Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 1224Anyone good at computer graphics?
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 30 Aug 2010 03:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Dear all,

My computer graphics skills are minimal. :(

This is my best effort to represent a country goods shed with office extension, internal platform and awning over the loading doors. As you can see, it won't win any prizes:

2_292139_500000000.gif2_292139_500000000.gif

I saved it as a GIF image with transparent background.

And this is what it looks like inserted on the sketchboard as a bitmap item. I rotated it into line with the track, stretched it to the correct size, and gave it a little transparency to show the internal track:

2_292139_510000001.png2_292139_510000001.png

Now such objects can be drawn directly on the sketchboard with vector precision if desired.

But it would be great to have a selection gallery of such clip-art items ready to just pick and place. Station buildings, engine sheds, signal boxes, water towers, cattle docks, coal drops, trees, etc. In a variety of sizes and attractive styles, perhaps some based on real locations.

What's fairly clear is that I'm not the one to do the drawings!

Can you do better? You can't do much worse than me. :)

You could post them here in this topic via the image gallery. They need to have transparent backgrounds, so GIF format is the best option. If you keep them within 800 x 600 limits, they won't be resized on uploading and won't lose the transparent background. About 500 - 600 wide is probably about right.

Of course you have to be willing to waive all rights, so that anyone can use them. If I use any directly within the Templot program, I will make sure you are properly credited.

Thanks for any help.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 30 Aug 2010 09:01

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Creating graphics isn't a problem (except for lack of time) you just need a suitable program to do it. I use Serif Drawplus. One question what is Sketchboard?

posted: 30 Aug 2010 10:56

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Borg-Rail wrote:
Creating graphics isn't a problem (except for lack of time) you just need a suitable program to do it. I use Serif Drawplus.
Hi Stephen,

I think there is more to it than that! I have the latest version of DrawPlus, several CAD programs, Impict image editor, and many other programs in which to create graphics, including of course Microsoft Paint.

But making graphics which look attractive and inviting needs something more than just the tools. I can give you a nice blue rectangle with a thick red border and a big green dot in the corner. :)  

One question what is Sketchboard?
Sketchboard is a new feature coming in the next Templot pug included in Templot2.

It's a separate mini drawing package within Templot, customised to use track plans from the trackpad in a colourful full layout design. For control panels, exhibition guides, web sites, signal box diagrams, wiring diagrams, etc.

It doesn't compare with a full graphics drawing package, but on the other hand it is interactively linked to your current track plan design on the pad, so that you can develop both together.

Sketchboard is based on a desktop publishing component developed by Nils Haeck in the Netherlands. I have kept it as an independent function, so that Templot users who have no interest in such things can ignore it entirely. If you don't click the Sketchboard button you will never see it.

It's still work in progress, but here are a couple of preview screenshots:


2_042200_050000000.gif2_042200_050000000.gif


2_300514_470000000.png2_300514_470000000.png


regards,

Martin.

posted: 30 Aug 2010 13:50

from:

JFS
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

I think you are too hard on yourself - if you were to look down on the roof of a real goods shed / loco shed / whatever, it would look pretty boring also - these things only look "interesting" if seen as a 3D image I suspect

The only improvement might be to tweak the colours - is there a re-colour image button? Apart from that, I think
what you already have is more than fit for purpose.

Perhaps you might create a gallery where if anyone creates a new image, it could be uploaded for sharing.

Best Regards,

Howard.

posted: 30 Aug 2010 15:10

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote: 
If you don't click the Sketchboard button you will never see it.
Hi Martin,

Please tell me, where is the ‘Sketchboard’ button to be found ? :?

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 30 Aug 2010 15:22

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
Please tell me, where is the ‘Sketchboard’ button to be found ? :?
er, Brian,

I wrote:
Sketchboard is a new feature coming in the next Templot pug.
:)

Martin.

posted: 30 Aug 2010 17:28

from:

Paul Boyd
 
Loughborough - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Howard wrote:
these things only look "interesting" if seen as a 3D image I suspect
Please, sir, can we have 3D Templot? :D
Perhaps you might create a gallery where if anyone creates a new image, it could be uploaded for sharing.
That's a very good idea.  The same "rights waiving" would need to apply, but in my professional life I make good use of user galleries ( eg 3D Content Central) for 3D PCB design because I'm useless at making my own graphics.  A user library somewhere on the Templot site does get around the problem, doesn't it?

Cheers



posted: 30 Aug 2010 17:39

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
JFS wrote:
The only improvement might be to tweak the colours - is there a re-colour image button?
Hi Howard,

There are two ways to add drawings on the sketchboard page.

1. You can draw directly using the sketchboard controls. The Engine Shed in this view was created that way.

This way you can create coloured rectangles, circles, and lines, similar to the existing background shapes functions -- but much easier to adjust, stretch, rotate, combine, items. It's tedious to add fine detail using this method, but very easy to change colours, line thicknesses, etc. Such drawings are vector graphics, so they don't break up as you zoom in on them. Such drawn items can be shared as .sk9 files.
 

2. You can add a bitmap image created elsewhere in a full drawing package such as DrawPlus or CorelDraw. The Goods Shed in this view was added that way.

This way makes it easier to create fine detail, add gradient fills, textures, shadows and similar effects. Once added to the sketchboard such an image can be stretched and rotated, made transparent, etc., but there are no controls to change the colours or details. Depending on the size of the original image, it may break up as you zoom in over it. Such drawings can be shared as normal image files, usually in .gif format for ease of making the background transparent.

2_301156_270000000.png2_301156_270000000.png



There is then an option to have the sketchboard items displayed back on the workpad. In this case they are the other way round, they are behind the track layer instead of being in front of it, so transparency effects don't show:

2_301156_270000001.png2_301156_270000001.png

Most of the time you won't want to do this because it has a significant effect on the screen response speed for zooming and panning while doing track design, but it's useful at times to see how things will fit.
 
Perhaps you might create a gallery where if anyone creates a new image, it could be uploaded for sharing.
I created this topic as somewhere to post images for sharing, either via the existing Image Gallery or as attachments for .sk9 files. If there is sufficient response I can later rearrange them into a convenient web page or dedicated gallery.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 2 Sep 2010 22:55

from:

TonyHagon
 
Near Wick, Caithness - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Ah Martin... Sketchboard: a superb addition to an already great program! Looking forward to the PUG.
You have probably realised that there is a whole new opportunity to create signal box diagrams, and to create a library of e.g. typefaces that the individual companies applied to the diagrams. The scaling facilities in Templot make it a doddle to size the diagram to fit the control panel.

Best regards
Tony Hagon
(using Templot 12 miles from John O'Groats)

posted: 7 Sep 2010 07:29

from:

istvan.david
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin!

When can we excpect the next PUG version? Maybe this year? :)

br,
  István


posted: 15 Sep 2010 14:56

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Dear all,

My computer graphics skills are minimal. :(

But it would be great to have a selection gallery of such clip-art items ready to just pick and place. Station buildings, engine sheds, signal boxes, water towers, cattle docks, coal drops, trees, etc. In a variety of sizes and attractive styles, perhaps some based on real locations.

What's fairly clear is that I'm not the one to do the drawings!

Can you do better? You can't do much worse than me. :)

You could post them here in this topic via the image gallery. They need to have transparent backgrounds, so GIF format is the best option. If you keep them within 800 x 600 limits, they won't be resized on uploading and won't lose the transparent background. About 500 - 600 wide is probably about right.

Of course you have to be willing to waive all rights, so that anyone can use them. If I use any directly within the Templot program, I will make sure you are properly credited.
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8fcff"Hi Martin,
First let me say, that I think it is an excellent idea to create a library of shapes for your program Notebook, and I am willing to help in anyway I can.
I have attached a sample GIF file of a fictitious water tank scaled at 4mm to 1 foot, that I knocked up last evening.
This is not of anywhere in particular, but is just to show you what can be done in a simple drawing package.
I will also post a sample of the same building but in Bitmap format, so that you can see just how much colour and detail is lost using GIF format.
I can if you wish do such drawings for the group, but would need to be given appropriate line drawings, including what scale to be drawn, of required objects and any colour details that can be given in order to make the object look something of interest, and as realistic as possible, when placed on the layout plan.
I mention scale because, I am not quite sure if you intend to make the objects scalable or only at fixed scales.
I hope the above is what you are looking for.
Best regards.
Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_869_1224_Tank_drawing-2.GIF 1278

posted: 15 Sep 2010 14:59

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Heres the bitmap file of the same tank building.

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_870_1224_Tank_drawing-2.bmp 481

posted: 15 Sep 2010 18:23

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
First let me say, that I think it is an excellent idea to create a library of shapes for your program Notebook, and I am willing to help in anyway I can.

I have attached a sample GIF file of a fictitious water tank scaled at 4mm to 1 foot, that I knocked up last evening. This is not of anywhere in particular, but is just to show you what can be done in a simple drawing package.

I will also post a sample of the same building but in Bitmap format, so that you can see just how much colour and detail is lost using GIF format.

I can if you wish do such drawings for the group, but would need to be given appropriate line drawings, including what scale to be drawn, of required objects and any colour details that can be given in order to make the object look something of interest, and as realistic as possible, when placed on the layout plan.

I mention scale because, I am not quite sure if you intend to make the objects scalable or only at fixed scales.

I hope the above is what you are looking for.
Hi Brian,

That's great! :) Many thanks indeed. That is just the sort of thing I was thinking of. :thumb:

There need be no significant loss of colour or detail using the GIF format if you choose a suitable resampling method. Here I created a GIF from your BMP file using the "Optimised Octree" method, with no error dithering:

2_151237_150000000.gif2_151237_150000000.gif

The great advantage of the GIF format is that it makes it easy to create transparent backgrounds, which are not possible in a BMP file. GIF is also a very much smaller file for download.

In theory PNG also offers transparency, but not all programs support transparent PNGs.

The objects can be stretched/deformed to any scale and rotated as required on the sketchboard, so there is no need to make a fixed scale. All that is need is a note somewhere of the design size. The best place for this is probably in the file name where it can't get lost, perhaps water_tank_20x20ft.gif or some such.

Here I have added your tank to a track plan. I stretched it to 30ft x 20ft (setting 120mm x 80mm on the sketchboard for 4mm scale) and rotated it to suit the tracks. This is the workpad view:


2_151253_370000000.png2_151253_370000000.png


Which I think is brilliant. :) Many thanks Brian for taking the trouble to do this.

If we could have a library of GIFs of this calibre available to sketchboard* users, I'm sure we could see some really attractive track plans being produced.

(*The option to include multiple pages in a single file was making things far too complex. I have decided to limit the program to one page per .sk9 file, so I have therefore renamed the sketchbook function as sketchboard.)

regards,

Martin.  

posted: 15 Sep 2010 20:40

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,


First let me say, you are very welcome and I was happy to do it, and I might add, there will be more to come.
I am very pleased that you experienced no problem with conversion and dithering, because when I did the first drawing of the tank, when it came to the conversion to GIF, the image ended up with patchy rings of differing solid colours, instead of the nice gradual shading change. However, realising what was wrong and, a slight change of tack, I produced the second image which when converted, appeared to be OK.


BTW, I can if required produce the images in any format you wish: PNG, GIF, BMP, PDF, TIFF. However, it would seem the requirement is for GIF format, so that’s what will be provided.


The image does indeed look great on the workpad view, and as you say, if we can get more of the like we should see some nice looking track plans in the future.


One point I would like to stress is, I think when people do draw any images, it is advisable they should, where possible draw to scale, particularly if the drawing is of an actual real life site and for true scale modelling, such as P4, S7 etc. The reason I say this is, because when you, as you put it, stretch the image in only one direction, then any fine detailing within the image (such as windows/skylights and chimneys, ventilators and even roofing slates/tiles) will stretch pro-rata in that direction only and hence be out of true scale and may end up looking distorted.
However, if the image is stretched bi-linearly (or to be more correct bi-cubically) then scaling, and all included detailing, will be changed pro-rata in all directions and will remain correct for the final required size (if you get my drift).
On the other hand, if scaling is not a factor, then it will not matter for that particular individuals usage.


As far as notes are concerned, regarding scale and size, I think I will continue to add my scale ruler and scale notes at the edge of the image, these can then be ‘Cropped’ out when the object is required for use on a track plan, one can use any image handling program for this, I believe even ‘MS Paint’ will do this, and every Windows PC has that on-board. And as you say, it’s a good idea to have the original size of object in the file tittle to preserve the information.


I promised to produce some further images of various objects, hopefully this time for real (not fictitious) objects, when I have consulted my books. :)


If there is anything specific wanted, then again I state, I will need line style (outline) drawing or sketch with, preferably some dimensions written on it (so that I can scale it).
I very much look forward to seeing ‘Sketcboard’ on my PC in the near future, I can then give it a real testing. :D


Best regards.
Brian Nicholls.

posted: 16 Sep 2010 08:56

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
BTW, I can if required produce the images in any format you wish: PNG, GIF, BMP, PDF, TIFF. However, it would seem the requirement is for GIF format, so that’s what will be provided.
Hi Brian,

Thanks for your further thoughts.

Sketchboard can add bitmap items in any of these file formats:

BMP, GIF, PNG, JPG, HCK.

It is important for non-rectangular objects that the background can be made transparent. Otherwise such objects would be displayed on a rectangular image patch.

This means that only GIF and PNG are the real options, and sketchboard supports transparent backgrounds for both of these formats. In theory PNG is better because it can support transparency with full colour, whereas GIF is limited to 256-colour format. In practice not all image editor programs support transparent PNGs (so users might have trouble editing them if needed), and 256 colours is more than adequate for our purpose. So GIF is the best all-round format for distributed image files for use on sketchboard.

But the obvious file format to use for a library of objects will be sketchboard's own SK9 file format. These files can contain multiple items, and can include captions and other text explanations, scalebars, etc., as separate items which do not need to be cropped from the image object before use.

In addition, objects can be combined to create more complex items, including native sketchboard vector graphics items in combination with bitmaps. There is a separate copyboard window in which SK9 files can be opened, and from which individual items can be copied and pasted onto the sketchboard itself.

Here for example I created a combined item comprising your water tank and my scruffy goods shed as raster bitmaps, and I added on a cattle dock which was created as a vector graphic in sketchboard itself:

2_160302_190000000.png2_160302_190000000.png


This combined item was copied and pasted onto the trackplan in sketchboard, and scaled and rotated as a single item. Here is the view back on the workpad:

2_160303_270000000.png2_160303_270000000.png


One point I would like to stress is, I think when people do draw any images, it is advisable they should, where possible draw to scale, particularly if the drawing is of an actual real life site and for true scale modelling, such as P4, S7 etc. The reason I say this is, because when you, as you put it, stretch the image in only one direction, then any fine detailing within the image (such as windows/skylights and chimneys, ventilators and even roofing slates/tiles) will stretch pro-rata in that direction only and hence be out of true scale and may end up looking distorted.
Sketchboard items can be set to preserve the aspect ratio, or not, as an option when scaling to a new size. As you say, for a drawing of a real object it would obviously be better to turn this on to preserve the correct relative sizes. If items are distributed as SK9 files, this can be turned on in advance in the file, for each item as required.

As far as notes are concerned, regarding scale and size, I think I will continue to add my scale ruler and scale notes at the edge of the image, these can then be ‘Cropped’ out when the object is required for use on a track plan.
If images have to be cropped before use I feel this will significantly detract from their ease of use as a library of objects ready to be added to the sketchboard. However, if they are distributed as SK9 files, the notes and captions can be separate items which are excluded when copying and pasting onto the sketchboard. See for example the caption to your water tank above.

Many thanks again for offering to provide these drawings. I look forward to seeing more of them. Now that you have made a start perhaps others will be encouraged to add their own too. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Sep 2010 18:50

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
It is important for non-rectangular objects that the background can be made transparent. Otherwise such objects would be displayed on a rectangular image patch.
Hi Martin,

Thank most kindly for the very detailed response.

It looks to me if ‘Sketchbord’ is becoming quite versatile in what can be done, the more I read of it, the more I like it.

I now also understand the reason for transparency of the required image.
But the obvious file format to use for a library of objects will be sketchboard's own SK9 file format. These files can contain multiple items, and can include captions and other text explanations, scalebars, etc., as separate items which do not need to be cropped from the image object before use.

If images have to be cropped before use I feel this will significantly detract from their ease of use as a library of objects ready to be added to the sketchboard. However, if they are distributed as SK9 files, the notes and captions can be separate items which are excluded when copying and pasting onto the sketchboard. See for example the caption to your water tank above.
Here, part of my reasoning for the need for ‘Cropping’, was not only to remove any unwanted (as far as the image is concerned) notes or labels, but was to include the requirement when individuals needed to join similar images, such as the cattle dock you mention. Here it may be required to say, double or triple the number of ‘pens’ or change the formation of the pens that the cattle dock has. To use a fixed library image for this would mean one would have to ‘crop’ out, on one of the images, the unwanted fencing on the sides where the joined images occurs.

As I would view it, most people would prefer to (and most likely will) use the library images, to save time, work effort and because they may not have the aptitude or skill to produce reasonable looking images of their own (in a nutshell, this is what and who the library would be for). If cropping is not acceptable, then the solution would have to be to produce sets of library images that can be successfully and un-noticeably joined. In the case of the cattle dock pens, I estimate that some six (6) or eight (8) variation images of the pens with fencing removed from various sides, could provide full flexibility irrespective as to the number and formation of pens required. (it’s something like the old fashioned Meccano set, you pick the right bits to make what you want). The important thing is that the bits are there to choose. Needless to say, I am very keen on the idea of a library system where one can easily choose items, to build, and to make a layout plan look really interesting without the need of having any high level artistic skills.

In addition, objects can be combined to create more complex items, including native sketchboard vector graphics items in combination with bitmaps. There is a separate copyboard window in which SK9 files can be opened, and from which individual items can be copied and pasted onto the sketchboard itself.

Here for example I created a combined item comprising your water tank and my scruffy goods shed as raster bitmaps, and I added on a cattle dock which was created as a vector graphic in sketchboard itself:
It is strange you mentioned Vector Graphics, I was thinking along those lines a few days ago.
Having used XtrkCAD (sorry for the profanity) a couple of years ago, and having made up ‘Structure’ parameter files in plain text format (for the numbers that is) I wondered if this could be applied to ‘Sketchboard’, as it would not be to difficult to write such files.

However, the downside of using such files is you cannot (or to be truthful it would be very, very difficult to do) get graduated highlight or shading for the fill colours of the objects, only solid colours can be defined. The reason for this is that part of the parameter file is a six digit number which defines the colour that fills completely that particular part of the object which is defined between the corresponding X – Y co-ordinates within the file. If the object is made up of several ‘blocks’ X – Y co-ordinates, then each of those blocks could have a different colour, but again, only a solid colour can be defined.

I will add a vector graphic parameter file I did a few days ago, I don’t know what program you have that will open this file, but if you have XtrkCAD (there I go again blaspheming) it will certainly open in that program. (see what you think).

I think the screenshots you have posted look really good and does give one a sense of the possibilities of 'Sketchboard'

I have posted another image file, this time of a real railway item, believe it or not, it is of a cattle dock !!
This image is of a Midland Railway cattle dock circa 1900 but was used well into the 20th century.
The pens are made of timber, and the real life size of this object is 30 ft by 15 ft, I have also included a concrete border of 3 ft at 4mm scale surrounding the pens. This border apparently varied from site to site, so have chosen an arbitrary value.

The prototype pen post’s are made of 8” x 8” timber, whilst the fencing and gates are of 3” x 3” timbers. The floor is of concrete, with drainage ducts impressed in the concrete, leading to a centrally located drain.

I am a little concerned that the conversion, has not quite performed in the same way my previous image, so will send a .BMP file as well, also will send a PDF file which shows clearly what the image should look like (or how it finished up having being drawn).

I am still keen to help out with the library images and will produce what and when I can.

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_871_1224_Cattle_dock_30ft_by_15ft.GIF 1183

posted: 16 Sep 2010 18:53

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Heres the bitmap file of the same cattle dock.
regards,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 16 Sep 2010 18:57

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

And heres the PDF file of the same cattle dock.
regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_872_1224_Cattle_dock_30ft_by_15ft-B.pdf 417

posted: 16 Sep 2010 19:09

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,
Here is the vector graphics file I mentioned.
I am not sure what program you have to open the file, but,
If you have XtrkCAD on board, to open the file just right click the file and select ‘OPEN WITH ..> and from the list you get select XtrkCAD, the file should then open OK in XtrkCAD.
regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_873_1224_Demo_Buildings-X.txt 379

posted: 16 Sep 2010 19:23

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Not sure that the bitmap file of the same cattle dock made it through the transmission, so will send it again.
regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_874_1224_Cattle_dock_30ft_by_15ft.bmp 400

posted: 17 Sep 2010 01:58

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I am a little concerned that the conversion, has not quite performed in the same way my previous image, so will send a .BMP file as well, also will send a PDF file which shows clearly what the image should look like (or how it finished up having being drawn).
Hi Brian,

What drawing program are you using? Your GIF conversion is dithering the image instead of converting to the nearest colour, and for some reason the dithered effect is replicated in the BMP and PDF files.

I've taken the liberty of doing a bit of work on the file, to create this plain colour GIF:

2_162020_230000000.gif2_162020_230000000.gif

I changed the dithered background to a plain concrete colour and blurred the edges of the 3ft hard standing. I added 4ft all round the pens to give an image size of 38ft x 23ft. It is this dimension which a user needs in order to scale the image on the sketchboard, not the dimensions of the object it contains.

So I saved this file as cattle_dock_image_38ft_x_23ft.gif , setting the surrounding 1ft margin as transparent.

Here is the result on the sketchboard. 38ft x 23ft
at 4mm scale is 152mm x 92mm, so those are the dimensions I used to size the image:

2_162010_380000000.png2_162010_380000000.png


Here is the result back on the pad. I switched on the ruler tool to check that the actual pens have ended up at the correct size:

2_162011_280000000.png2_162011_280000000.png

The blurred surrounds haven't worked out too well, but better than a hard edge.

Many thanks again for doing this, the detail on the posts and gates is brilliant. You have even included the strap hinges and fixings! :)

If you say which program you are using we can perhaps sort out the dithering problem.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 17 Sep 2010 15:58

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
What drawing program are you using? Your GIF conversion is dithering the image instead of converting to the nearest colour, and for some reason the dithered effect is replicated in the BMP and PDF files.

If you say which program you are using we can perhaps sort out the dithering problem.
Hi Martin,

Thank you for your comments in the last response. :thumb:

First let me say, to draw the objects I use the program MS Visio 2003, which I find quite good to measure accurately and draw objects quite quickly, also it has a very good, and reasonably accurate ruler system, similar in nature to that in Templot. The program is very easy to use, and as stated above, you can produce drawings very quickly.

One of the drawbacks of the program is the colours are limited and does not contain the full spectrum, however, there are sufficient colours available to create a reasonable looking object drawing for display purposes.

The major drawback, which is I think related to the dithering problem, is that the file produced by Visio can only be read by MS Word or any of the MS OFFICE programs and in addition Paint.
What I have had to do is to copy the file from Visio into Paint then save as either GIF or BMP as required, I believe, this is where things are going wrong with the colour.

I have Adobe Photoshop CS2 on board, but it will not even look at the Visio files, I have to convert them first then I can enter them into Photoshop for any post work on them.

I am trying to find another way around this problem of file compatibility, but so far have drawn a blank.
Regarding the initial drawing phase, I have just recently bought a second-hand copy of Autocad in a sale from a closure at a local industrial office site, but I need advanced ‘driving’ lessons to use it !! so I have to continue with Visio for the time being (it is quick to use though).

Regarding the dithering, I must find a way of directly converting the files into the required outputs, if you have any suggestions, I would be most grateful for any advice so that the finished objects will look good and, save any post working on them by either of us. Incidentally, I am sorry it is causing you some extra work, you have enough on your plate as it is.

I would really like to clear up this problem of dithering and colouring.

Incidentally, I did add slight patterning on the pen floors imagery to try and create a more realistic concrete affect.

I've taken the liberty of doing a bit of work on the file, to create this plain colour GIF:

2_162020_230000000.gif2_162020_230000000.gif

The image details look quite good when shown in Sketchboard and workpad, my only comment here is, did someone use ‘custard’ to mix the concrete :D  the flooring does look a little too yellow, otherwise, it’s great.

Many thanks again for doing this, the detail on the posts and gates is brilliant. You have even included the strap hinges and fixings! :)
As to the detailing of the post’s and fixings, well isn’t that what it’s all about !!
 
You have a superbly detailed track design program in Templot, why not carry that detailing through to the support program ‘Sketchboard’.

Ah well back to the drawing board. :)

All the best.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 17 Sep 2010 18:22

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,
I would really like to clear up this problem of dithering and colouring.
I suggest that you download a copy of Irfanview -- it's free. :)

From:  http://www.irfanview.com

I modified your tank drawing to illustrate a non-rectangular image with transparent background.

1. save from Visio in BMP format.

2. then open the BMP file in Irfanview.

3. and click Save As...

This is the Irfanview screen:
2_171254_390000000.png2_171254_390000000.png

4. select to save in GIF format and view the options dialog on the right.

5. on the options dialog, set the GIF options to save in transparent format and to choose the transparent background area. When you click Save, you are invited to click the area/colour which is to be made transparent, like this:

2_171253_580000000.jpg2_171253_580000000.jpg

6. I clicked the white area top left. Any area of white colour anywhere in the image will then display transparent.

Here's the result:

2_171305_160000000.gif2_171305_160000000.gif


The image details look quite good when shown in Sketchboard and workpad, my only comment here is, did someone use ‘custard’ to mix the concrete :D the flooring does look a little too yellow, otherwise, it’s great.
I thought it was too light -- I don't think the floor of a cattle pen stays white for very long!  :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 17 Sep 2010 21:32

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
I suggest that you download a copy of Irfanview -- it's free. :)

From:  http://www.irfanview.com

I modified your tank drawing to illustrate a non-rectangular image with transparent background.

1. save from Visio in BMP format.

2. then open the BMP file in Irfanview.

3. and click Save As...

4. select to save in GIF format and view the options dialog on the right.

5. on the options dialog, set the GIF options to save in transparent format and to choose the transparent background area. When you click Save, you are invited to click the area/colour which is to be made transparent, like this:

6. I clicked the white area top left. Any area of white colour anywhere in the image will then display transparent.



Hi Martin,
Many thanks for the info, I will certainly give it a try, perhaps you have finally solved the problem, by the look of your result it certainly seems like it. :thumb:


I thought it was too light -- I don't think the floor of a cattle pen stays white for very long!  :)


I was considering being really authentic and putting some cow dung in, but thought better of it. :D

I am just about two thirds through completing a large long signal box that was at Eastbourne, should be ready by tomorrow, if not sooner.


All the best.
Brian Nicholls.

 

posted: 19 Sep 2010 16:30

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,
Have finally managed to complete the signal box image that I promised.

Had to go out all day yesterday (Saturday), however, on the bright side, went to a market and found a stall full of model railway stuff, couldn’t resist, bent the wallet a bit and bought a few things.

I have attached a sample GIF file of the signal box scaled at 4mm to 1 foot.

I will also post a sample of the same signal box but in BMP format.

The image is of the signal box that was at Eastbourne, the box was built by Saxby & Farmer around the1880s or 1890s, for the LBSCR
The proto signal box was a very large long building and was also mounted very high up (unusually so).
The steps had, some 24 treads, from the ground level to reach the cabin platform, quite a climb for the signalman.
I will post a sample sketch I used to scale and draw the box.
The Eastbourne box closely resembles the old No. 5 signal box at Birmingham New Street, except, the New Street box is much closer to the ground, with a much small set of steps to reach it.

Regarding the GIF ‘Sketchboard’ image of the signal bow, I have put some paving at the steps end of the image, just to fill in the empty space, this I might add, is a bit of ‘artistic licence’ on my part as I am not sure what the original site was like and have no photographs as a guide.

A little bit of data for those who are interested;
Measured and estimated proto dimensions of the Eastbourne signal box are shown below:
Length of cabin outside wall to wall, not including the roof overhanging eaves  =  53ft 4in
Width of cabin outside wall to wall, not including the roof overhanging eaves  =  14ft 6in
Overall length of box including the roof overhanging eaves, not including steps  =  57ft 0in
Overall width of box including the roof overhanging eaves    =  18ft 0in
Height from ground to signal box cabin platform (top of steps)    =  18ft 6in
Overall height of signal box from ground to ridge of roof, not including flue pipe and ventilators  =  34ft


BTW, I think I have now sorted out the problem with the conversions without having to download the program you suggested, it was all down to finger trouble on my part.
The attached files should verify if all is well.

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_876_1224_Signal_Box_Large-EBN.gif 972

posted: 19 Sep 2010 16:33

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Heres the bitmap file of the same signal box.
regards,


Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_877_1224_Signal_Box_Large-EBN.bmp 383

posted: 19 Sep 2010 16:35

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

And heres a GIF file of part of the sketch I used to draw image.

regards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_878_1224_Signal_Box_End_View.gif 1050

posted: 19 Sep 2010 18:33

from:

bainin
 
Trim Co Meath - Ireland

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,
Don't know if this will help, but it's free!
This comes from a recent newsletter:

Kill White is a plugin (for Windows) that makes white color in an image transparent.
http://mikes3d.com/extra/2010/07/kill-white/

I haven't had a chance to use it yet. I assume it supports Photoshop, PaintShop Pro and probably other programs that can use PS-compatible plugins.

Mike

posted: 19 Sep 2010 21:19

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
Regarding the GIF ‘Sketchboard’ image of the signal bow, I have put some paving at the steps end of the image, just to fill in the empty space, this I might add, is a bit of ‘artistic licence’ on my part as I am not sure what the original site was like and have no photographs as a guide.
Hi Brian,

That's great! :thumb:

The colours look much better without the coarse dithered effect.

I'm pleased I started this topic if it is going to result in a library of sketchboard graphics of this quality. :)

There is no need to provide features to fill any empty space, the idea is to make such areas transparent. That's why we are using the GIF format. (The paving looks very attractive, but I don't recall ever seeing such expensive work outside a signal box.)

Here is your image cropped to the bottom of the steps, and with your paved area made transparent instead:

2_191552_330000000.gif2_191552_330000000.gif


Here is the view of that in my graphics editor -- transparent areas are normally shown as a grey chequerboard effect:

2_191556_360000000.png2_191556_360000000.png


Here is the view on the sketchboard. The image scales to 73ft x 18ft, so I set it to 292mm x 72mm in 4mm/ft  scale. I rotated it so that the steps are facing the station in the usual way, and the stove-pipe is at the rear of the box. I added a patch of rough ground colour to illustrate the transparent effect:

2_191557_010000000.png2_191557_010000000.png


Here is the same, back on the workpad:

2_191557_320000000.png2_191557_320000000.png

regards,

Martin.

posted: 20 Sep 2010 00:13

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
The colours look much better without the coarse dithered effect.

Here is the same, back on the workpad:
Hi Martin,

Thank you for your comments in the last response.

I must say that does look really good on the ‘workpad’, I’m glad it turned out that way.
It seems the problem I had has now been resolved, and this should not give you so much post work to do on any future images I produce.

The only minor concern I had with the latest image, was that the roof slates are just a ‘tad’ blue and should have been a bit more grey. Maybe I will correct it on the next version.
 
There is no need to provide features to fill any empty space, the idea is to make such areas transparent. That's why we are using the GIF format. (The paving looks very attractive, but I don't recall ever seeing such expensive work outside a signal box.)

Here is your image cropped to the bottom of the steps, and with your paved area made transparent instead:
Incidentally, point taken about the transparency, I will curb my ‘flare’ and leave well alone, I did have some reservation about the paving, but it did seem to enhance the steps and make them a little more prominent.

I have one or two things up my sleeve to try out, in particular I intend to do a small version cabin signal box which is (or was), I believe, the most common type of it’s day (I have one in mind), this should then be useful for the more rural type of layouts (although having said that, New Street had four smaller cabin signal boxes as well as the much larger No. 5).
 

I'm pleased I started this topic if it is going to result in a library of sketchboard graphics of this quality. :)
Regarding the quality question, we all strive for perfection, I think it was Walt Disney who said “if we can dream it, we can do it”, I think he was absolutely right.

Sketchboard, should be a great additional aid to Templot, and with a good stock of library images, it should make life much easier for everyone using it, so lets keep up the good work.

Ah well, it’s all grist for the mill, as they say.

BTW, did you want me to re-submit the cattle dock image now that the problem has been solved ?

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 20 Sep 2010 02:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
bainin wrote:
Don't know if this will help, but it's free!
This comes from a recent newsletter:

Kill White is a plugin (for Windows) that makes white colour in an image transparent.
http://mikes3d.com/extra/2010/07/kill-white/

I haven't had a chance to use it yet. I assume it supports Photoshop, PaintShop Pro and probably other programs that can use PS-compatible plugins.
Hi Mike,

Thanks for that. I looked at the site, but unfortunately it all rather went over my head. :(

It seems to be concerned with blending bitmap overlays, rather than providing a transparent alpha channel in the final output file.

What file format is it intended for? Sketchboard can use only JPG, GIF, PNG formats, and only the latter two can be displayed with a transparent background.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 20 Sep 2010 02:51

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I must say that does look really good on the ‘workpad’, I’m glad it turned out that way.
Hi Brian,

It can look equally good on the sketchboard, the user can change the resolution settings to suit. It's the usual trade-off between image quality and response speed, and the graphics capabilities on the user's system.

Here are a couple of sketchboard views at higher resolution (with the tracks in "detail" mode):

2_192123_480000000.png2_192123_480000000.png


2_192124_180000000.png2_192124_180000000.png


And a zoomed-in pad view:

2_192123_170000000.png2_192123_170000000.png


regards,

Martin.

posted: 20 Sep 2010 11:23

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I have attached a sample GIF file of the signal box scaled at 4mm to 1 foot.
Hi Brian,

I'm a bit mystified by what you mean there? :?

GIF images don't contain any real-world dimensions and can be stretched/shrunk on the sketchboard to any size the user desires.

Obviously the original prototype has some real-world dimensions, and these are the only ones which can be referenced with any meaning. For example your signal box is 73ft long over the steps, and 18ft wide.

You have been drawing your GIFs at 15 pixels per prototype foot, which is fine.

But may I suggest that others wishing to join in adopt a slightly smaller scale of 12 pixels per foot, which is conveniently 1 pixel per inch? This should make drawing from the original much easier -- or at least it would for me. :)

For more modern prototypes, a scale of 40 pixels per metre could be used instead, i.e 1 pixel per 25mm.

Scaling at this order of magnitude produces a good level of detail as you have demonstrated, and for typical structures produce images which can be conveniently displayed here at full size. For example a building 50ft by 25ft at 12 pixels per foot would be an image 600 x 300 pixels.

These are just suggestions, as images at different scales can be mixed and re-sized on the sketchboard. But if they are all drawn to a similar original scale, a more harmonious result is likely.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 20 Sep 2010 14:02

from:

bainin
 
Trim Co Meath - Ireland

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,
The KillWhite plugin looks to me like a quick way of turning all the white elements in a pic (including gif/jpg) transparent. I don't understand all the alphawhatever either, but it seems to me the plugin could help, particularly because I've have trouble getting transparency to work properly in the past. I still have to test it, but I like the idea of simply drawing without worrying about transparency, then running a plugin to fix it.
By the way, I'm not the Mike who made it!
Regards,
Mike

posted: 20 Sep 2010 21:21

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Brian,

It can look equally good on the sketchboard, the user can change the resolution settings to suit. It's the usual trade-off between image quality and response speed, and the graphics capabilities on the user's system.

Here are a couple of sketchboard views at higher resolution (with the tracks in "detail" mode):

Hi Martin,


You have caught me out with two postings, been a little bit busy today.
In response to the former, I must say that does now look really good in both ‘workpad’ and ‘sketchboard’, that’s some blow-up you have demonstrated. It’s great stuff !! :thumb:

Brian Nicholls wrote:
I have attached a sample GIF file of the signal box scaled at 4mm to 1 foot.
I'm a bit mystified by what you mean there? :?

GIF images don't contain any real-world dimensions and can be stretched/shrunk on the sketchboard to any size the user desires.

Obviously the original prototype has some real-world dimensions, and these are the only ones which can be referenced with any meaning. For example your signal box is 73ft long over the steps, and 18ft wide.


Regarding your comment about scale of the GIF image, I should have written;


 “I have attached a sample GIF file of the signal box, which was drawn to a scale of 4mm to 1 foot”.


I think they call it, ‘a slip of the pen’ (only in this case it’s a keyboard input, or lack of). :D



You have been drawing your GIFs at 15 pixels per prototype foot, which is fine.

But may I suggest that others wishing to join in adopt a slightly smaller scale of 12 pixels per foot, which is conveniently 1 pixel per inch? This should make drawing from the original much easier -- or at least it would for me. :)

For more modern prototypes, a scale of 40 pixels per metre could be used instead, i.e 1 pixel per 25mm.

Scaling at this order of magnitude produces a good level of detail as you have demonstrated, and for typical structures produce images which can be conveniently displayed here at full size. For example a building 50ft by 25ft at 12 pixels per foot would be an image 600 x 300 pixels.

These are just suggestions, as images at different scales can be mixed and re-sized on the sketchboard. But if they are all drawn to a similar original scale, a more harmonious result is likely.

Regarding your pixel resolution of my images, I am a little lost here, sorry I do not recognise the statement of 15 or 12 pixels to the foot, resolution is and has always been referenced to pixels per inch.  :?
I have, so far, been drawing ‘object pictures’ to a scale of 4mm to 1foot whatever the subject. I do this because it gives the correct perspective of the object, and as stated before, if ‘stretched’ or ‘shrunk’, should maintain that perspective.
Also it is a reasonable size scaling to be able to get some decent detailing in. As you may be aware, in the graphics technical world, most drawings are done to a much larger scale to get the detail, then reduced in size for the finished article.
Once drawn, I then save the file as a GIF and/or BMP image directly as an output from Visio. It is only at this point does pixel resolution of the image come into the equation, the GIF images have, up till now, been saved at 96 x 96 pixels/in, which is the standard default of Visio.

I have put a screenshot of the GIF save screen, with the default settings shown.

 GIF_Screenshot-1

I will put a second screenshot of the same save as GIF, but with the pixel options button clicked, highlighting the standard settings.

 GIF_Screenshot-2

As stated above, I have been saving at a matrix of 96 x 96 pixels/in, which is the standard default of Visio, from what you say, you would like me to save at 72 x 72 pixels/in (or to be more precise as calculated 76.8 x 76.8), personally, I think this is quite a drop in resolution, some 25% drop and when blown-up as you demonstrated, you will see a marked difference (much more ‘grainy’).
The problem I have is, also being a fairly keen photographer for many years, it is instilled in me as from the older days, to get quality, you should use finer grain film, and in the modern digital world, you should use more pixels/in.

These are just suggestions, as images at different scales can be mixed and re-sized on the sketchboard. But if they are all drawn to a similar original scale, a more harmonious result is likely.

Here, I think the word ‘DRAWN’ should be replaced by ‘SAVED’ at a fixed pixel ratio.

If you like, I can try an experiment on the signal box and save at 72 x 72 pixels/in to see what the result would be.
But bare in mind, the size of the drawings can vary even if all are scaled at 4mm to 1foot, therefore the number of pixels saved will vary, however, the resolution will stay the same irrespective of size of drawing if all saved at the same pixel resolution.

