View Full Version : Brake Physics Time--Plainsman/Real Engineers, Are you out there?
01-02-2007, 12:22 AM
Now that BIN allows us to see what the braking physics are doing by using F5, I am noticing that recharging of the AUX reservoir does not seem to be happening at a very realistic rate.
Here is my test scenario: 5 GP9s and 1 coal car with the following brake settings (generally from Plainsman's braking):
TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
MaxReleaseRate( 0.95 )
MaxApplicationRate( 0.50 )
MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 0.23 )
EmergencyResCapacity( 2.604 )
EmergencyResChargingRate( 0.24 )
BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 60 )
EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 90 )
With just the engines and one of these cars, I applied the Train brakes until the Train Pipe and the Aux Res were just under 80lbs. I then released the brakes and reset the timer when the car's aux res got to 80 lbs. Then I noted the timer when it topped off at 90lbs--323 seconds. That is only 10 lbs in 323 seconds which means that it is only going up at 0.031 lbs per second. Plainsman and the rest of us had pretty much bought into the idea that charging the Aux Res at 0.23 lbs per second was about the right rate. And, according to the literature that comes with MSTS, the number in the MaxAuxilaryChargingRate line is supposed to be in lbs/second. Well, now that we can actually view it, it does not appear to be right. This may explain some runaways I have had while being very careful with the air on hills. I would make a release after stopping, and use dymamics for several minutes, and then go to reapply brakes, and would have very little effect unless I dropped the train pipe almost 20 lbs.
I continued the testing with the one car at
MaxAuxilaryChargingRate ( 0.5 ) and it took 120 seconds to get 10 lbs. That is 0.083 psi per second.....still way to low for our target of 0.23.
MaxAuxilaryChargingRate ( 1 ) took 71 seconds for a rate of 0.14 psi per second.
Finally, with MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1.6 ), the car charged in 47 seconds which is close to our target at 0.212.
I really did not want to go any further than that at this point--running out of time before getting ready for work tomorrow.
OK, now some questions come up: That was with GP9s. What about other types of engines? I lashed up 5 Dash 9s, and got basically the same results within a couple of seconds. So, to my thinking, this eliminates the type of engine being a factor in how the cars charge.
I then looked at what happens when you have the 5 GP9s and 100 of these cars. With MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1 ), the first car hit 90 from 80 in 77 seconds. Notice that this is about 6 seconds longer than it took for the first car when it was the only car in the test above. That is good. The sim seems to know that there are more cars. The 61st car (since that is all that is viewable on the screen hit 90 lbs in 156 seconds. I liked the fact that the sim takes into effect that the lead cars will fill first, and that it takes more time the longer the train.
Putting in MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1.6 ) with the 5 GP9s and 100 cars, the first car hit 90 in 51 seconds and the 61st car hit 90 in 125 seconds. This seems logical. But what would be realistic?
This is where we need some real life engineers to help understand how long it takes to fully charge a 100 car train from 80 to 90 psi in the train pipe. Real engines have the beauty of a flow meter that tells them when the train is really full, as well as FRED on the back sending up data. If we know how long that takes, we may be able to come up with a happy medium that will fill a short train quickly, yet give some challenge to the longer trains.
The next question that you may be asking is: What if you have only one engine to make air? It should take longer, right? I tried the same test with only 1 GP9 and the 100 cars. It filled in basically the same amount of time give or take 2 to 3 seconds. This tells me one of two things. Either that one GP9 makes a ton of air (it has physics very close to Plainsman's 4.7 for a GP9), and these physics do not do what they are supposed to do according to the MSTS docs. Or, the sim ignores what engines are on the point and just fills the train based upon an algorithm (sp?) from the wag braking data. There is certainly a lot of data provided in an .eng file that seemingly is never used such as max engine temp and max oil pressure. Maybe parameters having to do with the air compressor are also not really used other than to make the sounds go on and off. To narrow down would take more testing that I have run out time for today.
So, there we have it. My conclusion is that 0.23 for MaxAuxilaryChargingRate is way too low based upon what is seen above. However, 1.6 for MaxAuxilaryChargingRate may be way to high since we might want to account for the time of charging a much longer train.
Any engineers out there who can tell me how long it takes to take a train pipe from 80 to 90 on 100 cars and an appropriate number of engines (since the sim does not seem to care how many engines)?
