3D plug track - version 244c and beyond

[Martin Wynne]

@James Walters


This topic continues the plug track saga, onwards from Templot program version 244c, released April 2024.

For a very long discussion (2,500 posts) explaining how we got here over a period of 3 years, see this previous topic:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?threads/220/

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Hayfield

Something I have not much looked at yet is the adjusting of plug track for the larger (and smaller) scales.

At present everything simply scales up or down to match the model scale, the default settings being all based on 4mm/ft scale. Which works, but may not always be convenient.

It means for example that in 7mm/ft scale the timber thickness becomes excessive at 5.88mm. Or in 2mm/ft scale the plugs become too short to locate easily in the sockets at 1.5mm.

Enter yet another tick-box:

With this box ticked, the 4mm/ft settings for timber and plug depths become fixed for all scales. i.e. the timber depth for 4mm/ft is 3.36mm (before shrinkage), and this becomes the same for all scales. (This is quite handy, because that is also the timber thickness of Peco 0 Gauge track.)

This is the result in 7mm/ft scale. The chair is enlarged to 7mm/ft, but the plug depth remains at 3mm to fit in timbers 3.36mm deep:

Further adjustment of the plug and timber depths can be done by changing the factor %: setting from 100%.

The above options are easier than going all through the plug and timber dialog settings, changing all the depth dimensions. Untick the box if you prefer to do it that way.

I'm still experimenting with this, and the next stage is to make some actual 7mm track and see how it looks. It may turn out to need something different. I'm not yet decided what to do about the support pyramid height. In 7mm scale some of the plugs will get quite chunky, and likely need access for full-size side-cutters to remove them from the supports. To save resin we could have a straight column instead of tapered, with only the top section necking down to make a break-off location.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Hayfield]

@Hayfield

Something I have not much looked at yet is the adjusting of plug track for the larger (and smaller) scales.

At present everything simply scales up or down to match the model scale, the default settings being all based on 4mm/ft scale. Which works, but may not always be convenient.

It means for example that in 7mm/ft scale the timber thickness becomes excessive at 5.88mm. Or in 2mm/ft scale the plugs become too short to locate easily in the sockets at 1.5mm.

Enter yet another tick-box:

View attachment 9056

With this box ticked, the 4mm/ft settings for timber and plug depths become fixed for all scales. i.e. the timber depth for 4mm/ft is 3.36mm (before shrinkage), and this becomes the same for all scales. (This is quite handy, because that is also the timber thickness of Peco 0 Gauge track.)

This is the result in 7mm/ft scale. The chair is enlarged to 7mm/ft, but the plug depth remains at 3mm to fit in timbers 3.36mm deep:

View attachment 9055

Further adjustment of the plug and timber depths can be done by changing the factor %: setting from 100%.

The above options are easier than going all through the plug and timber dialog settings, changing all the depth dimensions. Untick the box if you prefer to do it that way.

I'm still experimenting with this, and the next stage is to make some actual 7mm track and see how it looks. It may turn out to need something different. I'm not yet decided what to do about the support pyramid height. In 7mm scale some of the plugs will get quite chunky, and likely need access for full-size side-cutters to remove them from the supports. To save resin we could have a straight column instead of tapered, with only the top section necking down to make a break-off location.

cheers,

Martin.

Now that is a superb facility, thank you

 

[Hayfield]

Martin

Any more news on printing at a higher temperature with the small kingroon printer please.

Secondly is the facility to reduce the size on 7mm printing going to be released soon ?

Sorry I get confused with what is in which update, I like the new colour when Templot opens up

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
I believe I may have found a bug with 244C, in the attached screenshot I have three half diamonds and a turnout making for a double junction
whilst working on timbering for this junction, , I needed to twist and reposition the last to sleepers on the turnout road the red and blue sleepers I then found the sleepers would twist and move along as required, but it only twisted the chairs they would not follow the sleeper.
The half diamond worked fine for twist and moved along.
I can send you the box file if required, but I will have to chop it down first, as it's currently a large box file with about a third of the trackwork for HN junction.
cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Martin,
I believe I may have found a bug with 244C, in the attached screenshot I have three half diamonds and a turnout making for a double junction
whilst working on timbering for this junction, , I needed to twist and reposition the last to sleepers on the turnout road the red and blue sleepers I then found the sleepers would twist and move along as required, but it only twisted the chairs they would not follow the sleeper.
The half diamond worked fine for twist and moved along.
I can send you the box file if required, but I will have to chop it down first, as it's currently a large box file with about a third of the trackwork for HN junction.
cheers
Phil,View attachment 9086

@Phil G

Thanks Phil.

I thought I had fixed that, but obviously not.

A couple of work-arounds:

1. split the exit track as a separate template.

or

2. twist the sleeper, crab the sleeper back under the chairs, move it along to where you want it.

Thanks for reporting it. No need to send the BOX file.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil G]

@Phil G

Thanks Phil.

I thought I had fixed that, but obviously not.

A couple of work-arounds:

1. split the exit track as a separate template.

or

2. twist the sleeper, crab the sleeper back under the chairs, move it along to where you want it.

Thanks for reporting it. No need to send the BOX file.

cheers,

Martin.

Thanks Martin,
Twist, crab and then along fixed it.
Cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Hayfield

Something I have not much looked at yet is the adjusting of plug track for the larger (and smaller) scales.

At present everything simply scales up or down to match the model scale, the default settings being all based on 4mm/ft scale. Which works, but may not always be convenient.

It means for example that in 7mm/ft scale the timber thickness becomes excessive at 5.88mm. Or in 2mm/ft scale the plugs become too short to locate easily in the sockets at 1.5mm.

Enter yet another tick-box:

View attachment 9056

With this box ticked, the 4mm/ft settings for timber and plug depths become fixed for all scales. i.e. the timber depth for 4mm/ft is 3.36mm (before shrinkage), and this becomes the same for all scales. (This is quite handy, because that is also the timber thickness of Peco 0 Gauge track.)

This is the result in 7mm/ft scale. The chair is enlarged to 7mm/ft, but the plug depth remains at 3mm to fit in timbers 3.36mm deep:

View attachment 9055

Further adjustment of the plug and timber depths can be done by changing the factor %: setting from 100%.

The above options are easier than going all through the plug and timber dialog settings, changing all the depth dimensions. Untick the box if you prefer to do it that way.

I'm still experimenting with this, and the next stage is to make some actual 7mm track and see how it looks. It may turn out to need something different. I'm not yet decided what to do about the support pyramid height. In 7mm scale some of the plugs will get quite chunky, and likely need access for full-size side-cutters to remove them from the supports. To save resin we could have a straight column instead of tapered, with only the top section necking down to make a break-off location.

cheers,

Martin.

@Hayfield

I have run into a problem with the above 7mm/ft chairs. I knew it was coming, but I was hoping to tweak the dimensions enough to fix it. But so far I haven't found a workable solution.

Using the slimmed-down plug and timber depth for 7mm scale works ok for the solid-jaw slide-on chairs, but not for the loose jaw option.

In order for the loose jaw to clip into place and be capable of assembly, it is essential that the jaw pin is long enough to engage fully in the slot with the key still above the rail:

Pushing the jaw down then flexes the pin as the key passes the rail head and clips into place below it, holding the rail firm.

If the pin is any shorter, it becomes incredibly fiddly or impossible to assemble, and the jaw won't hold the rail firmly. It may even fall out.

But with the pin long enough to work properly, it needs to be quite a lot deeper than the slimmed-down plug and timber:

At present I can see only two possible solutions:

1. revert to much deeper timbers, at least 5.5mm thick, or

2. assemble the track on battens about 2.5mm thick, to raise the thinner timbers sufficiently to clear the pins.

