Reconciling SCARM Design to the Actual Layout

You are not going crazy. The tolerances of dimensions and curvature in SCARM are not perfect. I'm rusty but you can change the settings in SCARM to reduce or increase these dimensions. Go to "tools/settings/edit to make the adjustments.

You can also print your design 1:1 and see how in looks on paper (lots of paper). Your tubular track is probably contributing to the issue as well. I used SCARM as a guide and tweaked the track (027 tubular) as I went.

Bob

Another aspect of this is that it reveals the limits of designing via CAD.  Its back and forth between the floor and SCARM.  Trying to reconcile what I build with what is drawn.  This is a fairly amazing experience.  Its a very different perspective looking at the track on the floor vs looking at SCARM.  As I look at the real track, I note things like: "I'm wasting space here"; "these tracks are visually too close together" (even if technically there is clearance); "this area just doesn't look right"; "This is too small";  "this area is better than I thought", etc.  I feel like SCARM gets me only 90% and this visual fine tuning is very important.   If I thought about it I could have seen the issues in SCARM, but they jump out on the floor.

@ogaugenut  I've used SCARM quite a bit to make sure I have the clearances to build what I envision. Having multi-elevations in my layout made this an essential tool. While Gargraves and Ross track are tighter than tubular, I can still get quite a bit of play in the larger diameter curves. Add in flex track and what I lay down is never quite what I drew up in SCARM. Of course throwing in an 080 instead of an 072 doesn't help.  I suppose if I were to print the track plan in full scale that issue would be resolved. When I can't get things to align in SCARM using sectional track, I often resort to "snapping" in a flex track to get the green alignment arrows.

I suggest not getting bogged down with the apparent differences, just plan on having to cut short sections and move on.  Of course if you are doing scale wheels or the track/roadbed systems this approach probably won't work very well.

I did use Scarm for my layout, it did not relate 100 percent to my AC Gilbert track but it got me  the point that was close enough.

Ray

@ogaugenut posted:

...As I look at the real track, I note things like: "I'm wasting space here"; "these tracks are visually too close together" (even if technically there is clearance); "this area just doesn't look right"; "This is too small";  "this area is better than I thought", etc.  I feel like SCARM gets me only 90% and this visual fine tuning is very important.   If I thought about it I could have seen the issues in SCARM, but they jump out on the floor.

Something that helps with visualizing track separations in SCARM is the show Roadbed feature.  If I recall correctly this feature appeared in version 1.8.

Tools - Settings - 2D View - Roadbed

The biggest thing that helps me is running a simulation with multiple trains in 3D. Still, it takes a while to get used to the scale if you’re new to the hobby or coming from HO, etc.

I used AnyRail to design my layout.  While it wasn't exact, it was close enough to get the job done.  Also, I used a lot of flex track, so unless I was anal about bending it to precisely match the Anyrail picture, it was never going to be exact anyway.  The layout program is very useful for planning, but you really shouldn't expect the layout to exactly match it without doing a ton of unnecessary tweaking on the layout and/or the layout design in the program.

My advice is not to get wrapped around your axles trying to make the two match exactly, you're just wasting tons of time that could be used in finishing the layout.

All great advice.  Just build it, cut track to fit, use flex track if you need to and it will all come together.  You can draw a track plan by hand, use layout planning software, dream it in your head, it all comes down to putting it together.  Just build it.

Well I discovered a cause of some of my discrepancy.  I am using O72 and O54 tubular.  The O54 is Lionel.  Today I discovered that I had an odd piece of K-Line O54 on the floor and it is 2" longer than Lionel.  This threw things way off for days.  Now I need to go through my stock and see if there are any others lurking.

Bill

Maybe that odd K-Line is O63. Anyway, confused mw

Unless you're sticking to a single brand of track and using all sectional track, it'll be very difficult to make the planning program exactly match the layout.  As soon as you start mixing track, using flex track, or cutting custom lengths of track, errors creep in.