Track colouring

[donone]

Is there a future possibility of selecting two (say) pieces of flex track and colouring them, without making sections?
If I wish to have a metre piece of flex that is straight but curves for the last one third only, I have to create it from two pieces, one straight and one curved. It would be handy to colour them (or something) to illustrate that they are in fact a single piece when constructing. This may seem easy with two pieces but if the next two are similar then it becomes more difficult to remember which are which.

Maybe the (something) could be a way of finally joining the two pieces as one, without a join but retaining the shape?

[David]

Would a special kind of join help here?
Some sort of 'flex merge'?

The result would be that the length is calculated by adding up the length of the merged flexes.
I'm not sure how complicated it is to implement, so no promises, but I want to make sure I understand your request.

David.

[kimbo]

Apologies for jumping on the thread - What you're proposing David would be pretty neat actually! 

But perhaps it'd be easier to have a script which could be run once an individual has completed the layout plan, it
would then do the merging of all flex-"bits" as necessary?

It seems to me that doing it on a case-by-case basis would be a time consuming process. 

[David]

Kimbo, if that is what Donone needs, your idea is even better.

Again, without making any promises, it might be possible to identify the places where sequences of flex can be made out of one piece of actual flex, and indicate that with some sort of overlay color. Not with a script, but just while working on the design (like the warnings for length and narrow curves).

However, how often does the situation appear? The original problem was that you cannot make a curved flex that is partly straight. It might be better to solve that problem instead (if possible).

David.

[kimbo]

Even if that's not what Donone needed - I do think this feature might come very handy indeed.

On my layout plan I've got loads of places where i've got little bits of flex that I used to connect pieces which I had built in another place, same for curves where I found it easier to build three or two sections of 45 degrees and connecting them despite the fact that I hadn't used a full-length of flex track. It would be a good clean-up exercise at the end to make sure the list with the number of tracks is more accurate.

[Andrew]

This is an interesting thread because I have also thought that it would be great to actually have the curve tracks match the actual length of the flex track when curved.

David, could you add a feature to the curving of the flex track so that we can add the radius in mm/cm and the track length so that it matches the actual length, rather than having to add the degree and radius which usually means that it is either too long or is near half the actual length.

Cheers,
Andrew

[donone]

It seems I have been to bed!
The reason I needed to join flex was slightly different than just economising on track and number of cuts, though I do like the additional idea of a massive roundup at the end. My reason was because, if you remember an earlier thread, I wanted to use Bezier to keep part straight and only bend the end.
Since that was not possible, I requested this. My fear is that the roundup at the end may not join the specific pieces 'chosen by me', it would be random or clockwise or anticlockwise probably.

I fear also that anything not involving the human element of 'brain' may leave several pieces say 20mm or so, or worse, dotted about. I also think the programming may be quite complex, analysing all the bits and deciding which to join if there are an odd number of pieces together. Several passes may be required and so we may not get a solution for some time. (Not being selfish, but half a loaf now etc. etc.)

I do like the new kind of join David. This would mean it could be re-broken and readjusted where my original suggestion would lose that.
It might be that the user prefers, certain lengths (which may be laying about) etc. etc. The brain is very good at deciding what is best in any given situation. It only requires the user to want to choose one particular join, to effectively prevent any automation.
Is there room for a possible compromise, a choice by the user, gaining the best of both worlds?

[donone]

I thought I had better start another reply to avoid writing a book.
@David

However, how often does the situation appear? The original problem was that you cannot make a curved flex that is partly straight. It might be better to solve that problem instead (if possible).

One possibility... you remember my original request, which asked if you could move a marker down the track and it remain straight from that point backward and only curve the remainder.
Suppose you could provide this marker, which then splits the track, allows the Bezier curve to be made with the remainder and then joins the track again in one operation?
No I didn't live on Mars. The problem is with Mr Bezier, because this is the one thing he did not account for, but with track occurs over and over. He probably didn't model railways!

[David]

Good idea, but I suppose there are a few cases:

- One end straight, other end curved
- Two straight ends, curved in between
- Straight middle, curved at both ends

I'm not yet sure how to keep that 'as easy as possible'!
Just one marker is not good enough.

David.

[donone]

Two passing thoughts...
The earlier idea regarding 'hoovering up' bits and joining them; how often are two 'shorter' pieces of flex put adjacent for no reason other than they physically exist, in which case they cannot and would not 'wish' to be joined anyway. Other short bits are only (as far as I can see) used to fill gaps and are not therefore adjacent. I have probably missed something

The extra missing logical combinations of say three bends and two straights as one piece etc. are only several of the original request, put together and so could be solved by your special joins having produced two of my requested items. Only the 'brain' could do this lest the wrong three of four pieces got joined and left one off because the full length had been achieved.

The two other logical combinations you suggest only therefore requires two markers, one at each end to produce a curve at each end by splitting at each marker and producing two curves, or, a curve in the 'remaining' middle section.

[donone]

Another occasion where I believe joining with your joints would be useful is when a piece of flex is required to do a nice neat 180 deg curve. Currently this can only be achieved to 90 deg. To do this out of one piece would require the same technique of splitting in half, make two 90 deg curves then rejoin.
...or have I missed something?

[Mike from CT]

I love this one.

How often does it happen?  Well, for me, every time I add an easement, it takes three pieces of track (one for the easement at each end and one for the "pure" curve).  Also when a piece in the middle of a flex is "hidden" (see elsewhere) and finally, when the end of a grade occurs in the middle of a section of flex. It also happens in S-curves, where I want to insure a straight section between the curves (although those tend to take more than one section for me, regardless.)