Train track part overhaul

[Ronald Vallenduuk]

I've started work on 85976, Train Track Narrow Curved. Because the connector is the same size I wondered if I could reuse some of the 9V track parts. That got my studying 2865s04.dat, Train Track 9V - Interlocking Track End. There's a lot wrong with that part; overlapping surfaces, T-junctions. After I commented in PT Michael suggested I fix the issues.
That's when I noticed there many versions of this part:
Official 2865s04.dat, Unofficial 2865s04.dat, 2865s04a.dat, 2865s04l.dat, 2865s04r.dat
They have different histories although they're based on the same original design. There are differences from fixing BFC but also small size differences.
Finally this part is specific to 9V track.
If I'm reworking this part to get rid of the technical faults I'd like take the opportunity to make it suitable for both 9V and RC. That would mean transferring a small part of the rail to the main track part. That way it should be possible to have just one subfile for all 9V and RC track pieces rather than a straight, left and right variant.
Is it ok to change 74746, 74747, 32087, 2859 and 2861? How would I keep the changes in synch?

[Chris Dee]

Feel free to fix these problems.

Not sure what you means by "keeping in synch". The review process should prevent a fix being released into the official library without the matching changes to dependent parts.

You shouldn't need to worry about a temporary lack of synchrony on the parts tracker as people should not be relying on the that.

These are unofficial parts. They may be incomplete, or inaccurate, and it is possible that when they are officially released they may be changed in ways that could mess up any model you use them in.

[Philippe Hurbain]

There's a lot wrong with that part; overlapping surfaces, T-junctions.

Make sure to keep an eye on part complexity (number of triangle wise). These parts use hires primitives for tiny details where it's absolutely not necessary. In a planar area, an overlap doesn't harm, and a T-junction in orthogonal direction very rarely causes artefact. I prefer parts using these "bad" techniques if this saves a lot of triangles and don't create visual problem!

[Michael Heidemann]

I agree to this statement very much. We are working for making visual parts and not data for a 3D printer

[Ronald Vallenduuk]

Ok, I'll take that into account. I'll remove the unnecessary 48\ parts and produce some nice cleaned up parts.
As I was looking at 2867 I noticed some gaps between the track and the sleepers to add to the todo list...