Railworks America

So I have been building in this simulation,since the original Rail Simulator came out on disk. I mentioned this maybe 8 years ago,and it keeps coming up. Track I laid down years ago no longer is lined up with the satellite imagery. I go back to work on a route,and the track is off 3 or 4 feet. And I hate firing up the editor in any existing payware route,as it makes want to re lay the whole route. Is there some variable or updates that would update/change the geo referencing? GE is so much better than the early days of placing all those tiles. I just wonder if there is any explanation.

Tectonic plate shift perhaps? Three or four feet? Has any other landmark moved?

buzz456 wrote:Tectonic plate shift perhaps? Three or four feet? Has any other landmark moved?

Trainsim can simulate tectonic plates moving but still can't figure out how to properly sim a diesel to third rail power switchover?

My guess is that due to some combination of game updates and Google earth refreshing/updating with new imagery and technology overtime, stuff shifted ever so slightly. If it's only 3 or 4 feet it's probably not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. If something is like a quarter of a mile off. That may be hints of other problems.

I suspect this has more to do with the omnipotent Google than anything to do with TS.

buzz456 wrote:I suspect this has more to do with the omnipotent Google than anything to do with TS.

I suspect you are right. I use Google Earth quite a bit and when I'm connecting on to an existing route I just put a connecting curve to match up. Sometimes a long one if its way out. It also depends just how accurate the original developer has laid track. It can be annoying but easy to compensate.

I have also noticed that different angles sometimes shifts the overlay. For example, Looking straight down makes the track appear in perfect alignment, but then at an angle the track appears off. It's possible that the height of your overlay may affect the accuracy as well.

buzz456 wrote:Tectonic plate shift perhaps? Three or four feet? Has any other landmark moved?

I like you answer the most! I have always been a perfectionist,for better or worse.That is why I have never released anything I have done. My route covers a huge chunk of Ohio,and I do not think any of the quakes from the past 10 years have been significant. But seriously,track I laid years ago if off so much it is annoying. And it is over the whole route. I have redone one yard twice at this point. I thank those who have chimed in.

RAILSOHIO wrote:...That is why I have never released anything I have done. My route covers a huge chunk of Ohio, and I do not think any of the quakes from the past 10 years have been significant. But seriously, track I laid years ago if off so much it is annoying. And it is over the whole route. I have redone one yard twice at this point.

I wouldn't worry about the track positions being off in the route as compared to Google Earth. I'm not from Ohio and would have absolutely no idea of track arrangements in the state. But I would absolutely love a Train Simulator route based on the state that captures the look and feel of Ohio railroading. Just saying...

I'm with Howard on this.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... ates-move/
SO there is more to the plate tectonics factor than I imagined. Google searches revealed almost nothing about discrepancies in GE. (Imagine that) For those that find this topic interesting,check out the above article. For those not interested,the short answer is the whole globe accuracy of GE has been improved.

Hi,

I can entirely relate to tracks ending up even quite some margin besides their "real" location (according to the GE overlay).

It is incredibly easy to go off path when placing straight sections. When it looks like you may be dead on course for the first km or so you may still end up dozens of meters "off target" after some more km have been added. Happens all the time and is not helped by the fact that GE's images have little kinks, "wobbles" or seams in them from time to time.

Also consider that in such cases it's matter of fractions of a degree added or removed from the previous curve whether you hit your "target" before the next curve or not, which would be incredibly fiddly to get right. A better workaround in my opinion is to just accept that you've missed (if it isn't by an extreme margin) and use the next curve to get you back "on track" and adjust the surrounding scenery placement accordingly. I am certain nobody will ever notice this when they play the route, even if they are entirely familiar with the actual real world location.

I hope that makes some sense.

Cheers,
Michael

GreatNortherner wrote:Hi,

I can entirely relate to tracks ending up even quite some margin besides their "real" location (according to the GE overlay).

It is incredibly easy to go off path when placing straight sections. When it looks like you may be dead on course for the first km or so you may still end up dozens of meters "off target" after some more km have been added. Happens all the time and is not helped by the fact that GE's images have little kinks, "wobbles" or seams in them from time to time.

Also consider that in such cases it's matter of fractions of a degree added or removed from the previous curve whether you hit your "target" before the next curve or not, which would be incredibly fiddly to get right. A better workaround in my opinion is to just accept that you've missed (if it isn't by an extreme margin) and use the next curve to get you back "on track" and adjust the surrounding scenery placement accordingly. I am certain nobody will ever notice this when they play the route, even if they are entirely familiar with the actual real world location.

I hope that makes some sense.

Cheers,
Michael

Exactly. If anyone wants to nitpick for a slight deviation let them build their own and then see if they get it right.

I've run into the same issue with GE so my fix was to place all the straight sections first. Then go back and place the curves. I'm not sure why this occurs but I have noticed when I go forward or backward in time is when I see the greatest amount of change. For the project I put together for the Ravenna Arsenal, there was a significant shift from the GE representations in the early 1980's to the current. The track never moved except to be removed completely but the rights-of-way where the track used to exist are still there. These rights-of-ways shift 10 to 15 yards and make you question your work. I just adjusted the terrain to fit the track layout.

Jim.
I am happy to hear others do see what I am talking about. It seems that the accuracy should be improving with technology. Did you ever finish your Arsenal route?Most of the re-alignments I have done are in the 3-5 foot range,track wise.I still wish it was possible to have a slider to display historical images,even though I know they are lower resolution. Joe

RAILSOHIO wrote:Jim.
I am happy to hear others do see what I am talking about. It seems that the accuracy should be improving with technology. Did you ever finish your Arsenal route?Most of the re-alignments I have done are in the 3-5 foot range,track wise.I still wish it was possible to have a slider to display historical images,even though I know they are lower resolution. Joe

I have all the track laid and some of the terrain adjustments. The biggest issue is finding 3d models for the industrial structures. Right now I'm using bits and pieces for some of them but they don't really fit the period. I've done a couple of the smaller structures with my limited 3d modeling abilities and hope to try some of the larger ones soon. I've also finished the track for the Buckeye Yard in Columbus but it still has a long way to go before I even consider the structures and stuff for it. I'm plotting out the area around Rickenbacker and once it's done I'll do the connecting track between the two.

Jim