|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 26 Nov 2015 11:05 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I'm working on a new extend/shorten to meet function, primarily as an aid to using the make transition functions. The intention is that the original templates can be automatically adjusted for length to fit the new transition template. This will avoid the tedious business of zooming in to do that manually. Likewise when adjusting the underlying templates after make diamond-crossing at intersection. The new function will also be useful in other circumstances where the position of a template boundary needs to be moved, for example to enable a turnout to be inserted. Or where a gap or overlap needs to be eliminated, for example before using the roll rails to match function. At present such tasks have to be done manually. It is working quite well (within sensible limits ). But I'm uncertain how much misalignment to allow before reporting an error in the original template alignments. In the process I have produced this alert dialog: 2_260617_500000000.png I'm aware that my choice of words doesn't always make sense to others, so I would be pleased to know if anyone cannot follow the above? This is a close-up of the condition described above: 2_260549_570000000.png For myself I prefer to have exact alignments in Templot. But from looking at some posted box files it is obvious that others would deem the above acceptable, and aim to correct it at the track construction stage. Bearing in mind that in 4mm/ft scale the above rail is less than 1mm wide. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 27 Nov 2015 20:56 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin I think that is an incredibly good idea and I am sure I won't be the only one to appreciate- and use- such a feature. For what it's worth, I agree about mis-alignments. No point introducing kinks as you can 'dilute' them over a length during construction, but they're still there and maybe not evident until it's too late. Derek |
||
posted: 6 Dec 2015 01:34 from: dave turner
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Whilst I agree that in practice such tiny corrections can be corrected on the ground it is far better to get it right in the first place. I spent years designing with various forms of CAD software, predominately AutoCad whilst co-ordinating mixed disciplines. It was a pain trying to convert people from the older drafting techniques (tracing paper & ink) to take proper advantage of the new capabilities. regards Dave |
||
posted: 8 Dec 2015 11:12 from: Godfrey Earnshaw
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin I feel I have to agree with Dave, I would have thought it was one of the basics of track design to align track accurately and as such it is necessary to master it before running into more difficult situations. Besides, it provides endless hours of "fun" trying to re-align the templates. My vote goes for not including misalignment it creates bad habits. If people accept it now why pander to them, let them carry on their bad ways. cheers Godders |
||
Last edited on 8 Dec 2015 11:14 by Godfrey Earnshaw |
|||
posted: 11 Dec 2015 18:42 from: Alan Turner
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Whilst I cannot but agree with the comments made a quick look at some real trackwork shows the prototype doesn't always agree! Regards Alan |
||
Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |