Questions about SCARM and other track planning software

ive never seen it in a magazine. i know in my lionel trains group on face book (1984 members) there are quite a few of us that use it.

Not saying it hasn't happened as I don't read all the model railroad magazines, but I don't recall seeing any SCARM write ups or layouts in any that I've read so far? 

Had I not invested heavily in RR-Track a few years ago, I would probably be using SCARM. Have seen a lot of nice layouts created with it on the forum here. The learning curve is some of it for me also, as I am still learning things about RR-Track.

I don't know a lot about SCARM, other than what folks have said about it here on the forum. From what little I know, I think SCARM may have the best 3D of any I have seen, very impressive, but it seems to be missing some track libraries. RR-Track has a library for almost every track known, if not all of them it is a very large selection of track types anyway. It also has a large selection of pre-made layouts in different track types, at additional cost. RR-Track also crashes a lot, at least when I'm using it. Got in the habit of saving very often after losing a few plans I had spent a bit of time on. 

I may give SCARM a better try out one of these days, it's very tempting. I don't know how SCARM would get it, but a little more publicity might do it a lot of good. I try to recommend it here if doesn't have one already and is wanting an inexpensive or free layout program.

Probably be a good article for OGR, though not sure how RR-Track would take that

I've been a user of RR-Track for years if not decades.  I still remember ordering my first version on 3.5" disks!!!     Can't say enough terrific things about it.  It's a mature software product that has stood the test of time for me, and I'm fairly certain the RR-Track folks have advertised in the model train magazines for many years now.  And while it's not 100% perfect (Is anything?), I don't regret the dollars I spent for it 'cause it's paid for itself in time-savings over and over again. 

I've never been a huge fan of "freeware" stuff, since we tend to get what we pay for in life.  That's not to say freeware can't be good by definition of being free.  I just know what it takes to develop software, and the time it takes for products to gain traction in the marketplace -- not to mention the cost to support software products once they grab a critical mass of users isn't exactly trivial.

So as attractive as freeware may be to folks who thrive on getting stuff on the cheap, I often find freeware (whether it be products or services) produced by folks "just cause they like to do it" often tends to undermine the value proposition of more established products.

Hey look... if an older product doesn't stay up with the times and falls by the wayside, then the market will take care of itself and folks will find solutions that better meet their needs.  But if you're gonna turn away from well-established products for no other reason than an upstart alternative is free, you risk a "be careful what you wish for" scenario playing out.  And the end result isn't always a good one. 

I've read lots of good things about SCARM on the forum here from folks who've given it a try.  So there's gotta be something to it that's worthwhile.  However, the realist in me knows that when enough users begin using a software product, there are BOUND to be questions that arise... and glitches that will occur as various operating environments evolve over time.  In short, it costs MONEY to support an extensive user base.  And sooner or later, the freeware concept rubs against good business sense... unless the freeware is offered along with other products that produce substantial revenues to keep companies here when you need them.  Think Atlas-O... they're in business to sell track... so offering a free track-planning software product was an excellent strategy to help generate track sales.

In short, I have no problem with "free" as long as the supplier/provider has the means to support their customer base when customer needs arise.  Whether you're old-school or new-school in your way of thinking about software, keeping customers happy should always be a priority.  And if that eventually means charging for a product so one can support it better (i.e., making a living by doing it, hiring a customer support specialist, etc...), that's not necessarily a bad thing.

While a applaud the initiative behind creative minds that build things because they believe in them and enjoy doing it, there comes a point when the creator/inventor needs to shift from "create mode" because it's fun... to "entrepreneurial mode" where building a business and supporting customers is the real focus.  Is SCARM at that point yet?  I don't know... you tell me. 

David

Rocky,

No, SCARM is not at that point yet. SCARM evolved from an enthusiast's desire to have something that works and the ability to create it.

I have wondered why the author hasn't changed the business model. He now has some ads on his website, so he is finally getting enough hits to attract some revenue generators.

Since it is technically still in beta form, I don't think there could be any big time backing.

What I have seen is a general acceptance and increased use in the past year by various gauge rail modelers.

Ace, I would guess the answer to your question is that it won't get publisher support until it is a final and a revenue product.

I love it like it is now. If the manufacturers weren't so snobby about their track dimensions, it would have all libraries of track. Milen just created a test library for me in USA Std, Gauge track, because the vendor was open enough to publish his track specs. Done.

Does RR-Track do 3-D scenery terrain like SCARM? Their web site does not seem forthcoming with samples other than low-rez images and they aren't bashful about wanting money for everything, which puts me off. I gather that they have pretty good libraries for structures and accessories.

SCARM requires buildings to be "scratch-built": you have to specify positions and dimensions and colors of walls, doors, windows, roof, etc. But there is a site with some pre-configured structures that anyone can download:

http://www.scarmogauge.com/

I haven't figured yet if these text-configuration files can be copied and pasted into an existing SCARM file.

Thanks Ace!

Yes.  RR-Track has 3-D capabilities.  Click on "Features" in the Navigation menu of their website, then click on the "3D View" tab and you'll see an example of RR-Track's 3D view of a layout with some buildings and scenery.  RR-Track's libraries have most of the Lionel accessories made over the decades as well has many MTH and Korber buildings as well.

True... the extra libraries come at added cost.  If you buy in packages, you'll save some money.  But if you buy extra libraries ala carte, you may spend a few dollars more.  Any way you look at, in the grand scheme of time saved, RR-Track is well worth the investment.  It's the business model I'd use if I wrote it and supported it as well as they have and as long as they have.

