Hello David, everyone.

Those of you were following my other thread will know that I had a problem recently with joining some tracks together and David, with great patience, sorted it out for me. However, as a result of this my entire layout ended up at ground zero again. :o(

Well, in sorting out the branch line again, I had to redefine the gradient going up to it, a process that involved a lot of abortive tries before I found the gradient by iteration. An alternative approach to introducing a gradient could be to define the start and end heights of the gradient rather than the end point and the % grade. Obviously this could lead to a ridiculously steep grade but that could be overcome by the program displaying the % as a result rather that using it as an input and/or colouring it in red (as in exceeding minimum radius).

Also, would it be possible for the program to mug trap errors like my original one of trying to join two tracks at different heights by coming up with an error message advising the user of the error and requesting which of the two heights should be used?

Or am I the only one thick enough to have a problem here?

Best wishes to all,
Chris

Thanks for the prompt reply David.

As I am only likely to use gradients on a few rare occasions, I guess I can continue to apply the iteration method. It is definitely better than the other program I was using!

I quite like the idea of shadowing, provided that the shadow doesn't become part of the track itself for the purposes of highlighting. Of course, I could have turned on the height indications but I find that they dominated everything else (as do some of the other text indications such as part numbers).

That's my penny's worth for the moment!

All the best,
Chris