One of the BIG pluses of Trainz is the almost unlimited real-estate that is available to build a route. And yet, time and again I see routes squeezed into a few baseboards. If that is the challenge, go for it or if an actual model railroad is being created, fine, but when the route name implies a vast area why be so stingy with the baseboards? They're cheap! It's not like a model RR that is confined to a small room with the tracks squeezed and folded to fit. Trainz as all the space you need.
Why, even when things are spread over many baseboards, are most of the tracks parallel to the grid lines? Very few railroads run due north-south or east-west. And why do so many mainlines have radii that would shame an urban trolley? I know that creating a DEM based route can be a challenge so simplified elevation doesn't bother me too much unless it is supposed to be a mountain route. Yes the grid size can be a challenge to creating realistic topology that is more than a gentle hill and dale.
Can't remember how often I've downloaded a route based on a name that implies some relationship to a real place and all I get is a few baseboards with almost nothing that even remotely resembles the real thing besides the name of a station or two. Are they all works-in-progress? Or should they be labelled - "inspired by but not too much?"
Yes there are some classic routes that are faithful to their name, too bad that not more are.
Perhaps it's only me but when I made a few routes that were based on some real place, I tried to be faithful to the original except in some of the details. Often fewer secondary tracks, limited detail the further away from the tracks, substituting generic objects for landmarks unless I or someone made a specific object, and generally a simplified rendition of stations and other train related things. but overall, it still looked like the name on the label.
Why, even when things are spread over many baseboards, are most of the tracks parallel to the grid lines? Very few railroads run due north-south or east-west. And why do so many mainlines have radii that would shame an urban trolley? I know that creating a DEM based route can be a challenge so simplified elevation doesn't bother me too much unless it is supposed to be a mountain route. Yes the grid size can be a challenge to creating realistic topology that is more than a gentle hill and dale.
Can't remember how often I've downloaded a route based on a name that implies some relationship to a real place and all I get is a few baseboards with almost nothing that even remotely resembles the real thing besides the name of a station or two. Are they all works-in-progress? Or should they be labelled - "inspired by but not too much?"
Yes there are some classic routes that are faithful to their name, too bad that not more are.
Perhaps it's only me but when I made a few routes that were based on some real place, I tried to be faithful to the original except in some of the details. Often fewer secondary tracks, limited detail the further away from the tracks, substituting generic objects for landmarks unless I or someone made a specific object, and generally a simplified rendition of stations and other train related things. but overall, it still looked like the name on the label.