If you're put off by spending a few extra dollars for the add-on accessory/track libraries when you need them, I'm not sure what to say.  It's a business for them -- not a hobby, and they've always served me well when I needed help here and there.  The cost is well in line with the value-add the software provides.

If I'm not mistaken, they've been a long-time OGR advertiser as well.  RR-Track held down a booth in the Orange Hall at York for years, but I haven't seen them there for a couple of recent shows.  Not sure why... perhaps they felt they weren't seeing the ROI.  It's all a matter of numbers.

I guess we could say RR-Track is the 800 lb gorilla in the world of track-planning software.  The one limitation is it only runs in a Windows environment , so I use it on one my Mac's with Parallels/Windows7.  Works like a charm. 

David

P.S.  One thing I will say -- and this is true of software products in general where there's a learning curve to reach a level of proficiency... Once we "learn" a product, human nature is such that we tend to "stay with it" as long as it's meeting or exceeding our needs.  I'll admit hands down... that's where I am with RR-Track.  So much so that other products aren't necessarily even on my radar screen.  In that regard, new products tend to have a natural barrier of entry to overcome unless it's literally night-and-day better than existing products with a HUGE wow-factor.  And of course, free never hurts either.  But hey, if it's meeting your needs, go for it.  This is a hobby, and it's all about choices that make the hobby easier for us and more fun to boot.

Thank you for your input. I am as much a fan of SCARM as you are a fan of RR-Track. For me, paying $79+ for track planning software is a barrier because I don't need it that bad and I run my hobby on a tight budget. I was drawing track plans on paper for decades and now SCARM is light years ahead of that. I never would have got into O-gauge if I'd had to start out with buying new equipment. I fix old equipment and it's a more creative hobby for me that way.

I like the freeware and shareware concepts of SCARM a lot better than the overt commercialism of a product that wants $$$ for everything. I didn't find their web site overly helpful for quality sample images that might have been good selling points. I see just one 3-D view on their site with buildings on a mostly flat table with no substantial hills. The simulated operation might be a good feature but they don't offer a live demo, although there may be some on You-tube.

"Scratch-building" structures with SCARM is also more creative for me than using familiar figures out of a library.

It's good to have different software programs available because the competition is what ultimately leads to better products.

My remaining question is whether I would be wasting my time to submit track plan feature stories with SCARM images to a hobby magazine. I wouldn't want my work re-done with other software to satisfy an advertiser.

Ace,

Open those structure files in a separate or only instance of SCARM and then save as the Name of the structure. It will then be a SCARM project file. To place in a layout, Open the layout, open the structure in a separate instance of SCARM, select it to highlight it, right-click for copy or Ctrl+C, then go to the layout that is open. Now Paste. It will appear in the upper left. Then you can move it, rotate it, change it's height position like other objects.

As long as two or more instances of SCARM are open, you can copy and paste between them. I do this with layout elements. I have built reverse loops, cross over switch arrangements, wyes in various types of track. Then when I am working on a layout I get the assembly using the copy paste method.

Many Thanks Moonman, I'll try that !

Just because no magazines have published track plans with SCARM, I don't see why they would not be willing to post one? Gotta start somewhere. If it was in a format that both they and their printer could use, I would think it would surely be worth a try. However I know nothing about producing magazines or how they do it.

RR-Track website is a bit out dated and difficult to navigate. It looks like they have updated some of it and not the rest or something? May be a work in progress? The SCARM 3D drawings I see here on the forum are better than anything I have ever been able to do in RR-Track, bit I'm not an expert user by any means. I have also seen some amazing RR-Track 3D drawings here on the forum that were done by folks that knew how to use it to it's full potential. Those were better than SCARM. It's all in how far you want to take it I guess.

I've also seen some very nice small layouts you have posted here. If you have an article to submit to a magazine using SCARM I would go ahead and try it and see what happens. I know they need advertisers and don't want to anger any current advertisers, but I would also like to think they are more interested in content for their magazine rather than which software was used to create the track plan. And as you said, competition is good for us consumers, look what the competition between MTH and Lionel have brought us, some pretty amazing stuff over the last several years.

Many Thanks for those last comments.

From the web site <http://www.scarmogauge.com>, here are images of some user-contributed figures "scratch built" with SCARM.

I made a simple 4'x 10' O-gauge layout to display seven of these items. I created the barge, rowboats, plate girder bridge and the two simpler buildings myself. This latest version of SCARM does nifty roads, too.

As explained by Moonman, all you do is copy the 2-D figure from one SCARM plan and paste it into another SCARM plan opened simultaneously. The item will be pasted into the same grid coordinate location as in the original file. Then you can move it to wherever you want, and change the elevation as necessary (right-click the item for "properties"). You can also ungroup the component pieces of each figure to modify components. For example, that big blue house at left can be downsized into a smaller house simply by removing additions. To modify buildings, first remove the roof to see the other parts.

The bascule bridge is choppy because SCARM lets you build mainly with rectangular block figures. But SCARM continues to add more and better features all the time!

I'm hoping someone will contribute 3-D images from other software so we can compare and discuss features. RR-Track has a substantial library of preconfigured structures, but SCARM lets you scratch-build customized items. I reckon SCARM users will be building a shareware library of increasingly elaborate figures over time.

The RR-Track  drawing I saw that I couldn't believe was done with RR-Track was posted here on the OGR forums, but I can't remember who it was or what the thread was about? No idea where to start looking. In the post above, I probably should have said RR-Track 3D was every bit as good as SCARM's, maybe not actually better than.

Ace,

Here's my version of a Korber 304 Roundhouse that works with a Millhouse River 10 degree TT. It could use a little more dressing up. I lose patience building these scratch and going all out with 3D on a layout.

Perhaps you could refine it.