Layout Design on Computer or just Freehand?

[Harlequin]

There is no doubt that the current state of track planning software could be hugely improved and it's great to see some creative new ideas, but:

 

3 hours ago, Sarge427 said:

I've enjoyed reading this thread, and it's triggered a question.  My feeling is that all the current design software packages are fairly similar in nature - basically a CAD concept tailored to the model railway space.  The popular ones are excellent, and I have a lot of admiration for their authors.  However, by the very nature of their envisaged usage, they tend to converge in terms of functionality.

 

So my question is; what could a computer-aided package achieve that would make a step-change in the layout design phase of a project?  For instance, what about moving away from a mouse to a pen or, preferably, a touch interface that allows a completely freehand input … and then automatically convert the squiggles to achievable geometry.

Sorry but I have the feeling that would be a gimmick rather than a truly useful tool because it wouldn't be able to produce good results reliably. And it would work equally well for a mouse as as the other inputs devices you mention, wouldn't it?

 

(BTW: Touchscreen interfaces are inherently unsuitable for doing precise design work because you finger obscures the very point your are trying to manipulate and accurate positioning is impossible.)

 

3 hours ago, Sarge427 said:

Alternatively, how about defining the baseboard dimensions and an AI algorithm designs you a choice of layouts based on your preferences (such as minimum radius) and a set of heuristics.

Sorry again but apart from being extremely difficult to create unique layouts that work well heuristically, that approach is coming at the problem from the wrong angle for good design. Ideally, one should design baseboards to fit the layout, not the other way round.

 

3 hours ago, Sarge427 said:

I'm retiring soon, and I've joined the Forum to learn about model railways with a view to a relaxing hobby - no experience with trains per se, just some modelling and dioramas in my youth.  But I am a scientific programmer, and have long thought about software as a retirement hobby.
 

 

Sorry to be a killjoy in response to your first post!

 

[Flying Pig]

I think we've been here before:

 

Quote

The way it functioned was very interesting. When the Layout button was pressed it made an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's stock boxes, a spectroscopic analysis of the subject's bank account and then sent tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the railway centers of the subject's brain to see what was likely to go down well. However, no one knew quite why it did this because it invariably delivered a layout plan that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Minories.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

As a bit of an aside, but relevant to the topic I hope:

 

On a different thread I posted yesterday a rough sketch of a possible layout concept.  For convenience I doodled it on a computer using Anyrail, but I wouldn't pretend it was any more accurate than a "back of an envelope" preliminary sketch drawn with a blunt pencil.

But because I'd drawn it on a computer, it somehow looked worse than if I'd posted a pencil sketch, even if it was actually probably more accurate (the points fit).

I guess my eye / brain expects a computer drawn diagram to be accurate, but allows me more leeway with a pencil sketch, when it's actually how I'm using the tools (whatever they are) and what I want to achieve in the time I have that makes the difference.

 

Not a new point really, but something I proved to myself yesterday that can be relevant when looking at plans - as The Stationmaster said a couple of months back, it's the stage of the process that should set my expectation, not the tool I use.

 

I do still have a pencil sharpener as well as a PC.

 

Keith.

 

[Sarge427]

On 08/06/2020 at 00:43, Harlequin said:

Sorry to be a killjoy in response to your first post!

No worries, just thinking aloud!

[The Johnster]

Freehand for me every time; computer programs are either predicated on set track geometry or have fixed ideas about track formations.  My view is that they inhibit the creativity and imagination they ought to be assisting, though there is no doubt that they are improving all the time.  It's academic for me as I doubt I'll ever plan another layout this late in life...

 

Cwmdimbath has proved successful in terms of doing what I wanted it to do, and it was completely unplanned except as a signal box diagram.  I laid it by drawing a line across the board at the 'town' end 10" from the buffers; this would be the closest that the tiebar of the loco release turnout could be to the buffers.  I then placed the Peco small radius streamline turnout that was going to perform this function, and drew another line across the board 3" from the end of the turnout.  I then decided how long my longest train was going to be, and drew a line across the baseboard that distance from the second line.  