I am not sure what the premium is on RAM or disc space regarding images used in Sketchboard or workpad, but would not have thought a 25% larger pixel count (over your recommendation) would be a problem. :)

Hope this all makes sense to you.

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_880_1224_GIF_Screenshot-1_copy.gif 938

posted: 20 Sep 2010 21:25

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

And heres the other screeshot of the GIF save, with option highlighted.

Regards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_882_1224_GIF_Screenshot-2_copy.gif 896

posted: 20 Sep 2010 22:23

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,

Thanks for your explanation. Unfortunately I don't have Visio, so it's all rather baffling to me. :?

Your signal box is 18ft wide on the prototype. The image file which you supplied is 272 pixels wide.

Therefore you are working to a scale of  272 / 18  =  15.1 pixels per foot.

How you arrive at that in Visio is up to you, but the results are excellent so please carry on. :)

If I was going to try something similar I would want a more convenient scale, and I suggested 12 pixels per foot as an obvious choice of 1 pixel per prototype inch. Admittedly that's a reduction of 20% from your scale, but I think for our purpose it would still be plenty adequate. Perhaps go to 18 pixels per foot (1.5 pixels per inch) for a really detailed item.

Maybe even 24 pixels per foot, but we want the finished image files to display conveniently here in Templot Club and preferably via the Image Gallery rather than as attachments. That means 800 pixels as a practical maximum, which at 24 pixels per foot would limit the prototype item to 33ft only.

The amount of cache memory needed is determined by the sketchboard rendering resolution which the user can set for himself. This affects only the sketchboard screen view, not the printed output or the view back on the workpad.

Here are some example screenshots showing that:

Sketchboard with internal rendering set at 150 DPI:
2_201702_280000000.png2_201702_280000000.png


Sketchboard with internal rendering set at 600 DPI:
2_201702_290000001.png2_201702_290000001.png


Sketchboard with internal rendering set at 2540 DPI:
2_201702_300000002.png2_201702_300000002.png


After doing some testing I have now changed the default to 2540 DPI (100 DPMM). That's a lot higher than Nils recommends, so I'm waiting for some feedback from him about any potential problems this may cause. As far as I can determine it's working fine.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 21 Sep 2010 00:56

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
Your signal box is 18ft wide on the prototype. The image file which you supplied is 272 pixels wide.

Therefore you are working to a scale of  272 / 18  =  15.1 pixels per foot.
Hi Martin,

Thank you for the detailed explanation, I now understand where you are coming from regarding the pixel resolutions of 12 and 15 per foot. I never really thought of it in that way before, and to be truthful I never bothered to look at the file dimensions since I considered them all to be within the bounds of the requirement.

However, from what you say, does give me some concern in the event that I produce a drawing of a very large building that might exceed the required pixel dimensions, such as a multi-road, multi-parking engine shed, I shall have to watch that. But in the event, I may be able to draw to the usual scale and then shrink down the drawing before I save to file, my only concern here is shrinking to a precise scale size, but we will cross that bridge when the time comes. :?

I must admit it’s an education to even begin to be able to understand your dilemmas and problems with, in particular, all the work you put in.
 
How you arrive at that in Visio is up to you, but the results are excellent so please carry on. :)
I will carry on as you suggest, to some degree, I am enjoying the challenge, there will be more to follow. :thumb:
 
The amount of cache memory needed is determined by the sketchboard rendering resolution which the user can set for himself. This affects only the sketchboard screen view, not the printed output or the view back on the workpad.

After doing some testing I have now changed the default to 2540 DPI (100 DPMM). That's a lot higher than Nils recommends, so I'm waiting for some feedback from him about any potential problems this may cause. As far as I can determine it's working fine.
I must say, you are working to a very high resolution for rendering, but the results are excellent, and well worth ‘stretching’ the program a bit. I hope it keeps on working satisfactorily ad-infinitum (I shall have to curb my Latin, after all, it is a dead language). :D

I think this topic is becoming quite an eye opener and education for all the club members, it certainly has been for me. Also it is nice that one can get involved in helping make things look better and become easier to use once you have launched ‘Sketchboard’.

Another concern I have is, I am drawing the right objects, :? what I mean here is, that are the objects of real use to others, since I don’t know the fine detail of what other members are modelling. What I may think is a reasonable thing to draw, may not be suitable for other members to use, it may be the wrong period, the wrong railway company equipment, the wrong type of structure or even something that has not been drawn before. What would be useful is some form of feedback from members as to what they think should be added to the library, after all, they are the ones that will be using it and will want to make their layout look good, and perhaps be the best in show. Also it may help them in the sense that others may be looking about for the correct information they require, it’s surprising what others stumble onto when least expected, which can then be passed on.

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 21 Sep 2010 14:41

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin.


I was intrigued by our messages yesterday regarding the pixel dimensions, so needless to say I had to have a go and see what could be done.

After re-calculating, I came to the conclusion that around 76 x 76 pixel matrix should be about 12 pixels per foot.
In actual fact the calculated number turned out to be:

 76.235294117647058823529411764706

Which stacks up pretty well with what I said yesterday.

A ridiculous number to work with, however, I found I could save GIF files from Visio within three (3) decimal places of a pixel believe it or not, obviously the program on completion of the conversion does round up to the nearest full pixel.

I therefore, did another copy of the signal box image and saved at 76.235 x 76.235 pixels/in, which gave me a file width of 216 pixels, and if you do the sum 216/18 = 12 spot on

Now I chose the signal box file because you had already done an enlargement of it as a demonstration yesterday, so would you be kind enough to investigate (in particular enlarge to the same degree) this latest attached file:

 Signal_Box_Large-EBN-2X. GIF

And see what the enlargement is like with the reduced resolution of some 20 odd percent.

If everything is OK with the new file and resolution is acceptable, I can then provide future files at the same resolution, which is what you would prefer.

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_884_1224_Signal_Box_Large-EBN-2X.gif 860

posted: 21 Sep 2010 17:15

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
And see what the enlargement is like with the reduced resolution of some 20 odd percent.

If everything is OK with the new file and resolution is acceptable, I can then provide future files at the same resolution, which is what you would prefer.
Hi Brian,

I didn't actually say I would prefer it -- I want you to do whatever you are most comfortable with. :)

I suggested 12 pixels per foot as a suitable scale for anyone else wanting to join in the fun and wondering where to start.

The images on the sketchboard don't have to be created all at the same scale, as each one can be sized as it is added.

Thanks for the new image at 12 pixels per foot. I extended the image outline length slightly to 888 pixels, to make it a round figure 74ft x 18ft (888 x 216 pixels at 12 pixels/foot).

I also changed the roof colouring to tiles instead of slates, so that we don't get confused about which one we are looking at. :)

Here are a couple of views on the sketchboard:

2_211159_530000000.png2_211159_530000000.png


2_211159_530000001.png2_211159_530000001.png


And on the workpad:

2_211159_540000002.png2_211159_540000002.png


There is some detectable reduction in quality, but not much. It still seems excellent for the purpose. :)

I have been working on the code today and changed the internal resolution setting so that it is now set automatically according to the sketchboard page size, the model scale, and the output factor from the pad. I have based it on 18 pixels/foot, so that any drawing less than this will always display at full available detail when zoomed in far enough. Drawings at more than 18 pixels/foot will lose some detail regardless of the zoom setting.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 21 Sep 2010 17:55

from:

John Lewis
 
Croydon - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian wrote:



After re-calculating, I came to the conclusion that around 76 x 76 pixel matrix should be about 12 pixels per foot.
In actual fact the calculated number turned out to be:

76.235294117647058823529411764706

This (appears to) take scale modeling to a new level! :D

posted: 21 Sep 2010 18:56

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
I suggested 12 pixels per foot as a suitable scale for anyone else wanting to join in the fun and wondering where to start.
Hi Martin,

Thank you for investigating the last image I sent, at least we now know what can be done if it becomes necessary. :thumb:

To this I would say, bare in mind not all drawing packages have the option to select what resolution you save at.
Unfortunately, some of the cheap and cheerful (/nasty) programs just default to a fixed setting which has been pre-programmed, this is usually at an acceptable level (whatever that means).
This is what got me confused in the first instance, as I normally just used the default setting of Visio, to be truthful, never gave it a though as I have always been relatively satisfied with the results I was getting.

The images on the sketchboard don't have to be created all at the same scale, as each one can be sized as it is added.
To this I must explain why I am so keen on doing my images to scale. If the image is not drawn to some scale originally, then when the user wants to add this library image to sketchboard or workpad, it can be stretched or shrunk in any direction, which will then deform the detailing in that image. Even if the user stretches or shrinks in a bi-cubic manner, they could still end up with detailing looking a little odd if it hasn’t been scaled properly.

If the image has been done to scale, then bi-cubic expanding or shrinking will leave the detail within the image looking as it should be and there should be no need to expand or shrink in any single direction to get the correct object (building) plan view (unless of course someone does want a distorted object on their layout plan !). :)
 
I also changed the roof colouring to tiles instead of slates, so that we don't get confused about which one we are looking at. :)
I’m not quite sure about the change of roof ‘slates’ for ‘tiles’, it makes me think I am drawing ‘Spanish’ railway buildings. :D

There is some detectable reduction in quality, but not much. It still seems excellent for the purpose. :)
I think, having looked at the resulting enlargement of the signal box latest image, and observing a discernable decline in the resolution, I will revert back to my original 96 x 96 pixels/in, as I prefer the better quality.

If at all in the future, you want to, or it becomes necessary to, revisit the question of the resolution, I’m sure I can accommodate you requirements.


BTW, sorry about causing you more work during coding, hope you resolve it soon.

Must get back to work, the next image is on the boil. :D

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 22 Sep 2010 10:59

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
To this I must explain why I am so keen on doing my images to scale.
Hi Brian,

I intend to add a scheme to allow images to be automatically sized when they are added to the sketchboard.

This can only be based on pixels per foot, and the only viable place for the data is in the file name.

A decimal point is invalid in a file name (not strictly true, but a recipe for massive confusion and download errors if we don't stick to it), so I propose that the pixels per foot figure is multiplied by 100, i.e. the scale is quoted as pixels per 100ft. I further propose that this figure is prefixed with an underscore and the letters pf, and placed at the end of the file name.

So if drawn at say 16 pixels per foot, an image file name might look like this:

lswr_lamp_hut_12ft_x_9ft_pf1600.gif

Templot can then use the 1600 figure and the image size in pixels to size it correctly for the track plan and model scale currently on the sketchboard. The user then needs only to position it and rotate it as required, and need not be concerned with setting it to the correct size. :)

To find the pf figure, divide the length of the image file in pixels by the number of prototype feet it represents, and multiply the result by 100. Ignore (or round off) any fractional part remaining.

So for example if the image is 492 pixels long and that represents 34ft, the pixels per foot figure is

 492 / 34 = 14.470588 pixels per foot.

Multiplying by 100 then gives 1447.0588 pixels per 100ft.

and ignoring the fractional part gives the code for the file name as _pf1447

So the file name then becomes something like:

coal_bins_34ft_x_12ft_pf1447.gif

The overall image size in feet should still be included in the file name so that a user can check that it has scaled correctly and adjust the size if he wishes.

(The underscore character is on most keyboards as SHIFT+MINUS/DASH.)

In the case of metric prototype dimensions, use pixels per 100 metres instead, and prefix _pm.

If the file name doesn't include _pf or _pm data, the image will be inserted at the dragged size in the usual way.

Whichever way an image is added, it can still be resized later if desired, by dragging the edges or corners, or by entering the sizes directly.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 22 Sep 2010 16:58

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

What can I say !!, with the very explicit details you have provided, all is becoming very clear.
This last posting I might add, explains a great deal to me of what you are now intending to do with Sketchboard and the intricacies involved. :thumb:


Martin Wynne wrote:
So the file name then becomes something like:

coal_bins_34ft_x_12ft_pf1447.gif

Regarding file names, I have two questions here:

  1. What is the max number of characters one can use in the file name, including the suffix format type (i.e.   xx……_xxx_pfxxxx.GIF, the whole string) ?
  2. Do you expect the submitter of the file to put the correct title format in, or will this be done by your good self prior to entering into the library suite ?
The reason for Q1. is that there could be several variations of a type of object, and a little more information in the title may be required.
The best example I can give to this is, Loco Sheds come in all shapes and sizes and vary at different locations.

Please note, regarding Q2, this will not be a problem for me, as I now understand the meaning and the requirement.

Two further questions I have are:

3. How do we put associated notes relating to the object file into the library suite, so that the information is available to all when required ?

4. Will there be a max number of words (or total characters) to limit the notes ?


 

This can only be based on pixels per foot, and the only viable place for the data is in the file name.

So for example if the image is 492 pixels long and that represents 34ft, the pixels per foot figure is

 492 / 34 = 14.470588 pixels per foot.

Multiplying by 100 then gives 1447.0588 pixels per 100ft.

and ignoring the fractional part gives the code for the file name as _pf1447

So the file name then becomes something like:

coal_bins_34ft_x_12ft_pf1447.gif

Also I might add, that is a very good way of dealing with fractional pixel counts, and should give excellent scaling results.

I must say Martin, this is getting more sophisticated by the day, to say nothing of the coding effort required, but I’m sure you feel it’s worth it ,as I do. :thumb:

 

On another note, I would like to ask other members if they have any drawings or sketches of trackside objects, or buildings of any description which could be used on a layout plan, that I they might be willing to send to me, as I would really like to produce a large selection of varied objects and fill the library with useful graphic drawings. After all, it’s no good having a reading library with all murder mystery novels in it, when people want a section on technical books !! :D
If any drawings or sketches are forthcoming, it would be very helpful if some dimensions are attached (prototype preferred, but model scale will do, providing the scale is clearly indicated somewhere).

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 22 Sep 2010 18:21

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
Regarding file names, I have two questions here:
  1. What is the max number of characters one can use in the file name, including the suffix format type (i.e.   xx……_xxx_pfxxxx.GIF, the whole string) ?
  2. Do you expect the submitter of the file to put the correct title format in, or will this be done by your good self prior to entering into the library suite ?
Hi Brian,

1. The maximum numbers of characters in a file name depends on the operating system, but for all modern versions of Windows it is 255 characters including the extension part. So say 250 characters max for the actual name.

That allows quite a long file name:

midland_railway_coal_bins_with_different_grades_of_coal_and_weighing
_machine_and_horse_and_cart_and_including_some_40_gallon_oil_drums_and
_a_patch_of_oil_48ft_x_25ft_pf1447.gif


which is only 176 characters. :)

Note that for reliable use on the web, file names should contain only:

lower case a..z
0..9
underscores

and nothing else. No other punctuation marks and especially no spaces.

2. I gave the detailed information in the hope that the person submitting the file would be able to add the data in the file name. But I'm happy to do it for them if necessary. The most important thing is to get the submissions first, and tidy up the technical details later. :)

3. How do we put associated notes relating to the object file into the library suite, so that the information is available to all when required ?

4. Will there be a max number of words (or total characters) to limit the notes ?
You are jumping ahead a bit. :)

At present please post them in this topic with notes in the message part as you did for the signal box. Please add them as attachments rather than via the Image Gallery, as the latter uses its own file names. If you add a lot you could post an index list with links to the relevant messages.

When we have more idea of the scope of the library we can decide how best to present it. At present my thoughts are a small indexed site similar to:

 http://85a.co.uk/rmweb_index/

for which I have the relevant generator software.

Whatever format is adopted, there will be no limit on the length of the notes. You can write a full article if you wish. :)

I would also like to create a "bundle" of graphics in sketchboard .sk9 format which users can load directly onto the copyboard. In that case the notes can be displayed as text items on the copyboard. I shall need to think a bit more about the auto-sizing for that -- it may be necessary to create separate .sk9 files specific to each common model scale.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 22 Sep 2010 19:29

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Thanks for the high speed response and for answering my questions. :thumb:

Martin Wynne wrote:
1. The maximum numbers of characters in a file name depends on the operating system, but for all modern versions of Windows it is 255 characters including the extension part. So say 250 characters max for the actual name.

That allows quite a long file name:

midland_railway_coal_bins_with_different_grades_of_coal_and_weighing
_machine_and_horse_and_cart_and_including_some_40_gallon_oil_drums_and
_a_patch_of_oil_48ft_x_25ft_pf1447.gif


which is only 176 characters. :)
I think one could describe just about anything with that number of characters available for the title ! :D

You are jumping ahead a bit. :)

At present please post them in this topic with notes in the message part as you did for the signal box. Please add them as attachments rather than via the Image Gallery, as the latter uses its own file names. If you add a lot you could post an index list with links to the relevant messages.
Sorry to be galloping along about the notes, but might I suggest, they should where possible contain a fairly good description of the item, particularly including any prototype dimensions (useful to check scaling), perhaps where it was located, which company used or owned the item, what colour schemes the item was/is, of what basic construction and materials, I think you get the drift.

Thanks again Martin, I’ll let you and I get back to work now. :)

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 23 Sep 2010 07:31

from:

richard_t
 
Nr. Spalding, South Holland - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
The 256 character limit is for the whole path, not just filename and extension. See

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247.aspx

for more information.

BTW does the Insert URL button work in IE8? It's not here.
Last edited on 23 Sep 2010 07:34 by richard_t
posted: 23 Sep 2010 09:02

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
richard_t wrote:
The 256 character limit is for the whole path, not just filename and extension. See

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247.aspx

for more information.
Hi Richard,

Thanks for that.

It's surprisingly difficult to get definitive information -- for example my copy of the Windows SDK says:

Although each file system can have specific rules about the formation of individual components in a directory or filename, all file systems follow the same general conventions: a base filename and an optional extension, separated by a period. For example, the MS-DOS FAT file system supports 8 characters for the base filename and 3 characters for the extension. This is known as an 8.3 filename. The FAT file system and NTFS support filenames that can be up to 255 characters long. This is known as a long filename.

Likewise for the server and browser. I spent some time yesterday trying to find the definitive answer for the maximum filename length for uploading/downloading, and in the end I asked Jim (our hosting provider). He still hasn't replied, so I suspect he's just as much in the dark. :)
 
Whatever, it's plenty long enough for a meaningful name for our purpose.

BTW does the Insert URL button work in IE8? It's not here.
It never did work in any IE. On my to-do list, but as I rarely use IE it tends to get forgotten. Sorry about that.

You don't really need it because most URLs get converted to a clickable link automatically if placed on their own line, and if you want a plain text link you can use BBcode url ... /url tags instead.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 23 Sep 2010 20:39

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

I have completed the small signal box that I promised.

It is drawn to a scale of 4mm to 1 foot, as usual.

For quality, again I saved file using a 96 x 96 pixel matrix.

The file image prototype overall dimensions are 19ft 8in x 14ft, this includes, in the length, the steps and their supporting post’s. The width is just the overall width of the roof and rainwater guttering.

File size is 298 x 213 pixels, this works out at a pf of = 1517 rounded up

The file name is :

 signal_box_small_at_chichester_19ft8in_x_14ft_pf1517.gif

Here’s the relevant data:
This signal box was/is located at Chichester, it was built by Saxby & Farmer in the 1890s for the LBSCR.
The box was mounted on a brick and concrete base and was located at the end of the main platform at Chichester, station. The cabin is of basic wooden construction, with wood cladding all around below the observation windows.
There are no windows at the back elevation of the box (the side on which the flue pipe is mounted). The front elevation has windows fitted along the length of the cabin.
The side elevation with the steps attached, has windows from the door frame out to the front side of the cabin, whilst the other end elevation has only a single window fitted towards the front side elevation.
was actually placed on the end slope of the platform with the steps at the bottom of the slope.
The steps are fitted side-on to the cabin.
There is a single cylindrical ventilator mounted at the centre of the roof.
The roof is slated.
There is no external observation platform to this signal box.
The overall dimensions of the cabin (not including the steps) are 17ft x 14ft, which includes the roof and eaves, also the rainwater guttering.

