Hack wrote:_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha wrote:You used MaxCantAngleDegrees 4 and CurveToAnglePercent 20 and LineUnevenness 20 right?
I find the transition in and out of superelevetad curves is still a bit too abrupt for my liking, perhaps because the easement sections are a little short here and there.
So I reduced the MaxCantAngle to 2 and increased LineUnevenness to 25.
This makes the transitions less abrupt and more in line with the general cab sway.
It is hardly noticeable from the cab, but clearly visible from the front external camera view.
My own TrackRule uses similar values, except LineUneveness was set to 5 (it was higher, but with unsatisfactory results). The trick I found when laying out my own version of the triple track was to set the line speed to a higher level, thus increasing the length of easements as well as lessening the effect of cab-jolt when entering a curve. The original part of the route runs from Colton to Indio over the Yuma district, and the TrackRule speed was much lower and in stark contrast to the increased speed set in the current rule for the Cajon portion, and as a result, I will likely need to relay the UP section.
Marc, does this mean that the transition from level to superelevated track i.e. the easement sections are created automatically?
I thought you had to lay them down, and in existing routes therefore had to cut the track in small sections and put increasing "easement" (probably a portion of the max superelevation?) into each by editing the track properties. That's why I think a lot of us concluded that putting superelevation in existing routes is too much effort for only a small visual effect.
Superelevation does have a visible effect of the physics of the trains rounding curves in those relative high speed sections of Cajon. The engines and cars swing out less and are therefore less likely to derail and that's what superelevation is for in the first place
