Wierd tangent about superelevation...

[Trainguy76]

I know this has kind of been discussed but...
Is it possible to create two different track sections/lofts (like building track in 3D Canvas or something) one that's tilted to the right visually, and one thats tilted to the left.
Create these as lofts/track in RailWorks and setup the blend track part that ties it together.

After that, every loco/stock/emu/dmu would need to be changed in there configuration to tilt to the right or left.

Has anyone tried this?

[AndiS]

I think you would need a load of track variants at different angles. When you blend track, it reduces the alpha level of one (or both?), so basically one becomes gradually invisible. At least this is how I understand it. So, if you have a skewed (superelevated) piece and a level one, it would look pretty funny to see the rail in the air gradually fading. If, however, the different between the upper and the lower rail were less than an inch, then you would not see it so much unless you are very close.

The one thing that lofts (and track are lofts) certainly cannot do is form a screw, i.e., start out flat and end skewed.

And, like you say, you need some engine scripting to make the train tilt.

But, no, I have not tried either of the two, track and train tilt.

[Ryosuke]

its an idea but it doesn't sound very feasible. it has been done in a similar fashion in trainz once, but never really took off rom what i know.
it should be easier to achieve this with an update to the core program.

[AndiS]

I fully agree that it is easier for us if they change the core programme.

There are two reasons I can see why they don't do it.
1) It takes a bit more computation to tilt all the trains in all the curves.
2) As soon as you can have superelevation on plain track, people will demand it for switches, and then complain that they can never match the tracks. The math behind superelevated tracks is not so funny and people will demand a solution that is simple for users, and difficult problems rarely have simple solutions.

[kirkheath]

I would also like two different track lofts that would work well, as It would be able to create interesting junctions like this one...
http://www.mikesolloway.fotopic.net/p40334941.html
(Thanks to dinmore [Mike Solloway] for allowing me to use his piccy) - check his site for more interesting pics!!
But this sort of junction would make routes very interesting and challenging particularly if a steamer gets signal checked like this one for ruddy 66 Light engine!!

[Ryosuke]

I fully agree that it is easier for us if they change the core programme.

There are two reasons I can see why they don't do it.
1) It takes a bit more computation to tilt all the trains in all the curves.
2) As soon as you can have superelevation on plain track, people will demand it for switches, and then complain that they can never match the tracks. The math behind superelevated tracks is not so funny and people will demand a solution that is simple for users, and difficult problems rarely have simple solutions.

i think it would be sufficient to compute only the trains which are visible to the player. everything else could be simplified and run simply according to its schedule.

(at the moment railworks doens't even compute all the locos in the player consist properly...)

[paulz6]

An interesting thing about the OpenBVE South Cross-City Birmingham route is that when you join the mainline at the Y-junction, it is remarkably flat. It can be done in a simulation, but perhaps it is not as simple as first thought?

[Ryosuke]

another one man project even manages to create superelevated crossovers:




it also places the gantry automatically with zig zag, correct mast distances and everything, including variations in height under bridges and in tunnels, which are followed by the engines' pantographs.

[vlado960]

Have you mean as shown below? It was early in the RS and abandoned in the final version.

[keber]

another one man project even manages to create superelevated crossovers:
img

it also places the gantry automatically with zig zag, correct mast distances and everything, including variations in height under bridges and in tunnels, which are followed by the engines' pantographs.

Graphic is dull, however. Also editing an alignment would be a nightmare for most existing users (not for me, I do similar at work).

[Ryosuke]

another one man project even manages to create superelevated crossovers:
img

it also places the gantry automatically with zig zag, correct mast distances and everything, including variations in height under bridges and in tunnels, which are followed by the engines' pantographs.

Graphic is dull, however. Also editing an alignment would be a nightmare for most existing users (not for me, I do similar at work).

of course it also lacks a lot of things, but then thats understandable for its a one man project.

it has been said that there are different simulators and every simulator has a different focus. but some core elements should be found in every train simulator that calls itself a simulator. prototypical trackworks, including superelevation, is one of these elements in my opinion because for once its absolutely necessary to reach the speeds of todays railways and recreating a a real railway with realistic speeds and radii just looks very odd without it and furthermore it increases the sense of being in an engines cab for the driving part which is the core of every train sim or train game on the market.

[AndiS]

... the sense of being in an engines cab for the driving part which is the core of every train sim or train game on the market.

