Joined: 30/08/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,288
|
I planned the first stage of my layout using Scarm. However, when building this with C tracks in 1:1 (well, 1:87 then), the geometry of the tracks actually differ from the drawing in two areas: (1) Some curves in the upper left area, where a 24071 had to be extended to 24077, and a 24064 extended to 24071. (2) The inner curve in the upper right area, where a different configuration of straight tracks was required. Well, I can live with this difference, but I must admit it is a little annoying.  Has anyone else experienced this? Is there another software package that would be more accurate? I used a very small tolerance in Scarm, I think it was 1 mm. I've been thinking of testing Wintrack, as it seems to have features for documenting wiring etc. This could maybe be a reason to do this because it would be nice to have the layout documented properly (e.g in order to understand the digital spaghetti I implement  )  Peter  |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 22/01/2015(UTC) Posts: 207 Location: lower hudson valley, ny
|
I did a fairly larger layout, an oval with three circuits and a large storage yard with a turntable using SCARM, I had one or two problems but they were most likely my fault. Otherwise SCARM is a pretty good program and since it's free, the best deal in town! I have used the program for layout changes with no problems.
|
 2 users liked this useful post by nitramretep
|
|
|
Joined: 30/08/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,288
|
I installed the demo of WinTrack and it recommended the same configuration as Scarm in the below area. In "real life", I had to exchange the 24071 track in the red circle, with a 24077 track... Well I can live with this  Btw, I will stay with Scarm. Actually, the user interface for adding tracks is smoother with Scarm, IMHO. Also, saving EUR 99.50 which immediately disappeared for something else on eBay.de! |
|
 5 users liked this useful post by PeFu
|
|
|
Joined: 12/12/2005(UTC) Posts: 2,448 Location: Wellington, New_Zealand
|
Originally Posted by: PeFu  No software/computer can work without a dose of human and real world sanity checking. But what I can not get over is the convoluted piecing together of small bits that, aside from costing more, does not look too elegant. May I suggest that , regardless of whether you use a protractor/compass or a bit of software, you work with a library of standard building blocks that have already been shown to offer parallelism and alignment with the correct spacing  the curves shown are R1/R2 but because they are a building block, they may be replaced with a R2/R3 pair |
Peter
|
 2 users liked this useful post by clapcott
|
|
|
Joined: 30/08/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,288
|
Originally Posted by: clapcott  But what I can not get over is the convoluted piecing together of small bits that, aside from costing more, does not look too elegant.
I totally agree, it's not that elegant. The only reason for this is the available space for the hidden station. I want each block to consist of 5 pieces of 24360. The rightmost and leftmost tracks are contact tracks. To be able to expand from a single track to 6 parallell tracks with (1) 77.5 mm distance between (as I have the 24624 DKW (crossing) line-up on the right side and (2) excluding 24130 R1 curves, this was the only solution I came up with  The only thing that really disturbs me having some parts that differ on the Scarm drawing and in "real life", is that I can't use the Scarm bulit-in track inventory anymore, as I have to stick with good old Excel again...!  |
|
 1 user liked this useful post by PeFu
|
|
|
Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC) Posts: 2,319 Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
|
Originally Posted by: PeFu  I installed the demo of WinTrack and it recommended the same configuration as Scarm in the below area. In "real life", I had to exchange the 24071 track in the red circle, with a 24077 track...  I'm really puzzled that the software produced parts list doesn't work (and thats from 2 software solutions). That leads me to conclude either the way the parts are being physically installed differs from what the computer programs expect or there is some common data on the geometry of the various pieces that both software solution use, that does match the actual physical dimensions of the parts you're using. Very puzzling. |
|
 1 user liked this useful post by Minok
|
|
|
Joined: 30/08/2002(UTC) Posts: 1,288
|
Originally Posted by: Minok  I'm really puzzled that the software produced parts list doesn't work (and thats from 2 software solutions). That leads me to conclude either the way the parts are being physically installed differs from what the computer programs expect
That's what I think too, as it is e.g. difficult to make sure that the "total curve" is 90 degrees. However, looking at the drawing in post #5, it was the mentioned 24071 I had to extend to a 24077 AND the 24064 (which is approx. 20 cm left from the 24071) I had to extend to a 24071. The track in between was OK. That's puzzling me |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 30/08/2016(UTC) Posts: 5 Location: Tel Mond
|
Originally Posted by: PeFu  I planned the first stage of my layout using Scarm. However, when building this with C tracks in 1:1 (well, 1:87 then), the geometry of the tracks actually differ from the drawing in two areas: (1) Some curves in the upper left area, where a 24071 had to be extended to 24077, and a 24064 extended to 24071. (2) The inner curve in the upper right area, where a different configuration of straight tracks was required. Well, I can live with this difference, but I must admit it is a little annoying.  Has anyone else experienced this? Is there another software package that would be more accurate? I used a very small tolerance in Scarm, I think it was 1 mm. I've been thinking of testing Wintrack, as it seems to have features for documenting wiring etc. This could maybe be a reason to do this because it would be nice to have the layout documented properly (e.g in order to understand the digital spaghetti I implement  )  Peter  Hi Peter ! If you are still looking for Good track planing - you can try the opensource QCad software (2D CAD Software). From my experience this is one of the best and accurate track planing software (Cad base), well documented - I use it for planing my layout (after trying Scarm). after download & install Qcad , and The special add-on QCTRACK (very simple to install), you will be amazing how great things you can do with this software related to your layout. Good Luck ! Itzik QCAD Software : Qcad Software QCTRACK Add-on with help : QCTRACK Add-on
|
|
|
|
Joined: 19/12/2003(UTC) Posts: 1,205 Location: Swindon, Wiltshire
|
I use Anyrail for my K-track layout. I find it generally quite accurate.
The good thing with K-track is that if you have funny gaps, you can always use a bit of flex track on the planning software, and then adjust to reality (i.e. your actual layout) when it comes to putting down the track.
But let's be honest - there will be always be some small differences when it comes to reproducing the track plan 1:1. To start with, I doubt I'm able to align tracks 100% accurately, make an exact 90 / 180 turn, etc. So I use my plan as a guide only and adjust as and when necessary. Thankfully, I found a box full of short straights and curves that helps! |
Richard |
|
|
|
Joined: 23/08/2017(UTC) Posts: 5 Location: Jakarta
|
|
One Of Indonesian MARKLINIST M&C-Track/MS1-Analog Controller/Diesel Engine Lovers, Multi Era-Multi Country
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.