Atomic Systems

Hi,

I have a section within my route where two parallel (dual) track beds exist in close proximity to each other but differ in height by approximately 6ft.

What exists between the two trackbeds is a sloping grass section which I would estimate to be approximately 13ft across in the horizontal (according to Google Maps measurement tool).

Trying to get the terrain to hug the base of the upper track and then flow smoothly down the slope to hug the base of the lower track is proving somewhat difficult.

My current best effort thus far leaves me with terrain peaking up through the lower trackbed, and gaps under my upper trackbed.

Could anyone enlighten me on how best to handle this type of situation?

I've tried to explore this myself but have given up in the past...

A way that you could try to get a semi decent result is to lay all the higher track first, use the "Magnet" tool to raise the terrain for that track, and then go on to lay the lower track once the upper track has been tended too. However, you'll need to fiddle with the cutting settings in the lower left box of the "Magnet" tool and may have to simply space the tracks out further than you'd originally intended.

It most likely can be done, but you need to compromise the final look...

Or you could just put a lofted track support wall/embankment piece under the higher track to disguise the gap.

Vern is right that would be the best way of doing it. If have hunt around there are loads out there. I will have I look tomorrow


Regards



John

Hi,

My advice would be to listen to Vern. Use the lofted retaining walls to hide the gaps under the track. I nearly drove myself crackers trying to figure out the same problem until I realised I was wasting my time! It may not be 100% accurate in terms of looks, but you've got to remember that RW is all about driving the trains. For the amount of time you spend looking at the scenery instead of the road ahead, I'd go with a compromise and use a retaining wall, whilst still getting the basic feel of the route correct.

Regards, Jim

Many thanks everyone for the replies and sound advice.

An alternative would be to provide a bus service between the two end points where this track exists and class it (the trackbed) as prone to landslip.

Disappointed with the granularity of the terrain on offer with Railworks but I guess that's the nature of the beast (as it tries to balance FPS with realism).

Yes, it's probably my biggest gripe with Railworks that you can get nice smooth cuttings and embankments at a fairly sharp angle only if you are running exactly parallel to the gridlines :bad-words:

I guess that's the nature of the beast

Trainz 2010 introduced a finer terrain mesh (6m?) and something similar would be near the top of my list of RW to dos. The FPS impact could be moderated by allowing the user to select a finer terrain mesh where required, as is possible in MSTS.

longbow wrote: Trainz 2010 introduced a finer terrain mesh (6m?) and something similar would be near the top of my list of RW to dos. The FPS impact could be moderated by allowing the user to select a finer terrain mesh where required, as is possible in MSTS.

TS2009 actually... If you use Transdem with Trainz to form the landscape you can indeed do that - put the 5m grid adjacent to the track and 10m elsewhere. But I have to agree with the OP and despite the solutions suggested, if you compare the terraforming results in RW with MSTS there's not a lot of difference - i.e. it looked crude in MSTS and it still looks crude in RS/RW.

Hi emikob
RailWorks use a grass bank to overcome track height differences. It's under Procedural/Scenery/Grass Bank Loft
Hope this helps.
regards
Buckeye

Buckeye,

Thank-you.

With a bit of terrain height adjustment and a line of vegetation to break up the baseline, and some sunken vegetation near the top, that looks quite good.

Regards.

Hi emikob
Glad to be of assistance.
regards
Buckeye