I have tried a new technique of the roof detail in order to get it looking more realistic (I hope you approve), as I consider the large signal box roof slates were a little too blue, see what you think !

I read the posting from Richard_t about signals, that was something I had in mind to do, I have some rough sketches of bracket and gantry signals but lack real details of dimensions ect. I would really like more sketches and information. :?

Another thing I was planning to do, was to produce images of Turntables, but again lack suitable drawings/sketches and details.  :?

I am, so to speak, just like the metal robot ‘Johnny Five’ in the film “Short Circuit” I need more input. :D

Regarding the turntable, this is the one object that cannot be scaled (stretched or shrunk) to get a different proto sized turntable, because it is road (track) gauge conscious.
Let me explain, If I say, produce an image of a 60ft turntable, then this can be put into workpad as a model scale 60ft turntable at the required model scale gauge. But if the person wanted a 50ft turntable, then if he tried to shrink the image to get the proto 50ft, the track gauge would not end up being correct, it would be pro-rata (shrinking) too narrow. The solution is to produce a range of different sized turntables, but again I do not know all the different sizes and lack other details. (more input required). If anyone has drawings or sketches of these items, I would be grateful for a copy.

I hope this all makes sense.

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_886_1224_signal_box_small_at_chichester_19ft8in_x_14ft_pf1517.gif 660

posted: 24 Sep 2010 09:19

from:

Howard
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Why not make the steps a separate item?

Then you can have them next to the large box, or straight out of the small box.

Howard.

posted: 24 Sep 2010 09:32

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I have completed the small signal box that I promised.
Hi Brian,

That's great. Many thanks again. :thumb:

You forgot to make the white area transparent, so I have done it for you. :)

Here are 4 signal boxes on the sketchboard -- normal, mirrored, flipped, mirrored and flipped.

Mirrored means left-right reversal. Flipped means top-bottom reversal. Mirrored and flipped together is the same as 180 degree rotation, of course:

2_240423_390000000.png2_240423_390000000.png


Here is the pad view in 4mm scale. The auto-sizing has worked fine -- the ruler shows 78.67mm (19ft-8in scaled).

2_240426_520000000.png2_240426_520000000.png

Thanks again. :)

Martin.



posted: 24 Sep 2010 12:36

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Howard wrote:
Why not make the steps a separate item?

Then you can have them next to the large box, or straight out of the small box.
Hi Howard,

The idea of a library of building components is a good one. :)

Users can then create custom buildings as required. For example the signal box part could be stretched to accommodate more levers, and then the unstretched steps could be attached.

Items on the sketchboard can be combined and then treated as a single item for positioning and rotation. Combined items can be further combined together to produce more complex graphics.

So for a signalling diagram we could perhaps have a library of signal parts -- posts, long and short arms, brackets and gantries etc. Users could then build up each signal symbol on the sketchboard before combining them and placing them in position.

There is really no limit to this -- a library of LBSCR ground signals or one of LNWR drain covers?  :)

For modellers of the modern scene we could have TPWS grids, concrete cable troughs, equipment cabinets, etc.

Of course, it needs someone to draw all this stuff! :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 24 Sep 2010 13:01

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Howard wrote:
Why not make the steps a separate item?

Then you can have them next to the large box, or straight out of the small box.
Hi Howard,

Can do !

That's an excellent idea, I'll try it and post something a little later.

Thanks for the thought.

Regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 24 Sep 2010 14:42

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Thanks for the response.

Martin Wynne wrote:
You forgot to make the white area transparent, so I have done it for you. :)
Sorry about that, if you noticed, I also forgor to put the roof ridge coping detail in !! :)

Here are 4 signal boxes on the sketchboard -- normal, mirrored, flipped, mirrored and flipped.

Mirrored means left-right reversal. Flipped means top-bottom reversal. Mirrored and flipped together is the same as 180 degree rotation, of course:
The imagery seems OK in any direction, and has not distorted, thats great. :thumb:
 
Here is the pad view in 4mm scale. The auto-sizing has worked fine -- the ruler shows 78.67mm (19ft-8in scaled).
As you say, the scaling looks fine, I wondered about the 19ft 8in bit ! :?

Did you understand my discussion about the turntable scaling ?

I will try what Howard has suggested and 'cobble' something up and post a little later.
 
So for a signalling diagram we could perhaps have a library of signal parts -- posts, long and short arms, brackets and gantries etc. Users could then build up each signal symbol on the sketchboard before combining them and placing them in position.

There is really no limit to this -- a library of LBSCR ground signals or one of LNWR drain covers?  :)

For modellers of the modern scene we could have TPWS grids, concrete cable troughs, equipment cabinets, etc.

Of course, it needs someone to draw all this stuff! :)
This is taken from your response to Howard. :)

My most urgent need is for drawings or sketches of objects, so that I can draw the image details.

I've had one email to date, from a member promising some drawing documents, for which I am most grateful.

To reiterate my previous phrase, I need more input. :D

Best regards.

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 24 Sep 2010 14:53

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
Did you understand my discussion about the turntable scaling ?
Hi Brian,

There's a drawing of a Cowans, Sheldon 70ft turntable in this topic:

 message 7323

Click the image to get to a full-size drawing.

For smaller turntables, I suggest you simply have a shorter deck and adjust the radius of the ends accordingly.

As you say, scaling the original to a smaller size doesn't work.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 24 Sep 2010 15:35

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
To reiterate my previous phrase, I need more input. :D
Hi Brian,

There's lots of stuff on the web. For example yesterday I stumbled across this site belonging to Peter Smith (Kirtley Models) which has some excellent drawings of railway buildings and fittings: 

 http://www.systonandpeterborough.info

(Click the station names in the grey bar at the top.)

For example, here's a platform shelter drawing:

 http://www.systonandpeterborough.info/Quickstart/ImageLib/FRISBY_SHELTERS_a.jpg

The drawings are for personal use only, so we can't copy them directly without Peter's permission. But plan roof views in your drawing style would be so far removed from the originals that copyright shouldn't be a problem. If you do use any of them and post them here, I will contact Peter anyway.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 24 Sep 2010 19:58

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Thank you for the information in both postings.

Martin Wynne wrote:
For smaller turntables, I suggest you simply have a shorter deck and adjust the radius of the ends accordingly.

As you say, scaling the original to a smaller size doesn't work.
As we have agreed, regarding turntable scaling, it will not work directly, however as you suggest above, I can easily change the length of the traversing deck and increase or reduce the radius accordingly.

Once I have done one table of a particular make and model, it will be relatively easy to copy the deck, make some adjustments, and then reduce the well of the turntable to the desired radius for that of a different required size.

What would be helpful here, is to have information on the different table sizes for particular manufacturers.

There's lots of stuff on the web. For example yesterday I stumbled across this site belonging to Peter Smith (Kirtley Models) which has some excellent drawings of railway buildings and fittings: 

 http://www.systonandpeterborough.info
 
The site you recommended above, was quite good for drawings of buildings, and have copied some of them for future use. :thumb:

Please also find an updated copy of the small signal box GIF file which I have correct (for my minor mistakes), it is the same title but with the term v2 (for version 2) added just before the pf scaling factor.

If you like, you can throw away the original and replace with this file, then remove the v2 (version) part of the title.

Many thanks again, and very best regards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_888_1224_signal_box_small_at_chichester_19ft8in_x_14ft_v2_pf1517.gif 550

posted: 3 Oct 2010 01:16

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Have just about finished a drawing of a turntable, which I now submit for your comments.

An original sketch drawing of this turntable was kindly sent to me by John Shelley and, is apparently, the copyright of the GER Society. However, John seems to think that a mention in Templot should cover that legality. Perhaps it might be prudent to talk to the GER Society to clear things up.
I used only the dimensions from the original drawing, to produce my image drawing.

The turntable type is a 1903 GER 55 foot manually operated (I will give more, in depth details, a little later for the notes, but wanted to get this on the go).

The drawing has been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot.

Some basic dimensions of the turntable, for checking scaling, are:

Proto Radius of outer brickwork (not including inspection pits)  = 28ft 8.5in

Proto Radius of inner pit brickwork (not including inspection pits) = 27ft 7in

Proto Radius of inner edge of water gutter (not including drain)  = 8ft 0in

I have saved the image file at 105 x 105 pixels/in, due to the extra amount of details the drawing contains.

This has given a file size of 1024 x 951 pixels, I hope this is not too large for your requirements.

The scaling measurement is a little tricky, you have to take a line vertically down from the tip of the push bar on the right-hand side of the drawing, then measure from that line horizontally through the centre of the drawing to the outer edge of the circle of brickwork on the left-hand side.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 247.3867 mm

 Proto = 61ft 10.16in  (61.846675ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 1024 / 61.846675  (1024 / 61ft 10.16in) = 16.55707, rounding up = fp1656

I could/can, if required, save a file at better resolution, but this will increase the size of file (more pixels).

Other measurements you can check are as follows:

From each of the ‘flat’ ends (outer edge of brickwork) of the inspection pits on either side of the main pit, measuring from one side diametrically to the other, through the centre of the circle, should give;

 Scale = 256.9291 mm

 Proto = 64ft 2.7873in

Taking a vertical line through the centre of the circle, to the outer edges of the brickwork should give:

 Scale 229.7867 mm

 Proto = 57ft 5.36in

Now what I would really like you to check is, that the grating panels between the rails do no ‘black out’ when going to smaller scales. Conversely, that the same gratings do not get wider in detail (oddly so) when going up to larger scale.
The reason I ask this is because, when drawing this detail I originally did them as an enlargement, near to scale, but found, when I brought them back to the correct scale, they ‘blacked out’, that is to say the grating darker lines all blended together. So I had to re-draw them at a wider grating spacing until I achieved a near correct look at the required scale of 4 mm to 1 foot. I am therefore a little concerned that the same my happen in ‘sketchboard’ or ‘workpad’ !!

File attachment is:

 ger_55ft_engine_turntable_61ft_10-16in_x_57ft_5-36in_fp1656

I hope all is reasonably clear, but don’t hesitate to ask if unsure.

As stated above, I will get back to you with the notes, when I have had time to sort them out.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_896_1224_ger_55ft_engine_turntable_61ft_10-16in_x_57ft_5-36in_fp1656.gif 512

posted: 3 Oct 2010 04:28

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,

That's brilliant. Many thanks. :thumb:

A few points:

The prefix for the scaling factor should be pf (pixels per foot). You had fp in your file name. :)

If you need a decimal point in a file name it is better to use p rather than a dash: _61ft_10p16in_

(For reliable internet use on all servers and browsers it's best to regard an underscore as the only permitted punctuation mark.)

I have set the scaling limit on the sketchboard at pf1800 (18 pixels per foot), so there is no point in using a higher resolution than that. That means for your 61.85ft original there is no point in saving at more than 1113 pixels, the extra detail would be lost on the sketchboard.

(It would show on the workpad view, and on the full-size printed templates -- computer permitting. I could increase the limit, but for a detailed sketchboard drawing with many images, the zoom refresh times are already getting quite slow. I think anyone still using Windows 95/98/ME is going to struggle with bitmaps on the sketchboard and will be limited to the native vector graphics. I'm getting a bit concerned that I'm creating a major support load for myself from users saying that stuff doesn't show on the printed output. The image zoom levels in Templot are far beyond anything normally needed in other software.)

I'm not too sure what you are asking me about the grating panels? Obviously as you zoom out the smaller details are going to be lost. There are several resampling algorithms available for the sketchboard, but the very highest quality is just too slow to be practical.

Here are a couple of sketchboard views. I set the trackplan in red so that the rails would show over the table. They line up with your rails perfectly:

2_022223_010000001.png2_022223_010000001.png


2_022223_010000002.png2_022223_010000002.png


Here's the workpad view. Your dimension of 28ft-8.5in radius for the brick ring gives 229.67mm diameter in 4mm scale. I measured it with the ruler tool and you can see that it is spot on. :)

2_022223_000000000.png2_022223_000000000.png


Many thanks again for your work on these images, they are way beyond anything I originally had in mind. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 3 Oct 2010 10:52

from:

Alan Turner
 
Dudley - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
How did you remove the background from the Bitmap for the work-pad view. I can do the GIF but the BMP always has a white square background.

Alan

sorry just found the transparent tick box.
Last edited on 3 Oct 2010 10:57 by Alan Turner
posted: 3 Oct 2010 11:25

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Alan Turner wrote:
sorry just found the transparent tick box.
:)

For anyone else lost on this, I suggest using Irfanview -- see my previous post:

message 7639

Note that you should avoid using the background colour anywhere else in your image, otherwise the image will have holes in it. Unless that's what you want, of course.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 3 Oct 2010 15:07

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,
Many thanks for your response and comments.

I am a little relieved on seeing the images in ‘sketchboard’ and ‘workpad’ you have posted, they don’t look so bad after all ! :)


Martin Wynne wrote:
The prefix for the scaling factor should be pf (pixels per foot). You had fp in your file name. :)

Sorry about the prefix error, but it was 1:16 AM in the early hours and I was not feeling quite so ‘bright eye’d and bushey tailed’ at that time. :D

 

If you need a decimal point in a file name it is better to use p rather than a dash: _61ft_10p16in_

(For reliable internet use on all servers and browsers it's best to regard an underscore as the only permitted punctuation mark.)

I take your point, excuse the pun, regarding decimal points, will keep that in mind in future.

 

I have set the scaling limit on the sketchboard at pf1800 (18 pixels per foot), so there is no point in using a higher resolution than that. That means for your 61.85ft original there is no point in saving at more than 1113 pixels, the extra detail would be lost on the sketchboard.


I did understand that you had set a limit of the scaling on the sketchboard to pf1800 (18 pixels per foot), but I was concerned about the total size of the saved file, regarding you original statement suggesting the file sizes should be around 800 x 600 limits, which my latest exceeded those limits and, better resolution would go even further beyond those limits, although still remaining within the pf1800 range.

 

I'm not too sure what you are asking me about the grating panels? Obviously as you zoom out the smaller details are going to be lost. There are several resampling algorithms available for the sketchboard, but the very highest quality is just too slow to be practical.
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8fcff"Regarding the grating ‘blackout’, this is an effect known in physics and photography, as ‘interference lines or rings’, (I forget the correct name, it’s something like ‘Maurrey interference’), where, as lines or concentric rings get closer together, they interfere with each other and distort or merge together to give a thicker (blacker in our case) look to an image, and the nearer they get (the smaller the reduction in our case) the worse the effect becomes.
I have posted 5 screenshot images of the turntable taken a varying degrees of enlargement and reduction to show what the effect looks like to this image as being drawn in Visio.
The screenshots are of 400%, 200%, 100%, 75% and 50%, as you will see down at 50% the gratings have all but disappeared into a black area. There does not appear to be any problem with the enlargements.
I may consider re-visiting the gratings and redraw them, since even at 100% (which is 4mm to 1 foot) they are starting to merge, heaven knows what they would look like at Z scale !!  :shock:



Here are a couple of sketchboard views. I set the trackplan in red so that the rails would show over the table. They line up with your rails perfectly:

Here's the workpad view. Your dimension of 28ft-8.5in radius for the brick ring gives 229.67mm diameter in 4mm scale. I measured it with the ruler tool and you can see that it is spot on. :)

Many thanks again for your work on these images, they are way beyond anything I originally had in mind. :)

It’s good to see my handy-work matches up really well with the requirements of ‘sketchboard’ and ‘workpad’, I do try hard to get things right ! :)

I think John Shelley should be given some credit for sending me the drawing in the first instance, without it, I could not have produced such a detailed image.

Did you understand my mentioning about the copyright belonging to GER Society ?

I have been thinking about a possible orientation problem of the image in both ‘sketchboard’ and ‘workpad’, the inspection pits my be in the wrong place in a particular case (other objects may be in the way), so will ‘split off’ these two items and produce two images (1 – the turntable and main pit, 2 – the two inspection pits, invisible linked and diametrically opposed at scale size) that can be joined (or not) in whatever positions are required. This is thanks to Howard’s suggestion previously posted.
I eliminated the idea of splitting out the actual turntable as this may prove to have more difficult line-up problems.

One thing I have been meaning to ask is, can you place, say, parts of images over another so that the upper image part masks out that bit of the lower image (considering transparency). This is all to do with the way things might have to be drawn to get flexibility to the images (Howard’s suggestion again  :D ).

I have received a couple of very welcome drawings from Phil Ottley of some houses which I will produce images of next, as I have promised Phil I would do. (got to keep the enthusiasm going). :)
After that I plan a station building, but would really like to get my teeth into a decent sized signal gantry, with all the relevant detailing.

I think that’s all for now, I will send the notes on the turntable as soon as I can.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 Ps. First attachment is of 400%.

 

 

 

 


 
Attachment: attach_898_1224_grating_screenshot_400percent.JPG 529

posted: 3 Oct 2010 15:11

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Second screenshot at 200%

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_899_1224_grating_screenshot_200percent.JPG 568

posted: 3 Oct 2010 15:12

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Third screenshot at 100%

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_900_1224_grating_screenshot_100percent.JPG 468

posted: 3 Oct 2010 15:14

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Fourth screenshot at 75%

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_901_1224_grating_screenshot_75percent.JPG 475

posted: 3 Oct 2010 15:17

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

The fifth and final screenshot at 50%

You can see how the gratings have all but disappeared in detail.

regards,

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_902_1224_grating_screenshot_50percent.JPG 478

posted: 3 Oct 2010 16:37

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
Regarding the grating ‘blackout’, this is an effect known in physics and photography, as ‘interference lines or rings’
Hi Brian,

I think you may be off course there, it's simply that the amount of detail is finer than the number of pixels available to contain it. The detail therefore has to be simplified, and the actual result depends on the resampling algorithm used.

Here are some images to illustrate that:

Original crop from your 400% image:

2_031102_590000000.png2_031102_590000000.png

Simple shrink zoom to 25% of that = your 100%. Notice that some lines are missing (discarded detail):

2_031120_200000000.png2_031120_200000000.png

Resampled to same size using various algorithms:

Lanczos3            Triangle                Mitchell                Bspline                 Bell
2_031103_440000000.png2_031103_440000000.png  2_031102_590000004.png2_031102_590000004.png  2_031102_590000003.png2_031102_590000003.png  2_031102_590000002.png2_031102_590000002.png  2_031102_590000001.png2_031102_590000001.png
Instead of simply discarding detail which doesn't fit, it is merged into the adjacent pixel. The result is a softer image but a better representation of the original.

Resampled to 12.5% = your 50%:

Lanczos3
2_031109_570000000.png2_031109_570000000.png
At this size there just aren't enough pixels to contain anything more than a smeared effect. The grating area is only 28 pixels wide and you have 47 "lines" in your diagram (grating bars and spaces between them).

I'm not sure where your problem lies or what all this demonstrates? Your image is just fine. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 3 Oct 2010 18:06

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the information, in particular the parts related to the use of various algorithms to re-sample the image.

You are perhaps quite correct in your assumption, however, I will keep doing what I am already doing and hope all will be acceptable. :)

It would seem from what your experiment has shown, that for ‘Z’ scale, the current image should be OK, and that is good news. :)

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 3 Oct 2010 22:01

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
It would seem from what your experiment has shown, that for ‘Z’ scale, the current image should be OK, and that is good news. :)
Hi Brian,

It doesn't actually make any difference whether it's Z or Gauge 1 -- the image on the sketchboad (and the workpad) is exactly the same. Only the numbers along the bottom would be different. Remove those from the screenshot and it is impossible to determine the scale from the image alone.

Only when construction templates are printed full-size is there any difference. In that case, the images are significantly enlarged rather than shrunk, so there is no loss of detail.