If the battens are on the bench and the finished track can be turned over, the protruding ends of the pins could be snipped off. Thus allowing the track to match Peco flexible. It would be tricky to replace a loose jaw after track-laying -- the new one would probably need to be glued in place without a pin.

But for track construction in-situ on the baseboard, it would be necessary to fix the battens in place on the track-bed first. Flexible track would need to be packed up by a similar amount to match.

---

For FDM printing I think it would be easier simply to go with the thicker timbers and accept the longer print times.

For laser-cut track it might be possible to cut a recess in the cork track-bed to receive the end of the pin.

• N.B. All the above applies to 7mm/ft scale, 0 gauge -- 4mm/ft plug track is working fine as-is.

Thoughts welcome.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
An interesting conundrum, Maybe 4mm is the perfect sweet spot for the current plug track concept. 2mm is I believe to small to have loose jaws.
Just a though, which I guess I could try myself if I was so inclined, Is 7 mm big enough to have only a lose key?
IE more like the prototype in application? I would have though it could still be a bit too fiddly at 7mm at scale.
Scales over 7mm, the idea of the loose key becomes more and more the obvious solution.
cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Martin,
An interesting conundrum, Maybe 4mm is the perfect sweet spot for the current plug track concept. 2mm is I believe to small to have loose jaws.
Just a though, which I guess I could try myself if I was so inclined, Is 7 mm big enough to have only a lose key?
IE more like the prototype in application? I would have though it could still be a bit too fiddly at 7mm at scale.
Scales over 7mm, the idea of the loose key becomes more and more the obvious solution.
cheers
Phil,

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

Loose keys are doable in 7mm. Slaters do injection-moulded MR chairs with loose keys:

https://slatersplastikard.com/accessories/trackMaterials.php

You use a bit of sprue runner as a holder for the key to push it in place, apply solvent, leave them for an hour or so and then break off the sprues.

Very tedious and fiddly, but maybe no more so than using plug track loose jaws in 4mm scale.

You can already do plug track chairs without keys, untick this column:

Doing the loose keys to go with them would need some thought to be easy to use. They might even be better done FDM in ordinary brittle PLA so that a holder "sprue" would be strong enough to work, but break off without too much force.

Lots of stuff still to think about. For myself I think I'm quite happy with the deep 6mm FDM timbers.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
Firstly I am not sure I have this in the right topic, but it sort of applies. Please correct me if I have it in the wrong place.
Anyway I have encountered a problem which currently I am not sure the best way to proceed. Please note I am not trying to distract you from your projects, as hopefully the issue should not be unique to my application So the answer is worth understanding for all.

In the attached screen shot I have 4 conflicting chairs highlighted, chairs 1 and 2 are currently part of the vee of the B+v8 RH turnout below them are the CC chairs of 162 DR197 which is a K4.94 V5.31 half diamond, chairs 3 and 4 are basically the same issue this time the CC chairs of the B8 are in the foreground and the exit road chairs of 165 DL1310 ( K5.89 V5.41) are conflicting.

First question would such a thing exist prototypically?
I have played with snaking the B8 though the peg to create an interlaced timber set up, the issue then is the repositioned chairs would still confit with the rail for chairs 1 and 2 even though 3 and 4 would be resolved by doing that way.

I then though chair 2 is actually very similar to a BB chair on a D or E sized turnout, Could that be substituted? Chair 3 could likely be resolved in a similar way although it would need the chair twisting to achieve what I need.
That would then leave chairs 1 and 4 the problem, to me they look as though a half L1 chair I.e. bolted not keys would be the answer.
I fully understand such options are not yet avaible in Templot, maybe they never will be if I am so far off base.
If I am not that far off, I think I can make something up to suit by a bit of software cut and paste. The real question being is that how it would be resolved prototypically?
Or should I be looking to compromise IE snake down the B8 and then find a way to resolve the chair 1 and 2 issue although that then looks a lot more complicated.
very much looking forward to your thoughts.
Cheers
phil

