Does anybody know if there is any sort of “Structure Footprint Database” that’s available? I know that several mfgr’s have their own sorta mini-databases, but the formats are not always the same nor the dimensions given entirely accurate-- particularly if the “kit” contains several structures.
Specifically, I know that Walthers (Cornerstone) lists details for many/most of their buildings as does Woodland Scenic’s DPM models.
What about others?
Then secondly is the issue of “format”-- for some, simply having the raw outside dimensions might be enough (i.e., fits into a rectangle of blah by blah). But for others, especially structures that also involve a “mini track plan”, more detail is required.
Thirdly is the secondary question of format-- in what manner should the information be stored and presented? One thought might be “pictures” of the footprint with the dimensions labeled. That would be enough for many purposes. But what about for importing into a CAD program to use while planning? Perhaps some “universal” interchange format? (And there are a slew of interchange formats already available, I’m not suggesting anybody run out and develop yet another). Going from a drawing/picture of the footprint to CAD might be easy enough for one or two structures (a “few”) but if you need a lot of them the task can get daunting pretty quickly. Especially if you’re “shopping” for ideas (structures) and are simply wondering “how would that look here” kinda thing-- that’s a fair amount of work just for the amount of return. However, I think anybody who’s used CAD or even pencil and paper to “visualize” something would agree to the utility and usefulness of the concept.
I also know that many CAD programs have their own either built-in or user-contributed footprints that cover a wide variety of structures from different mfgrs. But the footprints tend to be specified in terms of the CAD program they were constructed for and therefore proprietary with respect to other CAD programs exc
That would be a lot of work… Beyond providing basic dimensions, I don’t think any commercial company would be willing to invest that amount of time and effort. As far as I know, no one else has undertaken the project. Are you volunteering? [:)]
I have found, however, that the Walthers Sourcebook (aka Catalog) does a pretty good job of listing the raw dimensions of structures. Say about 3/4 of what they sell has dimensions. The website has most of this info, but I’ve found stuff in the printed catalog that’s not on the website.
As far as the various electronic design tools go, the one I use (AnyRail) doesn’t even have structures in it. I draw them all using the line tool, and they come out as flat polygons (although it’s pretty easy to add the various bumps and corners simply by adding another point to the polygon.
Personally, I’ve found that just about any structure kit will fit… if the razor saw is sharp enough. I’m not sure how many people would really be interested in that kind of a database… it kind of locks you into the design phase, without moving on to building. Personally, I like to slap a box down on my plan, say, “Yep, looks like it’ll fit”, and then go build the thing and get it on the layout.
I certainly agree with you on that point-- and “nope”, I’m not volunteering but I would assist by contributing some footprints if there was some unified effort out there to build on.
3rdPlanit has a fair amount of footprints in it, mostly user-contributed (probably) and mostly from the Walthers Cornerstone series, although there are some that are complete buildings, most are just footprints.
That’s what got me thinking about it.
Apparently some mfgr’s have issues with complete renderings of their bldgs but to my knowledge, none of have objected to the use of footprints for planning.
Yeah, I hear you there. But I have a lot of bldgs to arrange, and the track plan is inter-related to the structure plan. So it would be nice to be able to work on both simultaneously without having to drag out every single thing.
John - I think that creating such a compilation would likely be a great deal of work for very little return/usage and the likely reason you don’t see one around. The great majority of hobbyists I know purchase structure kits either based simply on the appeal of their particular appearance, or alternately, the specific nature of the industry it depicts that meets some special need of their’s. In either case, the hobbyist will simply either make appropriate room on the layout for whatever the building’s dimensions are…or, more often than not, alter the structure it to fit t`e space it will’occupy and to make it their own.
Probably your suggestion would most appeal to those who go to a great deal of effort to mock up every scene before construction and I’d venture that they are relatively f
Sorry I have to throw cold water on this idea, but it reminds me of a saying I heard many years ago, “Hey, you thought of it, you do it!”
And we’ll expect you to purchase and assemble one of every single new kit or assembled building from every possible manufacturer that ever comes to market anywhere in the world, in every scale, so you can add it to the database. We also expect to see kitbashing ideas on how to modify the footprint to fit unusual situations.
And everyone will expect you to provide the database at no charge and for it to be updated weekly.
This could get to be extremely expensive and time consuming.
Perhaps that’s why no one has volunteered to do it [}:)]
Nah. I agree with Brakie – the only dumb question is the one you don’t ask. If you look at his links, you’ll see what I mean about the dimensions on the Walthers page. This is one of those projects that could be a great time saver for everyone except the person who actually has to do the work. Creating a new building in AnyRail takes me about 30 seconds to C&P a shape next to the ruler, resize it, and drag it to its intended location on the layout plan.
Underneath the sarcasm, though, Cacole has a very valid point. If someone were to undertake that project, that person would most likely get very little recognition for the amount of work he put in, and would have to endure no amount of complaining from the timid souls who aren’t willing to put forth the effort themselves, but are quick to line up and criticise someone else because he didn’t model a bump-out accurately, or didn’t notice thus and such a detail, or didn’t update the database often enough. etc.
I have to agree with CNJ on this one. There may be a few who plan out each structure in their planning prior to starting construction on their layout - but I’m not one of them. I pick a sort of suitable structure with a reasonable footprint out of the layout design database to get an idea of how much room I really have - and call that good enough.
Even if you did have all this information for the structure kits that Walters or the manufacturer doesn’t already provide footprint information for, what happens when you change your mind during the layout build phase? Or a new structure kit is manufactured that better fits your prototype/region/era/personal fancy than your already planned building does?
XtrkCad has a fairly easy utility for generating new structures not already in the database. And users add new structures to the XtrkCad database all the time. Most of the more readily available structures are in the database.
But I feel the planning software leads one down the same garden path as with
Neither do I and same here. But I would like the ability to quickly and easily mock it up in the computer (CAD) and shuffle things around until I get a (or some) arrangement(s) that I like. I am wanting to avoid dragging everything out until I’m more-or-less ready to use it, and I have a lot of planning to do.
but I would assist by contributing some footprints if there was some unified effort out there to build on.