I was concerned about the total size of the saved file, regarding you original statement suggesting the file sizes should be around 800 x 600 limits, which my latest exceeded those limits and, better resolution would go even further beyond those limits, although still remaining within the pf1800 range.
I suggested those figures before I saw your work! But even then it was only intended as an indication of the order of magnitude -- i.e. pixels measured in hundreds rather than several thousands.

Don't worry about the file size in KB -- provided you save in GIF or PNG format with no intermediate use of JPG format.

In fact unless a camera or scanner has been used in creating these images, please don't go anywhere near JPG format. Save directly from your drawing program as GIF or PNG (or temporarily as BMP if necessary).

For graphics drawings saved in GIF or PNG format there is no correlation between file size in KB and the number of pixels. A blank area of solid colour several thousand pixels each way would be saved in a file of less than 1KB. It is the amount of detail in the image which determines the file size.

JPG is different and intended only for photographs. Graphics drawings and screenshots saved in JPG will have the quality degraded and the file size significantly increased. And once so saved, there is no way back.

I think John Shelley should be given some credit for sending me the drawing in the first instance, without it, I could not have produced such a detailed image. Did you understand my mentioning about the copyright belonging to GER Society ?
If you used only the dimensions and no part of the original drawing I think this is a very grey area. If the GERS actually measured a turntable they can be said to own the dimensions, but if they used original GER drawings or data the dimensions do not belong to them. Nevertheless they deserve a mention and many thanks to John Shelley for providing the drawing. John is a member here, so perhaps you could comment John?

One thing I have been meaning to ask is, can you place, say, parts of images over another so that the upper image part masks out that bit of the lower image (considering transparency).
Yes, you can overlap images. But which "transparency" do you mean? The transparent background in the GIF image file will always show clear no matter how you arrange the images. In effect that part of the image is treated as if it doesn't exist. In addition to that, you can give the image an overall transparency so that anything underneath partly shows through. You can move images forwards and back to change which one is in front.

To illustrate that, here is a transparent signal box. :)

2_031645_410000001.png2_031645_410000001.png

The transparent background area around the steps is unchanged. You can see that the cattle dock is solid -- the grid line is obscured.

Here it is on the workpad. The relative image transparencies are preserved, but now the whole thing is on the background behind the track, grid lines, and everything else:

2_031645_410000000.png2_031645_410000000.png

regards,

Martin.

posted: 3 Oct 2010 23:51

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Thank you for your most explicit and detailed explanations. :thumb:
It is a pleasure dealing with someone who not only responds in good (excellent) time, but also takes great effort to explain things in the most detailed manner and, in a way that I, and perhaps all others, can understand.


Martin Wynne wrote:
It doesn't actually make any difference whether it's Z or Gauge 1 -- the image on the sketchboad (and the workpad) is exactly the same. Only the numbers along the bottom would be different. Remove those from the screenshot and it is impossible to determine the scale from the image alone.

Only when construction templates are printed full-size is there any difference. In that case, the images are significantly enlarged rather than shrunk, so there is no loss of detail.


 
Since you explained about the re-sampling algorithm’s used to process the images in sketchboard and workpad, it has now become clearer that the images, as you say remain the same irrespective of scale size and my concerns about smaller scales is no longer valid.


I suggested those figures before I saw your work! But even then it was only intended as an indication of the order of magnitude -- i.e. pixels measured in hundreds rather than several thousands.

Don't worry about the file size in KB -- provided you save in GIF or PNG format with no intermediate use of JPG format.

In fact unless a camera or scanner has been used in creating these images, please don't go anywhere near JPG format. Save directly from your drawing program as GIF or PNG (or temporarily as BMP if necessary).

For graphics drawings saved in GIF or PNG format there is no correlation between file size in KB and the number of pixels. A blank area of solid colour several thousand pixels each way would be saved in a file of less than 1KB. It is the amount of detail in the image which determines the file size.

JPG is different and intended only for photographs. Graphics drawings and screenshots saved in JPG will have the quality degraded and the file size significantly increased. And once so saved, there is no way back.

 Regarding the saved file sizes, it now gives me a little lea-way to improve the quality of say, the likes of the turntable image (or similarly detailed images) which had a lot of detail in it, so long as I stay within the pf1800 limit.
This bye the way, does not mean all images I produce will necessarily be higher resolution, I will play each one on it’s merits regarding detail.
When I do the split on the turntable image, I will probably increase the resolution nearer to the limit to help the algorithm do a better job.
When a drawing is completed, I always save directly to GIF format (as required), and in addition for my own purposes (or other unforeseen reasons), save a BMP copy as a backup usually at a much higher resolution.

 

If you used only the dimensions and no part of the original drawing I think this is a very grey area. If the GERS actually measured a turntable they can be said to own the dimensions, but if they used original GER drawings or data the dimensions do not belong to them. Nevertheless they deserve a mention and many thanks to John Shelley for providing the drawing. John is a member here, so perhaps you could comment John?

Here, as far as the legality of copyright, I emailed John Shelley earlier today, explaining my reasons why I did my drawing from dimensions only (which I will not bother you about here).
Like you I think we should give the GERS a good mention, as I said to John, the drawing he ( and the GERS) provided was of immense help to me in adding the fine detail to my effort, which made the image look better. :)

 


Yes, you can overlap images. But which "transparency" do you mean? The transparent background in the GIF image file will always show clear no matter how you arrange the images. In effect that part of the image is treated as if it doesn't exist. In addition to that, you can give the image an overall transparency so that anything underneath partly shows through. You can move images forwards and back to change which one is in front.

The transparent background area around the steps is unchanged. You can see that the cattle dock is solid -- the grid line is obscured.

Here it is on the workpad. The relative image transparencies are preserved, but now the whole thing is on the background behind the track, grid lines, and everything else:

I asked the question about overlapping images (having made the mistake of mentioning ‘transparency’), because of aligning part images, and was not really about the transparency issue.
To explain, it will be much easier for others to align an image (or images) if there is something to align too. So it would be advisable to leave overlapping parts of images that can be joined accurately, one image then covering the alignment part of the lower image. To simply butt images together, particularly if complex, may be not only difficult, but could end up making the whole image scenery looking odd and disjointed.
Not fully knowing what ‘sketchboard’ was capable of, I needed to know because it will mean any images I produce henceforth that can be joined by other parts of images will need to have some alignment bits added or left in place after any splitting occurs.
The prime example of this is again the GER turntable, which, if the inspection pits (I pits) are split from the main circular pit, it will not be an easy job to re-attach them. But, if I copy when splitting, some small part of the centre table detail (with all space between each I pit and the centre detailing as transparent background), then this can be used to correctly align the inspection pits to the main pit circle, irrespective of whatever, positional angle is required. I think you get my drift !

Well that’s all for now, am going to have an early night to make up for last night. :)

Many thanks again for the precise information.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


posted: 4 Oct 2010 19:28

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Have just buttoned up the drawing images of the GER 55ft turntable, which are now submit for your comments. :)

I have in essence produced three (3) images for this turntable which should give some flexibility when used by others.

The images have been saved at higher resolutions due to the detail content. All previous images of this turntable should be discarded and these new additions used for ‘sketchboard’.

The drawing has been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore all images are at the same scale.

The first image is of the complete turntable in It’s entirety (nothing added, nothing removed or split off).

The second image is of the turntable and main pit only (the inspection pits having been removed).

The final image is of the two diametrically opposed inspection pits and an alignment circle in the middle.

To use the two spilt images the following steps should be done:

Step 1. First position (both in placement and orientation) the image of the turntable and main pit only.

Step 2. Then bring in and approximately position (in orientation) the image of the two inspection pits, these should be diametrically opposed either side of the main pit.

Step 3. Accurately position the inspection pit image by aligning the small centre circle in that image, over the same sized circle at the centre of the turntable and main pit image.

Step 4. Finally ensure that the inspection image is on the top (brought to the front) of the turntable and main pit image.  Job Done.

Caution: during the above steps, no stretching or shrinking of either of the images should take place !!

Here are some notes that apply to the turntable:

The turntable was designed and constructed by the GER at Stratford Works and used after 1903.

It is the GER 55 foot version, manually operated.

Apparently, this type came in sizes of 55ft, 60ft and 65ft, and in some cases, they were electrically powered.

Some basic dimensions of the 55ft turntable only, which may be used for checking scaling, are:

Proto Radius of outer brickwork (not including inspection pits)  = 28ft 8.5in

Proto Radius of inner pit brickwork (not including inspection pits) = 27ft 7in

Proto Radius of radial rail (to centre of rail)  = 26ft 2.5in

Proto Radius of inner edge of water drainage gutter (not including drain)  = 8ft 0in

The radial rail was constructed of the old Bridge Rail type and was secured on 28 off  5ft 11¾ long x 7in x 12in oak timbers laid on a raised concrete base foundation.

The running rails were originally of Bridge Rail type, but also came with Bull Head rail fitted (bull head is shown in the image).

The main pit had a sloping concrete floor with drainage guttering and a drain. The brick surround wall, was constructed 13½” thick with 3” courses topped with hard engineering blue coping bricks.

Painting of the ‘iron work’ was medium grey, which was that adopted for bridge structures in the GER era.

I have saved all three files near to the pf limit, but not exceeding it, due to the amount of detailing in the drawing.
The files are as follows:

 ger_55ft_engine_turntable_complete_61ft_10p16in_x_57ft_5p36in_pf1766

File saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

File size  =  1092 x 1015  pixels

The scaling measurement is a little tricky, you have to take a line vertically down from the tip of the push bar on the right-hand side of the drawing, then measure from that line horizontally through the centre of the drawing to the outer edge of the circle of brickwork on the left-hand side.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 247.3867 mm

 Proto = 61ft 10.16in  (61.846675ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 1092 / 61.846675  (1092 / 61ft 10.16in) = 17.6565676, rounding up = fp1766

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ger_55ft_engine_turntable_and_main_pit_only_61ft_10p16in_x_57ft_5p36in_pf1766

File saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

File size  =  1092 x 1015  pixels

The scaling measurement is the same as above, you have to take a line vertically down from the tip of the push bar on the right-hand side of the drawing, then measure from that line horizontally through the centre of the drawing to the outer edge of the circle of brickwork on the left-hand side.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 247.3867 mm

 Proto = 61ft 10.16in  (61.846675ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 1092 / 61.846675  (1092 / 61ft 10.16in) = 17.6565676, rounding up = fp1766

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ger_55ft_engine_turntable _inspection_pits_only_64ft_2p62in_x_7ft_0p87in_pf1767

File saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

File size  =  125 x 1135  pixels

From each of the ‘flat’ ends (outer edge of brickwork) of the inspection pits, measuring from one side diametrically to the other, through the centre of the small alignment circle, should give;

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 256.8733 mm

 Proto = 64ft 2.62in  (64.218325ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 1135 / 64.218325  (1135 / 64ft 2.62in) = 17.674082, rounding = fp1767

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin would you be kind enough to check, in sketchboard, that the two split images can be accurately aligned using my instructions mentioned above (and that they do actually align OK, also that the finished merge looks OK).

Regarding the GER Society copyright of the drawing I used for the job, further information has come to light, it is written in their attached notes to the drawing, that original GER Stratford drawings dated 1903, 1907 and others were used to produce the John Gardner drawing I used. It is therefore clear, that GERS did not actually go out and measure a turntable, thus by the fact that I used only dimensions to produce my image drawing, I now think all is OK about copyright. However, we should acknowledge the GERS for the use of their drawing.

I hope all is reasonably clear, but don’t hesitate to ask if unsure.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_904_1224_ger_55ft_engine_turntable_complete_61ft_10p16in_x_57ft_5p36in_pf1766.gif 391

posted: 4 Oct 2010 19:31

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi,

Here's the second image file.

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_905_1224_ger_55ft_engine_turntable_and_main_pit_only_61ft_10p16in_x_57ft_5p36in_pf1766.gif 396

posted: 4 Oct 2010 19:33

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

Here's the third and last image.

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_906_1224_ger_55ft_engine_turntable__inspection_pits_only_64ft_2p62in_x_7ft_0p87in_pf1767.gif 393

posted: 5 Oct 2010 13:46

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,

Thanks for all that, it works perfectly:

2_050833_250000002.png2_050833_250000002.png


2_050833_240000001.png2_050833_240000001.png


2_050833_230000000.png2_050833_230000000.png

Once the inspection pits have been aligned over the centre, they can be rotated on the sketchboard to the required position.

In the workpad view I have aligned the fixing peg on the table centre and I'm rotating the next table track into position.

The gauge is T-55 (5.5mm/ft) if you are wondering about the numbers. :)

Many thanks again. :thumb:

regards,

Martin.

posted: 5 Oct 2010 14:54

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Thanks for all that, it works perfectly:

Once the inspection pits have been aligned over the centre, they can be rotated on the sketchboard to the required position.

In the workpad view I have aligned the fixing peg on the table centre and I'm rotating the next table track into position.

Hi Martin,

That’s great news, it should make things much more flexible regarding tight space positioning, I am delighted, at least now, that puts that one to bed. :thumb:


The gauge is T-55 (5.5mm/ft) if you are wondering about the numbers. :)

Yes when I first looked at the images and the number’s I did get a little concerned, but thought there must be a good reason. :D

If, in the future, you find someone requires a different size of this type of turntable, such as 60ft or 65ft, then it should not be too much trouble for me to re-draw and change some of the parts to get what is needed, but may have to check with the GERS to get the correct measurements as I don’t think it will be a straight forward pro-rata increase in size (enlargement).
At least now I have got one of them under my belt, so to speak. :)

Must get on with the next image, I’m doing some terraced houses from drawings that Phil Ottley was kind enough to send me, and as he put it, donate to the good cause.

Thanks again Martin, that’s made my day.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 

 

posted: 5 Oct 2010 18:21

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Question about the turntable. Is it normal to have only one crowbar for pushing the table around, or would the second mounting point also have one? I haven't the faintest.

Cheers
Nigel

posted: 5 Oct 2010 19:20

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Nigel Brown wrote:
Question about the turntable. Is it normal to have only one crowbar for pushing the table around, or would the second mounting point also have one? I haven't the faintest.


Hi Nigel,

Sorry, just could not resist the challenge. :)

Look at the picture below and observe the ‘auxiliary’ power provided at the rear of the tender. :)

In all seriousness, I drew the push bar, just at one end to save a little pixel area and maintain a degree of reasonable resolution.

In true proto, there would (or should, if not mislaid) be two push handles, however, these were removable from the socket fixing, and as you see in the picture, often driver’s or firemen did not bother to use the second (or could not find it).

Regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_908_1224_B0011.gif 378

posted: 6 Oct 2010 00:31

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian

Cracking pic. Pity Ben Alder wasn't preserved.

Cheers
Nigel

posted: 9 Oct 2010 21:20

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

This last couple of days, have been tinkering around with an image of a two road LNWR wrought iron girder under-bridge. :)

I have just finished the main span part of the bridge, but have not yet done anything about side retaining walls, since that may need some further thought, due to the possible number of variations.

I am not one hundred percent happy about the blue brickwork arrangement, may need further work, but I will sleep on that.

Also am considering variable length bridges of this type, I need to work out a way of sectionalizing the span parts so that these may be joined to increase the span width (or shorten as required). If you have any suggestions in this area regarding prototype lengths, they would be greatly appreciated as I can then work out the incremental mid-section lengths to be able to produce any desired length of span (possible thought, 3ft or 4ft proto sections).
It may just be possible to stretch or shrink the current image slightly, no more than say between 5% to 10% max, but it is not recommended, it would be better to partition. :?

On the image, I have put in the rails, and left a yellow rail centre line for each road, which you can use for alignment purposes (the yellow lines can be removed for the final version when completed).

The drawing has been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the image is at the same scale.

Have saved the image at a higher resolution, due to the degree of detail in the drawing.

The file details are as follows:

 rail_underbridge_lnwr_type_test_53ft_3in_x_35ft_0in_pf1767

File saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

File size  =  941 x 619  pixels

Over all length (horizontal) measurement is taken between the outer edges of the large brown capping stones which atop the abutment piers at either end of the bridge structure.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 213 mm

 Proto = 53ft 3in  (53.25ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 941 / 53.25  (941 / 53ft 3in) = 17.67136, rounding  = fp1767


The over all width (vertical) measurement is taken between the outermost edges of the blue brickwork of the two left-hand (or right-hand) bridge abutment piers.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 140 mm

 Proto = 35ft  (35ft)

A final check measurement can be taken of the carriageway span of the bridge, this should be measured (horizontally) between the inner edges of the blue pier brickwork near to the outer girder iron work (the girders with the guard rail fitted). This dimension has been calculated to give a full carriageway and pavement either side of the carriageway.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 139 mm

 Proto = 34ft 9in  (34.75ft)

I would be grateful if you will give this a whirl and see what it looks like, how it fits in, and if all dimensions work out OK

I must now get on with Phil Ottley’s houses, that I promised I would do. :)
 
All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_916_1224_rail_underbridge_lnwr_type_test_53ft_3in_x_35ft_0in_pf1767.gif 331

posted: 9 Oct 2010 22:33

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I would be grateful if you will give this a whirl and see what it looks like, how it fits in, and if all dimensions work out OK
Hi Brian,

Many thanks again. :thumb:

You can see that it has worked out fine with the dimensions 213mm x 140mm correctly set:


2_091701_060000000.gif2_091701_060000000.gif


I'm a bit puzzled by the texture between the rails and no rail fixings visible. For a girder underbridge this would usually be rails chaired on waybeams with the metalwork visible, or else ballasted on a deckpan with sleepers visible. Is this old-style ballasting over the sleeper tops?

For incremental span lengths I don't think there is a prototypical figure. Bridges tend to be designed to fit each site. You could perhaps provide the two end sections (actually we only need one of them, it can be mirrored to provide the other end), and two or three different lengths of middle sections which can be stretched slightly by the user if necessary.

You could also perhaps provide an end section with the two sides offset for skew bridges. It could be flipped or mirrored to provide the various options.

Sorry I can't provide more images -- I have the sketchboard in bits at the moment. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 10 Oct 2010 01:28

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Many thanks again. :thumb:

You can see that it has worked out fine with the dimensions 213mm x 140mm correctly set:


Hi Martin,

I’m glad that seems to fit in OK and the dimensions look about right, that’s fine. :)


I'm a bit puzzled by the texture between the rails and no rail fixings visible. For a girder underbridge this would usually be rails chaired on waybeams with the metalwork visible, or else ballasted on a deckpan with sleepers visible. Is this old-style ballasting over the sleeper tops?

First I must explain, that as the title of the file suggests, it was for an initial test (or experiment) for me and to see if it would be alright for sketchboard. Once completed, the file title will no longer contain the word ‘test’.

I did actually start to draw waybeams and rail bearers, but when looking at the pictures I have of such bridges, there seemed to be non showing lower ironwork (with the exception of some pics where the bridge was being either repaired or actually built). All other pictures showed, either plated or timbered decking with ballast.
I thought that it might save a little time, rather than take the trouble to draw the extra ironwork, to deck and ballast.
My first inclination was to detail the lower ironwork, and may well do that for the final image, I personally think it would look much more interesting.

As a matter of interest, the waybeams for this bridge are 14in x ½in top plat and 2 off 14in x ½in for the bottom plate. The rail bearers are of 9in x ½in for both top and bottom plates, with 3½in x 3½in x ½in flanges for both waybeams and rail bearers (they built them strong in those day’s). So this can all be detailed if necessary ! :)

I did not put sleepers or fixings in at this stage, because I wanted you to be able to check the alignment without such clutter, these details will be added to the final image as and when.