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,
Just a further update, I now believe snaking the B8 down a bit too allow interlacing of the timbers is the better option, as that also keeps the timbers under 30 foot long.
Still not resolved how to fix chair 1 however, chair 2 can just finish in front of the check rail if I put a flare back on the check rail so a pair of L1 chairs fits in there doing that way.
cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

For chairs 2 and 1 you need to extend the wing rail on the crossing so that it merges with the check rail and the CD and DD chairs are converted to parallel-wing chairs. Shorten the check rail accordingly, or omit its check rail chairs:

Note that at present single-sided parallel-wing crossing chairs are not yet available, and may never be. That means either extend the turnout-side wing rail similarly, or leave that side of the chairs empty. Either option is prototypical, but if you leave them empty remember to omit the keys on the loose jaws (otherwise they look daft). Unfilled pin slots would look even dafter.

See the previous discussions with Terry about parallel-wing chairs. The PW and PW-end plain chairs are not yet done. When they are, the DD chair above could possibly be replaced with PW and L1 chairs. Because all rail is vertical in plug track, you can use CC or L1CC chairs instead of PW.

For chairs 3 and 4 you need to do the same on the V-crossing from the left. Or a mix of the half-bolted S1N chairs and/or the L1CC chairs. These are not yet done either:

The problems all boil down to the fact that you are jumping ahead of me. When these chairs are available it will all be relatively simple. In the meantime you will need to fudge them as best you can. Extending the wing rails will solve most problems.

I now believe snaking the B8 down a bit to allow interlacing of the timbers is the better option

It's not generally prototypical to change the track geometry just to achieve easier chairing -- usually if the chairs can't be fitted on the existing timbers, more timbers are added as necessary interlaced* with the existing ones. Each rail is then chaired on alternate timbers.

*Phil O won't be happy about that -- it makes packing them 10 times more difficult. So not done unless unavoidable.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Hayfield]

@Hayfield

I have run into a problem with the above 7mm/ft chairs. I knew it was coming, but I was hoping to tweak the dimensions enough to fix it. But so far I haven't found a workable solution.

Using the slimmed-down plug and timber depth for 7mm scale works ok for the solid-jaw slide-on chairs, but not for the loose jaw option.

In order for the loose jaw to clip into place and be capable of assembly, it is essential that the jaw pin is long enough to engage fully in the slot with the key still above the rail:

View attachment 9088

Pushing the jaw down then flexes the pin as the key passes the rail head and clips into place below it, holding the rail firm.

If the pin is any shorter, it becomes incredibly fiddly or impossible to assemble, and the jaw won't hold the rail firmly. It may even fall out.

But with the pin long enough to work properly, it needs to be quite a lot deeper than the slimmed-down plug and timber:

View attachment 9089
At present I can see only two possible solutions:

1. revert to much deeper timbers, at least 5.5mm thick, or

2. assemble the track on battens about 2.5mm thick, to raise the thinner timbers sufficiently to clear the pins.

If the battens are on the bench and the finished track can be turned over, the protruding ends of the pins could be snipped off. Thus allowing the track to match Peco flexible. It would be tricky to replace a loose jaw after track-laying -- the new one would probably need to be glued in place without a pin.

But for track construction in-situ on the baseboard, it would be necessary to fix the battens in place on the track-bed first. Flexible track would need to be packed up by a similar amount to match.

---

For FDM printing I think it would be easier simply to go with the thicker timbers and accept the longer print times.

For laser-cut track it might be possible to cut a recess in the cork track-bed to receive the end of the pin.

• N.B. All the above applies to 7mm/ft scale, 0 gauge -- 4mm/ft plug track is working fine as-is.

Thoughts welcome.

cheers,

Martin.

Martin

Firstly I think the user has to consider what is more important, to match the depth of ready to lay track or print everything with a thicker timber. I must admit I was most interested in the thinner timber, simply to make ballasting easier, but if doing this causes issues then its far easier to keep the sleeper/timber depth longer.

