| Author | Messages | |
timlee49
Adelaide, South Australia
Brakeman
Posts:47
Send Message
 | | 07/26/2008 8:15 AM |
| G'day Les,
I saw this thread a day or two after it started. I tried the XtrkCad freeware. After 3 days playing and learning I am impressed.
Granted, it allows only LGB track in G, but I was able to build a good approximation of my intended layout, BUT the biggie is that after you have your layout designed you can create trains to run on the track plan and prove the workability of your design!!
I found 2 bottle necks on my design which meant that I must run shorter trains than I thought. Better to find out now than get frustrated with a completed layout, or I may think a way around them.
A note on the software, if I wished to spend the time, I could make custom track to my specs., but the LGB proved my concept quite well for a tight area.
Thanks Dave (cephius) for the link.
Try it, I like it,
Tim | |
I'm not dead yet. | |
| Al McEvoy
1st Class Member
Brakeman
Posts:46
Send Message
| | 07/26/2008 9:04 AM |
| Bruce - In balance, RR-Track is like any CAD program: one has to include *all* elements of a design if it is to be useful. Specifically, if one has an existing garden and is trying to integrate a garden railroad into that space, the CAD effort - regardless of what software one chooses - must include a survey of the area and then drawing in all the existing plants, structures, and topography before a meaningful railroad design would be possible. That initial effort by itself could be pretty intimidating for many folks; hence the preference to use the garden hose approach. I agree that using CAD is not paramount to getting a good design.
If you are starting with a "blank slate" - i.e., your yard is just grass or dirt to start with, then the CAD has a bit more utility, especially the 3D feature in RR-Track. You can plan / draw in all desired elements of the railroad whether they are railroad items or plants or mountains/rivers/etc.
In RR-Track's 3D viewing module, the design that you develop can be alternatively seen from a more realistic angle (100% adjustable in the program) such that buildings, trees, bridges etc,, and elevations all come to life and are much more meaningful than simply being 2D shapes viewed from overhead. You can even do a "roll-thru" and view the layout from just above the tracks (i.e., an engineer's view) by manipulating the viewing angle controls.
Still, being an experienced CAD user from my work, I am comfortable with and can appreciate these elements. For those who prefer to "get out in the garden"  , there are certainly advantages and appeal with your approach.
Les - since you are using such a mix of gauges and are hand laying the track, I would not recommend you get into CAD unless you are familiar with CAD methods and ready to spend many hours on the computer. If you do want to do some planning on paper, sketching your ideas on some oversized paper would be more useful. Suggest you get some oversized pads of gridded paper from an arts/crafts or office supply shop (for example http://www.vickerey.com/prh508.html).
| | | |
| Les
1st Class Member
Florissant, Missouri
Foreman
Posts:225
Send Message
| | 07/26/2008 1:23 PM |
| Posted By Al McEvoy on 07/26/2008 9:04 AM
Les - since you are using such a mix of gauges and are hand laying the track, I would not recommend you get into CAD unless you are familiar with CAD methods and ready to spend many hours on the computer. If you do want to do some planning on paper, sketching your ideas on some oversized paper would be more useful. Suggest you get some oversized pads of gridded paper from an arts/crafts or office supply shop (for example http://www.vickerey.com/prh508.html).
Al, Thanks for taking time to input. You're entirely correct: I don't have the desire to sit at my computer and design track layouts. A pencil and string will do for me. I'd just hoped there was something simple that would allow sketching within operator preset limits, i.e. no turning a 24" radius in a corner that won't accommodate a 14" one.
Two issues impelled my first question on software: it has been 18 months of setbacks, sidesteps, mishaps etc since I started to accumulate G gauge stuff. I wanted to build a small board, perhaps 4 x 8' just to get a feel for the size of the scale. I won't go into the steep learning curve re scales in G Scale. I wish that term would go away. By the help of several patient individuals, I learned that what I wanted was Fn3 scale. (1:20.3 scale on 45mm track). Well, time passed, frustrations built, I became more aware of what might be possible, but until I get benchwork up I'm dead in the water. I can't even build, the 'model shop' I set aside in part of the laundry room doesn't have lighting or electric to it yet.
The second issue was simple longing to accomplish something. Anything. Where I am attempting to work on scratchbuilding is adjacent to the workshop and things get dusty and cluttered by other things.
So, I thought, why not a commputer program to try some of these notions out? It won't work for me, however.
Lest I sound pitiful, my first S gauge piece in in the mail: a really, really dead AF 302 engine. At least I'll have that to do reality checks with. (I have 0 & G specimens to victimize).
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Les | | | |
| Les
1st Class Member
Florissant, Missouri
Foreman
Posts:225
Send Message
| | 07/26/2008 1:36 PM |
| Tim,
I thank you for your suggestions.
I've concluded that, given my ineptness with computers, I better stay away from CAD and RT Trak.
I'm almost an Oz-o-phile, Australia is the one country I would really like to visit. My friend stayed on a sheep station for his R&R while in Nam. My great-uncle flew YB-6(?) out of there during WW2. The YB is the navy version of the B-24, fitted out for anti-shipping missions. He too had nothing but good to say of the place and the people.
And, you get to drink stronger beer. 
Les | | | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
|