Minimum Radius Indicator

[RhB_HJ]

Come to think of it, I tend to stack a lot of stuff. Very seldom do I use snap track which means I better remember what the min radii for any given trackages are.
Most of the time I just have to look at the two tangent tracks and I'll select the right radius most times. Right radius as in "yes it will work with the given clearances". 

[santerdam]

....
Why do you feel that .... it is an invalid wish? ....

Sometimes reading is difficult. See the quote in your own message :

The problem in Bob's topic is not to recognize his issue, the problem is mis-using layers for something that is not related to layers.

Like others, I think it would be very bad for AR if layers would get blurred with settings. All of this gets very complicated in terms of usage. Only because you don't remember to reset the radius-setting.

Sander

[Mike from CT]

Yes, layers are about making things easier to view, but also about advanced project design and modification as well.

I agree with you, but I think what we have is a clash of two approaches - one that says we need to use a product (any product) only as the designer originally intended and the other that allows us to adapt the product in new ways that make it more flexible for the user.

I've never used sections for electrical work because, for me, it's much important to know the railroad functions for an intended section of track (e.g., around yards, separating the main from the arrival/departure tracks from the classification tracks from any special use tracks).  To tell me sections are intended to be used for electrical blocks and detection circuits elicits a huge yawn.  (Actually, my language is a lot more colorful in person than it is posting here and my response is more likely to be something Billy Connolly or Robin Williams would say during a Turrets syndrome outburst.   )

Same for layers.  Layers are used for whatever they're useful.  End of story.

If we have to add a new category called "regions" because other words are already taken, so be it.  But there are a number of reasons for the user to want the ability to add functionality when and at what level the user wants to add functionality.  It provides more options and, perhaps, that makes programming a bit more complex but it doesn't make utilization more complex, any more than having layers makes usage more complex.  You don't have to use layers (or even notice they exist) unless you're looking for a way to divide things for some reason.  Some of us divide layers by aspect (benchwork, trackwork, scenery, wiring, whatever) others by actual levels (staging, main line, upper level or mountain branch), others by function (helix, yard, main, "module" or town), and others by combinations thereof.

It's what makes AnyRail so easy to use.  It seems to me that telling someone this or that feature can only be used for some function because the manual says how to use it for that function makes AnyRail more rigid and less useful rather than easier, more flexible and, therefore more user-friendly.

Which, after all that, means that adding the ability to set defaults, be they minimum radii, grades, heights or whatever, for some level below the layout level is what should be judged.  If that can be most easily accomplished by adding the option to existing layers or to section or if it requires a new concept is a matter of "how", not "whether" - and only if the how makes it so complex as to make use go back and examine the whether, should the idea be scuttled.

My two cents - and this time I actually think it's worth at least a nickle....

[RhB_HJ]

Mike,

As it is one can use layers for whatever functions one decides, one assigns everything one needs in that function to that layer. Presto! You turn that layer on or off and all the content is there or isn't.
There are 22 layers in Bob's plan, one of them, just as an example called "Lower Tropicana Rail", you turn everything else off and BINGO! LTR has 18" radius E-Z track. Works for any of the many layers, one at a time.
If this were flextrack I could/would perhaps appreciate not remembering the min rad, but with E-Z snap track and the status bar for anything you mouse-over/click-at? That's a stretch for me, however I'm one of those who has more problems forgetting "things" than remembering "things". 

[Jeff]

I think I agree wit you, Mike. I'm still tyring to figure out what you said,  but I do think I agree. Probably, maybe. In general.

[RhB_HJ]

Mike,

As far as I'm concerned this is all about workflow. If you have 22 layers and you scramble the workflow i.e. not turning off what is not in use to see at a glance what is what, adding one more wrinkle to settings won't do it either.
As always strictly my opinion.

AND I'm a firm believer as stated earlier "While software is helpful in many ways, it will not replace the following:
a) One's brain
b) One's imagination
c) One's comprehension"
That's just the way it is!

[Mike from CT]

Mike,

As it is one can use layers for whatever functions one decides, one assigns everything one needs in that function to that layer. Presto! You turn that layer on or off and all the content is there or isn't.

Would that that were so.

You can't assign minimum radius or height to a layer.

I have different hard and fast standards (meaning it's hard for me to remember to stick fast to the standards) for visible mains, staging and hidden trackage, and spurs that won't see anything longer than a 50' car and diesels with 4 wheel trucks.  Right now, I can't even use the curved flex tool to lay a piece for either of the latter two with the minimum radius set for the main - even with the tight radius alert turned off.   And I certainly can't lay out scenery at the base height for a level, since the base height is assumed to be zero, until one price of track is connected to another (which can also be a pain when you try to connect the yard you already laid out to the main at the top of the hill - that connection's grade is hellacious.... The only thing worse is trying to get that yard, which thinks it's supposed to be at 0" up to the 4" you forgot to set  the first piece to when you started.)

[Mike from CT]

I think I agree wit you, Mike. I'm still tyring to figure out what you said,  but I do think I agree. Probably, maybe. In general.

If you figure it out, let me know what I said.  And if I figure out what I said, I'll let you know.  Fair enough?

[RhB_HJ]

The only thing worse is trying to get that yard, which thinks it's supposed to be at 0" up to the 4" you forgot to set  the first piece to when you started.)

Oh dear!!!! you highlight that yard, make it a section, set the height for the section and be done! And here I thought you guys on the Beta team had most of this down pat? 
PS BTW quite a few of the routines date back to earlier versions when height assignments were "interesting".

[Mike from CT]

HJ,

Here's a (for me) simple yard I knocked together for this post.  It's *not* a section; it's multiple sections.  A more complete yard would have more sections  This has a RIP track,  and an underdeveloped engine facility, but no MOW track, weigh scale or major car repair, and, if I were modelling transition era, no stock pens or re-icing tracks or LCL freight facility.  For my period, it's missing unit/through train refueling tracks and any car storage.  And I might well have separate eastbound and westbound yards(especailly given how small and single ended the classification is, but that's for the sample).

And this one is a flat yard.  Hump yards are 99% fantasies in N scale, but a split yard may well have a flyover (or under) and some service tracks may be elevated or depressed from the reference level.

And I might well have several versions drawn on different (AnyRail) levels.

[Jeff]

Mike,

If you substitute the word 'section' for the word 'segment', you will have described the current situation quite well.

Right now, layers are used for whatever one needs to use them. H-J is correct except that not everyone has his eidetic memory. If you allow for human foibles then the idea of assigning a localized minimum radius becomes more useful. The rest of us will happily use whatever little string-around-the-finger we can get David to tack on.

[santerdam]

Mike,

You wrote about a clash of two approaches (one that says we need to use a product (any product) only as the designer originally intended ....) That's not true, at least not for me.

Assume you have layers for upper and for lower levels. The lower level is according the defaults and for the upper you change some settings in the layer. That sounds good, till you take a closer look to Bob's example. You will see he has 13 different upper levels - the exeptions need to be  duplicated 13 times.
Bob started the topic because he forgets to change the settings .... now he will need to remember to change the settings 13 times !
(I hope Bob will not need split his design in North-Central-South too .... he will end up with 60 or 80 layers.)

It is a rule number one for programmers to make sure a user can make his settings in one single place - never force the user to duplicate such 13 times manually.

This is the main reason I am convinced not to have settings in layers. If you would do, I know for sure the AR-helpdesk will need extra staff to answer all questions.

My objections about mis-using segments or sections is different.
As you know David added those sections for the future extensions for wiring. Mis-using sections outside the scope of the manual can cause problems when you have to convert to a newer version where sections get functionallity for electrical work. It would be sad if you can't use your designs in a newer version.

Sander

[Mike from CT]

It is a rule number one for programmers to make sure a user can make his settings in one single place - never force the user to duplicate such 13 times manually.

No, rule number one is to make sure a user can do what the user needs to do.
Rule number two is to make it as easy as possible to do it.

There are some sophisticated layouts being designed using AnyRail - double (and more) deckers, combined standard and narrow gauge (and light rail) layouts, and just about anything else possible (or, when Jeff designs it, impossible....  ) to build.There isn't a single minimum radius or grade or even base elevation for any of these.

Bob may have 13 different levels, but not all 13 have unique minimum radii.  This is where the idea of cascading standards (or guidelines) comes in.  It works the same as CSS does for web design.  The higher level standard/guide remains, unless overridden at a more specific level.  If Bob has 13 levels, but only three involve a generally different rule, he needs four entries, not 13 - one for the overall standard and three to govern each if the exceptions (and that assumes none of those three share a different standard).

Look, I'd love to see a new grouping (I called it "region", earlier) that could be used recursively to define subregions (the entire layout being the uppermost region).   It's the same concept I used describing how I'd like to see height rules handled in the tester's forum.

Again, if there's only one value to be used for the entire layout, it needs be entered only once and it's no more difficult to use than the current system, but if there are different standards under different conditions, than limiting the user to a single standard is a handicap, not a benefit.

[David]

Hi guys,

Thanks for all your opinions.

I think it has been discussed enough now, and I will close this topic before it turns into a fight
I will take some time to think over all your ideas and suggestions. Usually something useful comes out of that (eventually ).
As always, I appreciate your loyalty and criticism.

I'm on and off on trips these days (France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden), so if you feel I missed something crucial please remind me by sending an email to info@anyrail.com.
In general, it works best if you tell me what the problem is or what you want to achieve, not how it should be implemented in the software.

David.