One of my major concerns was about the brickwork, it just does not appear to be quite right, and there was no detail of this on the sketch drawing I have of this bridge (the ironwork is quite well detailed).
I was hoping that one of the members may be able to enlighten me on this matter. :)
Again all the photo’s I have are B & W and you cannot tell the exact colour from those, all bridge and retaining walls look very dark (perhaps grey) and detail (how the brickwork was constructed) is not very clear, so had to take a best guess and go for engineering blue brick and capping and the patterned (laid) to my own best guess. :?
I even tried looking through all my DIY building maintenance books to get some sort of guide, but to no avail (I need the assistance of an old 1890s civil engineer). :D


For incremental span lengths I don't think there is a prototypical figure. Bridges tend to be designed to fit each site. You could perhaps provide the two end sections (actually we only need one of them, it can be mirrored to provide the other end), and two or three different lengths of middle sections which can be stretched slightly by the user if necessary.

I tend to agree with what you say about the main span section, two or three different sized sections for the middle and an end which can be mirrored.

Regarding the retaining walls, I was thinking along the lines of drawing one short and one long section, in a straight formation, which can be either fitted at right angle to the main structure, or rotated to any angle to suite the requirement. There may be a little discontinuity where the wall joins the bridge when angled (may have to think further about that)
The problem comes if a curved wall is required, at this time I have no answer for that contingency.

You could also perhaps provide an end section with the two sides offset for skew bridges. It could be flipped or mirrored to provide the various options.


As to ‘skewed’ bridges, who knows what angle the requirement will be, as you have stated, “Bridges tend to be designed to fit each site”. This does really affect how the image needs to be drawn and spanning dimensions will vary considerably, and again I have no answer for a universal angled bridge image ! (on second thoughts I do, but it would mean breaking the image down further to give, an outer girder with sectional extensions; a middle girder with sectional extensions; an abutment pier which can be flipped and mirrored: and an image of support brickwork that can be angled to suite the requirement; ballasting may not be a problem, lower ironwork could be a problem, a bit of a task load to say the least !!).

Aha well, grist for the mill as they say. :) 

 
Sorry I can't provide more images -- I have the sketchboard in bits at the moment. :)


I hope you get sketchboard back together again, otherwise I’m wasting my time. :D

All the best,

Brian Nicholls. 

 

 

 


posted: 11 Oct 2010 15:17

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Have just finished a couple of image drawings of 2 bed terraced houses, which Phil Ottley kindly sent me some very good drawings of and, I might add, photo’s of the roofing details etc. so credit where credit is due.

One drawing is of an end house, and the other is of a single mid-section house.

The images can be butted together to give a terraced housing run as long as required.

The images can be flipped or mirrored to give a slight variety of forms, just to break up the uniformity if required.

I have drawn, as you will see, half shape chimney’s with the exception of the end house, these, I hope, should butt up successfully to each other to complete the whole chimney (this will need to be checked in sketchboard).

The drawings have been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the images are at the same scale.

Have saved the image at a higher resolution, due to the degree of detail in the drawing.

The details of the two file are as follows:

 2_bed_terraced_end_house_section_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767

2_bed_terraced_house_mid_section_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767

Each of the images is of the same over all dimensions, so the remaining file details will be identical for each one.

Both Files saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

Both File sizes  =  457 x 456  pixels

Over all longest dimension 25ft 10.33in (457 pixels) is measured vertically, and the measurement is taken as follows:

The scaling measurement is a little tricky, you have to take a line horizontally along from the from the front (lower) edge of the simulated bay window on the left-hand side of the image, then measure from that line vertically through the larger house part of the drawing on the right-hand side to the outer edge of the guttering at the top of the image.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 103.442 mm

 Proto = 25ft 10.33in  (25.8605ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 457 / 25.8605  (457 / 25ft 10.33in) = 17.67173, rounding  = pf1767

The over all shorter dimension 25ft 9.3in (456 pixels) is measured horizontally, and the measurement is taken between the outermost edges of the chimney halves at either side of the image.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 103.1 mm

 Proto = 25ft 9.3in  (25.775ft)

I suspect that the above proto dimensions can be rounded to 25ft 10in and 25ft 9in respectively without any real problem of noticeable size loss.

My main concern, is that when butted together, there may be a noticeable effect with the slates on the roof of each building, not being correctly positioned across the partitioning line of the buildings (this will need checking in sketchboard).
If this is the case, I will have to re-work the roof detail to try to correct the effect.

I’ll leave the visual checking in your capable hands Martin.

I have no additional information on the houses, but I think the images speak for them selves and no other data is needed.

I will be getting back to the bridge image drawings in due course, but first have some other image drawings to do of items that Phil Ottley has kindly sent me.

See how you get on, hope Sketchboard is re-assembled OK.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


Attachment: attach_919_1224_2_bed_terraced_house_mid_section_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767.gif 939

posted: 11 Oct 2010 15:19

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

And here's the second image.

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_920_1224_2_bed_terraced_end_house_section_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767.gif 950

posted: 12 Oct 2010 09:19

from:

Howard
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Why not make the chimneys separate? You could even have single, double or triple chimneys (did these exist on terraces?).

Howard.

posted: 12 Oct 2010 20:43

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Have just finished an image drawings of Cranmore Station building, which Phil Ottley kindly sent me a very good drawing of and, I might add, some very good photo’s of the station for detailing. so credit where credit is due again.

The drawing has been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the image is at the same scale.

Have saved the image at a higher resolution, due to the degree of detail in the drawing.

The details of the two file are as follows:

 cranmore_station_building_45ft_0in_x_18ft_6p7in_pf1769

The file details are as follows:

Files saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

File sizes  =  796 x 329  pixels

Over all longest dimension 45ft 0in (796 pixels) is measured horizontally, across the whole width of the image from left to right.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 180 mm

 Proto = 45ft 0in  (45 ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 796 / 45  (796 / 45ft 0in) = 17.68888, rounding up   = pf1769

The over all shorter dimension 18ft 6.7in (329 pixels) is measured vertically, and the measurement is taken between the outermost edges of the guttering at the widest (most vertical height) part of the image ( that is, the main building plus porch at top).

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 74.225 mm

 Proto = 18ft 6.7in  (18.55625ft)

Unfortunately, I know nothing of the station as I just did the drawing because Phil was kind enough to sent it to me with all the support info as well.

I have emailed Phil to advise him that some short notes may help, so hope something will turn up, I’m sure it will as Phil is very reliable and helpful.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_925_1224_cranmore_station_building_45ft_0in_x_18ft_6p7in_pf1769.gif 920

posted: 12 Oct 2010 20:54

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Howard wrote:
Why not make the chimneys separate? You could even have single, double or triple chimneys (did these exist on terraces?).



Hi Howard,

Did actually think of that but had possible problems with roofing detail around the chimney area.

However, all is not lost, there is a new version of these houses coming with the chimney’s complete and mounted flush to the edge of the image.

This was all due to a misunderstanding of different drawings, anyhow it is about to be put right.

I do however, take your point, and am now constantly thinking about partitioning image items in order to make them more versatile as my later postings, hopefully, have shown.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 13 Oct 2010 00:06

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Sorry, dropped a bit of a clanger with the last image, in my haste, forgot to add the flashing around the base of the chimney’s.

Have now corrected that and are now submitting version 2 of the file, it might be worth discarding the other image and just use this correct one.

  cranmore_station_building_v2_45ft_0in_x_18ft_6p7in_pf1769

You can delete the _v2_ in the above title when you replace the existing file with this new one.

All the best,

Brian
Attachment: attach_927_1224_cranmore_station_building_v2_45ft_0in_x_18ft_6p7in_pf1769.gif 921

posted: 13 Oct 2010 16:20

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Have just finished updating the image drawings of the 2 bed terraced houses, which Phil Ottley kindly sent me, and came back to me with some correction comments.

One drawing is of an end house, and the other is of a single mid-section house.

The images, particularly the mid sections, can be butted together to give a terraced housing run as long as required.
Also, one could just use the mid section hoses to produce a terrace, without using two end houses, since there is very little difference between the end and mid sections, just a thought !
When mid sections are butted together, this will give a four (4) chimney pots group at the joint, which, according to Phil is correct for the houses he drew up.

The images can be flipped or mirrored to give a slight variety of forms, just to break up the uniformity if required.
However, please note the end house chimney at one end are smaller than the chimney at the other end, so cannot be butted to another section at that end.

The drawings have been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the images are at the same scale.

Have saved the image at a higher resolution, due to the degree of detail in the drawing.

The details of the two file are as follows:

 2_bed_terraced_end_house_section_v2_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767

2_bed_terraced_house_mid_section_v2_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767

Please note, I have put a _v2_ in the title to differentiate from the earlier version.

Each of the images is of the same over all dimensions, so the remaining file details will be identical for each one.

Both Files saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

Both File sizes  =  457 x 456  pixels

Over all longest dimension 25ft 10.33in (457 pixels) is measured vertically, and the measurement is taken as follows:

The scaling measurement is a little tricky, you have to take a line horizontally along from the from the front (lower) edge of the simulated bay window on the left-hand side of the image, then measure from that line vertically through the larger house part of the drawing on the right-hand side to the outer edge of the guttering at the top of the image.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 103.442 mm

 Proto = 25ft 10.33in  (25.8605ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 457 / 25.8605  (457 / 25ft 10.33in) = 17.67173, rounding  = pf1767

The over all shorter dimension 25ft 9.3in (456 pixels) is measured horizontally, and the measurement is taken between the outermost edges of the chimney brickwork at either side of the image.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 103.1 mm

 Proto = 25ft 9.3in  (25.775ft)

I suspect that the above proto dimensions can be rounded to 25ft 10in and 25ft 9in respectively without any real problem of noticeable size loss.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_929_1224_2_bed_terraced_house_mid_section_v2_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767.gif 873

posted: 13 Oct 2010 16:22

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Here's the other image.

regards,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_930_1224_2_bed_terraced_end_house_section_v2_25ft_10p33in_x_25ft_9p3in_pf1767.gif 868

posted: 16 Oct 2010 19:13

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

This last few days, I have re-visited the Signal Box images in order to try to partition various parts to make them more flexible to use in sketchboard and workpad.

I have already drawn several images of a range of steps and entrance platforms, plus roof flue pipe, ventilator and chimney brickwork, all of which can be butted or placed onto the main cabin image of the signal box.
These image items will be sent to you shortly, once I have ironed out the problem I will mention further down below in this text.

I have been looking at many books to determine what types and sizes of signal boxes were about and try to whittle them down to one or two common types.

To this end, I have come to the conclusion that the most common types fall into two categories, and these are:

1. Cabins with just straight pitch ridge roofs, which are the most common.
2. Cabins that have hip pitch roofing, such as the Eastbourne box already imaged.

There are of course many other different designs of signal box that have appeared over the years, ranging from simple early wooden hut to art deco brick built types such as I believe was at Stafford, however, one cannot draw every possible type, so had to make the choice to go for the most common.

If at anytime, a particular type of signal box is required, this may have to be drawn as a special single requirement, and in this event, a simple sketch or drawing, with some critical dimensions must be provided by whoever needs the image. As far as the sketch is concerned, I think the term, ‘drawn on the back of a fag packet’ would suffice nothing elaborate is necessary, providing some dimensions and details are included.

I have re-drawn the Eastbourne signal box with new hip pitch roofing, and also another version with just straight pitch ridge roof.

I have just begun to try to partition and split the cabin down into lengths (lever direction length) that can be butted together to give any length of signal box required.
The width of box image will remain the same for all the various ‘length’ parts.
It may just be possible to stretch or shrink the cabin slightly when all ‘length’ parts are joined and grouped so the dimensional change happens at the same degree to all parts. This however, is not recommended due to the adverse effects that may occur, on detailing within the image.

Unfortunately, I have run into a snag when I join two parts together, it get a light (white) thin line appearing on the image where the two are joined.
This happens even if I overlap the two parts and select which part is on top (in the front), however, this thin line starts to disappear as I enlarge the image.
I am just wondering if this is a pixel related condition again, but cannot think why.
Also of course, it may just be a figment of the program I use to produce the images.
I have very carefully ‘cropped’ the parts so that no light or white edges are present, so I don’t think it’s that which is causing the problem

I have attached three split parts so that you can see what happens in sketchboard and workpad.
The larger part is the end section, the actual end being on the left of the image, the two smaller parts are the mid sections.

Please ensure that you align the images, not only correctly side by side (or just slightly overlapped) vertically and horizontally, but in line with any roofing slate detail as well, otherwise this will also show up quite markedly as an eye catching fault with the final image.
The parts are:
1. 9ft 4in end section (prototype)
2. 3ft mid section (prototype)
3. 5ft mid section (prototype)

This unfortunately, has made a rod for my own back, for, as more detailing goes into the images, the more difficult it is to partition and split the images so that they can be joined as and how required without causing eye smacking glaring faults, that just don’t look right.

Details of the three split part files are as follows:

The drawings have been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the images are at the same scale.

Have saved the image at a higher resolution, due to the degree of detail in the drawing.

All three Files saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

 signal_cabin_end_section_partition_test_9ft_4in_x_17ft_11in_pf1764

File sizes  =  165 x 316  pixels

The length measurement is taken horizontally (left to right) across the image, and the measurement you should get for this image is:

Length scale = 37.3333 mm

Length proto = 9ft 4in

Width of signal box scale = 71.6666 mm

Width of signal box proto = 17ft 11in (17.91666ft)

Please note, the width of signal box cabin is the same for all three images.

 signal_cabin_mid_section_partition_test_3ft_0in_x_17ft_11in_pf1764

File sizes  =  53 x 316  pixels

The length measurement is taken horizontally (left to right) across the image, and the measurement you should get for this image is:

Length scale = 12 mm

Length proto = 3ft 0in

 signal_cabin_mid_section_partition_test_5ft_0in_x_17ft_11in_pf1764

File sizes  =  89 x 316  pixels

The length measurement is taken horizontally (left to right) across the image, and the measurement you should get for this image is:

Length scale = 20 mm

Length proto = 5ft 0in

Pleas note in the title I refer to the ‘length’ (lever direction length) first and the physical width of the box second.

Over all longest dimension (width of signal box cabin) is the same for all three images, = 17ft 11in (17.91666ft) (316 pixels) is measured vertically, and is taken from the outer edge of the guttering at both the top and bottom of the image.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 71.6666 mm

 Proto = 17ft 11in (17.91666ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 316/17.91666 = 316/17.91666ft = 17.63721 rounded up = pf1764

I would be grateful if you will check the images in sketchboard and workpad, in particular, see how well and easy it is that they line up correctly, especially including the detail within the image.
Also if you can check at varying scales that no light (white) thin line appears from top to bottom of the image at the join.

BTW, I have chosen the mid section lengths of 3ft and 5ft arbitrarily, if you have any suggestions as to two or three suitable lengths to give a variety of signal box make-up lengths, any advice would be helpful.

Regarding the end section length, for the straight pitch roof, this can be cut down to any size, bearing in mind line up of detailing within the image.
On the other hand, the hip pitched roof, as for the Eastbourne box, needs to be 9ft 4in proto due to the hip roof’ at the end.
This would make the smallest hip roof signal box length to be twice this length i.e. 2 x 9ft 4in = 18ft 8in.
If a smaller length signal box, with a hip roof is required, I will have to re-draw that part of the image to the required size.

I think by now you are beginning to see the complications that these detailed images have brought about, as I stated above, ’a rod for my own back’. :?
Also the fact that it is not so easy to partition images as one might think. :?

If there is a unsolvable problem with joining images, then the only other solution will be to produce complete signal box cabins in a variety of common sizes, the steps, platforms and other parts can then, still be butted onto the cabin image as required.
My own personal feeling about this is that, it may be the best option to draw complete signal boxes of varying sizes, due to the complexity of alignment, including the detail, but also because you will see a repetitive pattern emerge, on the final image, when joining several parts together of a similar or mixed length.

Sorry do not wish to interrupt your coding, please fit this in when you can.

Ah well back to the grind. :)

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_933_1224_signal_cabin_end_section_partition_test_9ft_4in_x_17ft_11in_pf1764.gif 811

posted: 16 Oct 2010 19:14

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Here's the second file.

regards

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_934_1224_signal_cabin_mid_section_partition_test_3ft_0in_x_17ft_11in_pf1764.gif 729

posted: 16 Oct 2010 19:16

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,
Here's the third file.

regards

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_935_1224_signal_cabin_mid_section_partition_test_5ft_0in_x_17ft_11in_pf1764.gif 691

posted: 16 Oct 2010 23:30

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,

Many thanks again. :thumb:

The white lines were on the actual images, so I cropped one pixel off the side of them.

They can easily be aligned on the sketchboard. You just drag them approximately into position and then use the nudge buttons to get them exactly aligned. I added the nudge buttons for this very purpose (0.1mm on the model per click, or hold button down to move the item very slowly):

2_161756_450000000.png2_161756_450000000.png

Sorry I can't show more just at the moment as I'm working on the code. :)

Brian, you keep saying "The drawings have been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the images are at the same scale".

I don't want to deter you from working in the way which suits you, but this statement is meaningless as far as the sketchboard is concerned. The only relevant unit is pixels, and this is the only information the program can extract from the file. Adding the pf scaling factor for prototype feet to the file name allows the program to scale it automatically to match the current trackplan.

I can't help feeling you would save a lot of work if you forget all about mm or model scales. Decide the scale you want to use in pixels per prototype foot, say 18 pixels per foot. Then set the drawing elements in pixels from the prototype sizes. So for example an 18" ridge tile would be made 27 pixels wide. Then you just add _pf1800 to the file name and you are done. :)

An excellent pixel ruler can be downloaded from:

 http://www.spadixbd.com/jruler/

Or a simpler free version:
 
 http://www.spadixbd.com/freetools/jruler.htm

Many thanks again,

regards,

Martin.

posted: 17 Oct 2010 16:46

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
They can easily be aligned on the sketchboard. You just drag them approximately into position and then use the nudge buttons to get them exactly aligned. I added the nudge buttons for this very purpose (0.1mm on the model per click, or hold button down to move the item very slowly):

Hi Martin,

Many thanks for your response and the information and apologies for interrupting your coding.

It is encouraging that the roof parts provided seem to go together reasonably well, however, in the mean time, I have experimented by fitting several parts of varying lengths together to make a longer cabin (not quite as long as the Eastbourne cabin) and my original fears of emerging repetitive pattern and misalignment of detail within the image has shown up quite markedly as an eye catching discontinuity fault in the final over all image.

I am therefore, leaning towards my idea of producing complete cabin images in several different length sizes, bearing in mind that the image can be slightly stretched or shrunk (5% to 10% maximum, although not fully recommended). For example if a person wanted a particular size of signal cabin that is not in the size range provided in the library, then that person should choose the nearest size (either over or under size which ever the nearest) then stretch or shrink, as the case may be, to get the correct required sizing.
I now just need to work out a suitable range of sizes to meet most, if not all, requirements(these may be at 10% increments, from a minimum size up to a maximum size, the in-betweens can then be ‘adjusted’, from the nearest applicable, to suite the requirement).
All the images, will be drawn at the same cabin width throughout, however, if another width is required, provided it comes within the 5% to 10% maximum boundary, then the width can be ‘adjusted’ (stretched or shrunk) to the required size.
This will also fall into place regarding the external platforms that some signal boxes have which are on the outside of the window areas for observation purposes.
I can draw these platforms to the same length as the cabin images for each of the chosen sizes.
These platforms will be another ‘add-on’ part, as and when required.

 

 

 


The white lines were on the actual images, so I cropped one pixel off the side of them.


I was investigating why I get a single pixel white line at the side of the image where they join one another.
I use Adobe Photoshop CS2 to post process and crop the images when required, so suspect that this is where the line is being inserted as a definitive border placed in by Photoshop to the image edges.
However, in loo of what I have stated above, I’m sure not it’s worth investigate any further.

 

Brian, you keep saying "The drawings have been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the images are at the same scale".

I don't want to deter you from working in the way which suits you, but this statement is meaningless as far as the sketchboard is concerned. The only relevant unit is pixels, and this is the only information the program can extract from the file. Adding the pf scaling factor for prototype feet to the file name allows the program to scale it automatically to match the current trackplan.



