Virtual Modeling...

[kelticsylk]

Is there any way we can see more articles, info , or pictures of what's happening in "V-Scale".

There are a bunch of model rails who don't have the money or space for a real layout and Virtual Model Railroading is a great alternative.

Perhaps we train-simmers should make ourselves more visible to the general model railroading community?

[SpaceMouse]

I just recently read an article in MR about combining model railroading with VR. In the articles when a train goes off the layout you can monitor it via VR and follow it as it is off making it's run (idling on a hidden siding) and you see the cars and engine just as if it were on the track. When the time is right it reemerges and you make your pick-up delivery, etc.

I don't remember which mag it was thought. I got given about 20 last week.

[cwclark]

I think you ought to put down the computer and the video stuff and give "reality" modeling a try...Start with some track, a power pack, and an Athearn locomotive...it's not that expensive if you buy it one piece at a time...if i want to see virtual modeling, i'll just drive down to the Englewood yard and watch the switching action...chuck

[kelticsylk]

"Been there, done that", as the saying goes. Built a few layouts over the years from 4x8 to around the wall to dioramas. Even the small ones got a tad expensive. I currently have a Sn42 module gathering dust.

I prefer the simulator. I can model any prototype I want at little cost. There is no such thing as selective compression for the trains or the scenery they run in.

It does have some disadvantages, but I think the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

[leighant]

I plan to build this layout someday in N scale. Meanwhile, I built it in Video Toaster Lightwave 3D. I built my own layout, structures, and rolling stock. Some of the textures are two-dimensional images captured from N-scale models and kits, mapped onto surfaces of virtual 3-D shapes modeled mathematically. Could you call this “scratch-simulation” ?



Karankawa causeway -island end with pleasure pier
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abz.jpg

“Bay Point” -mainland end of Karankawa causeway with bait shack and old 1900 "seabreeze" open balcony wood-frame hotel (3 ModelPower "grandma's house" kits
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aby.jpg

Karankawa causeway -full length w passenger train
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abx.jpg

Estuary scene with "stilt house" subdivision just inland from Bay Point-- on turnback curve
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/acb.jpg

Night scenes of Karankawa passenger terminal
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abt.jpg
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abu.jpg
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abv.jpg
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abw.jpg

I made an animated video of the Santa Fe Texas Chief crossing the causeway as viewed from a moving helicopter, with the lift bridge raising just after passage of the train. The program I used was a “cheap and simple” version of the program used to create the ship in Titanic. My entire model only had around 25,000 points plotted. Their ship model was about 1 million points. But I had fun. Did this nights, weekends and lunch hours while working at a TV station. Equipment no longer available and I don’t have the $$$ to upgrade my home computer at the moment. Maybe I will just go ahead and start on the layout!

[IRONROOSTER]

Not to rain on your parade, but none of the model railroad SIMs I've used have been comparable to the real thing. Not to say that some haven't been fun, but they are not the same thing.

Sounds to me like you are interested in model trains, but not model building. Which is okay, this is a hobby where you're supposed to have fun. You'll probably find more like minded souls if you can find a fan page or two for the particular software you're using.

I have no desire to see MR or any other model railroading magazine divert precious article space to computer simulation software - I get computer magazines for that.

Enjoy
Paul

[kelticsylk]

It's not really about computers. I'm nowhere close to the typical computer "geek". I use the machine as a tool, just like the power saws I use for woodwork. It's more about model railroading. Just a different aspect.

I used to build pretty decent scale models when I was younger. I still build models. I just don't use metal, plastic or wood. I can also add light, sound, and smoke without spending a fortune. The software used (Train Sim Modeler) is more like a drafting program than anything else. It's not at all like writing software "code". I don't expect any magazine to publish pages of uninteresting code.

One of the projects I just recently finished was a set of Baldwin "Centipedes".

I created two versions for the Pennsylvania, three from Seaboard, one from NdeM, and even a freelance Baldwin demonstrator. These same models would have cost hundreds (maybe thousands) if I had purchased them in brass. Nobody has released them in plastic. I have an entire stable of them for next to nothing.

I've also done some heavy electrics...



There are thousands of other models by other modelers, all part of the hobby of model railroading, but not quite accepted by the rest of the community...We're get patted on the back and asked "How's that workin' out for you" (kind off like modeling in Sn42) [:)]

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER


I have no desire to see MR or any other model railroading magazine divert precious article space to computer simulation software - I get computer magazines for that.