As for time printing, as you keep saying its does not stop you from doing other things, as for cost its still far cheaper than other commercial products.

As for chairs, is there any issues in printing them in the larger (7mm scale) format, any photos please

 

[Phil G]

Hi Martin,

The problems all boil down to the fact that you are jumping ahead of me. When these chairs are available it will all be relatively simple. In the meantime you will need to fudge them as best you can. Extending the wing rails will solve most problems.

I fully understand I would be jumping ahead, I am not to bothered about that, as I am sure I can kludge and fudge my way though the chairs, just got a bit lost on what the right chairs would look like.
cheers
Phil,

 

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Martin,

I fully understand I would be jumping ahead, I am not to bothered about that, as I am sure I can kludge and fudge my way though the chairs, just got a bit lost on what the right chairs would look like.
cheers
Phil,

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

A point to keep in mind is that the special crossing chairs are equalized (skewed) at half the crossing angle. All other chairs are square-on to the running rail. This affects the sockets (and possibly the timber shoving) if you are kludging and fudging.

cheers.

Martin.

 

[Phil G]

@Phil G

Hi Phil,

A point to keep in mind is that the special crossing chairs are equalized (skewed) at half the crossing angle. All other chairs are square-on to the running rail. This affects the sockets (and possibly the timber shoving) if you are kludging and fudging.

cheers.

Martin.

Thanks Martin,
I very good point I will take that into consideration

 

[Martin Wynne]

@James Walters

Another great video from James.

 

[Martin Wynne]

@James Walters

Hi James,

Just noticed in the video that you haven't set the 3D-Tool preview to show the STL as if it had been mesh-fixed. You need to click these settings for that. The chairs will then display in the preview looking correct without parts missing:

(The yellow circles are from when I posted this in a previous reply, not relevant here. I have posted these instructions a couple of times over the years, but obviously not enough if you hadn't picked up on it. We need a new topic where I repeat stuff which I posted years ago but forgot to mention ever again. ).

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

@James Walters

Hi James,

i don't want to get involved with grandmothers and eggs, but in the video I noticed you got in a muddle finding the right file:

In Windows you always, always, always click the Date modified column header, so that the files are listed with the most recently created or edited files at the top. Why this isn't the default in Windows has been a mystery to me for 30 years. Click the Name header only when you want to see the files listed alphabetically.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

@James Walters

Hi James,

After mesh-fixing in 3D Builder, there is no need to do Save As and go through the motions of setting the file type, destination etc. All you need to do is click the Save icon top-right:

Just to explain -- when you export an STL file from Templot it makes 2 copies of the file. One is saved in the STL-FILES-RAW folder and the other in the STL-FILES-FIXED folder. The latter is the file which gets opened in 3D Builder, and after mesh-fixing it is saved back there just by clicking Save. You then still have 2 copies of the file -- one original raw file if you ever need it, and one fixed file ready for printing.

When you close the 3D Builder app, Templot opens the STL-FILES-FIXED folder so that you can see the file there, and maybe drag it straight into Chitubox.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
If you are modelling in 4mm/ft or below you can ignore all this.

Another tick-box:

In scales larger than 4mm/ft ticking this box increases the width of the plug and socket so that the base overhang shown red, marked X is reduced to 0.35mm. It is ticked by default. In 4mm/ft and below this box does nothing.

In 4mm/ft and below, and in larger scales if you untick this box, the overhang at X is 1 inch scale, which is 0.33mm in 4mm/ft scale, or 0.58mm in 7mm/ft scale. (Unless you change the plug/socket normals... setting.)

Flat horizontal overhangs do not print well in 3D printing, which is why many models are printed tipped up at an angle. That's not very practical for the chairs, which is why all through the designs I have kept this flat overhang in mind. It needs to be wide enough for the chair to locate firmly against the timber top, but not so wide that it may fail to print and/or require additional supports.

