220hotwheels

Hi Tom Apologies for bothering you again, if I become a nuisance then please let me know. I would appreciate you taking a look at my efforts with both train and barrier control and pointing out the error of my ways, in particular with the crossing barrier control which I have really struggled to come to term with. The only way that I have been able to get the vehicles to start again once stopped is by introducing a time delay. This isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination because if two trains trip the barrier at the same time then my vehicle simply ignores the barrier instruction and ends up going through the trains. I've tried so many variations, clearly not the right ones, to try to achieve perfection but have now hit the proverbial brick wall and need further guidance. Kindest regards Pete Lockington Main.mbp

Hi Tom Oops. Just goes to show how much I need to learn. I think the phrase that springs to mind is, 'I wondered what that section did'. In my ignorance I simply thought that it allowed the choice of either route 'O', route 1 or route 2, not that it had any bearing on the makeup of each road section. Now that I know I can add further revision work to my schedule. As they say a day without learning is a day lost. With 3D Train Studio there are certainly no days lost!! I will also look at the use of the virtual road. Now that you have pointed this out it makes perfect sense. This particular phrase seems to be a normal one for me now but it is so appropriate. "Many thanks once again". Cheers Pete

Hi Tom I have followed your advice to simplify both rail and road tracks and get rid of flexibend elements as you know in the Fairmont layout. Whilst I have not finished this yet I have noticed that no vehicle seems to want to run on any road that has been altered in this way. I came across this phenomena whilst playing around with my demo track, Lockington, in trying to sort out how to stop a vehicle at a crossing only when the barrier is down. I'm not quite there yet but getting closer. I have therefore had to use flexibend roads to solve this problem on that particular layout. Clearly there is no doubt something that I am overlooking but so far I cannot figure out what it is. On the demo layout I have now got 8 trains running on four different tracks with 8 different crossing barriers and a control mechanism in place to ensure none run into one another. Still a bit of fine tuning to undertake but I'm getting there. After that I plan to introduce alternative tracks to feed into others so that I can try to get to grips with different timings. Without your guidance I would still be floundering in the "dark ages", so to speak so once again many thanks for all your guidance. Cheers Pete

Thanks Tom. More ideas to play about with. This is definitely my best way to learn, in at the deep but with the help of an expert to keep me on the straight and narrow. Many thanks once again Cheers Pete

Hi Tom Your advice, as always, is invaluable. It's taken me a while to digest it all but it does make a lot of sense. In trying to get both sets of points working properly in line with your setting in the Fairmont layout it was necessary to take some of my efforts back to basics and yes by doing so I realised where I had gone wrong initially and duplicated the operation between barriers 1 and 2. I've now got both barriers working properly as each train on their respective tracks approach and leave so progress has been made. So that I am sure I have the process right I will now look to set up a similar situation on the opposite side of the oval with a different station and set of crossings. Fingers crossed that I don't foul up again but as the saying goes, 'practice makes perfect' Thanks again Tom. My folder with all of your advice grows weekly. By the time I become proficient at this hobby I will be able to write a book with all of your advice. Royalties to be shared 50/50 !!! Cheers Pete

Hi Timba Many thanks for that. I had assumed that as I had set the "Trains Crossing" variable to > than 0 then selecting + 1 and - 1 for the actual operation would work fine but having selected = to 1 and = to 0 in each of the variables for open and close barriers respectively they do now close and open so many thanks for that. Very much appreciated. Kind regards Pete

Hi Tom As you suggested I have set up a demo layout Lockington. Size wise I appreciate that it is quite large again but my intention initially is to set up three stations along the outer track so that I can experiment with multi trains, barriers, speeds etc. Once I have got to grips with that I can then move on by setting up an inner two tracks to learn about points, crossings etc. At least that's the plan. I thought all was going well following your examples and whilst the two trains seem to run reasonably I cannot for the life of me get the crossings to operate unless I place an instruction line in the EM for each track, which is not how you have sorted it's operation in Fairmont. I have compared your instructions and mine over and over and cannot see just where I am going wrong. Could I therefore trouble you once more to point out the errors of my ways please. Cheers Pete Lockington demo.mbp

Hi Tom Thanks for that. It should eliminate my error from before and stop my poor firemen from over exercising!! Cheers Pete

Hi Tom I believe I might have covered part of the above in an earlier reply but I too am using Windows 10 professional on both of my machines. Both have Intel i7 processors, the laptop one is less than a year old with 16Gb Ram and the desktop is only 4 months old running 48GB Ram so I don't find it too slow to load Fairmont. The laptop takes around 45 seconds and the desktop about 30 seconds. Where I have to be careful is when I am moving quickly around the layout to make sure that I don't catch something that I shouldn't. Cheers Pete

