Ok, I’m trying to list the different types of software, for putting to gether a layout, and I’m also looking for the good points and bad points of each.
So far, I have:
XTrkCad
G - Free. Fairly powerful and very flexable. Very good track and equipment selection.
B - A stiff learning curve and making flextrak is down right brutal, having to make each little change in the track as a seperate subsection and then attaching it to the whole. I would guess that it was designed by someone with a lot of CAD expereance.
RTS 7.0
G - Free. Short learning curve with some good step by step instructions to get you started, with basic layouts. Reasionably easy to do flex track.
B - Somewhat propiarity with included track pieces.
Ok what other layout design software is out there and what are it’s good and bad points.
I ddi not find laying flextrack brutal at all. I found that once I layed down things I knew had to be at certain spots, the track came together nicely. I do find it difficult to make it do things that I really shouldn’t be trying, though!
I tried several things, but, ended up having to make one small segment at a time that I found extreamly time consuming.
I would think that it should be as easy to manupalate as the real thing - put in place and then push and pull at selected places untill it conforms to the shape you need.
I see what you mean about trying to treat it like the real thing, and there would be some point to that. The way I worked was to put straight sections or turnouts where I knew they were going to be, and then used the joim tool to create the flextrack between them. That way it creates the easements and everything. It is a bit of a different way of going at it though. Did you do the demos? Whatever I figured out I pretty much got from there. I went through it ounce, and then after I’d used it for a while I went through most of it again.
A program that powerful you should be able to set a series of way points, and then click on a button, and have the track atomaticaly be placed along those way points if it’s work able or the program should tell the user what rule the track path violates ( smaller than minimum turn radius or some such ) and need to be reworked.
Futher I would like to see a way to import a scaned image to act as a pattern, ( say of a layout from MR - even if have to actualy copy it into the program ) so you can modify it to suit your needs. ( spent yesterday trying to copy a layout from the April '93 MR for modification, and after spending 2 hrs copying just 15 ft of flextrack through 4 curves ( each with continously changing radius ) I decieded that there had to be an easier way.
Knowing how much track you need, before you start to build is half the battle.
Knowing exact elevations and grade are also a big help, but are things that I think can be fudged a bit.
These things are what makes a good program as far as I’m concerned.
Being able to automaticaly caculate a helix path, is just gravy, and if a program can do that, I see no reasion why you shouldn’t be able to push and pull a piece of flex track into position, other than the programer probably decieded
I used RTS a few years back when I started my layout. Even though I have a few problems with it, I will most likely use it again next time I do some planning. I so need a lottery win…
I think you are working too hard. In XtrkCAD you simply locate a few key features and use the join tool to bring them together. It won’t let you do it if the track can’t make that kind of transition. I find designing layout very fast on XtrkCAD and having paid for and used others, I have come back to XtrkCAD as my program. As for making straights. You can use the extend tool to make them as long as you want. Use the circle tool to create any radius turn you want. It is very flexible.
As mentioned, the tutorial will give you the tools you need to do about anything.
Chip said it again, I have been trying to think of a way to put this that makes sense…
I think the crux of the difficulty you are having is thinking of the track as individual pieces, rather than as a whole. If you are working with sectional track, that thinking works fine, and makes sense, though all the flexibility is gone (ha!). With flextrack, try not to think that way. The objective isn’t a certain curve here, or shape there, rather you are trying to have a track that flows from one place to another. You don’t want to be trying to shape the track, so much as create a path. I did have one place where I wanted to get a particular shape, I used a short section of straight track as an anchor for that, and let the flex do the had work.
Like I said earlier, I was trying to use it, to replicate a 6x11 HO layout I found in MR, so I could change a few things then scale it down to N, then add a couple of other things ( if nessasary )to fill a 8x4 ( I figured that it would come out to close to 7x3.5 ), and after all of that was done to find out how much track was needed.
The artical said that it was made with Atlas flextrack and Peco large and medium radius turnouts.
The turns that drove me nuts, as they appeared to have constantly changing radius, and even some of the straight aways were not that straight ( one of the things that I liked about it ).
