Smaller visible baseboards (Optional)

[itareus]

What seems like a long long time ago I asked about the possibility of optional smaller baseboard sizes to facilitate (among other things) model railway style layouts. IIRC Chris B commented on the thread to say that there was no performance benefit in smaller baseboards and thus just use a full baseboard. Also in another thread more recently the use of large and/or multiple dig-holes to define the boundary of a model railway baseboard.

I was wondering, given the popularity of model railway routes, if the subject of optional smaller baseboard sizes was worth revisiting ? Also it would be good to have some guidelines for the use of dig-holes if they are deemed to be a problem.

Needless to say I cannot find the relevant threads, so I'm working from my unreliable memory so apologies if I have missed something.

Chris M

 

[ray_whiley]

Chris - what are deemed to be the problems with digholes? I have used yours a lot and have found them reliable. On occasion, though, part of a dighole may not actually "dig". The answer then is to move the offending one until the "non-dug part" overlaps one which has "dug". They can also be overlapped to dig sizes other than the defaults.

I would also add that if anyone wants a five-metre grid with digholes, convert to 5m before digging - doing it later wipes out the digholes.

I would like digholes that remove triangular sections - but know that is impossible. So I've experimented with triangular fillers so that angled baseboard edges can be made. The problem then is matching the texture to that of the adjacent baseboard texture.

Ray

 

[itareus]

Hi Ray,

I seem to remember reading (way back) N3V being concerned about the performance impact of large numbers of digholes on a route, but I can't find where this was !

I don't think there was any problem with the digholes as such.

Cheers

Chris

 

[stagecoach]

I placed dig holes around an entire baseboard as it was 500m in the air for aircraft. The height showed the sides of the base board so the dig holes removed those sides to make it see through. Did not see any performance issues.

 

[ray_whiley]

Hi Chris

Thanks for the clarification. As far as the performance aspect goes, any realistic virtual model railway would be very restricted in size compared with a conventional route so perhaps the effect would not be very noticeable. Although I've started a number of such layouts (and not really finished any because I like to play around with ideas, each on a new board - no cost!) I've deleted most of the baseboard on most without noticing any problems. I must admit that I'm not so much a driving enthusiast as a scenery creator so probably don't worry about such things as "frame rates" as much as I ought to - in fact, I wouldn't even know how to check them.

Depending on the scale of a VMR, even a one-boarder would be more than most people could manage in real life - space, cost, time. In OO and other 1:76 scales, a Trainz board represents a room about 31 feet square - much larger than a double garage, but about what I could have had in the loft of a bungalow I used to own. The cost of the baseboard alone would have been prohibitive. In N scale, it's about 15 feet square - more realistic yet as far as I know no-one has yet dabbled in that scale in the virtual world (although I've gone in for a few experiments).

For me, if in real life a track on a VMR board would be too far away for me to cope with derailments, that is not realistic - although I know it would not really be a problem in Trainz.

As an afterthought, a dighole is a scenery object and I seem to remember that having multiple instances of a single object had less effect than the same number of different objects.

Ray

 

[philskene]

Hi Chris --

Baseboard size -- of course, you don't have to use the full size of the baseboard. You can just use part of it.

Dig holes -- you don't have to use those either. It's possible to use terra-forming to drop the floor level. And this also gives the option of a 45 degree edge rather than the 90 degrees of dig holes.

As the classic example of both of the above, perhaps download and try my "Klozett" model railroad. It occupies about one third of a baseboad and has a 45 degree edge:

Phil

 

[ray_whiley]

Another afterthought on baseboards - I often wonder why a 720 x 720 metre board was chosen as the size for each board and whether there was a reason for this? To my mind, a one kilometre square would have been more logical.

Ray

 

[JCitron]

Another afterthought on baseboards - I often wonder why a 720 x 720 metre board was chosen as the size for each board and whether there was a reason for this? To my mind, a one kilometre square would have been more logical.

Ray

The maths....

It's how the baseboards divide out efficiently in the computer memory. I can't explain it well enough to post here, but this is what Chris Bergmann (Windwalkr) told us ages ago. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can 'splain this a bit better.

For my unused areas on baseboards, I flatten them down and color them a dark color such as pure black. I find that easier than farting around with and getting annoyed with the dig holes because the dig holes always manage to cut out what I want to keep.