 

The reason I have been quoting the drawing as being done to 4 mm to 1 foot scale was, for the benefit of other members to visualise what the item looked like at that scale. Also it was too ensure you knew what scale the item was at for measurement purposes, however, I can if necessary drop this from the information written in the posting, it’s not a big deal.

 

I can't help feeling you would save a lot of work if you forget all about mm or model scales. Decide the scale you want to use in pixels per prototype foot, say 18 pixels per foot. Then set the drawing elements in pixels from the prototype sizes. So for example an 18" ridge tile would be made 27 pixels wide. Then you just add _pf1800 to the file name and you are done. :)

An excellent pixel ruler can be downloaded from:
 
 http://www.spadixbd.com/freetools/jruler.htm


 

I downloaded the pixel ruler you suggested, as was intrigued to se if it would work, however, when it appeared on the screen whilst using Visio, I found that as I zoomed in or out the ruler did not change size accordingly, it stayed at the same size ( probable due to the fact that it was measuring actual screen pixels constantly).
Also when zoomed at 100% i.e. actual size drawn, I found the pixel ruler did not stack up with the size of GIF image saved for the end section of 9ft 4in proto (37.3333 mm scale), which shows, horizontally a figure of 165 pixels, whilst the pixel ruler across the image on the screen at 100% shows a figure of 150 pixels. I also confirmed that when placing an actual ruler (plastic) across the image on the screen I got, as near as one could tell by this method, the correct size of 37.333 mm, so the pixel ruler is not consistent at all with the measurements.
Unfortunately this is of no use to me when drawing my images as I need to zoom in to get accurate detail, alignments and sizing (I use zoom up to x2000 to do this). The ruler in Visio follows any zooming action pro-rata, which is ideal for my requirements.
I can understand where you are coming from, as I have written short simple test programs in the past which required images or objects to be displayed at a particular part of the screen.
So will, unfortunately, plod on in the same manner as before, but will drop the reference to scale, unless I get complaints from other members !

Thank you again for trying the images, at least I now know what is needed to be done.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


posted: 18 Oct 2010 14:39

from:

Brian Lewis
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Now there are so many variations regionally, that I hesitate to comment. But generally, tiles appear 'portrait', rather than 'landscape', i.e they normally appear deeper than wider.

Also, you do not normally find a half tile at the edge, as drawn in these sketches.  You can imagine this would not last long in high winds. Instead you will usually see a 'one and a half' tile.

Regards

Brian Lewis

Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Brian,

Many thanks again. :thumb:

The white lines were on the actual images, so I cropped one pixel off the side of them.

They can easily be aligned on the sketchboard. You just drag them approximately into position and then use the nudge buttons to get them exactly aligned. I added the nudge buttons for this very purpose (0.1mm on the model per click, or hold button down to move the item very slowly):

2_161756_450000000.png2_161756_450000000.png

Sorry I can't show more just at the moment as I'm working on the code. :)

Brian, you keep saying "The drawings have been done to the scale of 4 mm to 1 foot, therefore the images are at the same scale".

I don't want to deter you from working in the way which suits you, but this statement is meaningless as far as the sketchboard is concerned. The only relevant unit is pixels, and this is the only information the program can extract from the file. Adding the pf scaling factor for prototype feet to the file name allows the program to scale it automatically to match the current trackplan.

I can't help feeling you would save a lot of work if you forget all about mm or model scales. Decide the scale you want to use in pixels per prototype foot, say 18 pixels per foot. Then set the drawing elements in pixels from the prototype sizes. So for example an 18" ridge tile would be made 27 pixels wide. Then you just add _pf1800 to the file name and you are done. :)

An excellent pixel ruler can be downloaded from:

 http://www.spadixbd.com/jruler/

Or a simpler free version:
 
 http://www.spadixbd.com/freetools/jruler.htm

Many thanks again,

regards,

Martin.


posted: 20 Oct 2010 00:18

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Yesterday evening and this afternoon, I have experimented with a drawing of a signal gantry, since there was some conjecture as to how do you draw a top view of a signal.

The point being as John Shelley said to me during communication by email, “how can you draw to scale, the top edge view of a signal arm which is, in prototype, only 1/16 in thick if metal, and 3/8 in if made of wood” ?

Well below is my image interpretation of a signal gantry with several signal ‘dolls’ and associated arms.

NOW PLEASE !, before anyone starts jumping up and down and getting there underpants in a twist, YES the signal arms are draw well out of scale regarding the thickness, and probably one may not see any colours from that view, but how else can you present such an item and make the whole drawing still look interesting.
This is what I was trying to achieve with a little ‘artistic license’ (not that I’m an artist by any stretch of the imagination), that you can quite clearly see it’s a signal gantry and looks more interesting, not just an overhead platform with nondescript black lines representing the signal arms.

With this little bit of ‘artistic license’ and the signal arms being coloured, one can represent Home, Distant, Stop and Subsidiary signals, however, chevrons cannot be shown.
This can therefore give the layout some basic form of signalling, thought not a complete signalling plan (and was not really intended to do so).

I just plain wanted to make this item image look reasonable and show clearly what it is meant to be on a layout plan !

I would like to clear up one point regarding my images, as I see it, these images are for use in both sketchboared and workpad to improved the look and detail of a layout, also to prove that items can be fitted into areas and spaces where the modeller would like them to be (or modify the position if not to the liking).
The most important thing with the image is that it ends up at the correct size when scaled by Martins program, any detailing within the image is just an enhancement to make that image look more realistic and interesting, not just plain coloured boxes as we all drew when children. This is the only roll of the detailing within the image to enhance the appearance, and is not part of any fine scale modelling, that, is left up to the individual modeller and their own skills !

Now a little more detail about the gantry image drawing, it is a drawing of a genuine gantry of the LNWR, LMS Pratt truss type.
It is accurately scaled at 4mm to 1 foot (sorry Martin, I think others need to know this), with the exception of the thickness of the signal arms, however, the length of the arms are to scale.

Although this has been drawn from a sketch of an actual Pratt truss gantry, it does not represent anywhere (any location) in particular, but is imaged to show how the signals can be illustrated by this method.
Also the colouring (although showing genuine stop and distant colours) and positions of the signals is factious and is done only to demonstrate what the signals may look like, these of course can be done to any required signal formation pattern to suite a particular layout.

This illustration depicts a two road gantry with signals indicating of a three road system ahead.

The main signals are mounted on higher dolls requiring ladders for servicing and cleaning, whilst the calling on signals are mounted individually on lower subsidiary dolls.

I have added short lengths of the two tracks with 8ft 6in x 10in sleepers and chairs for alignment purposes, no ballast or ground work is shown in this illustration.

Details of the image file are as follows:

Have saved the image at a higher resolution, due to the degree of detail in the drawing.

File is saved at dpi =  114 x 114  pixels/in

 signal_gantry_lnwr_lms_pratt_truss_2_road_6_signals_41ft_3in_x_7ft_9in_pf1799

File sizes  =  742 x 141  pixels

The length measurement is taken horizontally (left to right) across the image, from the tip of the left-hand subsidiary signal arm (Red & White) to the outer edge of the hand railing on the right-hand side.

The measurement you should get for this image is:

Length scale = 165 mm

Length proto = 41ft 3in (41.25ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 742/41ft 3in  =  742/41.25  =  17.98787 rounded up = pf1799

The width of the image (141 pixels) is measured vertically along one of the rails, top to bottom.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 31 mm

 Proto = 7ft 9in (7.75ft)

If there is any further information you require please let me know.

I hope this image does not stir up a hornets nest, but have a feeling it might.

BTW, there is no priority regarding this image, you can see what it is like in sketchboard and workpad when you have done your coding, I have no intention of disturbing your concentration on that task.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

Attachment: attach_937_1224_signal_gantry_lnwr_lms_pratt_truss_2_road_6_signals_41ft_3in_x_7ft_9in_pf1799.gif 761

posted: 20 Oct 2010 16:47

from:

John Lewis
 
Croydon - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian wrote:

NOW PLEASE !, before anyone starts jumping up and down and getting there underpants in a twist, YES the signal arms are draw well out of scale regarding the thickness, and probably one may not see any colours from that view, but how else can you present such an item and make the whole drawing still look interesting.
This is what I was trying to achieve with a little ‘artistic license’ (not that I’m an artist by any stretch of the imagination), that you can quite clearly see it’s a signal gantry and looks more interesting, not just an overhead platform with nondescript black lines representing the signal arms.



I am not sure that I agree with the statement that you are not an artist!

However, I suspect that most model railway signals will be the boring (visually) types on a post or on the ground and a symbol with perhaps an initial indicating the type(s) might be adequate?

Perhaps you could produce the signals from your gantry as separate items - say the arm and post + separate ladder?

Keep up the good work! :thumb:

posted: 20 Oct 2010 20:20

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

John Lewis wrote:
However, I suspect that most model railway signals will be the boring (visually) types on a post or on the ground and a symbol with perhaps an initial indicating the type(s) might be adequate?

Perhaps you could produce the signals from your gantry as separate items - say the arm and post + separate ladder?


 

Hi John,

Thank you for your posting reply and your kind comment. :)

Regarding the partitioning of signal parts, I am just a little ahead of you, for earlier today, John Shelley and I were discussing, by email, that very topic.

I think it should be fairly reasonable to split out the signal posts and arms plus other associated parts, such the lamp, and make a separate image of those items which can then be either used singularly as a single signal, or put onto a blank gantry or bracket image.

I also have something brewing in mind, to be able to show multiple signal arms on posts, for possible use as signal diagrams in sketchboard and on the layout plan, but it’s still in the concept stage at this moment, so won’t elaborate any further, just in case it all goes wrong ! :D

Thank you again for your reply,

Kindest regards,

Brian Nicholls.

 

posted: 12 Nov 2010 23:18

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Have just finished a couple of image drawings of two GW Standard Warehouses (Goods Sheds), which Phil Ottley kindly sent me some very good drawings of, so credit where credit is due.

One drawing is of a 60ft long single shed with a single slopping roof to one side, and the other is of a 40ft x 20ft double shed, with a slopping pitched roof either side of the longitudinal centre of the shed.

Both the sheds are of the corrugated iron roof style, so they look rather plane from above since only the roof, in each case, is visible, but should look OK on a layout when required.

The details of the two file are as follows:

gw_goods_shed_double_wide_40ft_7p84in_x_20ft_10p26in_pf1768

Files saved at dpi =  112 x 112 pixels/in

File sizes  =  719 x 370  pixels

Over all longest dimension 40ft 7.84in (719 pixels) is measured horizontally, and the measurement is taken, left to right, across the length of either one of the upper or lower rain water gutters.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 162.6533 mm

 Proto = 40ft 7.84in  (40.663325ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 719 / 40.663325  (719 / 40ft 7.84in) = 17.68179, rounding  = pf1768

The second file detail is:

 gw_goods_shed_single_narrow_60ft_7p95in_x_10ft_9p1in_pf1766

Files saved at dpi =  112 x 112  pixels/in

File sizes  =  1071 x 191  pixels

Over all longest dimension 60ft 7.95in (1071 pixels) is measured horizontally, and the measurement is taken, left to right, across the length of the lower rain water gutter.

The measurement you should get is:

 Scale = 242.65 mm

 Proto = 60ft 7.95in  (60.6625ft)

The ‘Sketchboard’ scaling factor becomes:

 1071 / 60.6625  (1071 / 60ft 7.95in) = 17.6550587, rounding  = pf1766

I hope all is quite clear for the above mentioned files.

BTW, did you understand my email regarding the proposal for signalling plans ?

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_941_1224_gw_goods_shed_double_wide_40ft_7p84in_x_20ft_10p26in_pf1768.gif 710

posted: 12 Nov 2010 23:20

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

Here's the second file.

regqards.

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_942_1224_gw_goods_shed_single_narrow_60ft_7p95in_x_10ft_9p1in_pf1766.gif 462

posted: 2 Jul 2011 13:48

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,

It seems a long time since you posted these amazing bitmap graphics, but I'm finally working on the sketchboard again. :)

I would like to include your files in the TDV download, so that everyone trying the TDV can easily access and try them. They would go in the C:\TEMPLOT\SKETCHBOARD-IMAGE-LIB\ folder, which will be the default source folder when adding a bitmap to the sketchboard.

Do I have your permission to include them? And do TDV users have your permission to make full use of them and publish designs using them?

I want to be sure you get full credit for them and that your copyright is respected. The only way I can think of doing this (apart from watermarking the actual images) without messing up any eventual library indexing by content, is to include your name in a tagged format within the file name. So your file:

eastbourne_signal_box_73ft_x_18ft_pf1512.gif

might become something like:

eastbourne_signal_box_73ft_x_18ft_c1begin_brian_nicholls_c2end_pf1512.gif

using c1begin_ and _c2end as delimiter strings which are unlikely to appear in other file names.

If others contribute library files they can be similarly identified.

I can then add some code to extract your name from the file name and add a small copyright notice at the bottom of the sketchboard page "This drawing includes images copyright Brian Nicholls", or similar.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 2 Jul 2011 16:48

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

As you say, it has been quite some time since I last posted a graphics image destined for sketchboard, but since it all went a little quiet for a period of time, like everyone else, I have been busy catching up with track-work on my project.

I goes without saying, that you are more than welcome to use the graphic images I have posted to date for inclusion in the TDV library folder of sketchboard, I would like to add further, that this can also apply as and when the pug is finally released for general use.

Also permission is given for other members of Templot club and, in general, other Templot users to make full use of them and publish designs using them, again, this can also apply as and when the pug is finally released for general use.

I still do intend to produce more images as and when required, and am willing, within reasonable bounds, to draw such images for other Templot club users if so requested, provided sufficient detailed information is provided with the request, such as a sketch or line drawing of the object in question, together with some description details to be able to fill in the appropriate detail.

Which reminds me, I still have an image to draw for Phil Ottley of his signal box he was kind enough to send me.
(Sorry Phil, perhaps now all this has been resurrected again, I will get my head down and start drawing the image for you).

Which actually brings me to a point regarding copyright that you mentioned Martin, if I draw an image for a fellow member, who has provided sketches and details, at least that person should share in the credit for the image, although not having actually produced it.
However, I have no wish to further complicate the extended file name of such images, and I leave the though in your capable hands.

The file name additions you propose seem fine to me, but perhaps others may have other thoughts on the subject.
One particular thought that did strike me was, what name would you include for users that have ID’s other than their correct names ?
And, would the copyright be valid using a pseudonym ?

Food for thought no less !!

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


posted: 6 Jul 2011 12:43

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
It goes without saying, that you are more than welcome to use the graphic images I have posted to date for inclusion in the TDV library folder of sketchboard, I would like to add further, that this can also apply as and when the pug is finally released for general use.

Also permission is given for other members of Templot club and, in general, other Templot users to make full use of them and publish designs using them, again, this can also apply as and when the pug is finally released for general use.
Hi Brian,

Many thanks for your generous permissions for anyone to use your drawings. :thumb:

I have now implemented a suitable copyright mechanism in the sketchboard. When a bitmap image which has copyright info in the file name is added to the drawing, a copyright label is created or updated at the bottom left of the drawing:

2_060715_230000000.png2_060715_230000000.png

This is a standard text item on the sketchboard which the user can edit as required to change the position, font size, etc.

I have shortened the copyright delimiters to make them easier to remember,  a1a_ and _z2z :

   .....a1a_brian_nicholls_z2z.....

This string can go anywhere in the file name (but before the pf scaling factor, which must go at the end).

One particular thought that did strike me was, what name would you include for users that have IDs other than their correct names? And, would the copyright be valid using a pseudonym?
It's up to the owner of the image to specify how they want it to be shown. Legally in the UK your copyright is valid simply by the act of creation -- how you mark it, if at all, is irrelevant. But obviously it makes it easier to enforce if the owner can be easily identified.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Jul 2011 15:58

from:

Phil O
 
Plymouth - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Nice to see my Cranmore Station building drawing come in useful.

Cheers Phil

posted: 6 Jul 2011 17:31

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Many thanks for the message

I must say, the sketchboard display is getting to look more like an aerial photograph as it progresses. :D

That looks fine regarding the copyright, and your mechanism for detecting it appears to work OK. :thumb:

On that sort of topic, have you given any thought to image updates, should they need changing or correcting, so that the latest up to date version is used ?

I am adding the term …vx…  to the file names, where ‘v’ is for version, and ‘x’ is a numeric number.
An example is shown below:

signal_gantry_lms_pratt_truss_long_middle_section_10ft_5p05in_x_3ft_6p35in_v1_pf1775

This will now become:

signal_gantry_lms_pratt_truss_long_middle_section_10ft_5p05in_x_3ft_6p35in_v1_ a1a_brian_nicholls_z2z _pf1775

Also, there is to be considered, the mechanism required for getting updates and new image files into users sketchboard library once it has been released.

On perhaps a better note, last evening I took a break from my project and took another look at my list of things to do for the sketchboard library images.

I started by compartmenting the image I did of the LMS Pratt truss gantry, and have already drawn up the images, which will be with you a little later today. (I will up load the images to the Image Gallery to save several postings)

The gantry support frame now consists of the following parts:

1. One end section with side ladder
2. One end section with end ladder, as an alternative to 1, above.
3. One long middle section
4. One short middle section, used for adjustment to obtain the correct length should it be needed.
5. One end section without ladder, to complete the other end of the gantry.

I had to make three version of the end sections due to the difference in the safety hand railing.

As to the long middle section choice of length, I tried to make it cover one track gauge width plus a standard minimum proto track side spacing from centre of track. It is not exactly that spacing, but is very close to due to the necessity of maintaining continuity in the combined image when fully constructed, hence the short mid section image for overall length adjustment.

As to the signals themselves, I have produced images which contain the post ( a square post), the signal arm, the lamp, the counter balance lever and in some cases a service ladder.

The signal images produced so far are:

a). Lower Quadrant Home signal arm + all mentioned above with service ladder.

b). Lower Quadrant Home signal arm + all mentioned above without service ladder.

c). Lower Quadrant Distant signal arm + all mentioned above with service ladder.

d). Lower Quadrant Distant signal arm + all mentioned above without service ladder.

e). Lower Quadrant Calling On signal arm + all mentioned above without service ladder.

Hopefully these will also be with you later today.
Other types of signal may follow, depending on requirement.

Regarding the signals, it brings up two questions,

1. Can we live with square post’s or do I need to draw a set of round post versions ?
2. Can we live with Lower Quadrant signals, or do I have to draw Upper Quadrant versions ?

My own opinion is that we are only simulating signals in sketchboard so square post signals should do, but I’m not sure what the GWR fraternity will say about that, since they use mainly round post’s.

My same argument applies to the thought of upper and lower quadrant signals, do we really need upper quadrant in the simulation ?

I decided to draw the complete signal image with all the bits because, I for one would not want to mess about trying to fiddle and adjust, lamps, ladders and signal arms onto the image of a post.
It is far easier to manoeuvre the whole entity into position and will save everyone lots of time.

Regarding the gantry support frame, the images need to be ‘butted’ closely together to get the required length.
There is an alignment line on the left of all images, except the non ladder end section, which should be added last of all.
It is recommended, that the ladder end section be located first, them build the length by adding long, and if necessary, short middle sections, until the track span is accomplished, then finally add the other non ladder end section to complete.
The ‘butting’ alignment is achieved by overlapping the single line of the edge of the wooden tread boards for each section.
Should the need arise to clarify this, I will, if required produce a sketch to show how this should be done, though I doubt it will be necessary.

It is also important, that sections be ‘butted’ together in the correct horizontal orientation (do not flip horizontally an individual section), otherwise discontinuity will become very noticeable.
What that means is, that you may note in the images, the safety hand rails, have a long length of rail on the right after the last fixing finial (or ball in you wish), and only a very short length on the left hand side.  If these images are horizontally flipped, then the wrong length will clearly show when joined, and will look odd.
If it becomes necessary to flip the gantry, then construct the whole thing first, then group and then flip.

