I have been using both XtrakCad and SCARM to plan my small home layout. There are many obvious differences in math calculations for simple items such as an Atlas Code 100 #6 turnout or a Peco Code 100 #6 turnout. The specifications for certain turnouts between the two programs are different. Does anyone know why this is? The geometry is not the same and it should be.
My yard design with SCARM and walthers track didn't work in real life. I assume it's because you get what you pay for.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
wcu boyPeco Code 100 #6 turnout
There is no PECO Code 100 #6 turnout. PECO C100 turnouts are offered in "Small", "Medium", and "Large", each of which has about a 4½ frog with different diverging leg radii. So if any progam offers a template for a PECO Code 100 "#6", it's automatically wrong.
I have noticed discrepancies with some of the freeware CAD programs versus the actual components. This seems to be much less of a problem with the commercial offerings like 3rd PlanIt, CADRail, AnyRail, etc., -- but I have only checked against a small number of actual parts.
The best advice is to print out the templates 1:1 and compare them with actual parts to be sure that the dimensions and angles match.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
wcu boyI have been using both XtrakCad and SCARM to plan my small home layout.
Why would you be using two CAD programs for one layout?
I'm using Walthers code 83. My full size printouts from XtrackCAD have matched on all the ones I've tried.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
After working in SCARM for several months, I switched to XtrkCad, despite XtrkCAD's nonstandard and non-intuitive ways of using the mouse, which still make it frustrating to use on occasion. Part of it is its larger component library, but also, XtrkCAD layouts are exportable to JMRI panels. My current layout of 100% sectional track worked fine in XtrkCAD.
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
cuyamaSo if any progam offers a template for a PECO Code 100 "#6", it's automatically wrong.
SCARM does not offer a PECO code 100 #6 turnout, but the correct small, medium and large turnouts, which follow European practice and therefore have a completely different geometry.
Looks like the OP is comparing apples with pears.
XTrackCAD
The 1:1 print from XTrackCAD for my layout was spot on. Walthers 83 products were used exclusively and they all lined up on the print perfectly. I mean perfect, there was no discrepancy whatsoever.
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
cuyama wcu boy Peco Code 100 #6 turnout There is no PECO Code 100 #6 turnout. PECO C100 turnouts are offered in "Small", "Medium", and "Large", each of which has about a 4½ frog with different diverging leg radii. So if any progam offers a template for a PECO Code 100 "#6", it's automatically wrong. I have noticed discrepancies with some of the freeware CAD programs versus the actual components. This seems to be much less of a problem with the commercial offerings like 3rd PlanIt, CADRail, AnyRail, etc., -- but I have only checked against a small number of actual parts. The best advice is to print out the templates 1:1 and compare them with actual parts to be sure that the dimensions and angles match.
wcu boy Peco Code 100 #6 turnout
Yes, Cuyama, I was in error. Yes, I should have used the terminology of a Peco Code 100 turnout with a medium radius. The reason that I was exploring both SCARM and XTrakCad was because I was interested in both. Mathematically, I noticed differences in calculations for certain track pieces, especially turnouts. I am not a computer programmer; therefore, the differences were strange and did not make sense. This is why I was exploring some rationale for these mathematical differences.
Thank you,fieryturbo for the great response. Your explanation made good sense and was very helpful.
wcu boy Mathematically, I noticed differences in calculations for certain track pieces, especially turnouts. I am not a computer programmer; therefore, the differences were strange and did not make sense. This is why I was exploring some rationale for these mathematical differences.
The answer is not mathematical in the sense of a computation, nor is it a matter of programming skill. Some CAD program developers just don't incorporate the correct dimensions for some of the turnout templates, often likely because they don't have access to the physical parts to make accurate measurements.
Incredible response, cuyama! Thank you so very much. Therefore, would I be better served in developing a layout plan with another computer layout program like the ones you suggested or stick with Xtrakcad. I am looking for accuracy in the layout planning computer software in devising my layout plan.
wcu boyTherefore, would I be better served in developing a layout plan with another computer layout program like the ones you suggested or stick with Xtrakcad. I am looking for accuracy in the layout planning computer software in devising my layout plan.
XTrackCAD may be fine -- it is for many (probably most) components, as others have posted. You may print out the turnouts from XTrackCAD full size (1:1) and compare them with samples of the actual parts to be sure.
Well, that topic is interesting.
SCARM is officially licensesd to Atlas under the name ATPS and can be downloaded for free from Atlas web site here: http://www.atlasrr.com/software.htm
Several months ago, a small error in the HO Code 100 Snap Switches were reported in another model train forum by user of SCARM. After checking, it was confirmed, that the error was due to wrong description in the Atlas' track catalogue. The Atlas-HO-100 library was updated in order to address that issue. However, the #6 turnouts are matched to the specifications of the catalogue and there are no reported problems with them till now. The same is valid for the Peco OO/HO track libraries - all tracks and turnouts are implemented according to the most recent Peco catalogue.
SCARM is 100% mathemathically exact. Otherwise, it will not be able to work at all. Actually, that exactness makes impossimble for many of the original Atlas track plans to be represented in the program without manual adjustments. That is because they were first assebled with real tracks and after that was transferred to paper.
Let me know what do you think is incorrect as math calculations and I will check it. For now I remember only one place that may lead to confusion and it is related with the turnout lengths, reported by the program. I am explaining that here: Correct Understanding of Track Lenghts Shown by SCARM. But that does not affect the geometry or the dimensions of the turnouts.
And here are listed several already build layouts, designed in SCARM:
Already build operational train layouts, designed in SCARM
Some of them with photos:
Marklin HO C-track Layout 205x120
Large Modular N-scale Layout (KATO N Unitrack tracks)
Warren's Layout in HO scale (Atlas HO code 100 tracks)
Hornby Dublo Exhibition Layout (Hornby OO 3-rail tracks)
A Full-Featured Layout Build With Kato N Unitrack Tracks
If the program does not make math calculations correct or if the track libraries inside were wrong, all of these should not be able to be build.
Mixy
Author of SCARM
SCARM - free and easy to use model train layout editor with 3D preview
Free track plans and railroad layout designs >> O gauge - HO scale - N scale
fieryturbo After working in SCARM for several months, I switched to XtrkCad, despite XtrkCAD's nonstandard and non-intuitive ways of using the mouse, which still make it frustrating to use on occasion.
After working in SCARM for several months, I switched to XtrkCad, despite XtrkCAD's nonstandard and non-intuitive ways of using the mouse, which still make it frustrating to use on occasion.
Part of the "non-standard" use of the mouse with XtrkCad is that it was originally developed for the X-window system which had a somewhat different standard for what the mouse buttons did than either MacOS or Windows. X-windows is pretty much still the standard for the various flavors of UNIX, with Linux being the most widely used form.