Paul

Kelticsylk, I tend to think this is the general feeling on the subject held by most actual layout-building model railroaders. MR ran a VR layout article a couple of years ago and there were many complaints from readers. MR's page count has dwindled too far in recent years for readers to accept the diversion of pages to non real world subject matter. Even some articles regarding Large Scale in the pages of MR have brought grumbles from HO readers who felt even this was too off-topic!

CNJ831

[randybc2003]

Q: Is creating a VL in a computer, and operating it like a (modern) CTC Dispatcher MR'ing? I rember several articles where elaborage "machines" were built (Cat Mtn. & SF comes to mind), & Bruce Chub has discussed Computer/Model RR Interface. I know there are programs out there that mimic/monitor operations, and the modern Dispatcher's pannel.

I rember many years ago a fellow had developed a magnetic board w/ "trains", and he used dice to advance the markers. The editors of MR discussed this, and the conclusion was sthat it WAS a M.R., following the definations and descriptions.

Hmmm?

[Pruitt]

For those who want to run computer simulations - have at!

But in my opinion, that's just a high-tech way of armchair modeling, and I'd hate to see any of the modeling magazines spend more space on it than they already have.

No offense meant - just my opinion!

[kelticsylk]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

For those who want to run computer simulations - have at!

But in my opinion, that's just a high-tech way of armchair modeling, and I'd hate to see any of the modeling magazines spend more space on it than they already have.

No offense meant - just my opinion!

No offense taken. In fact you made me laugh, cause I was just thinking about the "armchair modeler" myself. I suppose you're right to a degree. It may be considered a very sophisticated form of armchair participation...

BUT...

Not sure other simmers would agree. They tend to get passionate about their version of model railroading. You should see the fights over detail and realism. They are every bit as serious as anyone else.

It does take quite a deal of effort to create a 3-D digital model. Several months of spare time are required for all of my locomotives. Some modelers have spent a year or more on detailed steamers. Routes can take several years to complete. Granted, much of that is spent in a chair in front of a computer, but it's a lot more effort than just daydreaming about that ideal layout.

Not everyone can build models, of course. It takes a while to learn 3-D modeling. But that is true of moding in general. The more experience you get, the better your models are.

It does take as much work as a real model. There is a great deal of research before the actual construction. After the "physical" form of the digital model is complete it needs to be painted and detailed. Then you have to test to make sure it runs correctly and true to prototype (including brakes, weight, cylinder size, tractive force, and a host of other criteria) . The lights have to be created and placed (including any working Mars lights, ditch lights, etc). Sounds need to be created for all the various noises that a train makes. Smoke effects have to be added. There are also animations such as wipers, pantographs, or running gear that need to be included. All of this has to be tested in the simulation to make sure everything works together.

Once it is complete, you get the satisfaction of "actually" sitting in the cab of the locomotive you've created and operating it over a route that is constructed to duplicate the grades and other challenges of a real railroad. About the only thing missing when descending a long grade is the smell of burning brake. One of the models I have in development right now is a Milwaukee EP-3 electric. I test it on a digital version of the Milwaukee Road's "Rocky Mountain" division created by another simmer named Jerry Sullivan.

Since Jerry did his best to replicate the RMD digitally, my locomotive must be able to handle the same physical forces confronting a real EP-3 (including wet rails and other weather related problems)

To top it off, anyone can then share their creation with anyone else who wants one. Where else will some one give you a perfectly good UP "9000" for nothing?

I think a sim (at least Microsoft Train Simulator) can be just as intense (more in some ways) as "real" model railroading. I believe it is a viable alternative to folks with financial or physical obstacles to building a real layout, and that it's inclusion into model railroading in general should be encouraged. I also think it draws the younger generation to the hobby. Being more computer "centric" than thier forebears, it may be the only exposure they get. It's also a positive alternative to all those "kill everything that moves" video games.

[METRO]

You know I really do think it has a place in the hobby, bringing in new people, building that massive four track mainline NYC to Chicago layout while still living in a studio appartment, but I don't think it's going to replace physical modeling for many people, myself included.

There's nothing that will really replace the pride of physically putting together a model or detailing a locomotive with many small and fragile detal parts, it's just not something you can do on a computer, no matter how big the screen and how nice the speakers. I also would feel lacking as I couldn't reach out and touch the new DL109 I'd just spent months on in a sim.

