News:

Due to heavy spamming attempts on this forum, automatic registration has been disabled. We will approve registration requests as quickly as possible (unless you're a spammer of course :) )

Main Menu

Setting heights

Started by David, June 07, 2012, 04:38:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

David

I'm aware that the 'Set height' function is not optimal yet.

What we often hear is that it's confusing that the function can automatically create slopes into the selection of track you set at a certain height. This can easily result in track being elevated without the user really noticing.

If no one is using this functionality, I'm thinking of removing it altogether.

I'm very interested to hear your opinions on this! So please vote in the poll!

David.
David Hoogvorst. Founder and Owner of DRail Software. Creator of AnyRail.

BritsTukker

The height settings are certainly confusing. If you keep the 'create slopes' option, it should be unset by default - as it is now, it creates all sorts of mess.
I would expect (and like to see implemented) that if I 'set height' at a certain point, it then stays there and never changes - I see 'lock height' as redundant, especially as this also doesn't seem to guarantee it doesn't move again.
For me, there's also confusion with the 'smooth slope' function, which seems to be enabled/disabled at some strange times. I would be happy with being able to set heights at certain points around the layout and then, when ready, simply say 'smooth slopes' and all the slopes between preset heights would be created and smoothed. At this point the program could flag any slopes greater than the selected maximum gradient - but it should only flag them and not try to sort them out. With the current version it seems like if you set a height which would conflict with the max grade, the program takes the max. grade as mandatory and simply ignores any height you enter without telling you.

Whatever you choose to do, there are so many advantages to using AR over other products that I'll carry on using it, set everything at zero height and sort the mess out during the build.

Mike from CT

#2
I'd very much like to use it (along with smooth slope) but the smooth slope is too often locked and setting heights rarely gives the results I'd expect.

I'm not sure how this fits within the AnyRail paradigm, but a sequence of dialog boxes might be the best solution where the user selects one end point and selects "Start slope".  The sequence then indicates the current height at that point1  (which the user may reset, but will result in an unresolved height flag - read on for explanation of similar condition at the second point) -  and then asks the user for another point (selected by clicking while still under the control of the dialog) and asks for the height at that point or desired grade.  It may also ask for maximum slope when height, rather than desired grade is indicated and will flag any entry where the calculated grade exceeds the slope before completing the change).

If there is ambiguity about the route between the height points (i.e., there are two or more possible routes, as around a loop or a parallel or wandering alternative) the user is given the option of which route(s) to include.

At that point, the second end point (or better, the section of track just beyond the end point) and any diverging routes or grade crossings in between are flagged in red (traditional, but a problem for those with red/green color blindness) to indicate the unresolved height differences on both sides of the end point.  The user may then repeat the process from any flagged point.

To protect the users against unwittingly changing critical heights already set, the process will ask if any locked heights should be reset (and informed whether the difference in height will increase or decrease).  If they are not to be reset, the setting slope and intermediate heights can be broken into two (or more) steps.

Thinking ahead, one slightly "fancier" addition might be be at a point where tracks cross each other not at grade.  Here, the ability of the user to set minimum clearances (as a layout-level parameter) might be handled similarly to the fixed height problem.  If that separation is not met, with the user given the option of freezing one height or of "splitting the difference".  The former option would result in breaking the slopes into two parts as with a fixed height or into three parts (before one point, between the crossing points, and after the second point).

I understand that this may create a problem as only end points are used and not all clearance points occur at end points.  Given the lack of accuracy at setting the points at which flex track is actually split when requested now, I'm not even sure it's possible under the current programming to set determine where to place "pseudo-points" or realize there even is one track passing over the other, so this last part may have to rely the user, in which case it may be adequate to highlight trackage whose slope was changed until the user "accepts" the changes2.  That would permit the user to check on those clearances.  A reminder to do so as part of the acceptance process would be helpful.

