Discrepancy Between Elements on the Layout and the Parts List

If you observe discrepancy between the tracks and/or objects on the screen and these, counted in the Parts list, there can be several reasons about that.

Tip
Starting from v. 1.2.0, SCARM has the ability to count not only all parts in the project, but also the parts in the visible layers and parts only in the active layer. Depending on the settings, you may preset the desired way of counting or choose each time what to be counted when “Parts list” command is used.

Below are listed the most common causes when all parts in the project are counted by use of the command (or setting) “Parts List” > “All parts in the project”.

If you don’t see the sub-menu with the options, the counting mode is already set in the settings or you are using the unregistered (freeware) version of SCARM.

1. Parts list shows more elements than these in the track plan

Cause: There are tracks/objects outside of the visible screen/printout area.
Solution: Use “View” > “Scale” > “Fit to Screen” (or “Fit to Page)” to see the whole track plan.

Cause: There are tracks covered by figures.
Solution: Double-click over the tracks route (or use Ctrl+A shortcut) in order to select all tracks – the selected tracks are always displayed over the figures.

Cause: There are overlapped tracks/objects in the track plan.
Solution: It is quite possible that after a Copy/Paste operation, the pasted tracks/objects to remain unmoved over the original parts (i.e. after accidental double paste). Then you will see only the originals, but Parts list will count double or triple (or even more) of the visible parts. To check for overlaps you will need to manually select suspected parts on the plan and delete them. If the selected part disappears, it is not doubled (use Ctrl-Z to undo delete command). If selected part remains after delete, then it was overlapped. It is also possible that some items are hidden by another, larger elements (i.e. some tracks may be covered by figures).

Cause: There are tracks/objects in hidden layer(s).
Solution: If there are hidden layers, the tracks in them are also counted. Click once or twice over the header bar in Layers window to make all layers visible again.

2. Parts list shows less elements than these in the track plan

Cause: There are items, created with the figures.
Solution: Parts list does not count the figures in the plan.

Cause: There is a background image from another track plan.
Solution: If you see elements, that cannot be selected, they may be part of the background image. It can be toggled on and off by pressing of “I” key.

3. Parts list shows different elements than these in the track plan

Cause: There are more than one SCARM instance and/or several Parts list browser windows opened.
Solution: If you are working with multiple track plans in several SCARM instances, it is possible to mismatch the Parts lists for these plans. If you are working with a single SCARM instance, you need to close the Parts list browser window(s) and use Parts list command again to refresh the list according to the changes in the track plan.

Cause: Any of the causes listed in topics 1. and 2. above.
Solution: Use the appropriate solution for a given cause above.

See also
How to see a list of used parts


9 thoughts on “Discrepancy Between Elements on the Layout and the Parts List

  1. I’m using peco code 100 rail when setting out points of 12 degrees I need to find a radius bend of 12 degree but there is only 11.25 degree bends so track goes of at the wrong angle please help.
    Mick

  2. Hello Mick,

    Peco streamline (SL-range) points does not have ready-to-fit curves to go back to parallel, so you will need to use the flex track for that. For precise shaping with radius and angle, use the Toolbox flex track modelling feature.

  3. i see catenary symbols in some of the track layouts. is a Marklin list of catenary parts available in the latest version of Scarm?

  4. Hi,

    I have noticed if you ask for the part list of all object, and don’t group them by layer then for the flex track you put in the note how many whole flex track you need. but if you only ask for the selected layers and / or group per layer then this is not done and you only get the number of flex track you used but not how many flex tracks you need to start.
    Can you enable this calculation also when the part list is divided up? just do de calculation for each list you make.

  5. Hello Jeroen,

    I am not sure that I understand what you mean or at least I cannot reproduce that in the latest version (1.7.1) of SCARM – it always shows how many full-length flexes are needed in the Note column of the Parts list, no matter if it is for the whole project or by layers.

  6. Hi Milen,

    I’m also using the latest version.
    I have a layout in Märklin k track, I don’t know if that makes a difference.
    If you want I’ll email the file to you. send me a email where to send the file.
    I have just asked for the part list again and still for the flex track it only gives me the number of pieces and not how many track I need.

  7. Hi,
    I would like to obtain a track list, piece by piece (not summarized by track type) with id, track type, and track length.

    It seems that there is no such an option even in the licensed version.
    Is there any way to obtain a verbose part list like that?

    Cheers,
    Evili del Rio

  8. Hello Evili,
    I do not see any reason for listing of the tracks piece by piece, especially for the standard sectional tracks, which lengths and other parameters are well known and only their count is the needed and valuable information.
    However, if that is important to you, the only way to do that is to place each single track in a separate layer and then toggle “Tools” > “Parts list” > “Group by layers”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>