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 :) )

Topic: Version 6.24  (Read 1126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Future-Digital

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
  • Quryosity incarnate. (Yea, I know its misspelled.)
    • Future-Digital International
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2019, 11:29:08 pm »
I hear and understand everything you said about your desire for the finesse of beautiful models for 3d representation.However, as I suspect that that is a LOOONG time coming,


I'd be delighted to have exactly what you said, a floor plan of structures with a height component.


I have been faking it for quite some time now, but they have traits of landscape which are unfortunate. I don't want my buildings to look like rectangular green hills with flat tops and sloping sides. But, since that is all I have, I make them to give them presence and visibility in my layout plan. Se la vie!

Bill

Offline Tom Springer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 445
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2019, 12:46:26 am »
Bill,

If all that is needed is an elementary view of heights for visualization, then I might agree that just adding heights to 2D objects might be ok ... for a start.  But I wouldn't call that 3d objects.  Expanded 2D maybe.

You are right that it may be quite some time for 3D objects; imho that leaves AR severely lacking when it comes to the usefulness of 3D.  It's one thing to "see" a bridge for track over lower track, it's another to see where the bents lie to determine if clearances are sufficient.  My view and any future need for 3D AR relates to clearances more than anything else.  Without that, 3D in AR has almost no value to me.  Same applies when looking at a structure that has "loading chutes", as for a mine loading hoppers, or a water tank for steam engines, or tunnel portals or other such actions.  If I want to place a structure correctly, I'd like to "know" via observation that the alignment is correct; easy when you have a 3D view that shows this in perspective; not quite as easily done with just a 2D floorplan view when heights are the consideration.

I'm willing to spend time to help move in the direction of 3D objects.  Even baby steps if that is what it takes.  If there is a way to ease into 3D objects, fine.

I'm not doing much in new layout design anymore, focused only on a few industry-specific dioramas I still want to do, so for other than 3D objects, my future work (and maybe interest) relating to AR is probably going to be minimal without 3D objects. Just where life is going.

Most of my hobby time is 3D work.  The part relating to model railroading is making 3D objects to see how well I can do that.  I'm considering looking at the Walthers HO kits that were never made in N scale and seeing if I can do one or two or so in N scale, especially since Walthers seems not only to have zero interest in making N scale versions of them but in N scale for the future for everything else.  If nothing else, I'll have fun seeing what I can accomplish.

I'll keep my offer regarding 3D objects for AR on the table in the hope that effort in this can proceed.

Offline The Track Planner

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2019, 05:38:26 pm »
A slightly different perspective.
As someone who gets paid to design track plans for others, from my perspective, 3D has the most value in being able to have a client visualize elevation changes on track work. As a designer, it is easy for me to visualize, but for my clients it is much harder. Some can visualize, while others have a very hard time understanding where tracks begin and end elevation changes. Currently, in AnyRail's 3D viewer, I turn off everything but the track. Including turning off the ground view, it only confuses my clients. I screen capture three to five different views (perspectives) of the track work. The different perspectives seem to help clients visualize elevation changes. AnyRail's 3D is far from perfect, but for now, in its current version, the 3D track views seem to work for my clients.
Instead of concentrating on being able to design 3D structure objects, which would be nice, I would rather see David concentrate on improving the visualization of the track work, in 3D. Very seldom does a client say "I wish I could see that building in 3D, most seem to be able to visualize strucutres".
Question... would it not be easier to improve the software to improve 3D track work visualization, as opposed to designing detailed 3D sturcutres?
Having improved 3D track visualization would be a huge improvement for someone like me.
Bill - The Track Planner

Offline Future-Digital

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
  • Quryosity incarnate. (Yea, I know its misspelled.)
    • Future-Digital International
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2019, 11:28:08 pm »
Interesting and cogent views, all.

Still, I ask myself, would I rather have my plain shaped boxes or line drawings, simply colored and textured with height, sitting on the table in 3 months, or have nothing for 3 more years while waiting for heaven. Don't see that having SOMETHING now will delay the higher quality later, so why not SOMETHING sooner than later.

I don't know that that is how long it will take, I doubt it, but there is an old saying that goes something like this: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


Having SOMETHING now is better than doing without ANYthing for a long time.

My 2.25 cents, including tax.

Bill

Offline TrainzLuvr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2019, 01:37:47 am »
3D right now looks like an afterthought to me - clunky and unusable. I admit I am used to Digital Content Creation packages (Max, Maya) as well as big game engines (UE4, Unity3D), which make visualization in AnyRail look circa 1990 IRIS Inventor. :)

To be honest, I would like to see focus be on 2D, as there are still many areas that could be vastly improved.

Granted I am biased because I put forth a few wishes in myself that I believe would be worth while, but there are many others, too...

Offline BadBanana

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2019, 12:58:15 pm »
I'd be delighted to have exactly what you said, a floor plan of structures with a height component.

I have been faking it for quite some time now, but they have traits of landscape which are unfortunate. I don't want my buildings to look like rectangular green hills with flat tops and sloping sides. But, since that is all I have, I make them to give them presence and visibility in my layout plan. Se la vie!

Bill
This.... 
Please. 

If one could then construct a group of such structures, and grouping already exists, then the path is open for the creation of more complex buildings and features.  I would add one other attribute - colour (and maybe texture) - as is already possible for some other elements.

Attached is my simplistic take on Neuschwanstein....

Thanks for the great software too.  Love it.

« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 01:01:20 pm by BadBanana »

Offline Future-Digital

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
  • Quryosity incarnate. (Yea, I know its misspelled.)
    • Future-Digital International
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2019, 05:20:40 pm »
I've been doing exactly the same thing you showed with your castle. Interestingly, my castle is Burg Falkenstein in Austria.

Rather crude, but it is the best we have at the time and it effectively acts as a place/spot holder on the layout.

Hope it evolves into something better soon.

Bill

Offline poppy2201

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
    • Northwest Florida T-TRAK-Z
Re: Version 6.24
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2019, 11:12:56 pm »
The two things we're working on first are a full 64 bit version, and module support.

We plan to add support for modular standards such as T-TRAK, and make it easier to have a baseboard or train table and move it with everything on it as one element.

Concerning 3D, we will not add tools to draw 3D elements. However, we are considering a way to import various 3D formats (Collada, STL, etc) into user objects.

As a T-TRAK-Z enthusiast I am happy to see that you are considering support for the T-TRAK concept.  Looking forward to this with great anticipation.

Regards,
Charles