It is also recommended that the whole gantry be adjoined together with the appropriate sections first, then grouped together before finally orientating into the correct required position, this will eliminate out of alignment movement by individual parts.

On a final point of the gantry, if the image requires to be stretched or shrunk, then no more the say 5% change is recommended, again the change (stretching or shrinking) should only be applied to the whole combined image when constructed so that all joined sections go through the same change level.

On a different note Martin, I appear to be having difficulty when adding images into sketchboard using the TDV.

I first select to bring out a blank sketchboard,

Then I select add to bring in the image, and select the image

But then get a message screen telling me the image has no scaling information, and that I should draw a rectangle where the image should go.

When I draw a rectangle the image does appear in it, but cannot trust the result.

Obviously, I am doing something wrong here.
I was trying to see how the gantry all fitted together in scale (P4) but since the screen message appeared did not trust the results.
Now the file  being used had the agreed file name structure, as shown above, minus the copyright bit.

Help please.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


posted: 6 Jul 2011 17:50

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
On a different note Martin, I appear to be having difficulty when adding images into sketchboard using the TDV.

I first select to bring out a blank sketchboard,

Then I select add to bring in the image, and select the image

But then get a message screen telling me the image has no scaling information, and that I should draw a rectangle where the image should go.
Hi Brian,

The sketchboard cannot draw the image to scale unless you have first placed a trackplan item on there. Until then it does not know the scale to use, so the only option is to make you draw a rectangle. :)

I have just uploaded build # 3502 which has had a lot more work done on the sketchboard, and includes more explanation about the above in the messages.

Please be aware that if you have saved sketchboard .sk9 files from previous builds, they may not update correctly in # 3502. For testing purposes please discard them and create new files in # 3502 only.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Jul 2011 18:09

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
The sketchboard cannot draw the image to scale unless you have first placed a trackplan item on there. Until then it does not know the scale to use, so the only option is to make you draw a rectangle. :)

Hi Martin,

Many thanks for the quick response.

Yes, that certainly makes sense, I knew I was doing something wrong, will now try again. :thumb:

Have just downloaded the latest TDV.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 

posted: 6 Jul 2011 19:45

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Probably finger trouble on my part again, but did an inadvertent ‘Combine Items’ whilst mousing over, now cannot split them again, the ‘Split Items’ selection remains greyed out and inactive. :?

Also have noticed the Sketchboard Control panel remains in any active window when Templot TDV has been backgrounded, including whilst I am writing this message in Word. :?

Guidance please.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 6 Jul 2011 20:04

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
Probably finger trouble on my part again, but did an inadvertent ‘Combine Items’ whilst mousing over, now cannot split them again, the ‘Split Items’ selection remains greyed out and inactive. :?
Hi Brian,

If items have been combined, you must first select the combined item by clicking on it. The edit > split items menu item should then work.

Also have noticed the Sketchboard Control panel remains in any active window when Templot TDV has been backgrounded, including whilst I am writing this message in Word. :?
I can't reproduce that here. :?

What exactly do you mean by "backgrounded"? The best way to hide Templot is to press the PAUSE key on the keyboard -- that minimizes the entire application to the taskbar instead of just one of the windows. (That key is top right on the keyboard.)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Jul 2011 21:00

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin,

First apologies for not remembering your original response posting.

The pause key worked and removed the sketchboard control panel from view as you suggested.
However, even when selected (by clicking on it) and the item then showing the little circles around it indicating it is active, on my EDIT menu the ‘Split Items’ selection remains greyed out and inactive.

I have also noticed that a whole load of other selections are greyed out,

Re-do
Cut
Copy
Paste
One step backwards
One step forwards
Push to back
Bring to front
Split items

All of the above are greyed out and inactive.

Now I am suspecting that something has gone wrong with my installation, and I will try re-installing.

There is one point I would like to add to this theory, when I first tried sketchboard, just before my first finger trouble posting, I had been floundering around trying to get things working and I did the following:

In the sketchboard menu on the main menu bar (not the sketchboard button) I deselected (un-ticked) the selection
“Auto-add is in diagram mode” I then selected “show sketchboard” at the bottom of the menu,
The program then went into orbit and after a while the message “program not responding” came up in the blue band at the top of the screen.
It then took some considerable time and several attempts to end the program task by both clicking the close program “X” at the top right of the window, and Control, Alt Delete key combination.


I am now suspecting that the above may have caused a problem in the installed files.

I know I may be an idiot, in having done this, but the damage appears to have been done, and as stated above, I will try re-installing first.
However, I would have perhaps expected some warning, if I was doing a wrong command.

I mention all of this, warts and all in the hope that it may bring to light something that will prevent others from doing the same.

PS. Have just re-installed TDV 3502 again, and all menus now look fine, all items mentioned above are now in the black and quite active.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 6 Jul 2011 21:34

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
OK, I know when I'm beat. I have now moved this whole topic to the Development doings forum. :)

posted: 6 Jul 2011 22:39

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Here’s something that may brighten the remainder of the evening. :)

I have just uploaded 5 image files of the various sections of the LMS signal gantry to the image gallery.

Have also attached a text file with the relevant file data for all 5 files, containing all measurements.

The actual signal files are still to come, might not be tonight, but positively tomorrow.

See what you think, hope it helps the evening along.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


 

 

1853_061734_310000000.gif1853_061734_310000000.gif


1853_061735_160000000.gif1853_061735_160000000.gif


1853_061735_470000000.gif1853_061735_470000000.gif


1853_061736_200000000.gif1853_061736_200000000.gif


1853_061736_490000000.gif1853_061736_490000000.gif


 

 

 
Attachment: attach_1121_1224_lms_signal_gantry_basic_file_data.txt 253

posted: 7 Jul 2011 00:29

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Things went a little faster than anticipated. :)

I have just uploaded 5 image files of the various signal arm and post’s to the image gallery.

Have also attached a text file with the relevant file data for all 5 files, containing all measurements.

See what you think.

BTW, sorry about posting the last message in the wrong place, I had the window open already and assumed it was the development doings folder, had posted before I twigged.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


 

1853_061925_110000000.gif1853_061925_110000000.gif


 

1853_061925_570000000.gif1853_061925_570000000.gif


 

1853_061926_280000000.gif1853_061926_280000000.gif


 

1853_061926_580000000.gif1853_061926_580000000.gif


 

1853_061927_220000000.gif1853_061927_220000000.gif


 
Attachment: attach_1123_1224_various_signal_arms_with_posts.txt 266

posted: 7 Jul 2011 10:32

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,

Many thanks for the new signal components. You work fast! :)

I will add them into the next TDV update. :thumb:

In addition to such aerial views of prototype signals, we need traditional "laid-flat" signal symbols for those using the sketchboard to create signal box diagrams and control panels, something like this:

2_070500_540000003.png2_070500_540000003.png

I made a start on this years ago:

2_070500_530000001.gif2_070500_530000001.gif      2_070500_510000000.gif2_070500_510000000.gif     2_070500_530000002.gif2_070500_530000002.gif


but obviously we need a lot more components -- long arms, short arms, upper-quadrant, lower-quadrant, long and short posts, different finials, brackets and gantries, ground discs -- and for different companies, those GWR ones won't be welcome everywhere. :)  And the same again for modern colour light signals of course.

So if anyone reading this would like to have a go at creating them, please do. They are intended as symbols rather than realistic pictures, so fine detail is not needed. It's quite easy on the sketchboard to build up a composite signal design from separate brackets, posts and arms, etc., and then combine them into a single symbol for positioning.

edit: I suggest working to a scale of 36 pixels per foot, so that a 5ft arm for example would be 180 pixels long in the image. Or in other words 3 pixels per inch. This is a larger scale than the sketchboard (at 18 pixels per foot), but allows for such symbols being normally displayed over-scale. They can of course be resized on the sketchboard to any size.  

regards,

Martin.

posted: 7 Jul 2011 12:05

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Here’s a few signal items I drew up some time ago just before things went quiet.

Did you ever get my email about ISO view signals for use as on signal diagrams ?

I have also shown samples of gantry signals below.

All these images have been uploaded to the image gallery.

I would be interested to know what your thoughts are on these items.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 

 

1853_070702_330000000.gif1853_070702_330000000.gif


 

1853_070703_140000000.gif1853_070703_140000000.gif


 

1853_070703_380000000.gif1853_070703_380000000.gif


posted: 7 Jul 2011 12:34

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Brian Nicholls wrote:
On that sort of topic, have you given any thought to image updates, should they need changing or correcting, so that the latest up to date version is used ?

Also, there is to be considered, the mechanism required for getting updates and new image files into users sketchboard library once it has been released.
Hi Brian,

My thinking at present is that including images in the program download is for the TDV only, so that users can easily do some testing with a few sample images.

Those who notice such things will have seen that including those few images caused the download file to more than double in size -- from about 2MB for the previous build to 5MB for this one.

Including an entire image library in the download will massively increase the file size, with the further problem of what to do about amendments and additions. Not to mention the commercial aspects of including someone else's copyright material in a paid-for product, which I would rather not do without a proper written licence.

So I'm minded to create an online library instead, on the web site. This would make it much easier to have a proper index and to include additional information with each image, and it makes it easy to update with amendments or new material at any time. It also makes it possible to have an image or group of images available in .sk9 format for direct use on the sketchboard by copying and pasting from the copyboard.

But reverting to the start of this topic we do need more contributions for such a library to make sense. We can't expect you alone to create everything! Perhaps now that the sketchboard is at least usable, others will see the possibilities and be encouraged to join in. I included my scruffy Goods Shed in the file so that everyone can see that it's not necessary to match your superb graphics to create something useful. Maybe you could write about which software you use, and how you produce your images?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 7 Jul 2011 14:31

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
So I'm minded to create an online library instead, on the web site. This would make it much easier to have a proper index and to include additional information with each image, and it makes it easy to update with amendments or new material at any time. It also makes it possible to have an image or group of images available in .sk9 format for direct use on the sketchboard by copying and pasting from the copyboard.

Hi Martin,

As you have mentioned, I did notice the doubling in size of the last TDV download, it’s surprising how the images eat up the disc space.

I think you have hit on an excellent idea of creating an on line library, it will give everyone a chance to download just exactly what they want as and when required, and will minimize taking up valuable disc space on everyones computer.

Now here’s the difficulty in filling the library, I can just simply turn out images of various objects when the fancy takes me, but I feel sometimes, will the object just drawn be of any use. I could also just draw images of use for my own project, but it’s doubtful if they would be of use to others. What I am trying to say is, it’s difficult to draw things not knowing if they are of any use, and somehow, we must perhaps concentrate on useful items that most people will generally use from time to time.

The signals are a good starting point, as everyone will need at least one signal somewhere on their layout, the only problem here, is that there is such a large variety of signals, that again I fall into the trap of what to draw.
Some people want GWR types, some want SR, LNWR, LNER, GER, GNR, Caladoian, ect, ect, the list is almost endless, and this say’s nothing of variations for different periods.

I am going to sit down and try to think of method of producing common parts of signal items that can be ‘tacked’ together to produce any type of signal required.
It’s not going to be easy, since I will have to include Gantries, Brackets, as well as single post varieties, but we shall see what develops.

All of the above discussion, also applies to other forms of objects, Station buildings, goods sheds, engine sheds, water tanks, turntables, even platforms, again the variety is endless, so even here a method of producing common parts needs to be explored.

From a graphics point of view, the difficulty of making parts that can be added or joined to other parts, is getting the finished object to look right, particularly from ‘eye catching’ discontinuities or repetitive patterns within the object being displayed.

There is also to be considered, the effort, time and trouble required to fit and align these parts, so again a happy medium most be sort.

Perhaps other members have some ideas as to what parts would be useful, bearing in mind all that is said above, particularly the main difficulties stated.



But reverting to the start of this topic we do need more contributions for such a library to make sense. We can't expect you alone to create everything! Perhaps now that the sketchboard is at least usable, others will see the possibilities and be encouraged to join in. I included my scruffy Goods Shed in the file so that everyone can see that it's not necessary to match your superb graphics to create something useful. Maybe you could write about which software you use, and how you produce your images?
 

Regarding writing something about drawing the images, that may be the difficult part for me, but will see what I can come up with.
To paraphrase another members words, it not to difficult to draw an object, it’s just the time it takes.
I would further add to that, you do need a little imagination as to what the object should look like and particularly knowing how and what colour and shading is needed to make it look realistic when finished.
However, as stated above, will see what I can do.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


 

posted: 8 Jul 2011 01:07

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Hi Martin and All,

I have produced a quick simple guide to drawing images for sketchboard.

Please see attached PDF file.

It is a document which gives some simple ideas how to make the image look more lifelike.

All menu instructions contained in the document are based on those used in MS Visio, which is the main program I use for creating the images.

Since it is a very deep subject with many possible combinations of items to draw, I have just outlined some basic techniques that will help someone to draw at the very least some basic track-side images.

I would be grateful for feedback on this document, as it may well need extending, and perhaps more detailed explanations of techniques and other image shapes, however, there is a limit as to how far I can dig into this subject.

I have not really covered the subject of other drawing packages, however, I have given my opinion on what I think is essential for any drawing package to be capable off in order to draw reasonable images for sketchboard.

You can find in some cases, some post processing may be necessary to give the image that final bit of reality, in this case you need a reasonable graphics or photo processing program, I use Photoshop 4 to do this.

Anyhow, that’s it see what you think and let me know.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_1125_1224_Guide_to_Drawing_Images_for_Sketchboard.pdf 323

posted: 8 Jul 2011 20:09

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Regarding your last posting on signal graphics, I am just sorting out my GWR signal arm images ready for the sketchboard library.

I have already drawn the images to scale, and have selected to send you a sample set of two pairs of 5ft home signal arms, front and back views.

One pair is saved at the usual 18 pixels per foot, and has in the file name, the wording .…_true_scale_.... which has been used to differentiate between the second pair, which have been save at your suggested 36 pixels per foot.
The second pair has in the file name, the wording .…_over_scale_...., to show the difference in the files.

I have uploaded the files to the image gallery, and have attached a text file containing the information about each file.

Would you kindly let me know, if, in particular, I have the ‘over scale’ files correct at 36 pixels per foot, they should be OK, but would like confirmation.
I can then produce the other files already drawn, it is the same set of signal arms that I uploaded the other day grouped as one image, though not having been scaled properly.

One final question, do we need both front and back views ?

I must say, it sometimes takes me longer to sort out all the file detailing and measuring afterwards, than it does to draw the image in the first place. :D

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


 

1853_081504_500000000.gif1853_081504_500000000.gif


1853_081505_200000000.gif1853_081505_200000000.gif


1853_081505_530000000.gif1853_081505_530000000.gif


1853_081506_160000000.gif1853_081506_160000000.gif


 

 
Attachment: attach_1126_1224_gwr_5ft_home_signal_arms..txt 239

posted: 9 Jul 2011 17:52

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

I have just uploaded two pairs of GWR Distant signal arm files to the image gallery, and have also attached a text file containing the information about each file.

There is a pair of 5ft arms and a pair of 4ft arms, one of each pair is saved at the usual 18 pixels per foot, and has in the file name, the wording .…_true_scale_.... which has been used to differentiate between the second pair, each of which have been save at your suggested 36 pixels per foot.

The second pair has in the file name, the wording .…_over_scale_...., to show the difference in the files.

I have made the assumption, that we do not need both front and back views, just front views.
If this assumption is wrong, please let me know and I can then add the back views to the collection.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


 

GWR 5ft Signal arms

1853_091248_100000000.gif1853_091248_100000000.gif


1853_091248_520000000.gif1853_091248_520000000.gif


GWR 4ft Signal arms

1853_091249_280000000.gif1853_091249_280000000.gif


1853_091250_000000000.gif1853_091250_000000000.gif


 

 
Attachment: attach_1127_1224_gwr_distant_signal_arms_file_data..txt 212

posted: 10 Jul 2011 10:50

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Brian,

Many thanks for the signal files.

I will write again when I have had time to try them -- I'm a bit tied up in sketchboard coding at present. :)

Many thanks also for the write-up on creating such drawings. :thumb:

regards,

Martin.

posted: 12 Jul 2011 20:55

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

I have just uploaded another batch of various GWR signal arm files to the image gallery, and have also attached a text file containing the information about each file.

Again, have saved at the usual 18 pixels per foot, and has in the file name, the wording .…_true_scale_.... which has been used to differentiate between those save at your suggested 36 pixels per foot, again the wording .…_over_scale_...., is used to show the difference in the files.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.
 

4ft Home signal arms:

1853_121542_360000000.gif1853_121542_360000000.gif


1853_121543_250000000.gif1853_121543_250000000.gif


3ft Home signal arms:

1853_121544_030000000.gif1853_121544_030000000.gif


1853_121544_580000000.gif1853_121544_580000000.gif


3ft Goods Line signal arms:

1853_121545_540000000.gif1853_121545_540000000.gif


1853_121546_190000000.gif1853_121546_190000000.gif


2ft Shunt Ahead type 2 signal arms:

1853_121547_550000000.gif1853_121547_550000000.gif


1853_121548_540000000.gif1853_121548_540000000.gif


2ft Shunt Ahead type 1 signal arms:

1853_121549_320000000.gif1853_121549_320000000.gif


1853_121550_300000000.gif1853_121550_300000000.gif


2ft Backing signal arms:

1853_121553_090000000.gif1853_121553_090000000.gif


1853_121553_300000000.gif1853_121553_300000000.gif

Attachment: attach_1130_1224_various_gwr_signal_arms_group1.txt 391

posted: 13 Apr 2015 17:57

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I've been intending to return to this topic for some time. Looking at the dates that is nearly 4 years! Where does the time go? :(

I've been reading through the first 3 pages here, and I'm still amazed at the quality of Brian's work.

Most of his images are included in the Templot2 installation and can be found on your system in the C:\TEMPLOT_DEV\SKETCHBOARD-IMAGE-LIB\ folder.

That folder was intended to be a stop-gap for the initial Templot2 release, pending the creation of some sort of online library of sketchboard images and files, as a shared user resource for all.

I think maybe it is time this idea was revisited. Now that Templot can download and create a list of video tutorial files, it would seem logical to do something similar for the sketchboard files.

But first it would be useful to know how much use is being made of the images already there? We were hoping that others would create and post here images for everyone to share. But as far as I can see no-one has done so since Brian's original contributions. That includes me. :(

Yes I know, the sketchboard still has no user docs, so only those brave souls happy to click anything in sight have found all the sketchboard options. Sometimes I wonder if I will ever catch up with the missing docs.

Comments welcome. How many of you have created layout diagrams, signal box diagrams, control panels, etc., using the sketchboard?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Apr 2015 01:10

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin,
                   I had a go with the sketchboard to try and create a footprint for the goods shed to help me align the track through it.It is still a work in progress as the rectangular  nature of it seems to jar with the curved  formation as it stands. I think it will be helpful for placement of other structures as they appear on the prototype layout when I get to that stage. Fog huts, loading gauge, toilets,and a few other structures.It should highlight possible clearance issues due to it being wrapped.As for documentation,you can only do so much especially if you prefer to do other things.Your efforts creating and improving Templot far exceeds what most people achieve or can even think of through life so documentation is an added bonus for all of us users.
Regards.
Trevor. :)undefinedundefined2110_132105_210000000.png2110_132105_210000000.png
Last edited on 14 Apr 2015 02:07 by Trevor Walling
posted: 14 Apr 2015 14:20

from:

Phil O
 
Plymouth - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin

I have used Sketchboard to create trackplans for information on exhibition layouts.

I am also using it for planning a couple of layouts that I have in the pipeline to see what space I have for buildings, both railway and non railway.

Cheers Phil



Templot Club > Forums > Development doings - archive > Anyone good at computer graphics?
about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems