Looking for Transdem user for test with Kenichiro track with catenary A double

[belgian46]

Hello,

I need some assistance from a Transdem user.

I did some tests with Kenichiro track with catenary A double ( kuid 117608:60318 ).

By using Transdem, I managed to get the track with catenary A double into the route, but for some strange raison, the track doesn't show. ( see picture left side ) The track doesn't lay under the squares.

If you have a look at the asset itself, you will see two tracks. ( see picture right side )

When you have a look at the left side of the picture, you will see 1 train. I can only place 1 train and this can only be done in the middle of the asset. It seems that only 1 invisible track (? ) is present.

As you can see on the right side, two trains are placed on two seperate tracks.

Would anyone be willing to do the test using transdem and Kenichiro track with catenary double?

I also tried to contact Kenichiro, but without success.

If you would know why the track doesn't appear, would you mind sharing your information?

Thank you.

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[carr]

Kurt,

This is in my ts12 complete with errors, loads In trs2009 without errors. Not sure what's causing your problem.


[URL=http://s978.photobucket.com/user/mcarrara1/media/carr_20140203_0000_zpsbd7f8ba5.jpg.html]

[/URL]

 

[SharkNose]

I think Kurt is using TransDEM to lay his track/catenary splines for him along the loaded route/path. geoPhil (Roland) might chime in on this if he sees it. I think the splines you are using Kurt are more complicated than just the regular track/road splines. If I get home from work early (as it seems I might - it is snowing like crazy here now), I'll locate the required assets and run a test myself.

 

[geophil]

I think the splines you are using Kurt are more complicated than just the regular track/road splines.

That could be an explanation. While the Trainz track file structure allows for complex splines, using the "bridge" mechanism, TransDEM only knows the spline KUID, not the spline object itself, and treats all KUIDs as equal, always creating basic splines.

 

[belgian46]

Hello Mark, SharkNose, Roland,

Thank you for your replies.

I apologize for the confusion in my first post of this thread. I should have said : By using Transdem I managed to get the track into my route. ( meanwhile I have added some words to my first post ).

In 2012 on the transdem forum, I already did post this problem.

Mainly, because it takes a lot of time to place pylons and other elements ( in a acceptable fashion ), I just wondered if somebody else would know the answer to this phenomenon. The only thing I could do, was to create this thread in this forum.

If the spline track with catenary A double ( kuid 117608:60318 ) is a special case, then I suppose Kenichiro is probably the only one who can give us an answer. Unfortunately, no reply was received by sending an email via this forum or directly to his emailaddress ( ref emailaddress available when opening the asset in CCP ).

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[geophil]

Kurt, I checked 117608:60318. This is indeed a "bridge"-kind track spline. TransDEM cannot properly create instances of such types.

 

[belgian46]

Kurt, I checked 117608:60318. This is indeed a "bridge"-kind track spline. TransDEM cannot properly create instances of such types.

Hello Roland,

Thank you for the extra information.

Now, I'm just wondering - Would it be possible to change a bridge kind track spline into a track spline?

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[SharkNose]

I thought that by changing the referenced track in the config file from a very obsolete track asset to the latest one would make a difference, but my results were the same as the example in post #1 above.

Would it be possible to change a bridge kind track spline into a track spline?

Possibly. You can clone the original and you may have to update the clone to a later Trainz build number. I'm afraid you may lose the bridge aspects of the asset, which in this case are probably the catenary wires and poles.

Andrew

 

[belgian46]

I thought that by changing the referenced track in the config file from a very obsolete track asset to the latest one would make a difference, but my results were the same as the example in post #1 above.



Possibly. You can clone the original and you may have to update the clone to a later Trainz build number. I'm afraid you may lose the bridge aspects of the asset, which in this case are probably the catenary wires and poles.

Andrew

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for checking it out using Transdem. :Y:

An asset like track with catenary A double ( kuid 117608:60318 ), would make it faster for me in the route building, because I haven't got a lot of curves. It will remain in my paper notebook - there must be a solution.

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[geophil]

there must be a solution.

I don't think it's possible. Kind "bridge" and kind "track" are two different types of assets, and I wouldn't expect that one can be substituted with the other. In a bridge type asset the bridge part is the carrier of the track spline. In your example the bridge appears not as a physical bridge but as a more abstract concept that is implemented as catenary poles and wires.

 

[belgian46]

I don't think it's possible. Kind "bridge" and kind "track" are two different types of assets, and I wouldn't expect that one can be substituted with the other. In a bridge type asset the bridge part is the carrier of the track spline. In your example the bridge appears not as a physical bridge but as a more abstract concept that is implemented as catenary poles and wires.

Hello Roland,

Thank you for your extra information.

Only 1 option left, I have to go back to the studyroom and hopefully find a faster solution to get pylons ( catenary etc ... ) in place.


Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[SharkNose]

I don't think it's possible. Kind "bridge" and kind "track" are two different types of assets, and I wouldn't expect that one can be substituted with the other. <snip>

That's one thing I tried yesterday. I laid some regular track in surveyor and then tried to "replace" it with the catenary A double. The idea was to use TransDEM to lay the route with regular a track spline and then go into Surveyor and replace it with another type.

No luck.

 

[belgian46]

That's one thing I tried yesterday. I laid some regular track in surveyor and then tried to "replace" it with the catenary A double. The idea was to use TransDEM to lay the route with regular a track spline and then go into Surveyor and replace it with another type.

No luck.

Hello Andrew,

Well, that' s one thought I can delete from the possibilities.

As Roland said in his post 6 "bridge"-kind track spline - TransDEM cannot properly create instances of such types.

So, an asset must be created which can be handled by Transdem. At this point, I can only create a house or a railway station. Never done a track pylon wire asset combination. I will see what I can do.

Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[Jerker]

G'day belgian46,

..this might sound like a silly idea, Kurt but since you can't 'replace' a kind "track" with a kind "bridge" and the kind "bridge" you want to use is too complicated for TransDEM to handle, why not try using an alternative (simple) kind "bridge" as the spline replacement asset in TransDEM (one that it can handle) and then replace this with the preferred one in Surveyor. That's if such a 'simple' kind "bridge" asset exists...

Jerker {}

 

[belgian46]

G'day belgian46,

..this might sound like a silly idea, Kurt but since you can't 'replace' a kind "track" with a kind "bridge" and the kind "bridge" you want to use is too complicated for TransDEM to handle, why not try using an alternative (simple) kind "bridge" as the spline replacement asset in TransDEM (one that it can handle) and then replace this with the preferred one in Surveyor. That's if such a 'simple' kind "bridge" asset exists...

Jerker {}

Hello Jerker,

Thank you for your reply.

From a certain idea, another idea ( thought ) can blossom.


I managed to get this kuid 99999:79531 into my route using Transdem. I only have to recheck what " kind " it is.

But With this kuid another problem pops up - see http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...on-52m-BLP-Any-reason-why&highlight=BELGIAN46


Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[Jerker]

G'day belgian46,

...there are a number of possibilities to overcome the problems you have with the new track/centenary object you have found (the one you link to in the above post) but such suggestions should be restricted to that thread. As far as here is concerned, Kurt, so long this new track/centenary asset is of the same 'kind', then it WILL swap out with the one you REALLY want to use, using the Trainz Asset Replacement Tool in Surveyor Mode.

Jerker {}

 

[belgian46]

G'day belgian46,

...there are a number of possibilities to overcome the problems you have with the new track/centenary object you have found (the one you link to in the above post) but such suggestions should be restricted to that thread. As far as here is concerned, Kurt, so long this new track/centenary asset is of the same 'kind', then it WILL swap out with the one you REALLY want to use, using the Trainz Asset Replacement Tool in Surveyor Mode.

Jerker {}

Hello Jerker,

Thank you for the extra info. Very interesting.

If you have a possibility ( or more ) would you mind adding it to the thread http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showt...ight=BELGIAN46 ?

Last night I tried making something using Google Sketchup ( I just can't find my way using Gmax or Blender ( starting the build from scratch ) - problem 1 : to may polygons - problem 2 : I got it installed in Trainz TS10 without errors, but the asset is not visible, however the spline circles are visible and I can place a train on it


Best regards

Kurt :wave:

 

[Jerker]

G'day belgian46,

Kurt, when I wrote the above, I, did, indeed, have a few ideas about how you could work around your problem in the other thread but overnight, only one has 'stuck' in my brain, so I will espouse that "over there"...

...here, your 'invisibility' issue could well be due to a missing "auto-create" tag (or it's value being set to "0") in the mesh-table container of the asset's config.txt file, which will prevent the asset from showing in both Surveyor and Driver modes. If the tag is omitted, Trainz will automatically insert it after committing (it does need to be there) but it will provide it with the default value "0" (or "off"), making the asset (or at least, the mesh to which the tag applies in the mesh-table) 'invisible'...

...catch you "over there"...

Jerker {}

 

[belgian46]

G'day belgian46,

Kurt, when I wrote the above, I, did, indeed, have a few ideas about how you could work around your problem in the other thread but overnight, only one has 'stuck' in my brain, so I will espouse that "over there"...

...here, your 'invisibility' issue could well be due to a missing "auto-create" tag (or it's value being set to "0") in the mesh-table container of the asset's config.txt file, which will prevent the asset from showing in both Surveyor and Driver modes. If the tag is omitted, Trainz will automatically insert it after committing (it does need to be there) but it will provide it with the default value "0" (or "off"), making the asset (or at least, the mesh to which the tag applies in the mesh-table) 'invisible'...

...catch you "over there"...

Jerker {}

Hello Jerker,

I must have done something wrong within Sketchup and I also did a recheck of ModelerMJ's tutorial about his Ruby Tmix plugin. Complex drawings - like combinations of track, pylons, catenary, wire are difficult for the Ruby Tmix plugin.

It's back to the study room for an other solution.

Best regards

Kurt :wave: