree curves, for large radii (2000m+), is that they are incredibly long and may 'disappear' due to the way MSTS works out whats visible. Also, long shapes perform less well as the first Level of Detail (LOD), the one with the most polygons, will be the one used most of the time - smaller angles mean that more distant LOD levels will be used. So four 5 degree curves, should be more efficient than one 20 degree curve. However, eight 2.5 degree curves is not as efficient as four 5 degree curves - the more track shapes, the more shapes MSTS has to process (ie. lower frame rates). Always use the largest angle when covering large distances of track, and use smaller angles when you need to make slight changes in track direction, or to fit around turnouts, etc.

I may add larger angles later, so long as they don't interfere with the efficiency of LOD's.

The main advantage of UKFS curves is that 1x,2x,3x,4x curves all share the same radius structure, ie. the inner track radius is always the base radius (500m, 1000m, etc.) - the remaining tracks each extend the radius by 3.413m (6ft way). The structure is different to default track, where the track shapes are centred along the base radius (eg. for 2x track, the centreline between the 2 tracks is 500m) - which requires two different sets of radius values, one for 1x+3x, and one for 2x+4x (the left side is below the base radius, the right side above the radius). This means that single curves don't match the 2x and 4x inner path, and only match the centre path of the 3x - you have to use dynamic track otherwise.

[JohnKendrick]

I'm not suggesting that anyone should, but would it in theory be possible to build UKFS style replacement shapes that would directly replace the Kuju track files? This would make a route built with default track look like UKFS, and make mixing default sections with UKFS more feasible.

While there is no MSTS problem mixing default track with UKFS in a route, the differences make things look a little odd!

Maybe this could form the basis of a useful payware addon as it would be a luxury item with MSTS functioning perfectly well without it, but would improve its looks dramatically when installed - like the payware rail-waves sound files. The user installs them if he wishes and gets better looking routes, and those that install them will be the ones that pay! Those that find the default tracks are OK can carry on as normal. If a route used a mixture of default and UKFS, it may look odd but wouldn't fail to run. The temptation would then be to get the replacement shapes, and routes built with default track would continue to run, even if the original tsection file was still being used.

One potential problem would be routes built with Xtracks as with those , the extra shape files are 'owned' elsewhere. If, however, those could eventually brought on board then the range of shape files available for the route builder to use would become truly vast.


John

(Sorry about the split infinitive!)

[timbooth]

I thought about this before, but due to the design of dynamic track being hard-coded, you can't change the rail or trackbed geometries of the other shapes as they won't match dynamic track. If dynamic track wasn't used on a route, it wouldn't be a problem, but most routes using default track will need dynamic track somewhere or other.

All you could really do is rebuild turnouts and crossings so that they look more realistic, and maybe improve the smoothness of curves.

If I have some spare time I will rebuild one of the default turnouts so that the switch blades and frogs are correctly drawn, and checkrails are added.
They won't look like UKFS ones, but at least they will look better than the dodgy default ones.

FYI folks, work on V3.1 is complete - and it will be released once I have received and tested the updated tsection.dat

[JohnKendrick]

I was forgetting that the default routes use dynamic tracks. Persuade MS to issue a UKFS dynamic track patch??

Guess it would fall on deaf ears though. I suppose that would be the only hurdle.

Pleased to hear that v3.1 is imminent. Getting itchy fingers already!

John