Free-Mo modules for Trainz?

[Johnk]

These are not suggestions, just observations.

Snippet: I'd like to see this NOT become a domino type module system. Such a system severely limits creativity. Created routes will be predictable and boring.

If you don't want a domino system, you may as well all settle on a specific route and each build a section. I'm not suggesting 50 miles of track before something happens, but truncated in some way so that each builder has at least one decent yard, station etc., in his here section. They could and should be allowed to use their noggins and add more, but if a more specific scene was set (i.e. Rio Grande scenery, not the railway itself) the overall route would blend together much better.

Using Sparky's (and I think Storknest's) blend boards take away the advantage of "plug and play" which I had invisaged in my original suggestions. I originally saw this project as a way "drivers" could build different routes by moving modules about. It would be simple enough to show people how to do that, but Blend Boards will require a "driver" to become a "builder" and aquiire additional Surveyor skills. Many will not want to do this, so my original vision is totally lost. Such is life.

 

[sparky15]

You would still be able to do that. It would be up to me, for example, what size I would like to build. Be it one board or twenty. Having a set of pre built boards to go between say my module and yours just makes sure they will be able to be merged easily by anyone who downloads them. By starting with a pre set standard, you wouldn't necessarily need something to go between the two, since we both matched our modules up to it. Even the basic contours and and scenery would be close where they join since we both started from a pre set.

Dave....

 

[mjolnir]

Question: Can a mainline module contain a passing siding or a diverging route?

In my view, the short answer is "yes, a mainline module might certainly contain a passing siding, a diverging route, a small passenger station, or an industry, just as there would likely be mainline on a yard module. If one considers all of the rail activity on the route, if more of the activity is running a train across the route, than switching yard or industrial tracks, then I'd consider it a mainline module; if more activity is switching industry or yard tracks than running through trains, I'd consider it a yad module. In any event I'd hope that the designation "yard" or "mainline" would be considered to be descriptive, and not prescriptive.


And I'd also add to David's list,

If there is water on the module, what is it's elevation relative to the base elevation of the module?

 

[Dermmy]

If there is water on the module, what is it's elevation relative to the base elevation of the module?

You have to suspend disbelief on a modular route. If you go from a plains area to a Swiss Alps area it is probably easier track-gradient wise to take the valleys down rather than the track up, so 'sea level' on two modules could be hundreds of feet apart. Does it matter?

Andy

 

[mjolnir]

You have to suspend disbelief on a modular route.

I agree that one needs to suspend belief if one is working with plywood, styrofoam and nickel silver; I'm not so sure if this is the case if one is working with virtual modules. In the latter case, I see the question as more of "how many boards to I have to add to maintain, or create, believability?".

But it seems to me that as easy (at least physically) to add a board to a route, the details of the interface are somewhat less important. So maybe we're making this more complex than it really needs to be. What are the minimum questions to which I need an answer about whether, or how easily two modules can be connected? These are the answers I have concluded at this point that I would need to know. I expect there are others, but I don't yet know what they are.

0) Trainz version.

1) Can it be connected to something else without altering the module? Some model railroads (for example the built in Marias Pass can be connected to by removing the portals; the built in "City and Country-USA" and "Highland Valley" routes cannot be connected as they are closed loops.)

2) Defining a "track interface" as a baseboard side on which a track leaving the module crosses, how many track interfaces are on the module, and where are they. For example, I have a 1 x 3 boards module, all oriented North and South, upon which a branch line of one railroad terminates, and through which a mainline of another traverses. The mainline has two track interfaces, one crossing the South interface, shifted off center to the East; the other leaving the module on the East side, quite close to the north end of the East side. The only track interface of the branchline is quite close to the East side track interface of the mainline. Now, it seem to me the ease of making a board is such that it is not really necessary that a person needs to know the details of the track interface, but it would be useful to someone looking for a module with a track interface on the west side of the module that my module does not have one.

3) Some notion of the terrain type would be useful to know. Is the module urban or rural? What is the character of the landscape, rolling plain, or mountains?

4) Absolute altitude of the module base elevation relative to the default altitude of a "new" board.

5) Relative altitude range, how far above and below the scenery extends relative to the base altitude of the module.

6) Presence of interactive industries (and if they are present, what they are).

7.) Content type--region, era, built-in, DLS, 3rd Party Freeware, payware; mainline, or yard; prototype or free-lanced; scale--12in/ft, O, HO, N.

If I have the answer to the above categories of questions about each of two modules, I expect that I'd be able to make an assessment of the connectability of those two modules; all the rest is details. The advantage of Umake and V-mo, and all the rest lies in the fact that imposing the standards, they answer most of the above questions, and guarantee interconnectability. But the ease of adding a board, and the speed with which a board could be roughed in in TRS means that interconnectability is not as important, as it would be if we were crawling around on our hands and knees on a concrete floor, trying to clamp modules together.

ns

 

[Johnk]

A screenshot of each end of the layout, taken from a reasonable altitude and another of a typical feature would show most of the things you mention. That's not possible with the current DLS, but if people got off their butts and used the facilities offered in the Trainz Resources Directory, it wouldn't be a problem. The route and all assets would still be stored on the DLS, and the listing in the Directory would be linked to this (or these).

People looking for modular routes would soon learn where to go to seek information, your modules would be properly represented and many of the issues you're raising would be instantly solved.

Here's a sample with video.
Here's one without video
And another.

The only difference here is that these are routes, not modules, and the information may be a little loosely structured for what you need. Neither are the routes linked to the DLS. None of those issues are my fault. I can only work on information supplied to me.

By the way, the first route was the second most the most visited page on my site last month. With 312 views it was indeed popular. The other two routes were also in the top eight listings.

This indicates to me that people are looking for this kind of information.

John