Hi Guys I've had some more time to go through your earlier advice together with the work that Tom has done for me in setting me on the right path. It is now so clear that my approach has been more than just a little off the mark. Having taken your advice Andy and looked at the list of items used I was staggered by the amount of repetition. That said when I start to trim I will need to be careful not to diminish the overall effect that I had always wanted to create, When all is said and done elements such as trees provide an extremely important dimension in trying for near realism. In the same way telegraph poles, street lights etc have all yet to be added. I've just read your recent advice Goetz and have no imminent intentions to complicate matters by introducing these into the demo layout EM at present. Rest assured that I plan to keep it all very simple and get to grips with the basics as you outlined in your example. Hi Tom. I've also had the time to take a closer look at your revised EM for tracks 3 & 4, they are brilliant and show me just how wrong my approach has been. I will follow your advice to keep Fairmont principally for the landscaping aspect for now which will encapsulate a thinning of certain elements as well as additional work on the remaining tracks and roads. My demo layout, currently two ovals providing two parallel tracks is called Lockington. When I am happy that I have got to grips with all of the advice given I will send it to you for further comment if that is OK with you. Cheers Pete

Hi Guys I hope you can all pick up this reply rather than me thanking each of you separately. I have briefly read through each of your suggestions and will print them off for future reference. What you advise makes absolute sense. All I have to do now is get my head round it all over the next few weeks. I have already set up a test layout and will add some extra details such as crossings etc so that I can fully get to grips with the various aspects of EM. I also take your point Andy about reducing the polygon aspect. I didn't really consider this much before trying simply to achieve a realistic looking layout from the aesthetics point of view. Over time I will trim things down. Tom has already given me invaluable guidance on that front the result of which has reduced the overall file size down from around 3GB to 2.7, 2.8GB and I still have quite a lot of track and roads to streamline so am hopeful that I will get back to 2.6GB in the future. So Tom, Goetz and Andy I cannot thank you enough for your guidance. With luck in another years time I might just have a fully working layout. Cheers Pete

Many thanks for that Tom. I had obviously noticed said crossings problem and knew that it need to be addressed at some point as indeed have numerous other elements but I was working on the principal of "all in good time" as my knowledge and understanding grew. That at least is my excuse!! Cheers Pete

Hi Andy Glad you like the layout. As you can see from some of the other posts the general advice is pretty much the same so I plan to finally follow said advice and set up a simple test layout to play around with EM. Cheers Pete

Hi Tom It would seem that everyone has pretty much the same advice. Lose the Fairmont layout for now and set up a simple track layout for the purpose of getting to grips with EM. This I will now do. The biggest challenge in getting to grips with this problem, for me anyway, is understanding how things work. It's easy to work through the various screens and select different elements to see what they do but without fully understanding some of the more basic principals of the loco management operation you just keep fumbling in the dark so to speak. I have gone through the online manual many times and this just gets me more confused. Perhaps it's the translation that does not help which is why I opted for the "jump in with two feet" approach. Anyway your advice to date has been invaluable so many thanks for that. Cheers Pete

Hi Goetz Many thanks for your advice. As you have noticed your not the first person to advise me to set up a test track so point taken I'll put aside the Fairmont layout for now and see how I get on with a simple oval. They say that ignorance is bliss but on this occasion it's a pain in the butt!! Cheers Pete

Hi Tom Many thanks for the above. It all seems so simple to implement and the last part is the easiest and most logical. However I have come to the conclusion that I must be either thick, plain stupid or overthinking what you are suggesting. I have no problem locating each of the elements that you have shown and have spent four hours this evening trying various combinations to try to achieve the desired result, all to no avail. No matter what I try the loco will stop at the station but will not start again unless I revert back to my original instruction, which is of course self defeating. I'll have another go tomorrow night, perhaps with a clearer mind. Many thanks once again. Cheers Pete

Hi Tom Since our last communication I have been busy following your suggestions, although I am not quite there with all of my flexibend replacements, but it becomes a bit mind blowing after a while so I have done a bit more on the scenery in an effort to add further interest. That said I concluded that as it's primarily a train layout I ought to at least try to get some trains moving, albeit on a very basic level. I therefore decided to start by getting one train to run on each of four tracks and whilst my efforts are quite simple I was quite happy at this stage with the results as I got each loco to stop, start and change speeds without having to rely on anything else. My next target was to get a second train running on just one of the tracks, D-T4, another steam train. Initially I thought it would be quite simple to just copy the instructions for BR 45-01 and simply alter the loco info for the new one. That simply didn't work as the speeds, stops etc became very erratic for both loco's. I have spent the equivalent of 30 odd hours trying different alternatives but have got no where so I removed the second loco and pondered further. I still don't know what the solution is so thought I might see if you would at least be willing to point me in the right direction with regard to this dilemma. No doubt in the fullness of time I will get to grips with the more sophisticated aspect of variables but for now simple is good. Cheers Pete Fairmont V5.mbp

Hi Tom How right you are on both counts. I've already made a start having now sorted the turntable/engine shed area so I think I have got the hang of what needs to be done. Already my file size has come down. albeit by only a small amount but by the time I have sorted all of the track and roads I might well be at an acceptable and more workable level again. I must admit I hadn't realised you could edit and add track as you have shown so many thanks again for that. My plan is to complete a circular track at a time starting with what I deem to be track 1. As I complete each one I will rename every section with an abbreviated reference but one that is pertinent to that particular track so track 1 will get the abbreviation AT1-01 etc, track 2 will be BT2-01. Points and crossing will become AT1-P01 and level crossings AT1-LC01. So here goes my spare time for the next few weeks is now allocated and I look forward to the challenge. Cheers Pete

