Superelevation Not Woking

[Importz2k1]

What the heck is going on, I ceck the superelevation box for san bars main track, create a turn, put a train on it, play and the train is level, so is the track, what the heck? (yes, even with easements on)

I haven't used san bars, I'm using the HSC track. The way I got superelevation to work was lay your track using easements, don't click the superelevation box just yet. When you are finished laying the track, use your select tool to highlight the section of track you want elevated and then check the superelevation box.

[barnez]

The way I got superelevation to work was lay your track using easements, don't click the superelevation box just yet. When you are finished laying the track, use your select tool to highlight the section of track you want elevated and then check the superelevation box.

Yes, this is what has worked best for me also - the SE box appears to have no effect when laying new track.

Fiddling around with track values, I'm having a tough time getting smooth transitions using easements. Even if an entire section is laid from point A to point B with easements checked (or just the curves), the lead-in to the curve is always an abrupt one. Lead-outs are easier to set up, but if not careful, these too can be a bit bumpy through the exit transition (for me anyway). FWIW, I'm using a Max cant angle degrees of 6, a Curve to angle percent of 20, and a Line unevenness value of 2. The lurch from straight to curve happens even on radii as large as 2500m, but my regular curves (no easements or SE) allow the train to track smoothly, even on radii as small as 450m @ 40mph.

I'm stumped.

I'm confused by this also - if I have a chance today I'll poke around in the editor to see if I can replicate your situation. I've seen a few people posting shots of abrupt transitions like you mention, but I've not noticed any pop up myself.

-barnez

[barnez]

Marc -

is this the effect you are seeing?

kink.jpg

If yes - so far I only get this effect on track that has no easements. If no - I'm curious what you are seeing

-barnez

[SMMDigital]

I just installed the first super-elevated curve on the AND, and it was a major pain in the rear. If your tracks are already lain, using easements and matching the curve up with the exiting tracks is virtually impossible. I will probably end up relaying all the tracks from there to the next curve that is not canted.

I must say that it was a lot of work for very little visual result. I may change the track-rules to lean a little farther over.

[barnez]

I just installed the first super-elevated curve on the AND, and it was a major pain in the rear. If your tracks are already lain, using easements and matching the curve up with the exiting tracks is virtually impossible. I will probably end up relaying all the tracks from there to the next curve that is not canted.

I must say that it was a lot of work for very little visual result. I may change the track-rules to lean a little farther over.

Jerry -

I've been working with easements quite a bit for the past few months - there is a way to get everything to match without too much pain ... I'm working on getting everything into a tutorial form, but yes, in general, replacing pre-existing track with easements is a major PITA!!!

-barnez

[Bananarama]

Thanks Joe, but there isn't any visual anomaly that I can see - the train simply lurches as it enters or exits a curve. This is both with SE set through the straight, transition and the curve, as well as on just the curve itself. I also tried creating an easement in RS and then transferring the track files over to RW3, but this made no difference in the outcome.

[barnez]

Thanks Joe, but there isn't any visual anomaly that I can see - the train simply lurches as it enters or exits a curve. This is both with SE set through the straight, transition and the curve, as well as on just the curve itself. I also tried creating an easement in RS and then transferring the track files over to RW3, but this made no difference in the outcome.

Ah - now I see ... I think. I played around a bit on a SE test run on my route specifically with a curve that is 1d 4' (about 1550M Radius) so - pretty wide. I saw the same thing I think you are referring to - and wondered if it might be related to cabsway (or perhaps a buried inertia algorithm attached to the in-cab-view camera?) My track is set at 20 for RQ (as is HSC) and the speed for this curve is 70mph for passenger equipment - so I was taking it a good clip. Setting cabsway to 5 the lurch improved. At 50 oddly enough it was nearly invisible, and at 80 I just about got knocked off the tracks. I'm thinking about pulling the RQ entry from the trackrule and see what happens then.

-barnez

[SMMDigital]

@Hack - Are you planning to modify and distribute the default ScaleRail trackrule? That is the one i'm using, with the code from the HSC route inserted. Superelevation is working with the rule, i'm just not sure if the default RSC values are worth the pain of the undertaking. It looks good on the Horseshoe because that is a pretty tight radius, but on more modern tracks where the route engineers tried to smooth things out a bit, it's not so noticeable.

[barnez]

Ok - just ran a test where I ripped RideQuality out of the trackrule. Most interesting. As I had played around manually setting the RQ value in the afore mentioned curve, the value (80) remained tied to the track, the rest of the route defaulted to 0.

With a RQ of 0 there was barely any lurch noticed entering a curve - certainly no more than I'd expect on a real line. The biggest thing I saw was that gradient points are going to be a huge issue now - going from straight track to a .3% grade introduced a major lurch to the ride even at 0 RQ.

and yes, that section that was set at 80 ... ride 'em cowboy!!

I think the lurch might be noticeable headed into an SE curve because RSC coded SE to raise the outer track and dip the inner track, whereas in real track to my knowledge, only the inner track is dipped (corrections welcome if I'm wrong on this point)

I'm also still thinking that RQ is tied somehow to the inertia value of the in-cab-camera

@Jerry - the biggest challenge before us route builders with SE is that RSC coded it to be tied to the tightness of the curve rather than to linespeed. As you say, things look pretty nice in the HSC - along the Curve itself the radius is what 300M? Porting the same values into a route with much wider curves (there is one curve on my route not in a yard that is tighter than 3degrees) the cant is much less noticeable to the eye, but the way that cabsway is coded you definitely know about it!

-barnez

[Bananarama]

I think I'll release a beta of the TrackRule with the following settings:

Max cant angle: 6
Curve to angle percent: 10
Line uneveness: 5

[pschlik]

Ugh, to tell you this was stupid, I know that the def. tracks don't support superelevation, I got the horseshue curve and it works fine, I also found out that any locomotive, even from back when rw3 was simply rw, will still support superelevation.