I feel that we need the ability to use flex track to generate curves over 90 degrees. Now that we have the flex cut tool, creating a 120 degree curve with flex and then cutting it in pieces as needed becomes a real time-saver.
Not only that, but now I think we need a 'Cut to Flex Size' tool. It would take an over-length piece (one longer than the 30"-36" normal manufactured length of flex) and cut it in pieces. It would create as many full-length pieces as possible and leave only the less-than-full-length piece on one end.
On the first: after cutting will it remember what radius it is? It doesn't now, even when cut from a circular segment!
On the second: You want x-number at x-length? get one piece to x-length, copy/past by using Ctrl+V until you have the gazillion pieces you need.
Umm, in answer...
1- I hope that David will eventually fix it so that the program remembers what it was set at. Obviously all one can do is hope.
2- I expect it to generate cuts to produce the maximum number of full-length pieces (after all, AR knows what size it's sold at) and leave a less-than-full-length end piece, as I said in my first post.
2. but what exactly is the purpose? I thought you had all sorts of track pieces on your work space ready to be grabbed as required?
BTW that is very easy to do in CADrail, it's called "divide at spacing" (stipulate length) or "divide into segments" (state number of segments).
I have a sneaky suspicion that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Getting various CAD functions without having to spend the time to learn CAD??
I do not see a need for this feature.
What I would like is for AR to calculate the radius and easements to join two pieces of straight track by being told the two end points and the degrees to be allocated to the easements.
As it is now, I have to play play with the radius of the peices until they line up.
Paul
You're welcome to your own Wish :) I don't have a need for your easement tool...
Maybe it would be easier to have AR create complete curves- let you specify a default easement/radius and apply to both ends of all curves. Unfortunately, I doubt if that's practical.
@HJ-
"I have a sneaky suspicion that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Getting various CAD functions without having to spend the time to learn CAD??
"
Yeah, I can see that grinding your gears. I mean having spent years yourself learning to do great stuff with CADRail and then someone else comes along and creates something like AR that could do it automatically, without having to waste all that time... ;D :D :D
Quote from: RhB_HJ on August 06, 2012, 09:55:06 PM
2. but what exactly is the purpose? I thought you had all sorts of track pieces on your work space ready to be grabbed as required?
BTW that is very easy to do in CADrail, it's called "divide at spacing" (stipulate length) or "divide into segments" (state number of segments).
I have a sneaky suspicion that you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Getting various CAD functions without having to spend the time to learn CAD??
Strangely, because of an "odd" way AR does things, I wouldn't mind being able to cut curves into lots of very short curved segments - and then "undo".
The "odd" thing AR does that would drive such bizarre behavior? It calculates slopes using the length of the chord of each section of track, not the length of the arc. Obviously, I'm not going to build that curve with a gazillion pieces of track, but it'd sure be nice not to have to crank up Excel to find out what the actual grade is. Excel says a loop around a 24" radius circle climbing 3" is a 1.99% grade. AR tells me going around that circle using 90 degree sections of track, the grade is 2.2% and, to get a 2% grade, I can climb only 2.75". That .2%/.25" may not seem like a lot, until you realize that a 15" climb between levels is a 5 loop helix, not just under a 5 1/2 loop one - after you've started building it in situ.
@Mike: the grade issue will be gone in version 5 where the slope is calculated along the actual length of the track, not the chord.
When AnyRail was first designed a decade ago, it was only sectional track with at most 30 degree curves, so it made sense. (The tighter the curve, the greater the effect of using the chord without any expensive calculations.)
The question that remains is whether AnyRail should auto-compensate for curves on a slope.
David.
Quote from: David on August 07, 2012, 09:27:24 PM
@Mike: the grade issue will be gone in version 5 where the slope is calculated along the actual length of the track, not the chord.
When AnyRail was first designed a decade ago, it was only sectional track with at most 30 degree curves, so it made sense. (The tighter the curve, the greater the effect of using the chord without any expensive calculations.)
The question that remains is whether AnyRail should auto-compensate for curves on a slope.
David.
You're the best. (Well, second best. I don't actually know anyone better, but I want to give you reason to keep striving to be even better.... :) )
As for the auto-compensation, I understand the reasoning, but I'd vote "No".
I don't know the physics involved (concepts, yes, but actually physics, no) but somehow I'd think that, if it were easy, there'd be simple charts that said "For X radius, you loose Y percent of your pulling power" that would work on any slope, including a zero degree one. For the reasons in my earlier post, I certainly wouldn't reflect the effect as an adjustment to the slope, but rather as a percentage of pulling power lost.
"I certainly wouldn't reflect the effect as an adjustment to the slope, but rather as a percentage of pulling power lost."
Which is why the railroads invented Helper engine service :) I feel it's much better to leave that part of the prototype as it is, so I agree that the answer should be no.
Quote from: Mike from CT on August 08, 2012, 01:44:15 AM
..............
I don't know the physics involved (concepts, yes, but actually physics, no) but somehow I'd think that, if it were easy, there'd be simple charts that said "For X radius, you loose Y percent of your pulling power" that would work on any slope, including a zero degree one. For the reasons in my earlier post, I certainly wouldn't reflect the effect as an adjustment to the slope, but rather as a percentage of pulling power lost.
Yes Mike,
That will be the day when we actually calculate the pulling power or the potential reduction because of curves on grades. BTW the proto that I follow has a min rad of 100m and on that they try to compensate the grade by .3% - that is not accounting for tamarack needles (in the Fall), wet track (Summer) or snow and ice (Winter). The ultimate compensating is effected by the engineer, from what I know quite often it results in blue air because some engines are a bit trickier than others - automatic wheelslip compensation not withstanding. ;) :)
Quote from: RhB_HJ on August 08, 2012, 09:31:57 PM
Yes Mike,
That will be the day when we actually calculate the pulling power or the potential reduction because of curves on grades.
You mean you don't? You've definitely been on this side of the pond far, far too long. It's Timex watches for you from here on..... ;) :P :)
"actually calculate the pulling power or the potential reduction because of curves on grades."
I agree. There are so many variables that any numbers created would be sheer guesswork.
Jeff...thanks for posting!
Yes, i have a mental list of things that would need to be accounted for that are simply in the category of too many variables.
I agree. It would be fine it possible. But how would all those variable be figured in?!?!
Respectfully,
gary L lake Dillensnyder
Gary, :D
The problem with those variables: the models don't even remotely act like the 1:1 stuff. So even if all those items were considered and then applied "to scale" the results would be irrelevant, since applying them would be impracticle.
It gets a bit better in the larger scales i.e from 1:32 upwards, but even in the large scales, unless one would stick to one manufacturer for a certain engine it would all be out the window. Take one of each type from different mfgs and the results can/will differ widely.
H-J
agreed. 100% so!
it would seem to be enough to simply have the common sense of knowing that curved tracks (and the greated degree of curve plus the smaller the radius of curve) and incline upwards will need more power or will result in slower speed or wheel slip on locos and possible derails of freight, and/or passenger cars. And that adding weight to cars to counter the possible derailment will increase the likelihood of the loco challenge not to mention how weight adds to problems with larger degrees of curve. etc. etc. etc. :-)
simple high school physics :: i would think!
Respectfully,
Gary L Lake Dillensnyder
"simple high school physics :: i would think!"
True. Not that I think that 1 in a 100 give any thought to it at all... :) I, myself, spend long nights crying myself to sleep over the loss ;D