Hi Tom or should that be Yoda!! I am pleased that I have got the layers thing right, now I'll have to get to grips with the track aspect. I've briefly looked over your recommendations which certainly make a lot of sense, albeit it will take me a bit of time to digest it fully and get into the rhythm of changes but it is brilliant to be given the starting point. If I may i'll let you know how I get on. Cheers Pete

Hi Tom I hope it's just a case of my description has not been too clear regarding my efforts re: layers so I have taken the liberty to attach the latest efforts, albeit it I still have some work to do sorting some things out and improving on some of my latest scenery attempts. I hope I have got the layers thing right but if not then I am sure you will put me straight!!!! Thanks once again for your invaluable tuition. Cheers Pete Fairmont V5.mbp

Hi Tom You amaze me. Is there anything you don't know? I have already gone through and followed your advice regarding the water, roads and layers but have been reluctant to do the same with the rail tracks until I had a better understanding of variables. I have tried, in vain I might add, to emulate the example that you gave me but each time I have been unable to produce the list of variables that you had, so for now I have been concentrating on scenery. As part of the layers produced I have made one for hidden trains which has removed all but 4, one on each of the four main lines. All I did was simply highlight the full train, lift it from the track and place it in that particular layer. By doing so I hoped to a) get to grips with variables without having to remove the basic programs that I had created, just in case I botch up and b) rationalise the tracks one by one. However until I master the basics of variables I will remain in a state of limbo. As for switching to invisible. I assume you mean highlight the 'eye' symbol at the right of each layer. If that is correct then I have already done that for each of the 11 layers not in use. Anyway thanks once again for the advice as I have said before the two feet first approach sometimes works but you can't beat the more realistic approach with the help of someone so knowledgeable. I am for ever in your debt. Many thanks. Cheers Pete

Hi I am keen to understand how the file size works with 3D Train Studio so that I might adjust my current layout in order to reduce lag. Until now my system has coped but the file size is now over 2.9Gb and as I continue to "paint" the scenery it is beginning to slow. I have asked this question of the manufacturer (info@3d-modellbahn.com) but have not received any answer. I know my layout is big, 12000 x 5000 and there are many 3d elements on this but if I can understand how the file is made up then it might help me to modify things in order to finish with a smooth flowing layout. Where I struggle to understand the file size thing is as follows: If I select a new board of a size 6000 x 2500, put 10 pieces of track on that board and save it the file size is greater than my original layout. I have already taken advice from other members on another matter and received invaluable advice with regard to creating different layers in order to gain more "grunt" when working. I have spoken to my computer manufacturer to see if my graphics card/PSU need to be increased but have been told that the present one should cope easily. So I am left to ask all you knowledgeable techies out there if you can help me to understand this whole file size thing with 3D design. Cheers Pete

Hi Tom That's absolutely brilliant, many thanks. It might take me a while to digest it all but once I have it sorted then I will be able to move on. It took me a little while to find my way, smoothly, around the layers scenario but now it is almost second nature. I have already started to fine tune some of the water, road layout as well as re:examining some of the rail track but my file size still hovers around 2750kb but doing the alterations is certainly easier without all the other clutter. I will try to leave you in peace for now. I don't plan to be too adventurous for now with EC. My brain won't cope with too complicated at the moment but in time I'm sure I'll get to grips with it. I really do enjoy producing the layout and keep fine tuning much of the scenery. Cheers Pete

Hi Tom Since our last communication I have spent my time creating layers as you suggested and checking round to turn off all animations that I can fined. Part of this operation highlighted that some track sections, mainly around crossing barriers, has jumped out of alignment I assume due to the conversion from V4 to V5. These are now sorted and so I turned my attention to your penultimate message in particular the bit about the new feature EC-protocol (the tab next to the EC one on the right) so that I could turn the other locos etc back on. Clearly I am not looking in the proper place as I seem unable to locate said tab, and you were bothered that as a total novice I might pick up variables with ease. At present I seem to have difficulty picking up the hammer, so to speak, let alone knocking in the nail!!! Dare I say that your screenshots have so far proved invaluable. Once I have solved this little mystery then I can get back to rationalising tracks, roads etc to try to reduce my file size for whilst everything seems to run fine on my PC if I have to transfer to my laptop then everything slows. Talking of speed I am once again a bit puzzled. When I first started with 3D Train Studio I saved each days work using the date as part of the name ie Fairmont100819.backup then the following day would be Fairmont110819.backup etc and each day the file sizes grew significantly until I was upto 41,000kb. Even then I had no issues with program lag. Now at 2,750kb lag is sometimes apparent as you found and I cannot explain this. Cheers Pete

Hi Tom Once again thanks for the advice. The chances of me picking up variables quickly is akin to doing a moon walk next week. A challenge, though keeps the mind active so bring it on is all I can say. All the best, I'll let you know how I get on even if it has resulted in using a very large hammer to my very expensive system!!! Cheers Pete