Procedural Track Cross Overs
- Thread starter big_b
- Start date
Suppose I could mount a grinder just before the crossover to remove the flanges or use lego track
It's a bit ridiculous with all the hype about the just how good and advanced this version is compared with previous versions
that we cant even get a gap in the track when req'd especially since track has been around since the beginning.
maybe that why we've got Turf Effects ( FX ) to hide crossovers !
It's a bit ridiculous with all the hype about the just how good and advanced this version is compared with previous versions
that we cant even get a gap in the track when req'd especially since track has been around since the beginning.
maybe that why we've got Turf Effects ( FX ) to hide crossovers !
Can you define
I've been using procedural track in a new TRS19 route with lots of junctions and nothing looks unexpected. Naturally on sloping ground, all the adjacent spline points of a junction have to be co-planer or the junction will be red but that's an easy fix.
Even better, provide a picture.
I've been using procedural track in a new TRS19 route with lots of junctions and nothing looks unexpected. Naturally on sloping ground, all the adjacent spline points of a junction have to be co-planer or the junction will be red but that's an easy fix.
Please allow me to correct that... it's the Clickety Clack <kuid2:76656:70000:2> I love this trigger and use it everywhere tracks cross.
Also, go find "Crossing Checkrail 12", 24 and 32. <kuid2:45324:26004:1>I use these where the tracks cross as well. I love 'em. Also the, ASB stuff. There are 2 items... the Trigger and Controller.
Some thoughts on procedural track
Procedural track has given us a great improvement in track realism. However from my point of view there are two problems. One, as mentioned above is the inabilty to produce proper crossings with gaps and frogs (promised but as Vern wrote "Don't hold your breath"). The other is that the minimum radius to produce proper animated points is approximately 35 metres, which while OK for the larger gauges, is a limitation for those of us who work in the smaller narrow gauges.
There have been several attempts over the years to produce proper animated pointwork. Mike Banfield (mike10) was the first, finding a loophole in the coding that allowed him to produce animated blades as junction track objects. Unfortunately a change in the coding stopped this working. Vulcan then produced specimen points for Auran but these had limitations and were not developed further. Then along came the late and sadly missed Andi Smith (andi06). He first produced a set of pointwork that one wired up with his junction track (or any invisible track). These worked admirably and several other creators copied his idea. He then produced a set of complete points that could just be dropped in without any wiring. Unfortunately TANE broke these and I could not get them to work. There are others who have produced similar points but again they wouldn't work in TANE.
With the arrival of TRS19 I have been playing around with these different points and have so far found out the following. The "ready wired" points work after a fashion but do not appear to respond to AI or route setting so seem still to be a no-go. Andi's original "wireable" points and others like them do work with one limitation, his coding does not appear to work. This can be overcome by using msgsapper's Junction Controller v3 (one personal gripe - why did msgsapper change the colour from green to red so that it gets confused with mizi's junction link for a pair of point?). This means that one can use Andi's bits to produce proper double crossovers, double and single slips and double junctions. There are however two limitations; as they are fixed track, the geometry is fixed. The other is that the provided textures do not match current track. It is possible to create textures to add to Andi's librarys but I havent' tried that. As far as I remember the instructions to do this were on his website which no longer exists.
I throw out these findings and thoughts which may be of use to some people.
Procedural track has given us a great improvement in track realism. However from my point of view there are two problems. One, as mentioned above is the inabilty to produce proper crossings with gaps and frogs (promised but as Vern wrote "Don't hold your breath"). The other is that the minimum radius to produce proper animated points is approximately 35 metres, which while OK for the larger gauges, is a limitation for those of us who work in the smaller narrow gauges.
There have been several attempts over the years to produce proper animated pointwork. Mike Banfield (mike10) was the first, finding a loophole in the coding that allowed him to produce animated blades as junction track objects. Unfortunately a change in the coding stopped this working. Vulcan then produced specimen points for Auran but these had limitations and were not developed further. Then along came the late and sadly missed Andi Smith (andi06). He first produced a set of pointwork that one wired up with his junction track (or any invisible track). These worked admirably and several other creators copied his idea. He then produced a set of complete points that could just be dropped in without any wiring. Unfortunately TANE broke these and I could not get them to work. There are others who have produced similar points but again they wouldn't work in TANE.
