Difference between revisions of "Talk:Second Life Railroad/SLRR standards"
Beware Hax (talk | contribs) |
Beware Hax (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
===height reference, height of guide=== | ===height reference, height of guide=== | ||
the guide rail is defined in this standard as being 15 | the guide rail is defined in this standard as being 0.15 m above the track bed. this is a bad definition because the track bed is specific to a particular design of rail track. the track bed might be completely absent, or rails might be sunken into a street, etc. IRL, the top of the rails is used as the reference for heights because it's what the wheels of a train rest on, making it the most fixed aspect of a rail track relative to a train. the standard should be changed to express the guide rail relative to the top of the rails. | ||
when measuring the guide rail's bottom relative to the top of the rails, i found a lot of variance. it's *lower* than the rails in Lutra and Lappet, | when measuring the guide rail's bottom relative to the top of the rails, i found a lot of variance. it's *lower* than the rails in Lutra and Lappet, 0.04 m above the rails in Idia, 0.08 m in Bhaga, and 0.16 m in Vicina. this has as result that trains will float above the rails, or be sunken into them. | ||
on 3rd party rails, the guide rail is either at exactly the height of rails, or a bit above it (between 0 and | on 3rd party rails, the guide rail is either at exactly the height of rails, or a bit above it (between 0 and 0.1 m) | ||
the VRC freebie trains float above the track, they expect the guide rail to be too low ( | the VRC freebie trains float above the track, they expect the guide rail to be too low (0.05 m below the top of the rails), they should be fixed. | ||
a single standard should be agreed on (i'd say between 0 and | a single standard should be agreed on (i'd say between 0 and 0.04 m), it should be defined from the top of the rails, and the existing SLRR guide rails should be adjusted to a much smaller tolerance. i'm offering to help with this if possible. | ||
[[User:Beware Hax|Beware Hax]] 07:06, 6 June 2011 (PDT) | [[User:Beware Hax|Beware Hax]] 07:06, 6 June 2011 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 07:08, 9 June 2011
If you feel that the information about the SLRR standards are not correct or the text needs correction then please feel free to start a discussion on this page
control system discussion
Original text:
Control
is the way the rail network as a whole works safely while sharing the rail resources among consists.
Currently (10-2009) there is no such system in place.
- Problem description
- If rolling stock of multiple operators is allowed on a track, traffic control will be necessary. The block section type of control system should work, using llSay on a negative channel, phantom alpha detectors on the track, and signals for realism.
- A larger problem is what to do about traffic in the opposite direction. Block Section control could work with a passing siding for each section. Which leads to...
- Another problem - switches. If the Guide rail is used, then it could be turned and moved to divert a train, or line and branch Guides could be alternated between phantom and nonphysical as determined by routing. If a flat or phantom guide rail is used, names can be switched to change which rail is active.
--Stryker J 14:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC) ---
height reference, height of guide
the guide rail is defined in this standard as being 0.15 m above the track bed. this is a bad definition because the track bed is specific to a particular design of rail track. the track bed might be completely absent, or rails might be sunken into a street, etc. IRL, the top of the rails is used as the reference for heights because it's what the wheels of a train rest on, making it the most fixed aspect of a rail track relative to a train. the standard should be changed to express the guide rail relative to the top of the rails.
when measuring the guide rail's bottom relative to the top of the rails, i found a lot of variance. it's *lower* than the rails in Lutra and Lappet, 0.04 m above the rails in Idia, 0.08 m in Bhaga, and 0.16 m in Vicina. this has as result that trains will float above the rails, or be sunken into them.
on 3rd party rails, the guide rail is either at exactly the height of rails, or a bit above it (between 0 and 0.1 m)
the VRC freebie trains float above the track, they expect the guide rail to be too low (0.05 m below the top of the rails), they should be fixed.
a single standard should be agreed on (i'd say between 0 and 0.04 m), it should be defined from the top of the rails, and the existing SLRR guide rails should be adjusted to a much smaller tolerance. i'm offering to help with this if possible.
Beware Hax 07:06, 6 June 2011 (PDT)
I am organizing a community meeting to discuss this and possibly other things, on friday 2011-06-10 13:30 PDT, at http://slurl.com/secondlife/Crescent/233/78/1960. Michael Linden said he will attend. Beware Hax 18:28, 8 June 2011 (PDT)