 

[ray_whiley]

Thank you, John for the explanation. I thought it must be decided by the computer in some way. I must say that I've never found the digholes I use (by itareus) have cut out bits that I want to keep. Sometimes however, they fail to cut out part of the area which I do want to delete - but it's then a simple matter of sliding them along a square or two.

My reason for using them is that when I want to simulate a model railway in a room setting, I like to add the floor and a few bits of furniture, pictures, even a mug of coffee (or tea) to set the scene'

Ray

 

[JCitron]

The problem with me with the dig holes is they never dig what I need to dig out, so it's perhaps my luck and layout design. When the work, they work well though, but that's rare.

 

[ray_whiley]

John - do you use those by itareus or some others? I always use his which come in two sizes and two orientations. But my experience is with TS10 and 12 so I have none with T:ANE.

Ray

 

[JCitron]

John - do you use those by itareus or some others? I always use his which come in two sizes and two orientations. But my experience is with TS10 and 12 so I have none with T:ANE.

Ray

I didn't try Chris' that I am aware of. When I have a chance, I'll take a closer look and see which ones I've used.

This is with T:ANE and I should know better because there have been on and off issues with the dig-holes and how they interact with the terrain, though I did have issues with TS12 as well so it could be a combination of the two.

 

[itareus]

Hi Chris --

Baseboard size -- of course, you don't have to use the full size of the baseboard. You can just use part of it.

Dig holes -- you don't have to use those either. It's possible to use terra-forming to drop the floor level. And this also gives the option of a 45 degree edge rather than the 90 degrees of dig holes.

As the classic example of both of the above, perhaps download and try my "Klozett" model railroad. It occupies about one third of a baseboad and has a 45 degree edge:

(Video removed)

Phil

Hi Phil,

Or I could look at my own 'Appen' route which is part of TMR ?

I started off building model railway routes in Trainz many years ago and initially used the drop floor approach, in fact my baseboard edging assets were initially made to cope with the slope at a baseboard edge.

There is a disadvantage to the dropped floor method and that is the viewing angle it gives to anybody in a spectators role, they drop away to the level of the lowered section. Digholes prevent this.

I've always followed two golden rules for model railway layouts in Trainz:

1) Baseboards should be no wider than the physical reach of an operator in real life to cater for derailments etc.

2) One edge of the baseboard would be the normal viewing side (public side in an exhibition).

In my world any layout which did not follow these rules would fall more into the category of 'micro' or 'mini' route - not that there is anything wrong with this approach !

But I digress, my OP was really aimed at N3V (or anybody else who knew the answer) asking if there were any performance issues with large numbers of digholes and also why can't we have smaller baseboards which would make model railway layout building easier. I probably did not explain my position on this very well in my originating post leading to some interesting tangents in the discussion.

Chris M

 

[narrowgauge]

There is one possibility that may interest you. Way back in Trainz history someone from New Zealand proposed Trainz 2X, Trainz content built twice normal size. I experimented with this and one thing I found was the larger vehicles seemed to have more weight. They seemed to be more ponderous. At the time I was very tempted.

This would give you the quarter size boards you want. All the grid markings are halved. One Trainz ton becomes eight Trainz tons ie 1x2x2x2.

The only downside would be making all the content, but then, if it was a real model you would be doing that anyway. You could force the perspective by using normal content at the back of your 'one sided' route.

Adjusting existing content is easy for the original creator, everything remains the same except that the original GMax. Max. Blender, object is scaled up and re-exported.

Just a thought.

PeterPM

 

[ray_whiley]

1) Baseboards should be no wider than the physical reach of an operator in real life to cater for derailments etc.

2) One edge of the baseboard would be the normal viewing side (public side in an exhibition).

I could not agree more! - Anything other than this, in my opinion, destroys any illusion of being a model railway.

The comments in the previous post are, of course, correct and it is quite possible to make assets any multiple whatsoever of normal size, as I have done when experimenting with creating the illusion of both N and Garden scale model railways, and 1:12 scale model villages in a normal Trainz environment. But what is created by making assets twice the normal size is not a virtual model railway to one of the recognised model railway scales.

One of the advantages of making a virtual model railway in the normally accepted way is the ability to use every asset in the Trainz database, from whatever source - without having to make everything oneself - although this is a very enjoyable activity, especially when something is not otherwise available. And one-off creations for a specific purpose can then be made fully available to all.

Ray

 

[itareus]

PeterPM-a good thought, but downside of content creation is a big factor against.

As Ray says it's nice to be able to use all the DLS content and I'm too old to even think about making everything from scratch !

Cheers

Chris