I downloaded RTS 7.0 and I am having some difficulty getting it to do what I want (probably impatience due to my old age: thirty-twelve…that way I can still say I’m in my thirties. ;}).
Anyway…I have AutoCAD and have used it for over 17 years. I have even designed my own HO slot car sections using it.
Is there any reason why I can’t design my own track in AutoCAD vs. using a software system for train planning? I would think if I use measurements based on real HO track, then there shouldn’t be an issue…but I wanted to hear from those who have ‘been there and done that’.
I used a similar cad system to design a combination HO train and slotcar layout. I had a lot of features to include in the slotcar layout that made planning almost impossible with out help. (crossings, grade crossings, turnouts, bridges and adaptors). My cad system does not have any custom bells and whistles, but it had the one feature that I wanted. → $$CHEAP$$…
At first, I tried drawing all of the track pieces, then using the translate/copy feature to move them around. I end up just drawing them where I needed them. That worked better for me.
I’m with you on the AutoCad - been using it myself since DOS-based versions lo these many years ago, with an old copy of LT '97 at home. Used it to design my new layout (not that I would ever ever open up the layout file at work…). Simply measure a turnout or whatever else you need and draw it and make a block and you have it in the library. What could be simpler? Why use a clumsy product like RTS when you can use professional-grade drafting software that you’re obviously already proficient at?
if you are proficient in AutoCAD (and don’t mind creating the libraries), I would agree with everyone who has said use it. However - the benefit to using the free design systems is that you don’t have to create new libraries for everything that you may need in order to finalize your layout.
I would reccommend using Sillub’s XTrkCAD - it is much more powerful than Atlas’ RTS program, and it has a decently gentle learning curve to get started with. My only exposure to AutoCAD was in a drafting class in highschool, so it wasn’t that in-depth. Though I would say that XTrkCAD is along the lines of drawing fuctions (ie connect this to that and the like).
Although I used to be “expert” with the ancient Autocad version 8, I haven’t used it for many years.
Instead, I used “Visio” which I have for my business. After building a library of shapes both simple single line drawings and actual track sections with two rails and ties, it worked extremely well. The use of layers is helpful too as it lets you see just the mains or just the hidden, yards, mountain line, etc.
The only minor issue was creating tangents, and that was easily solved with constant radius turns offset half an inch and connecting with the spline tool. Unless you want to run virtual trains on the computer, stick with the professional product. Go for it!
I have AutoCAD 2000LT & use it for all my RR design from presrnt layout to my fantasy/hit the lottery/dream come true version. I have elevation views ,sectional views, you name it. As was mentioned earlier, I start a library file of RR related items & everytime I draw something new I add it to the library. I have a set of digital calipers ($30.00) that I use to get measurements and simply transfer the dimensions to a CAD drawing… I’ve been exposed to the XtraCAD(spelling-whatever) but quickly realized I was just duplicating AutoCAD which I already had and was proficient at. I hope this helps you in your decision. Tweet
I use AutoCAD almost every day (user since early 80’s).
I tried the RTS software for one of the Altas layouts in their book (the Great Eastern Trunk). When I tried to build it, the sections did not fit prefectly. There are tolerances built in; gaps in only one rail make the plans “work”.
If you use flex track and easements, the extra precision of a CAD program doesn’t really matter unless you spend a lot of time assuring the actual radii and centerlines are exactly the same as the plan. If you buy turnouts the different brands have different dimensions - not all #6’s are the same. I had to shorten some Walthers turnouts for crossovers. And if you have grades don’t forget the third dimension (AutoCAD is time consuming for 3D).
Bottom line: accept the relatively loose tolerances possible in our hobby, use easy software for planning, expect to make adjustments, and have fun.
I’ve generally heard the main objection to full-blown CAD programs as the learning curve. If you’re already a wiz at it… I suspect you’ll find it far more powerful than RTS.
Having said that, I have zero experience with CAD and didn’t take to it well when I tried. I used RTS to design a roughly 30x30 layout with perfectly fine results.
As mentioned above, I have to think that any program – barring the ability to print a 1:1 version right on your benchwork – is going to have minor “translations” into the real world. I know mine has.
Many thanks for all your feedback. Hehe, since submitting this post I decided “Why wait?” and went ahead and made the library with all my blocks. I am going to use code 100 Atlas flex track and someone else’s turn-outs…something that will work well with DCC.
My first concern was the different turnouts available, but I went ahead and decided that I was just going to do a rough up of the layout anyway, so I’m just using cork road bed for my dimensions - not the actual track.
I have some older brass Atlas #4’s and #6’s, plus a #5 and a curved 22"R/18"R turn-out from someone I’ve not heard of before (they’re not in the Walthers catalog either). I’m using those dimensions for turn-outs and understand I may have to fudge with longer flex track in order to get them to connect during my installation and trial runs. Although I have them from the '70’s, I won’t be using #4’s as all the books I’ve been reading tend to shy away from them.
Again, thanks…now on to a new post for another noob style question…
FWIW, I know you say “someone else’s” so you may have already decided. But I use Customline turnouts with DCC with no problems. I don’t even bother to power the frogs – though I admit that my motive power generally has multi-truck/wheel pickup, and with some older locos I know that’s a problem.
I know that’s not the most common/popular view in the world. Many will tell you Atlas stinks and you must go with Peco, Shinohara, etc. or face constant derailment and other dire consequences. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m just saying I have dozens of customlines and no problems with derailment, splitting, etc… and a whole lot more cash left over to spend on other things…
I’m talking Code 83 incidentally… Not sure if -100’s are any different.
I have used RTS and I am familiar with Microstation, another major software for professional CADD work. I can make either do what I want. In the end, I can make Microstation do more and look better, but I have access to a full blown plotter too so that makes a difference. I draw the turnouts full size and place different parts on different levels. I have the track CL on one level, the rails on another level and the ties on a third level. I also have a line pattern that looks like the ties and rails of the track. After I finish drawing the Centerlines, I can turn on the other levels and the ties and rails all drop in full size. It makes the bystanders drop their jaws, but it doesn’t help in planning.
The problem with RTS is I am limited to the track library on hand. You can also only do 2D work.
I recommend you toss the non-nickle silver track. I have heard too many folks say they wish they had. Good Luck - Dinosaur
Being an avid user of sectional track, I use XtrkCad with no problems, including the use of cut track sections of odd lengths. I tried the RTS and the Autocad and always came back to XtrkCad.