MR Route with no digholes

[HiBaller]

I've uploaded a wip route to the DLS that might be interesting to some. I created it using NO digholes except those under the transfer table and the turntable. On my system at least, I've found digholes seem to slow things down a little, so I figured out a way to create aisles and such using none of them.

Here's some screeshots:

It should appear on the DLS shortly under the name of "Monster55b" by hiballer.

Bill

 

[Forester1]

Nice! Did you build it by raising the table instead of lowering the floor?

 

[HiBaller]

I tried both ways and found it was easier to lay the tracks, and situate some of the content, then lower the floor around them. I chose "-60M" which makes it just about right.

Bill

 

[philskene]

Hi Bill --

I've used -55 in my layouts -- so you made a good choice.

Phil

 

[HiBaller]

Hi, Phil. I used the extra 5m as a buffer for stray terrain bits, especially around corners. What slight depressions remain in the upper surface can easily be covered by bushes, flat plane splines, or buildings. It just seemed much easier doing it this way than sweating bullets trying to find just the right dighole to match the odd-shaped spot you needed one. It can be done using 10M grids, but I found it easier to use 5M gridding.

Bill

 

[clam1952]

At last a sensible method! Not that I'm into model railway layouts but it has always puzzled me why digholes were used, when you could just lower the floor, which to my mind would seem to be the easiest and logical method.

 

[HiBaller]

Good morning, Malc. The only drawback I have found was you can't (easily) have another layer under the top layer as a hidden yard or mine. You must use something solid as the sides as well. Otherwise, the terrain will be present as a very steep cliff from high to low.

Bill

 

[HiBaller]

Made some changes and now the updated route is: KUID2:202442:100435:2. No changes other than getting rid of underlying basemaps (those are HUGE files) and merging a couple of layers. Much smaller download now.

Bill

 

[ray_whiley]

Malc - my reason for using digholes is that the all the baseboard remains at the same level but is hidden so that if a table, for example, is added with its top at baseboard height objects can be placed on it to enhance the illusion of being in a room.

Ray

 

[oknotsen]

it has always puzzled me why digholes were used, when you could just lower the floor, which to my mind would seem to be the easiest and logical method.

In my opinion:
Camera position when "standing" next to the table. If you lower the baseboard directly next to a table, your camera position makes that same drop when moving around and accidentally leave the table.

For that reason I have kept a few digholes directly next to the tables in my M120 example modules, but drop the floor a bit further away from the table.

For those who do like digholes but don't like the performance drop (that some mentioned; not noticed myself):
I have a collection of larger digholes on the DLS. Saves you having to manually use those 10m by 10m digholes but instead can use (for example but not limited to) 120m by 20m or 60m by 60m digholes.

 

[euromodeller]

At last a sensible method! Not that I'm into model railway layouts but it has always puzzled me why digholes were used, when you could just lower the floor, which to my mind would seem to be the easiest and logical method.

I used to use this method but now I use digholes for my models.
I can make rounded baseboard edges and change the edge terrain height easily.
Plus I can give my layouts legs and make a double deck!

see what can be done with digholes in this thread..
https://forums.auran.com/trainz/sho...odel-Railway-Club-Route-a-WIP-by-Euromodeller

But, each to their own, and variety is a good thing and any model railway thread is very welcome.