I was frustrated no end trying to copy that layout, with bit’s and pieces of track then connecting them. I’m not any good at drawing anything more than a few basic shapes, so trying to do all the alterations on paper, would probably have me trashing the entire idea.
Had I been putting together a brand new design I doubt that I would have been so frustrated.
Again, the easiest way I found to create constant radius turns is to use the track circle tool. Create a circle with a fixed radius. You can change the radius to any size you want using the describe tool and the circle will change size. Put the circle where you want the turn and use the join tool.
So to make a 22 degree 90 degree turn in a corner make the circle, change the radius. Move the circle to the corner. Create a horizontal straight piece of track and move it to the tangent you want. Use the join tool and the circle breaks. Create a vertical straight piece and move it to the tangent you want and use the join tool. Now you have a perfect turn. Takes about 30 seconds in real time.
EDIT: Copying someone else’s layout is always harder than starting from scratch.
With due respect, there is a world of differance between constant radius curves, and constantly chaging radius curves, where the radius changes through the majority of the curve.
Example: Start into a 22" radius curve, then after 3 inches it tightens up to a 19" radius curve, and after another 4-5 inches it loosens up to a 25" radius curve, and after another 13 inches it tightens back up to a 19" radius curve for the remander of the turn until your going 160* from your original course.
This is something that flex track can do with ease, that would otherwise be a royal pain, cutting and fitting section track or hand laying track.
( Did that make sense ? )
While copying someone’s elses layout may be diffacult, there are people, that find it easier to copy and modify something that is known to work, than to come up with ideas that start them into totaly unknown areas. I happen to be one of those people, as I’m anything but artisticly inclined, and for anything more complated than a loop, I start due to problems I would just as soon not say here - if would want to discuss this off list, I wouldn’t mind, but, not here.
I’m a newbie with XtrkCad, and work with both sectional and flex track on my track plan. I have never tried what you mention above, but it took me two minutes to figure it out.
Simply start with a straight or curved track at the angle or radius you desire, then use the "Modify or extend tr
As I understand them, easements ease the train into and out of a turn, and while what I’m talking is very simular, I am also talking about changing things in the middle of a turn as well - say to get around a paticularly hard rock formation or a track at the bottom of a winding canyon, that may take an unexpected jog then start to straighten out for a short distance before continuing a curve.
I’m aware that XtrkCAD has an easement function, but with the tutorial being a sit down and watch type of thing, rather than something that walks you through it as you do the work, it makes it fairly diffacult to put theory into practice, without bumbing your head on the learning curve.
I find that those things, starts to send me into information over load, as I don’t know what to do with most of it.
Oh joy ( [:D] ), a sticky tool capability! Now that I know it’s there, it’s use may actualy reduce the frustration level [banghead] [D)] [censored] [banghead] [D)]</
Nothing complicated about the status bar, just have a look at it as you draw the tracks and you’ll see. The Map window is just an easy way of moving around or zooming in, left drag moves and right drag zoomes.
Please let me know if my suggestions doesn’t work out.
For me XTrkCad is way easier than paper. For you, maybe not. When things get a little tight, in critical areas, it is pretty hard, even with the right tools, to be sure what you’ve drawn on paper will really work (not saying it can’t be done, just that it is not always easy). With XTrkCad, I know it will work. It isn’t ‘insanely complicated’. It isn’t totally intuitive, but it is very learnable. If I tried to draw what I’ve designed by hand, I’d have worn through the paper erasing, and still wouldn’t be done.
Righto, I think I understand where we differ. You finalise the track layout and dimensions using the software, and then create a template to use for full-size contruction, yes? Whereas I rough out a schematic on paper, but finalise dimensions and details during construction. That’s why designing on paper works for me, I reckon.
Yeah, more or less. Though I’m not opposed to changing stuff as I see it in real life. But at least I have a basis of what will work. I’ve seen a lot of people not really take enough care in their ‘sketches’, and end up with things that are just impossible (usually due to messed up angles in turnouts). Also, with the software I know that I can make the elevation changes I need, without having to really figure out the distances. In all, it’s just a different way of going about it. I don’t think one way is any more right or wrong than another, as long as you get what you are after in the end.