Virtual Plan Baseboard Height, Where's yours?

For me, Option 2 is easier because it's easier to relate legs and benchwork using -34" for the leg base and 34" for the height and -3.5" for the benchwork 1x4's. That way I don't have to do any figuring for track heights, building placement on multiple levels, etc., all heights are based on 0". I work mostly in RR-Track and having to constantly remember that my track height starts at 34", the next level is 40", etc., is a real pain. It's even worse when you add the 1/2" or 3/4" thickness of roadbed, etc., to the equation.

Option 2 also doesn't force you to set all tracks as bridges to avoid having the terrain fill the space between the floor and your tabletop. Using negative values for anything below the tabletop lets the terrain fill in only the space for tracks that are higher than 0. IMHO< terrain is just that and anything below it are negative.

It is a bit of a nuisance to remember that the walls also start at -34", but their height remains 8', 10', whatever, and it's not like you change walls, etc., all that much, but you change track all the time as you play with your design.

Daz,

Ok. Your method works great for the main deck. I just reworked the previous end of room layout and added a rise in the back. Looks better with the terrain following.

I then use my method to add a second level at 12".

Thanks for the technique. I think I'll pull up another layout a see if it helps.

Additional levels need your method of defining the tracks as "bridges" (or "overpass" in RR-Track) to keep the terrain from filling the space. This could be solved by allowing multiple baseboards, but I don't know how complicated that would be to program.