I've been using the built-in "TANE 1Trk Wood" procedural track, but am finding it difficult to level the ground beneath it, especially on grades, without leaving gaps between the ballast and terrain in places. Is there something similar, DLS or payware or otherwise, that has a deeper ballast profile?
Procedural Track with Deeper Ballast Profile?
- Thread starter rjbradley
- Start date
I did some poking around before I posted here.
There's a ton of procedural track you might find useful.
LRW track has a nice profile to it.
The original Pro-Track by Andi06 (RIP). This track also has a deep ballast variant which you maybe interested in.
and some track by Elstoko. Protrack NSWGR, which appear to have a deeper profile than the default TANE track.
My recommendation is to look through the various tracks, among those that I have mentioned and give 'em a try.
There's a ton of procedural track you might find useful.
LRW track has a nice profile to it.
The original Pro-Track by Andi06 (RIP). This track also has a deep ballast variant which you maybe interested in.
and some track by Elstoko. Protrack NSWGR, which appear to have a deeper profile than the default TANE track.
My recommendation is to look through the various tracks, among those that I have mentioned and give 'em a try.
euromodeller
Imagineer
Just thought I'd ask,
are you using the smooth spline height tool between spline points to close the gap between ground and track?
https://youtu.be/BVqYyQL0c2k
are you using the smooth spline height tool between spline points to close the gap between ground and track?
https://youtu.be/BVqYyQL0c2k
Euromodeller,
I tend to not use the Smooth Spline tool except in fairly flat areas. For the mountain grades on my route, I find it creates an unprototypically wide R.O.W. I have been using the Use Height Tool instead on the smallest radius and then adjusting the height as I progress along the route. It's more time consuming, but I find the cuttings and fills more to my liking.
I tend to not use the Smooth Spline tool except in fairly flat areas. For the mountain grades on my route, I find it creates an unprototypically wide R.O.W. I have been using the Use Height Tool instead on the smallest radius and then adjusting the height as I progress along the route. It's more time consuming, but I find the cuttings and fills more to my liking.
Most of the Procedural tracks have Protrack or Pro-track, or PT in their names. Look for those with wide embankments that Harold mentions. Andi06 made some, going from memory.
Makes it difficult to redo routes that have that track configuration from an earlier edition.
Harold
euromodeller
Imagineer
I understand now
If I am running a rising track next to another, or on a mountainside I use a sidewall with a ground plane attached, such as an FMA2 SW....
Deeper ballast would be better, but we have to compromise, try doing superelevation on a tight curve, one side sticks to the ground the other side floats with a shadow under it.
These happened to be Andi's track. I know what you mean. There's not much that's North American or close to it. Overall I find the Pro-Track to be too light and thin for our needs.
I did "cheat" though and take an embankment asset and replace the referenced track to various ones including some of the Pro-track I was using at the time. I also reskinned some regular track to match the Pro-track types to use in places where the procedural track doesn't work well. When blended together, no one knows the difference including me.
No reason it wouldn't work. What happened when you tried?
The procedural track used in the embankment spline will join correctly with any other procedural track. That would typically be the junction of an embankment and a bridge.