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

Future 3D viewer and UDOs

Started by Tom Springer, July 12, 2014, 11:37:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tom Springer

For the future 3D viewer, how will UDOs be considered?  Exporting a layout as a Collada file today doesn't (seem to) include UDOs.  I'm hoping the 3D viewer will include them, as that would be valuable to get a realistic view for track around/through structures.

Assuming that structures will be included in the viewer ... will UDOs need to have a height, or drawn with 3D aspects?

I just finished some modifying UDOs and thought about this question, since one of existing UDOs I modified is the N-scale Walthers Medusa Cement (provided by Myles Macpherson; thanks!) and I was wondering how in 3D view the shed through which the track passes would/should appear.

I'm hoping that bridges could then have piers/supports as that would help where tracks cross over to get the pier placements correct.

And if tunnel portals were created as realistic UDOs, in 3D how would they appear?

Or is this too much right now?
Tom Springer

(Unintentional Pyromaniac)


If you want to see what a 3D model world looks like, check out the Trainz simulator. It comes complete with trains, scenery, and buildings. It shows just how far the 3D aspect can go. It's way too much for anything but their complete world, but I'd settle for viewing the track and heights. Anything more than that can be worked out in 2D easier than 3.
Later,                                                AnyRail Fanatic
Jeff                      and Unofficial Guy Who Knows Almost Everything About It


UDO's will just be considered as flat elements for now, as some sort of background images.

Importing 3D elements might be an option for later!

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

Tom Springer

David, thanks.  Was hoping the 3D viewing capability would be more than what the current Collada supports renders, but I guess waiting is better than never.
Tom Springer

(Unintentional Pyromaniac)

Tom Springer

In the INSERT tab, for a line/surface/rectangle the (English) word "height" is used when specifying the value for the 'size' along the 'y-axis' for that item.  Yet "height" has a totally different meaning everywhere else in AR.  Perhaps the (English) word "depth" would be a better term in the INSERT tab.  In the US, 2d objects are described using "width" and "depth" (just purchased a 'whiteboard'-type writing surface that is described that way) and 3d objects (the bookcases also purchased today) are described using "width", "depth" and "height".

I'm hoping that someday after AR 3D support 1.0 is completed, we'll get the ability to have 3-dimensional objects/surfaces and the ability to define them in all 3 dimensions (x-y-z).  I'm presuming then we'll truly be able to create a surface (and object) of a true "height".  To that end (maintaining this hope), should the use of "height" in AR (outside the INSERT tab) be replaced (V6?) by "elevation", reserving "height" for describing (future) 3D items?
Tom Springer

(Unintentional Pyromaniac)