I do believe that computers have a place in physical modeling though, research is cake easy now, and I can test out any paint scheme thanks to sites that offer blueprint quality drawings of most every locomotive ready to bring into Adobe Photoshop or even MS-Paint. I've actually had an offer from a friend of mine who's a comp-sci major to work with me on building a CTC machine and complex operating program using an old Mac Quadra (G2) The program would control all of my switches, a signal sysem and even possibly automatically operate several of the trains allowing a single operator to act as a dispatcher for the line with real physical model trains running at your click command, how cool is that.

Automotive videogames like Gran Turismo, have not stopped people from modifying and racing cars in real life, in fact amateur racing clubs are booming. The same will hopefully be true with Model Railroading, games like MS-Trains will not replace modeling, but it could get a large new population into the hobby.

~METRO

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kelticsylk
[br
I suppose you're right to a degree. It may be considered a very sophisticated form of armchair participation...

BUT...

Not sure other simmers would agree. ... They are every bit as serious as anyone else.

It does take quite a deal of effort to create a 3-D digital model. ... Granted, much of that is spent in a chair in front of a computer, but it's a lot more effort than just daydreaming about that ideal layout.

It does take as much work as a real model. ...

I think a sim (at least Microsoft Train Simulator) can be just as intense (more in some ways) as "real" model railroading. ...

Note that I said "run computer simulations," not "design computer simulations."

I didn't differentiate, and I should have. I have a lot of respect for the folks that build all these routes, locos and cars for the sims. I don't have the patience for it. I also have no antipathy towards those who don't "build" their sim layouts, but simply run others' designs. If that's where their interest lies, no one has any right to try to "call" them on it.

I tried Train Sim when it first came out, and the routes were so full of bugs I gave up in disgust. I couldn't get a train over Marias Pass because it kept uncoupling, no matter what I did. Have the bugs been fixed?

[kelticsylk]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton
[I tried Train Sim when it first came out, and the routes were so full of bugs I gave up in disgust. I couldn't get a train over Marias Pass because it kept uncoupling, no matter what I did. Have the bugs been fixed?

To some extent yes. Microsoft released an update that fixed some of the coupler issues. Users fixed a lot of the others. In fact Marias Pass has been completely redone as freeware with more accurate grades and curves. It's up to version 3 (I think). There are also spinoffs with continuations of the route. The NEC route is the same way. I think that's up to version 4.

There are also dozens of other freeware and payware routes available now. If you check out www.train-sim.com you'll find most of the freeware. A lot of good payware links can be found at www.3dtrains.com under the "commercial add-on community" forum.

There are really too many goodies available to list....and a lot of the stuff is unbelievable. You'd have to go see for yourself. Things have changed quite a bit. There is even a new, better, simulator being developed that's supposed to be compatible with all the existing add-ons. Info on that is available at www.raildriver.com

[gvdobler]

METRO

If you build a CTC for computers, please don't do it on a Mac format. I know Macs are better but so was Beta Max. You may end up with something you can sell.

Good Luck - Let us know if you develop one.

Jon - Las Vegas

[robengland]

The question of whether MRsim is model railroading is just semantics. the real question si whether it appeals to the same audience, or more precisely how much overlap there is between the two audiences. I think the feedback is pretty clear: not much. ie is this forum a good place to discuss MRsim? I don't think so.

personally I find it fascinating. I just think most of the people who hang around this forum like tinkering with stuff. real stuff.

cheers
Rob

[Anonymous]

I recently got Trainz 2004. Its lots of fun and there are thousands of things to download and run. Im getting frustrated though because I have been building my layout on the computer and neglecting the real thing. You get things done alot faster in the game, but it just doesnt compare to a real layout when its all said and done.

[woodbrdge]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JPM335

I recently got Trainz 2004. Its lots of fun and there are thousands of things to download and run. Im getting frustrated though because I have been building my layout on the computer and neglecting the real thing. You get things done alot faster in the game, but it just doesnt compare to a real layout when its all said and done.

I believe the future of model railroading lies in including train simulation as another medium in which to model trains. Real or virtual, if you think about it a model railroad is simply a simulation of the real thing. One aspect of it involves creating real model objects at a scale that will fit in a home or in a building. The virtual aspect allows the modeler to model in real scale and run trains in real time regardless of space.