01-02-2007, 03:06 AM
May be you could try that:
01-02-2007, 04:25 AM
Jean-Louis beat me to it. He is a real rail. I have tzken his tables and went one further. I have revised the Max Brake values based on my experiances driving trains in both undulating and steep mountain grades. You will find a sample of what I used for a 125ton railcar.
J-L and I have conversed and agree that the maxbrakeforce values on his table may be higher then what it really should be, but necessary due the aggrevated gradients found on many MSTS routes. But with the effort in recent years for accuracy in both line gradients and railcar/engine physics, we can use the lower maxbrake force figures. But you better know what your doing as that train will now brake like a real one and like many rails have mentioned here and elsewhere, the real deal will bite you in the spot behind your wallet (read a double dollar signs) if you are not careful.
As soon as I am done with the C&NWvr fleet upgrade (which does use these values along with my coupler packs), with Jean-Louis' permission I will release our tables (his brake system charge/application values and my maxbrakeforce values) in easy to copy and paste format matching my format with the coupler packs.
Also do remember one thing on recharge rates. Starting from a zero brake pipe and empty reservoirs on a 100 car train takes over 30 minutes to charge up. Granted we are lucky that MSTS does not recharge from empty reservoirs but from what your engines brake pipe pressure is at when you couple in or when you start the sim from a stop.
Now if Bin George wanted to add another hit of realixm, there should be a second connection in the F-9 window that would need to be double-clicked on when ever a joint is made and an uncoupling is made. That would be lacing up or mking up the air hoses between cars or opening the anglecock sending the air back to the new cars and shutting the angle-cock prior to uncoupling. The sim lets you couple with a set in the train and then upon releasing the brakes away you go. Also if you hook with no set in the train air, you don't have to wait for the train you coupled to to recharge from a zero brakepipe. So we do have some concessions made. And probably many would leave the sim if they had to sit around like RW engineer's do waiting for trains to make air.
On the old school engines having higher recharge times in conjuntion to newer engines, I hate to tell you but a good working GP9/SD9 will charge a train at the same rate as two SD40's or even newer big engines. The reason being that those old engines had 6 cylinder air compressors where many if not all the newer engines have three cylinder air compressors. And those old engines can really make some air. I had 6 SD9's on a 40 car train, with the lead engine having a 24rl brake valve on it. Many of our older and retired Rails will remember the accelerated release feature that these engines had on this type of brake system. But anyway, those 6 engines made enough air and flowed enough back that I was able to get enough brakes to release on that train and move it with the rear car's angle cock fully opened. We tried that later with 5 GP39's and I couldn't budge the train. So your findings do have bases in the RW.
OK, here's that brake system values I mentioned. You should be able to copy and paste this info from this thread into your test railcar and check it out.
Comment ( 125t railcar Max Braking values by Bill Prieger. All other
braking parameters contributed by Jean-Louis Chauvin. )
BrakeEquipmentType( "Handbrake, Triple_valve, Auxilary_reservoir, Emergency_brake_reservoir" )
BrakeSystemType( "Air_single_pipe" )
MaxBrakeForce( 35.0kN )
MaxHandbrakeForce( 57.2kN )
NumberOfHandbrakeLeverSteps( 100 )
EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 90 )
TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
MaxReleaseRate( 1.86 )
MaxApplicationRate( 0.9 )
MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1.684 )
EmergencyResCapacity( 2.604 )
EmergencyResChargingRate( 1.684 )
BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 50 )
01-02-2007, 12:34 PM
The two charging lines are very close to what I came up with for the V4.6 physics basis, which used:
MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1.75 )
EmergencyResChargingRate( 1.70 )
I revised these downward on the basis of Jean-Louis' original work. I have to apologize to Jean-Louis, he sent me his latest work, but due to the illness of several folks in my family, (4 major surgeries since mid September), I had not been able to get back to him.
Bill, are your cars 125 metric tons or US short tons (what most folks in the US call tons, 2000 pounds)? If US tons them the sim needs that as 113.4 metric tons. Your force numbers are quite close to what I have been using for a long time. These were based on the generalized methods posted by Dave Nelson. They had to be simplified, as there are several shoe types and all these things vary to a degree with weather and other factors like wear and rail condition. For what I use, a 129.7 metric ton loaded coal car (143 US tons) has a
MaxBrakeForce( 38.91kN ).
01-02-2007, 12:41 PM
Bryce many factors can come into play for charging the trainline.But to start a 10lb charge from 80 to 90 should take around 10 mins time.
Since this is a sim in a controlled enviroment the charging rates will be the same if its winter or summer.As Bill mentioned most folks want real world but do they have the time to do real world(RW).Train line charging has many factors to work with from air temp,air loss from leakage,train length and Eng's.You can have 10 engines but only so much air can be pushed through the trainline.TurboBill's time est of 30mins or more is correct as its taken with 1 eng and 106 grain mty's almost an hr to charge just to move the dam thing.
I use this charging time wisely...like read a book make coffee for your hogger as jezzz last thing you want is a cranky hogger.
Just Rollin Down The Tracks
01-02-2007, 01:08 PM
Bob thanks for the confirmation on my values. First of all, I am not trying to replace your values or your work. These values were derived to work specifically with the C&NW route and it's hills and undulating territory. The sim is indeed constant and one thing I have discovered in countless hours of testing coupler theories brake theories, and size theories is that the sim loves uniformity. I have my width and bottom height from the rail the same on every car. The length while different have the exact same reduction factor in the BB length. I use basically four coupler and I use J-L's braking recharge and set values along with my adjusted max brake force values. So far every car is working correctly first time in the sim and for once those damn trailing units are not bunching up my head end anymore.
Bob, I'm really glad you chimed in here as I do have a couple of questions. For one does the sim use metric tons in regard to car weight because I have been using American tonnage numbers, so I would like confirmation to which tonnage I should use. Second, where can a I get a set of your engine and railcar physics. I've only found them as part of EngHod but I would love to print out your tables and give them a run. I've had to acquire all my figures except what J-L gave me thru testing and adjusting and then back to testing. Being an ex RW engineer, I know what I'm looking for in how the cars react to brake pipe applications and I have to say good job because we are not that far off from each other actually all three including Jean-Louis. If you can pm me, I will send you an email address to forward your physics tables to so I can see where else I can make improvments to our fleet.
01-02-2007, 01:47 PM
I've been told by several engineers that they never release the brakes going down hill, because the charge time takes to long. If the engineer makes to heavy of an application, instead of releasing the brakes they just drag the train down the hill. If they cannot drag the train down the hill, then they must stop and the brakemen/conductors must tie on enough hand brakes to hold the train, until the entire air line is recharged. Now I don't know if the current settings in MSTS are 100% correct, but from the way I understand it, a slower charge time is closer to the prototype.
01-02-2007, 02:49 PM
Yes, the sim uses Metric tons for its basis (the program was written with British equipment and design team as its original basis). A US short ton equals about 0.9072 metric tons.
The files for most equipment are found in the library. v47gp.zip v4_7ge6.zip v4_7sd.zip v47wags.zip v47al.zip
>v48ac.zip e_f_v48.zip v48fm_c.zip v48ge4.zip include the major sets.
Also, if you are not using the combined throttle, you will enjoy setting the throttle progression:
NumNotches ( 9
Notch ( 0 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 0.05 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 0.12 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 0.25 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 0.33 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 0.50 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 0.68 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 0.81 0 Dummy )
Notch ( 1 0 Dummy )
which will respond much more like you are accustomed to.
I hope this helps, and feel free to PM me.
01-02-2007, 04:24 PM
I really like the fact that you are trying to improve the brake systems. Real railroaders probably don't swap types of engines near as much as a train simmer and therefore would be more use to how the brakes work. As a simmer, we can go from a modern Dash9 back 50 years to a GP9 or even before. I guess brakes should not work as efficiently on an F3A as on a Dash9 and maybe some have tried to provide for that with the scope of settings I am seeing.
A quick check of some of the engines in my trainset shows MaxAuxilaryChargingRate settings all the way from 0.28 all the way up to 35 for the AMD103. I found 3DTS has a value of 10 for one GP9 and a value of 20 for another GP9. The Acela checks in at 30. The most common number appears to be 1.
In short time I found 0.28, 1.8, 2, 2.0, 1.9, 1, 10, 20, 30, 35, 7.5, and .93. I am sure that to change the numbers on the MaxAuxilaryCharging Rate would also mean having to change other numbers assigned to the other brake components for the same engine. Here are the settings for the AMD 103:
EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 110 )
TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
MaxReleaseRate( 40 )
MaxApplicationRate( 40 )
MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 35 )
EmergencyResCapacity( 10 )
EmergencyResChargingRate( 30 )
BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 70 )
Here is the setting for an FP45:
EmergencyBrakeResMaxPressure( 90 )
TripleValveRatio( 2.5 )
MaxReleaseRate( 2.27 )
MaxApplicationRate( 1.717 )
MaxAuxilaryChargingRate( 1 )
EmergencyResCapacity( 2.604 )
EmergencyResChargingRate( 1 )
BrakeCylinderPressureForMaxBrakeBrakeForce( 64 )
Can we come up with something that will become a standard for all engines or do we have to work on each one individually? I guess historically, it would mean each engine type indivdidually to get prototypical working.
Like so many other times, some settings appear to have been made at the whim of the developer/s or the reskinner without testing or anything else.
If one can come up with a standard for the MaxAuxilaryChargingRate, then would we not also need standards for the TripleValveRatio, MaxReleaseRate, MaxApplicationRate, EmergencyResChargingRate as well? Or are all or part of these applications totally independent from the MaxAuxilaryChargingRate?
01-02-2007, 05:38 PM
The aforementioned .zips were an attempt to standardize all equipment as to physics, for developers and reskinners to use. You are discovering that, even to this day, many developers are not using them. Diesels West released their recent AC's with Plainsmans' physics. However, SLI's MAC pack came with their own version. It's a hit or miss situation...
01-02-2007, 06:19 PM
I would expect that any of those values of 2 or less may have situations that merit their use and would yield acceptable performance. Keep in mind that each train will be made up of cars with slightly different capabilities, in a world that ranges from -30 degrees F to 115 degrees F, with various amounts of time and skill employed in maintaining the equipment. It is like trying to model the amount of time it would take a car to go 1/4 mile from a stop. A range of say 10-25 seconds would probably cover the vast majority of cars driven on the street, but values of say 20 minutes or 0.1 second would be way out of line.
I suspect that the units you found with recharge values in the 10-40 range were based on the default MSTS equipment. Almost everyone agrees that the default braking setup responds much too quickly to give any semblance of simulation of rail operations. Once you get down in the range of 0.23-2.00, a train with a mixture of charge times may give acceptable performance to have a feel for operations. If you go back to the auto analogy, it would be like the feel of flooring a 4 cylinder Dodge Neon vs flooring a V8 426 Dodge Charger. Most folks drive cars that fall between these two, so anything between 10-25 seconds may be appropriate for cars to cover 1/4 mile, you would not be able to say that only a value of 15.9 seconds would be correct to cover a 1/4 mile.
Hope this is helpful,
01-02-2007, 06:23 PM
The updates for the physics are well and good if you have only a handful of engines to make correction. The problem lies when one has more. Anyone using TRAIN-SIM.COM will most likely have a lot of engines to swap .eng files. That takes a lot of time and the avoidance of confusion to change the engine/wagon/sound/cabview/name/wagonshape/and other lines to make use of those new files for every engine in ones trainset.
I would far rather see the actual changes made and thus allow me to use judgment as to whether I want to take the time to change something. It may be easier to swap the new data rather than to make the above changes. I am sure I am not the only one who uses UltraEdit to make changes to .eng and .wag files. With that I can change a line of text in hundreds of different .eng and .wag files in just a few seconds. One can't to that with the engine/wagon/name/wagonshape lines because they are indvidualized and in most cases so are the cabview and sound lines.
I won't spend countless hours of changing my files unless I know that something is worth the effor. If the benefits are worth the time in changing a few lines of text, then let's get it done one time and make it right. Every time I see a new version of the physics come out, I simply to say to myself, "oh, no; not again."
I certainly appreciate the effort that Bob and others have put in improving the physics. It would be great if he could identify what lines within the .eng files are universal and fixed.
It would also be great if a line could be added to each .eng file to identify the type of engine for giving a print out list of the folder and file name for each engine by type. If such a line existed with a uniform format, i.e. EngineType: SD40-2, UltraEdit would do that in a heartbeat. But, when we get things like SD 40-2 then that messes things. A major problem with the hobby is that no standards were given as suggestions for the name line, how to place cabviews and sounds in the common.cab and common.snd folders and the like.
As it is a major chore just to locate all of the engines of a particular type. I really wonder how many simmers actually swap out their old .eng files for an upgrade in physics. I don't, but I would if I knew why and could do it using UltraEdit.
01-02-2007, 06:50 PM
Routeriter has a very good eng/wag file editor.
It is not 'perfect' but would speed things up for you..
01-02-2007, 07:30 PM
I agree with bob, in his analogy and comments. It is a known fact that any RW engineer will tell you, No two trains are the same even if they contain the same cars but placed in different locations in the consist. What J-L and I and Bob as I now know have done is get the physics to were you will generally find them most of the time in the RW. My standard is 6 to 8 psi set on a train of empties equals a 10 to 12 psi set with loads. Mixing loads and empties still gives the desired results of needing a minimum set somewhere in between. Now onto the how the engines recharge cars and draw off air. Believe it or not an SD9 will draw off air at the same rate as a new Evo unit. They have to or the car's emrgency valve will trip putting the train into emergency. Also recharge times will be close to the same as well. The brake pipe hose and lines are the sam size as 50 years ago. It only takes a couple of engines to overcome the available hose diameter in moving the air. Actually one unit in run 4 to 8 will overcome the available hose and pipe diameter. A hundred car train with 4 SD40's will take the same time to set and release their brakss as with a new SD70ACE. The hose is the equalizing factor for recharging and the triple valve on the car is the equalizing factor is set times. So I took J-L Chauvin's values for the locomotives and tested them and they are very close to the real dea. I am using these values on every single engine I have period. Why muddy things up to make a 30 second difference. Forget it, it's not worth it. I use three sets of values for Diesels. One for AI's so they don't bunch the train up in braking situations, a MSTS bug. One for bigger six axle engines so they have adequate independant braking and one for four axle road units. I do specail max brake force for switchers but haven't gotten to those yet in our fleet but they will have their onw values as well.
I ahve taken J-l's work along with my maxbrake force values and put together a set of master files that context can read. All you have to do is match the car's weight with the master file and copy and paste the whole section into your cars wag file.
Would I do a whole personal fleet all at once. Heck no. Do the cars as you are going to be using them. You will know at a glance if you have done that cars eag/eng file as I include comments notating who contributed work to the master file. Eventually all your favorites would get done. That's how I'm going to do my personal fleet.
01-02-2007, 10:45 PM
Thank you Bob for the zip files list. I will be doing some downloading in the next few days for sure. Also thanks for the conversion value for the metric versus American tonnage. I have some editing to do now. Once I read your earlier post I knew I screwed up on that one. Should be an easy fix though.
01-03-2007, 01:17 AM
I didn't mean to imply you screwed up, I just don't think a lot of folks expect all that North American equipment found in the sim to be defined in metric units. Without that awareness, a lot of the weights and values I used in the update files, might seem funky. I agree as to your suggestion, just update each unit right after you unzip the file, before you move it into the trainset. This will also allow you to do some error checks on naming and brackets which will save you time in the long run, as it gets hard to find that particular file with the extra brackets when it gets mixed into a 70 car consist.
Bob Edwards, if you have not tried the dynamic braking in one of the recent updates, you are really not getting much feel for how these work. The default dynamic setup is all but worthless. Peter Baker and I spent many many hours modeling a whole slug of available dynamic braking curves to get the setup in my V4.5-V4.8 files. The dynamic braking improvement alone is worth the time to modify the files. Remember, any of the recent updates will be way better than the default stuff. If you are wanting an easier operation that won't challenge your skills a lot, but still give better performance than the default, you may like the V4.5 files (particularly if you run older routes with oversteep grades). If you really want to get a more realistic feel for the operation, the V4.7 or V4.8 files will be more suitable. The only difference between V4.7 and V4.8 is in the coupler settings. If you do a lot of yard work and switching, you may prefer one, if you run long haul mainline freights, you may like the other? Joe Morris' latest work would probably be even better, just use the standard you like best for the way you use the sim. I don't try to claim the coupler settings modeled real world values, as the MSTS node bug really made it tough to use prototypical coupler values based on what I found. If you only run latest routes with all the best stuff, that may not be an issue today?
In particular, I tried to model the adhesion and TE and CTE and power to model real equipment. Most of the old GP7 to GP35 stuff could experience wheelslip if not operated appropriately. If you use default setups, you will never or almost never (maybe on ice?) get wheelslip. You will need to use some sand to get these units starting a lot of trains. Conversely, the adhesion on a modern GEVO unit may get very high on well maintained clean dry rail. I tried to use independent test data and input from a few RR engineers and crew to model each type of equipment as best I could. On Crawford Hill, the files seem to work pretty much as the equipment that actually runs the real route. This route was one of the best in modeling realistic grades.
01-03-2007, 01:39 AM
Thanks for the great info....bad day at work, and just getting on the computer.
What rock have I been under since I had no idea that Plainsman, J-L, and others had come up with these new braking values? The v4.7 physics zip I have in my archive has 0.27 as the recharge rate. Is there a private physics meeting place that I missed? :-)
Anyway, I am glad to see that my numbers were coming up close to some of the numbers being described above. I also appreciate the RW knowledge from the hoggers out there.
For Bob B. and Bob E.--Be careful changing the throttle settings as Plainsman describes if you use RailDriver....they will not work. RailDriver seems to need evenly spaced notches. Just a warning. Or, if someone has figured out how to make it work, please let me know.
For Bob E.--You can change the individual line values of your entire fleet by using Engine Mod. Available at http://engmod.phpnet.us/
Get the Beta 25 version....it is working great and can select different types of cars and engines. You can then use the ctrl and mouse to highlight only the units you want, select the line you want to change in the left box, put the value you want in the right box, press "Change Value", and within seconds you have updated the values on the selected units. As always, make a backup of your Trainset folder before you do anything.
I have updated my entire freight fleet in a matter of minutes for such things as release rates and application rates. Also great for coupler value changes. If you have a similar batch of cars, then you can adjust other lines that may vary by type or mass. You can also pick the directory you want to look at, so if you have a folder of boxcars that all have the same mass, you could easily do them all at once. Bottom line: it is a GREAT and simple tool that lets you update as many files as you want, but only one line at a time which is a safe way to make changes.
Hopefully I'll have some time to really look into this next weekend.
Thanks again, and keep the discussion going.
01-03-2007, 03:50 AM
Bob B. with your permission I am updating all the C&NW engines to your Dynamic Braking values. That was just about the only section that didn't get some form of updating in all this work. The new eng/wag files and even the .sd files in the C&NW fleet and eventually my personal fleet have litle resemblance of the originals. You open the before and after versions and it looks like two totally different pieces of rollingstock. Also every section that had contributions by others then me have their names commented in so people will know exactly what areas of expertise I used and can be specific if any questions arise. The Pro fleet version will even be sweeter. Bob B, I will send you a set of our Default fleet eng/wag fies so you can see what was done and how they perform when a Global effort is involved.
01-03-2007, 10:39 AM
Sure, actually you don't even need to ask permission, as the files are released as public domain, meaning you don't have to ask to use them any way you choose. I don't mind (and with public domain release, really don't have any basis if I did), if payware shops use the files. I always appreciate if the work is credited to me, but don't complain if you leave me off your credit list. About the only time I get upset is when I am credited with the physics work, but some really awful setup was used instead, complete with bugs and unworkable values. I have had that happen more often than you might expect. I will almost certainly note this when I start to get emails that the GP50 using my physics, can't get over 25 mph, when someone guesses wrong by a factor of 1,550 on the frontal area of the locomotive (not bothering to read directions for using FCalc, this fellow input square inches in frontal area instead of square meters).
It would be a pleasure to have a look at your files. I will be happy to give them a run.
Thanks again to all who have contributed to making this a better simulator!
01-03-2007, 11:55 AM
Very interesting and informative post,been following it.Thanks
01-03-2007, 04:44 PM
I've been using Bob(Plainsman) physics for sometime and Bob had also done some physics for me pertaining to wags and engs,which has been much appricated.JLC's braking info made its way into my fleet just after he released the info for KHP2.
Without the continued effort of folks like this and now to George for his work with MSTSBin this sim would have been dead long ago.
Gentleman stand up and take a bow.
Just Rollin Down The Tracks
01-03-2007, 06:47 PM
Thanks Bryce and Bob B. for all of the time and effort on the new physics. Bob, I will make a swap out on the new physics as time permits and as suggested to do it on the favorites first.
I hope you guys have a great year. You do some great stuff for Train simmers like me.
01-04-2007, 04:37 AM
Sorry to be late, I was at work...
The new values for recharging time/application rate/release rate are resulting of observations made with BIG help of BIN extended HUD. This is a way to turn one of the MSTS bug (different time for driving engine and other vehicles) and mysterious time gestion by KUJU code.
I revised the air-brake values according to Bill advice, and reduced the Hand-Brake values to permit use of it as a Retainer device.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.