Notes (added by edit):

1  In the case where there is already an unresolved heights flag at the point and it isn't the end of a spur, the user is given a choice of which height to reset and the process of selecting the second (end) point checks to make sure that height is on a route from the selected height side of the point.

2  This may be a good idea, regardless.  It would be a special case of "undo".  That could be undone until the user accepts the slope change.

chaz

I always UNTICK this box.

I break my layout into sections of flats and grades.  I set the heights of the flats and then use smooth slope on the grades.  I then iterate setting heights and using smooth slope until I like the result.

When I'm happy, I remove all the sections (easy) and then remove all the isolators...one at a time.  Ugh!

All I need is to be able to select a lot of tracks and remove all the isolators at the same time.

Chaz



MP 525.25 on the Prosser Subdivision of the North Kansas Division of the MOPAC Railroad.

RhB_HJ

I've stated my problems and potential solutions in different threads as time went by and I got aggrevated.  ;) ;)
Hans-Joerg Mueller
Coldstream, BC   Canada

http://www.rhb-grischun.ca

My train videos

Win7Pro 64bit; 8 GB RAM; i5 2.67GHz; 1920x1080 22" display

santerdam

Sometimes I am using this functionality. I will have a closer look at all possible variations and will get back with a reply tomorrow.

Sander

BritsTukker

@chaz:
Clearly we all have our preferred ways of doing things.
I agree with you about unchecking the box (hence I would prefer this to be the default) and I do much the same as you for setting the heights and creating the slopes.

But I much prefer to keep the layout divided into (labelled and coloured) sections and thus I don't delete the isolators, even if they are virtual. It's much easier for subsequent tweeks or upgrades, especially if you come back to a design months (or longer) later (my memory not being what it used to be).

Jeff

I'd really like to use both the slope check box and the smooth slope command, but as noted above, the first gives sometimes not the result you expect or want and on the latter, it's often grayed out when needed most. I really really wish these things were useful.

My feelings on how things should work are somewhere between Chaz and Mike. The set height box is ok, though you can't always select a control point as opposed to a full length of track :(. I think that generally speaking, we MUST have a way to set the height of any piece of track or point on the layout. I think that I'd like to try that bit about setting heights all over and then create all the slopes with one button.

As for Smooth Slope, I vote for a simpler method- take two spots (likely at different heights, though the SAME height would also be useful for leveling a stretch of track), select a path to the other end of the slope, and hit the Smooth Slope button. Ignore side paths and everything else.

This would make the tool less automatic, but it would keep the thing from causing more disruption than it saves in work.
Later,                                                AnyRail Fanatic
Jeff                      and Unofficial Guy Who Knows Almost Everything About It

David

@Jeff and others: What I think is not very clear, is how a stretch should be selected for the 'Smooth slope' function.

It works like this: Click the track at one end. Next, SHIFT-click the track at the other end.
If you look closely, you'll see that the selected stretch has its centerline drawn to indicate the exact path. Especially in case of turnouts this is important.
Now, 'Smooth slope' is active and can be clicked.

David.
David Hoogvorst. Founder and Owner of DRail Software. Creator of AnyRail.

santerdam

David,

For me the checkbox is often used. When start en end of a slope is known, the 'smooth slope' is very good. But I use the 'checkbox method' when I know where to start the slope and want AR to tell me where the slope end, given a certain percentage.

The biggest problem with this 'set height' dialog is that I can't tell in which direction I want to create the slope. When I select a startpoint, I sometimes want to have a slope to one direction and later work with the other direction.

If allowed, I wish to have better information when the height of a connector is locked, something like 'glued'. Now you only change color, which is hard to see. Please do not add a strange icon (I hate the glue-icon !) Maybe you could change the locked height connector to a solid black circle or box. (open circle = free height, solid circle = locked height)

Now we need to use a separate function to lock the height, I suggest to add an extra checkbox in the dialog where we can set the height. (set and lock height in one dialog)

Sander

Jeff

@David,

I think I may be starting to see what is making you hesitate. I think that the create slope check box should not be there. Now, that said, it might be okay to put somewhere else (in with the slope max box?). I guess I'm not very sure of what the Create slope box does.