 

Then I measured from the 'country' end of the fiddle yard, and drew a line across that board the longest train distance from it.  Then I stood back and gazed at the distance between the 3rd and 4th lines.  I decided that there was enough room for the other end of the run around loop, station throat, scenic break, and the fy turnouts as well, but upped that by 50% in case.  I then laid the tracks more or less freestyle using the 4 lines as guidance, and extended the run around loop a little.  The station is on a gentle curve that the Streamline adopted naturally, and improves the look and visual 'flow' of the layout. 

 

I contend that it looks better than anything I could have planned by hand or by computer, and I've never been able to build a layout exactly to plan anyway.  It operates very well, and I am still nowhere near bored with it after over 3 years.

[johndon]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

computer programs are either predicated on set track geometry or have fixed ideas about track formations.

 

Templot is neither of those things, I wouldn't have dreamt of trying to plan my current layout with it...

[tynewydd]

On 02/03/2020 at 03:15, The Stationmaster said:

But which version(s) of Mac knowing its propensity to render obsolete other people's software etc each time each time a new  version appears not even providing or allowing drivers for your older printer?

We have downloads for V5.1.2 Mac in both 64 bit and 32bit versions (unlike Apple who are now exclusively 64 bit). This means we stretch back at least as far as OSX Sierra - and possible earlier although we have only tested on Sierra forward.
 

If you are adventurous and  perhaps even on pre Intel machines, the full source code is available (we are free and open source) so a user could build for any platform supported by X11 And GTK2 - certainly back to Tiger from 2006 or even earlier.
 

v5.2 (now in beta) will officially support all OSX versions from Sierra onward.

BTW - We also support Windows 32 and 64 bit  and Linux for several different distributions and have French and German and Finnish UIs.

 

Adam

[RobinofLoxley]

This topic is a very interesting read. It might be considered as a tension between layout design as art and science. A pragmatist like myself will try and marry the two; I sketched my layout first (there is only one although I have a lot of left over first radius stuff to cook up something interesting later) then used Anyrail to check what happened to my sketch in reality - angles and so on.

 

Then what actually happened to me was that when I tried to lay the track in my loft, having placed all the roof sections as objects on the Anyrail plan, that i had to avoid, I found the positioning of the roof timbers so inaccurate that I couldn't build what I had designed. I placed the objects based on measuring 2 A-frames! So I had to do a lot of improvisation. Anyway I wanted a difficult project, and it isn't even my number 2 hobby.

 

By the way the house was built in the 90's and could have been done on a drawing board or a PC. My house documents look like they are copies from a board, but anyway, when the builders got to it, it didnt much matter.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

13 hours ago, RobinofLoxley said:

This topic is a very interesting read. It might be considered as a tension between layout design as art and science. A pragmatist like myself will try and marry the two; I sketched my layout first (there is only one although I have a lot of left over first radius stuff to cook up something interesting later) then used Anyrail to check what happened to my sketch in reality - angles and so on.

 

Then what actually happened to me was that when I tried to lay the track in my loft, having placed all the roof sections as objects on the Anyrail plan, that i had to avoid, I found the positioning of the roof timbers so inaccurate that I couldn't build what I had designed. I placed the objects based on measuring 2 A-frames! So I had to do a lot of improvisation. Anyway I wanted a difficult project, and it isn't even my number 2 hobby.

 

By the way the house was built in the 90's and could have been done on a drawing board or a PC. My house documents look like they are copies from a board, but anyway, when the builders got to it, it didnt much matter.

One use I’ve seen for spare 1st radius curves was for a small separate tram layout as a 2nd layout: they were plenty big enough for that.  Just a thought (I realise that’s not the main purpose of your post, or this thread - but shows some ‘out of the box’ thinking).