When is a map not prototypical anymore

Late to the thread, but when we built the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway back in 2004, we kept it very close to prototypical. We were indeed fortunate to have highly talented members of our group like dmdrake, narrowgauge, and others who managed to create over 2500 separate items for the route including stations, rails, houses, splines, trees, people, vehicles, and everything between to create the Indian ambiance. The whole 54-mile length was recreated using DEM and we like to think it deserves the be called "prototypical". BUT, we did take liberties in some areas. They are not likely to be noticed unless you've seen the videos or actually been there in real life.

Bill

martinvk said:

Peer review, a wonderful idea but like everything, the devil is in the details. Who would do this? volunteers?, paid help? staff?

Click to expand...

Volunteers. There are hundreds of "volunteers" who create tracks and buildings and industries and trees, etc. I do not have the abilities to do that. But I can evaluate the basics of a Route and prepare an opinionated critique. I can also roughly count the number of baseboards and the level of detail.

martinvk said:

What criteria would be used? This is where it gets sticky. It would be doable if it was an objective checklist but how to grade look and feel? Why would anyone believe them, since so much relies on subjective judgment?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it would be a be-all end-all. But, if people knew their "Routes" were being evaluated before being allowed on the DLS, we would end up with less junk. Currently there is a thread that gets bumped from time to time where posters list what they feel are decent Routes. Peer reviewed comments would be put into the description of the Route so they can be read before downloading.

clam1952 said:

That could well be a tree line issue where the DEM older formats takes dense vegetation or trees as the ground level, had a lot of that on my Ffestiniog route, I manually adjusted an awful lot of it where possible.

The Aberglaslyn Pass on the DEM I used was just a shallow depression, I had to carve that out myself! There are way more accurate sources now than the one I use 12 Years ago when I started the route which took 8 years.

As for accuracy, does it look believable enough for people to recognise the route?

Click to expand...

I ran into that in my own area as I mentioned above. The old system took the factory buildings and blended them into the railroad grade and the nearby hill causing a blob. Throw in the street below the grade, and that's gone too. I spent more time adjusting heights, based on Google Earth than I should have. The RR grade is about 15 meters above Water Street and all that was mush. As I worked down Washington street, the same situation occurred with the downtown buildings now raising up the ground level quite a bit as well. This too proved to be too much to handle, and I gave up.

HiBaller said:

... The whole 54-mile length was recreated using DEM and we like to think it deserves the be called "prototypical". BUT, we did take liberties in some areas. They are not likely to be noticed unless you've seen the videos or actually been there in real life.

Bill

Click to expand...

Since your route adheres to two of my critical values, true distance and orientation, I can easily overlook some "liberties" in the details of some areas. That's my point. Calling it the DHR is true to the spirit and most of the letter of the real route. Besides, perhaps some of those details were moved or changed in the prototype too. I'm sure no one is going to tell the local person they can't move or change a building because it has been modelled in a Trainz route and so must not be altered.
Now if hill railways are not your cup of tea, then you might not be favourably impressed which is the issue with reviews. Good reviewers can set aside their feelings, not so good ones let those feelings influence the review.
If we could at least have an objective rating card, it would be a big improvement to the chaos we have now.

1. Type: Total Fantasy, Inspired by but still fictional, Inspired by with modifications, Close to the real thing.
2. DEM based: yes, mostly, no
3. Prototype distance adhered to: barely there, more or less, almost totally
4. Prototype track orientation maintained: rarely, sometimes, usually
5. Scenery: Total Fantasy, Inspired by but still fictional, Inspired by with modifications, Close to the real thing.

Don't know if the quality of the track laying and scenery placing belongs here too. Poor track laying will affect the quality of the driving as will poor signalling.
While poor scenery placement will detract from the overall immersion and look/feel of the route, some of that can be rather subjective.

One change I would make to your criteria. Something along the lines of:-

2a. DEM based: yes, mostly, no
2b. Based on Google Earth or other topographical data: yes, mostly, no

I do have a copy of Roland's excellent TransDEM program but I just don't use it (weird I know but a long story). Instead I use height data extracted laboriously from Google Earth (even weirder I know).

Post Deleted

The details would take far too long to relate, but I did describe it all in a post here many years ago - which I will try to find. I have absolutely nothing against TransDEM. I did learn how to use it quite a few Trainz versions ago but my biggest hassles were finding a usable source for the DEMs and keeping up the skills between projects.

I use Google Earth simply because it takes a very long time (months, even a year or more) just to "terraform" a large route by that method - I actually found it was a great stress reliever from an often very stressful job, so I did not mind how long it took. Stress relief was one of the main reasons I got "hooked" into using Trainz in the first place.

Post Deleted

This is done in TransDEM.



The real one here:



The double track has been gone since 1952; the yard and HT&W branch (off to the right) since 1972.

Post Deleted

Tha ballast is far too perfect as well.

MP242 said:

I have an absolutely large DEM, and creating it all by hand using manual Google Earth heights would have taken 300 years.

Click to expand...

Which would make it an absolutely ideal project if the place goes into "lock down" for several months

Post Deleted

MP242 said:

I would enjoy if you related exactly, in great detail, how you do this using Google Earth heights

Click to expand...

Found it, not as long ago as I thought!

1. Using Google Earth, Google Maps, track diagrams and other sources, I lay out the track on flat baseboards for the entire route.
2. Using height data from Google Earth, I set the track height in Surveyor every 100 metres along the track and then use the smooth tool to set the landform height along the track

Then the real work begins

Starting with the line tool on Google Earth, I mark out a line perpendicular to the track at the start of the route.

1. In Surveyor I add a track spline from the same point perpendicular to the track
2. I add spline points every 100m along the perpendicular track section
3. In Google Earth every 100 metres (less for steeper sections) I note the height of the land (displayed bottom right hand corner of the screen)
4. In Surveyor I transfer the measured height to the height of the corresponding spline point on the perpendicular track (adjusting spline length where needed for steeper sections)
5. Repeat steps 4 & 5 for the entire length of the perpendicular track spline
6. I use the track smooth tool to raise the land along the perpendicular track spline between the spline points
7. Repeat steps 2 to 7 for the corresponding perpendicular track spline on the other side of the main line
8. Repeat steps 1 to 8 for the entire length of the line

The gaps between the perpendicular "cheese slices" are smoothed out by the use of track splines laid diagonally across the gaps and the smooth track tool. Any "terrace steps" remaining are given further smoothing attention.

For a recent route I released to the DLS (70kms long) this process took months but I did find that it was a very "therapeutic" release from a stressful day job.