With the arrival of TRS19 I have been playing around with these different points and have so far found out the following. The "ready wired" points work after a fashion but do not appear to respond to AI or route setting so seem still to be a no-go. Andi's original "wireable" points and others like them do work with one limitation, his coding does not appear to work. This can be overcome by using msgsapper's Junction Controller v3 (one personal gripe - why did msgsapper change the colour from green to red so that it gets confused with mizi's junction link for a pair of point?). This means that one can use Andi's bits to produce proper double crossovers, double and single slips and double junctions. There are however two limitations; as they are fixed track, the geometry is fixed. The other is that the provided textures do not match current track. It is possible to create textures to add to Andi's librarys but I havent' tried that. As far as I remember the instructions to do this were on his website which no longer exists.
I throw out these findings and thoughts which may be of use to some people.
But they can't be used on sloping ground. The ties at the junction are always laid horizontally, not aligned with the slope of the ground. The baseplates don't line up with the rails.
Thanks for setting me straight on that and for the other info. I will check them out this weekend!
Andrew
This is what I mean you can see the gap for the crossover in the junctions but not in the track crossover
They only way I can see to avoid this is to make a double junction so the consist will cross to the opposite track before leaving the main
Ah, oh that. One of the areas that still needs work. Since few objects can "see" each other except via attachment points, it's not surprising that the two sets of rails don't either. Procedural junctions work because they are part of the same track.
True, not on a cross slope, but how many proto tracks are? Usually my MOW crew will grade the ballast so that both ends of the ties are at the same elevation. But if the track is on a gradient, up or down, procedural junctions are possible if the track splines are also aligned vertically at a constant slope through the junction.
Use the Crossing Checkrail. It has a black part which simulates the gap you're looking for.
Whilst we're on this matter - what's the current go-to solution for protecting train movements across diamond crossings like the one shown above in TRS19?
Interlocking towers? Something else?
On one of my busiest routes I have many such junctions with basic protecting signals at the procedural junctions components, but these are currently incapable of preventing collisions at the crossover.
Interlocking towers? Something else?
On one of my busiest routes I have many such junctions with basic protecting signals at the procedural junctions components, but these are currently incapable of preventing collisions at the crossover.
Last edited:
When I raised this a month or two ago, the consensus was to use IT's (combined with track object checkrails). However that is still a fudge and it remains a major shortfall of Trainz after nearly 20 years of development, that a basic railway feature - standard in the other sims - the protected railway diamond crossing, cannot be formed and seen by the signalling AI as per normal pointwork.
Here's what I do
Traveling from A to B or D to E signals as normal
Travelling from A to C
Triggers 1 and 2 are on the turn out line the trigger on the right is as close to be blades as I can get it
When activated it changes signal 3 to red stopping travel from D to E
The second trigger in the turn is for the same signal - just as a backup for clearance
There is another signal just out of shot of trigger 3 who's radius is at that signal
If a consist passes that signal trigger 3 turns signal 2 which is attached to the turnout track to red stopping consists turning off the main
There is also a directional signal Signal 1 which allows through traffic A to B regardless of the state of trigger 3
You don't have to worry about coming out of the branch as both mains are connected and wait till junction is clear applies
Last edited:
jcardana mentioned above "Also the, ASB stuff. There are 2 items... the Trigger and Controller." These are by boat and available on the DLS. Search for "ASB" and author "boat". The components are supposed to do just that. I've downloaded the lot and installed them in TRS2019 but have not had time to try them out extensively. boat's demo route for these assets comes up with an error, but it is easily fixed in the config.txt. Just replace the value for the "region" tag from "Australia" to the kuid for that region: <kuid:-25:246>. boat cautions that this system may not work for all signals, but also states that they should work in TANE.
Andrew
Think the problem is that for procedural junctions to work the track has to be physically joined, with a crossover there is no physical connection between the tracks other than one is placed over the other.
Would I guess need a different method to achieve realism.