When working in scales larger than 4mm/ft I suggest leaving this box ticked, but it is up to you. Note that if unticked the plugs and sockets will be narrower, so this box affects not only the chairs but also the timbering base.

This option will be new in 244d in due course.

• If you have already made timbering bases in a scale larger than 4mm/ft, you will need to untick this box in 244d in order to make chairs to fit them. Likewise if you have already made a stock of chairs, you will need to untick this box in 244d in order to make timbering bases for them. Sorry about that, but it is an inevitable effect of using an experimental project for real-time use -- things can change.

p.s. None of the above has any effect on scales 4mm/ft and below. The actual dimensions for L1 chairs differ, but the principle is the same.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Phil G @James Walters

Hi Phil,

In a comment on James's latest video you wrote:

It struck me common chairs, which are S1, S1J, L1, CC, together with fixed CCR and CCL can, as you have so well highlighted in your video be mass produced at any time, and are therefore ideal to use as first attempt options. Incidentally they also all use a common loose jaw.

This is not the case.

S1 and S1J loose outer jaws are common. They have 2 ribs to fit around a single chair screw (3-screw chairs). coded green below.

CC and several other chairs have a common loose outer jaw which has a single rib which fits between 2 chair screws (4-screw chairs). coded pink below.

L1 chairs have a plain loose jaw without ribs which is unique to L1. On plug track it also has a pin angled at 5 degrees instead of vertical. coded violet below.

If I ever get this project finished, which seems increasingly unlikely, I will produce a cross-reference chart showing enlarged drawings of each jaw type, and which chairs they fit. Some of this information is already colour-coded on the chairing dialog:

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Hayfield]

On a brighter note I am progressing with my friends small layout project, its my own limited understanding / lack of attention to detail of the logic used in Templot which has held me back when there are several partial templates, but the light in my brain is getting brighter

Can I say in its basic form Templot and Templot 3D is very easy to use

The first 3 bricks are now printed, bricks 2 and 3 have a couple of errors*** so I have printed a replacement brick which will be spliced in.

Just about to start brick 4 which will finish the crossover, the remaining bricks are very easy to both make into bricks and therefore print

*** Mainly due to using a laptop with a small screen, I think I may need a monitor

 

[Hayfield]

@Phil G

I'm sorry Phil. The whole thing is getting me down a bit.

Martin.

Martin

I think we all have frustrating days, especially when you are dealing with a whole range of modellers with differing skill levels, plus those like me are not only dabbling with trackwork but other modelling disciplines

I must admit initially I was struggling a bit with both partial templates and duplicated templates, I still don't really understand how the box program works but seemingly after a few trial and errors sorted things out, plus exploring chair heaving a bit more I seemed to have gotten over the stumbling blocks I created

Now I need to sort out chair printing, I have watched James's video and probably will need to work my way through it several times again. The first job is to watch the Greentec video James made simply to set it up to print.

Thanks for all your pioneering work, and whilst I understand 3D printing is still in an experimental stage, using the word experimental seems to understate the work you have done.

 

[Martin Wynne]

Now I need to sort out chair printing, I have watched James's video and probably will need to work my way through it several times again. The first job is to watch the Greentec video James made simply to set it up to print.

@Hayfield @James Walters

Hi John,

See also the complete run-down to getting started with the Alkaid printer which I posted some time ago:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?threads/what-printer-should-i-get.733/post-9658

The critical stage which James didn't mention much in his video is the importance of vigorous plunge washing. That's why I prefer the water-washable resin -- so that washing can be done vigorously in a whole bucket of water. I fear if folks don't do this there will be a lot of reports of loose jaws not fitting in the slots. How to get this point across to users I have no idea -- I know that hardly anyone actually reads what I write, that's why I have to keep on repeating it.

p.s. it has taken me 10 minutes to find that link, which is why I wanted the Threadmarks add-on.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Hayfield]

Martin

Thank you especially as you have taken me straight to the file for the chairs which I was about to look for. I now have downloaded the S1 chair file to a memory stick. Also given the resin a gentle swirl, buckets and empty ice cream tubs at the ready. I think it may be a couple of days before I try and print something but I am getting there.

The other thing is that un like conventual track building once you have a plan it must save a couple of hours or more cutting timbers and getting them on a plan. And as you said right at the start, with correct planning you print the bases in advance of building just as you would order the parts to start the build by ordering the components.

The real gain is this morning I spent about 10 to 15 mins creating the brick file and setting the printer up. I have carried on with life and this afternoon I will have a brick fully printed, not bad for 15 mins effort.

 

[Martin Wynne]

you have taken me straight to the file for the chairs which I was about to look for

@Hayfield

For others looking, the sample CTB file is attached at:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?threads/what-printer-should-i-get.733/post-9640

It is ready to print on the Alkaid printer -- just save it onto a USB stick and plug it into the printer.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Terry Downes]

Does anyone know if I have inadvertently pressed a key in-error and messed up my settings? I believe I have default display settings set. I would like to view 3D chair outlines on my background templates but, the tick box button seems to work on some sessions and not on others. I was working last night with this setting was ticked and chairs were displaying but today after restarting Templot and opening the box file, the chairs are not showing... strange.

 

[Martin Wynne]

Does anyone know if I have inadvertently pressed a key in-error and messed up my settings? I believe I have default display settings set. I would like to view 3D chair outlines on my background templates but, the tick box button seems to work on some sessions and not on others. I was working last night with this setting was ticked and chairs were displaying but today after restarting Templot and opening the box file, the chairs are not showing... strange.

@Terry Downes

Hi Terry,

There's a bit of an issue there which I haven't yet resolved.

in order to see the chairs on background templates you need both boxes ticked, the one in your screenshot and this one:

The idea of the one above is to make faster access if you just want to flash the outlines on and off. Having the background chairs on can slow down the screen response very significantly, so normally you just want a brief look at them, then turn them off again.

Ticking the box in your screenshot should over-ride the one above. But to the extent that it doesn't, that's a bug which I need to do something about. I forgot to look at it in 244c, but I will do in 244d. It's not simple, generally it would be better to have one tick-box or the other but not both. Sometimes I spend hours considering such conundrums, without moving actual useful functionality forward one iota.

p.s. the above affects the screen display only, it has no effect on what gets generated or exported. Which means that strictly speaking it is on the wrong dialog.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Penrhos1920]

I was about to print out a few bricks when I noticed a few missing webs/flanges (not sure what they are called). These were not missing when they were printed from an earlier Templot version (2/1/2024). I've just exported 7 stls and they all have the odd missing flange, but this brick has a sleeper both flanges missing so that it is no longer joined to the rest of the brick. I think I've not changed any setting that might affect this but it could just be a begineer trying to run before he can walk.

 

[Martin Wynne]

I was about to print out a few bricks when I noticed a few missing webs/flanges (not sure what they are called). These were not missing when they were printed from an earlier Templot version (2/1/2024). I've just exported 7 stls and they all have the odd missing flange, but this brick has a sleeper both flanges missing so that it is no longer joined to the rest of the brick. I think I've not changed any setting that might affect this but it could just be a begineer trying to run before he can walk.

View attachment 9210

@Penrhos1920

Hi Richard,

Thanks for reporting this bug.

It is related to this new function in 244c which is clearly not working properly. In this case the wider sleeper spacing in the Rhymney 30ft panels has made it more noticeable:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?posts/10892

You could switch the new function off by unticking the box, but I don't recommend doing so because that will almost certainly create some conflicts within the crossover.

Instead I suggest repairing the missing webs as a temporary fix by adding a few short splints where necessary.

I will do some more work on that function and try to find the problem.

Thanks again for reporting it.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

.
Peco Set-Track to industrial turnout:

Images created for RMweb. See:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topi...finer-looking/?do=findComment&comment=5498834