Which takes us quickly to the "what is a right simulation" debate. There are 1000 core features and everyone has a different 10-item list which are the only ones that certainly everyone will understand that they are the musts of musts.

The only way forward is to discuss how we can get something that looks a bit like superelevation into RW, something that looks a bit like beautiful landscape lit by a sun and under a sky with something like clouds into Zusi and something that looks a little like operable rail network into BVE.

[Ryosuke]

... the sense of being in an engines cab for the driving part which is the core of every train sim or train game on the market.

Which takes us quickly to the "what is a right simulation" debate. There are 1000 core features and everyone has a different 10-item list which are the only ones that certainly everyone will understand that they are the musts of musts.

in case of a simulation there shouldn't really be a "wrong" simulation really because then it wouldn't be a simulation at all...

i think that compared to racing simulations or flight simulations our beloved train simulations sadly have a lot to catch up to.
but one could also learn from those. i can still remember the days when cars in racing sims turned around an artificial pivot points and had no real and properly visual suspension simulation. now today in the latest offerings like live for speed or r-factor you can really feel how the car moves around corners and over bumps through your force feedback wheel and the picture on the screen transfers that as well by showing how the player is shaken in the cockpit.
in the old games you could see that the cars were supposeldy moving, now you can feel it and you start to interact with your car, to really control it, instead of just determining the direction to the left or right.

besides it appears to me that its always the same range of features that pops up around these forums every week that people seem to miss. especially when people regularily point at the BVE videos in awe, it becomes clear that its not a thousand core features, because the advantages of BVE over RW can be counted on one hand i think.



oh, and btw, to not go to far off topic:

i have had a look at the transitions between different track loft sections with different shapes and it appears that as long as the track sections use a similar shape that the transition is actually a geometric three dimensional transition from one shape to the other, not a fading in and out of just the textures.
in case of two completely different shapes, there is simply no transition at all. if you try to use the transition tool in such a case, it just transforms the geometry of one full piece of the second track loft into a piece of the first track loft.

i hope this makes some sense, otherwise i can show you a screenshot tomorrow...because i'm already in bed now...

[AndiS]

besides it appears to me that its always the same range of features that pops up around these forums every week that people seem to miss. especially when people regularily point at the BVE videos in awe, it becomes clear that its not a thousand core features, because the advantages of BVE over RW can be counted on one hand i think.

The fact that now BVE videos are a hot topic here mostly means that all the operations people have given up on complaining. A year ago, you would have big raves about the AI and the signalling. There are also a few comments on such different topics as physics or the ability to create long routes efficiently. But these people are less vocal at the moment. In a few months, the "I need tilt now" people will have realised that it is not happening either, at least not soon, and the "We need more Diesels and Electrics" people will take the front row.

i have had a look at the transitions between different track loft sections with different shapes and it appears that as long as the track sections use a similar shape that the transition is actually a geometric three dimensional transition from one shape to the other, not a fading in and out of just the textures.
in case of two completely different shapes, there is simply no transition at all. if you try to use the transition tool in such a case, it just transforms the geometry of one full piece of the second track loft into a piece of the first track loft.

But then that is really great news. This simply means that you can have superelevated track, if you lay it carefully. And you need to script the train to make it tilt. You might even be able to tilt the cab view, who knows. Just wait for more docu to materialise.
(You can interpret this last sentence as a unjustified positive statement or a cynic statement, just as you like it.)

[Ryosuke]

The fact that now BVE videos are a hot topic here mostly means that all the operations people have given up on complaining. A year ago, you would have big raves about the AI and the signalling. There are also a few comments on such different topics as physics or the ability to create long routes efficiently. But these people are less vocal at the moment. In a few months, the "I need tilt now" people will have realised that it is not happening either, at least not soon, and the "We need more Diesels and Electrics" people will take the front row.

i'd count AI and signalling in on the list of the handful of issues raised up again and again. i can't see a trend here that shows a substitution of issues.

But then that is really great news. This simply means that you can have superelevated track, if you lay it carefully. And you need to script the train to make it tilt. You might even be able to tilt the cab view, who knows. Just wait for more docu to materialise.
(You can interpret this last sentence as a unjustified positive statement or a cynic statement, just as you like it.)

except that its not feasible because the script could not distinguish between sections without superelevation and sections with superlevation.