I used to sell Trainz at the Great American Train shows. I would demonstrate this great simulator to hundreds of curious by standers. You would be amazed at how fast this product would sell at these shows. It was almost like I was handing them out for free. So there is an interest in this aspect of model railroading, and most of it seems to fall on the younger generation. The older generation seems stuck in their ways and will only consider the reality of physical modeling.

Is shooing the younger generation away because they choose to virtually model trains in the best interests of keeping this hobby alive?

I admire a well built layout or train model. However, don’t discount my end of the hobby, and act as if I am not a “true” model railroader because I don’t have a physical layout. I grew up with model trains, and I applaud the software companies who have finally come forward to produce a virtual version of this fascinating hobby.

I am still a model railroader; my scale is virtual real scale. After all, can you say that you have a real railroad in your basement? I have built the Sandy River and Rangeley Lakes railroad in Trainz. I have recreated the entire mainline using the real terrain from the area (DEM based). You can download it from the Trainz DLS for free.

I spend countless hours running trains on my railroad as realistically as I possibly can—just like I did on my model layout when I was younger. Many of the skills I learned as a model railroader have helped me to build and run very realistic virtual railroads.

Train simulation is not going away; it is in its infancy. As the software improves I truly believe it will become the future of this hobby. Will the models disappear? I hope not. There is still nothing more satisfying than appreciating something that someone spent time creating. And, that is true regardless of whether it is real or virtual. And, someday in the future I hope to be able to build another model railroad. There’s room for both modelers in this hobby. Some of us just choose to model trains virtually.

--woodbrdge

[StillGrande]

I like messing around with MSTS because I can see the elements of how industries, yards and branch lines are laid out. I can look around, wander back and forth through yards (with and without trains present) and see how the big guys did it.

I can pull ideas for how to do industrial sections of my home layout. I can switch locations and see if modeling it at home might be worth it. It is also fascinating to explore the non-prototype routes and see what works and what doesn't (one is even based on a layout design from MR, and it is fun to me because you can run it like you would a model layout. Elements are close enough together to make switching and running interesting - plus other traffic).

My wife likes it because, other than disk space, it does not take up room in the house (I have a 25' X 36' garage for the "real" model layout).

I have also enjoyed using the CAD system for model railroad design to test different items for the garage. Still can play.

The virtual stuff makes me want to get trains running in the garage more rather than less.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kelticsylk

It's not really about computers. I'm nowhere close to the typical computer "geek". I use the machine as a tool, just like the power saws I use for woodwork. It's more about model railroading. Just a different aspect.

I've used 3DS MAX to design track templates for my Marklin C track system. Initially I was going to purchase some package like RR or even Marklins expensive program, but having spent over 8 years modelling with 3DS I thought "what the heck I'll design my own". It's proved very useful, CAD accuracy means being able to dream, design and do it over and over before building the real thing. The TRS2004 (Trainz) game has its own whole community of enthusiasts(and forums?) being able to drive a train through the rain with lightning cracking and booming around you is great fun. The BVE simulator freely available to download with its similar community of folks making their contributions is worth checking out as well. I still have to agree with the general view (it seems) here that, there just is no substitute for a real layout, even just a simple one. The fact that I have to work with them (computers) in my job probably has something to do with my bias towards real layouts, much as I enjoy drawing and designing.

[dinwitty]

I've done a lot of online gaming and what dissapoints me about the Trainsims is the ability to "Multi-Train", baing able to online run other trains with other online "engineers"

You just cannont model a full prototype mainline run in model form, eons of space and room, but thats possible in the trainsims.

I am planning out my layout now in a software and it is quicker to find out problems there than just building it.
But I find a lot of condensation is necessary.

Doing a media mix of live and trainsim is a little more complicated, I wouldnt do it.
I think you just have to make the TrainSim another way to enjoy the hobby.
Perhaps Model makers see it as competition to the real hobby, but its a compliment.

[Anonymous]

Im desining my future & dream layouts on Maya 6.5 & lightwave 8.0. Believe me 3-d
computer modeling animation & rendering isn't easy but its fun.

Ps there's a reason Maya is $8000(Im going to do a carrer in CG), whereas lightwave
is only $700.

[Anonymous]

My sp daylight (Modeled on Maya by myself) has over 100,000 vertices on it.