What drives me crazy is when you set the height of a point just before a dead end and then AR takes that short stretch and starts a descending grade to the end of track! If it would just let it remain at the height set for the  point nearby, it would work out ok.

In fact, I'm not happy with anything but the smooth slope tool. Having the Create slope tool force a maximum grade is a really bad idea (if that's what it does).  If what that tool did was to create SMOOTH slopes between that point and any other set heights, then it would be ok. Nothing else makes any sense to me.
Later,                                                AnyRail Fanatic
Jeff                      and Unofficial Guy Who Knows Almost Everything About It

RhB_HJ

#11
Quote from: Jeff on June 11, 2012, 01:28:11 AM
................
In fact, I'm not happy with anything but the smooth slope tool. Having the Create slope tool force a maximum grade is a really bad idea (if that's what it does).  If what that tool did was to create SMOOTH slopes between that point and any other set heights, then it would be ok. Nothing else makes any sense to me.

That is precisely what it does, defaults to whatever value is set even though that is supposedly the maximum slope. As I have said quite a few times before:

Leave any piece of track being connected to another piece of track remain in a horizontal position (no slope!!!). Be able to designate the start and end point of any grade (regardless how many pieces of track are involved!)
a) by giving the heighth for the start and end points and applying smooth slope
and/or
b) give a height to either end of the slope and assign a percentage going + or going -. Which wouldn't require smoothing since each piece connected automatically references the relative position and the prescribed slope.

Using the above method would not require to lock height on anything since there are definite heights assigned and pieces added remain horizontal without messing with what has been already defined.

The current routine works reasonably well (sometimes but not always!) for relatively small layouts, but all hell breaks loose (most of the time) on large layouts.
Hans-Joerg Mueller
Coldstream, BC   Canada

http://www.rhb-grischun.ca

My train videos

Win7Pro 64bit; 8 GB RAM; i5 2.67GHz; 1920x1080 22" display

David

Thanks for all your suggestions. RhB_HJ, I think you caused some sort of short circuit in my brain leading to the following idea for slopes:

As a side note: It is very hard to create sloping functions when there are more than two endpoints involved. So all functions work with just one stretch.

A. Allow setting the height of an individual endpoint/connection at all times.

B. For a selected stretch, introduce three functions for slopes:
1. Create a smooth slope using the current heights at the endpoints
2. Create a level height (everything at one height). Leave unselected track alone.
3. Create a percentage grade. Enter a percentage, a height for one end of the slope, and a direction for the slope. Again, leave unselected track alone.

Better terminology welcome.

David.
David Hoogvorst. Founder and Owner of DRail Software. Creator of AnyRail.

santerdam

David,

Can you explain some more on the 3. situation ?
You wrote you want to leave unselected track alone. Which gives me the idea you only will create the slope for the selected track. The issue for the percentage slope is that the user doesn't know the endpoint, so how can you select (enough) track ?
(BTW In the on-line help you describe this now in version 4, the problem is you can't select a track and than also select an endpoint to set the height.)

Your 2. situation is in fact the same as 1. - a level height is the smoothest line between 2 points at the same height.

Sander

David

@Sander:
For 3., You set a percentage and the height for ONE end of the slope. The height of the other end follows from there. Only the height of selected track is touched.

For 1. and 2., Theoretically they are the same, yes, but 'Smooth slope' is a single click function, while 'Level height' asks for the required height. Also, I imagine an extra option to set the relative height instead of the absolute height for the selection. This makes it possible to raise the whole selection (including slopes) by a certain amount.

David.
David Hoogvorst. Founder and Owner of DRail Software. Creator of AnyRail.