The transform - if you have the original data - will better define the locations for the spline you create.
If the data is real, I’m afraid you cannot just assume a bicubic tranform from point to point.
I mean, you can, but if that is not how the real thing goes then your visualization will have a margin or error that could be beyond what you would expect.
Also depends a lot on data location i suppose?
Continental US where streets follow the roman grid pattern should be simple enough, and bicubic will almost always work to define turns.
European like circular infrastructure with roundabouts and generally speaking - a mess that doesnt make sense even those who live the area?
Yea, thats going to be super tough to match when you assume bicubic between transforms…
Anyway,
If your data is real, maybe pulling splines of the road off OpenStreetMaps is a better idea?
I’d probably try that first instead of assuming bicubic.
If you have it, for additional info I would pull estimated speed (even if you can calculate/extrapolate between times).
In case you do simulate again you can set the object to that speed periodically, and it should end up getting less error prone.
Either way, if you assume a margin of error of about a second your simulation will end up being OK.
If you expect anything better you’d likely always be dissapointed unless you just place meshes at specific locations based on the time…