TexasSP posted:Another thing to reiterate about scaletrax is that the tie gap issue really disappears once ballasted and weathered. Rich really has the process down, and following his advice yields great results. For me scaletrax flex was easier to work with than flex in HO and N Scale following the staggered connection method Rich shows in his videos.
With all due respect to Rich's artistic genius and superb craftsmanship, I have to disagree with TexasSP's comment that the tie gap disappears once ballasted. Take another look at Rich's first lovely pic in the set that he posted. The locomotive looks great, and the distance view is convincing. But look at the track to either side of the locomotive. For me, the illusion breaks-down, with the glaring incorrectness (to my eyes anyway) of the tie spacing. Look, you could fit two+ ties in the space between ties. That is not prototypical for mainline track, but OK for a light spur.
As the builder and operator, I spend a lot of time directly above the layout, or looking from a close distance, where the tie spacing will jar the illusion, for me anyway.
No disrespect intended, both track systems are great. Neither are perfect, as many others have observed. There is no right or wrong to this choice, its subjective, choose which looks right to you - accurate tie spacing or better rail height/width.
I wonder how many folks have considered using more than one track system on their layout: scaletrax for spurs or a light branch line or perhaps for yard tracks, and Atlas-O (with the clearly heavier rail) for the mainlines.
Just for the fun of it, check out what the craftsman at TW Trainworx can do with lowly FasTrack: Rocky Mountain High. The distance and angled shots look pretty good, but the illusion breaks-down with a closer-in pic. Doesn't look as good as Rich's work with ScaleTrax of course - just for a fun comparison.
-Ken
