Universal MSTSBin 1.6+ Coupler Settings

[OTTODAD]

Following more experiments with coupler and Default.dat settings, eliminating jerking of units in consists when driven from the rear cabs of locos or engine cars in consists, making sure that locos are at a complete stand-still with throttle at IDLE and train brakes set before attempting to switch cabs, I have created UNIVERSAL coupler settings which can be applied to all types of rolling stock individually or at the blink of an eyelid using the Route Riter.

This may appeal to those who do not want to apply individual couplers to various types of rolling stock and prefer all of their rolling stock to run perfectly at all times and use all couplers, front and aft, without any problems whatsoever, providing all bounding boxes are what they should be.

I have now extensively tested various coupling exercises, including breaking up an ICE-3, rearranging it differently, drop off the tender of a steam loco and couple onto another and all works perfectly as it did before. ;-)

My updated with these UNIVERSAL couplers improved default rolling stock is again available at:
www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/downloads/mp3kcons.zip

http://www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/downloads/mp3kcons.jpg

has MSTSBin 1.6+ rear cabs and everything else needed to make sure that it will perform flawlessly under all conditions and can be used for all versions of MSTS, but front couplers will not be improved in lower than MSTSBin 1.6 patches.

Before using this download, BACK-UP your TRAINS folder to somewhere else on your hard drives !

Take care, O t t o.

[DCRR1]

Otto:

Just a little nit picking :-)

But the file: us2bnsfcar.wag still contains the infamous 5th bracket error!

John

"BNSFLADY"
CYNDI RICHARDS
You will always
be here with us.

[OTTODAD]

Just a little nit picking :-)

Not nitpicking, John, but constructive feedback, which is appreciated. ;-)

Corrected and will be re-uploaded shortly !

Thanks, O t t o.

[tpilot]

Hi Otto,

No slack action, with these, though, correct?

Suggestion: You might want to post just the required coupler sections in the format Route-Riter is looking for. (Will save you bandwidth and be easier for those who want to apply these changes to an entire fleet of 3rd-party rolling stock and would have to do this anyway.)

Thanks for your efforts in this, BTW!!!

[OTTODAD]

Hi Marshall !

Yes, no slack action, slack action non-rigid couplers causing the non-ZERO velocity speed readings which prevent the switching of cabs, although the throttle / regulator is a 0% - IDLE and the train brakes are set.

As there is no slack action in my rolling stock nevertheless found that my all "Rigid" couplers 2 DASH-9 + 100 Freight + 2 Dash-9 consist takes some time before it actually starts moving, due to slack being taken up, but couplers not showing it ! ;-)

The bottom line is that all you do with my mp3kcons.zip rolling stock and it's couplers works all the time !!! :7

Mike Simpson is checking it and if not finding any problems, which he will not ;-), will add my 3ms timestep Default.wag, no jerking in consists and the OTTO-COUPLERS.TXT to the Route Riter for those who want to apply it to all their rolling stock, having made another change to it to let you select all *.eng and *.wag files !

O t t o

P.S.: Before committing their entire rolling stock to my 3ms timestep Default.wag & OTTO-COUPLERS it would be a good idea to create a BACK-UP of the TRAINS folder somewhere else, COPY/PASTE the mp3kcons.zip TRAINS folder into the Train Simulator folder and test my rolling stock in as many ways as possible.

If all is working as it should then apply the OTTO-COUPLERS.TXT to all your rolling stock, still having the TRAINS BACK-UP to fall back on if unexpected problems surface ! ;-)

[tpilot]

Are you using the rigid couplers line in both coupler sections or just one?

(Yes, I am too lazy to just download the file and see for myself)!

>Mike Simpson . . . will add . . . to the
>Route Riter . . .

Awesome!!!

>If all is working as it should then apply the
>OTTO-COUPLERS.TXT to all your rolling stock, still
>having the TRAINS BACK-UP to fall back on if unexpected
>problems surface ! ;-)

Awww, what's the fun in THAT!!! (Just apply it to the whole fleet and then figure out something else to apply to the fleet if you don't like the way it works.) That's what I usually end up doing!!!

[OTTODAD]

Are you using the rigid couplers line in both coupler sections or just one?

This is what my UNIVERSAL coupler settings look like:

http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/Attachments/up1/114638.jpg

Awww, what's the fun in THAT!!! Just apply it to the whole fleet and then figure out something else to apply to the fleet if you don't like the way it works.

That's what I did testing Bill's and other coupler settings but believe in "double indemnity", having a before changes were made TRAINS folder I can restore without having to roll back multiple changes individually ! ;-)

O t t o

[Richard]

Hello Group,

Just a little FYI since the question has come up :)

According to the Eng_Wag_Manual 2.0e

CouplingHasRigidConnection ( 1 ) means, there is no spring.

The author recommends this setting for steam locomotives between the engine and tender (First coupler section in steam locomotive, second coupler section in tender)

To enable slack action this line should be commented out or deleted from both coupler sections.

From my own personal experience I've found the CouplingHasRigidConnection to cause a whip effect on freight cars when running thru the diverging trailing point of a switch.

Take care,
Rich S.

[drjoe]

Just so you know, it is possible to have slack action couplers that also give low enough velocity readings to allow cab switching. Note that the velocities shown are low enough to allow cab switching. This is with the train parked on a slight grade. Nearly identical results stopped on a flat area.



http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/Attachments/up1/114659.jpg

[OTTODAD]

Hi Rich !

To enable slack action this line should be commented out or deleted from both coupler sections.

The problem with slack action couplers is that stopped trains with throttle/regulator at 0% - IDLE and train brakes set, there is minute constant movement showing in the velocity readouts, which does not cease no matter how long ago the train was stopped, George may or may not be able to fix !

From my own personal experience I've found the CouplingHasRigidConnection to cause a whip effect on freight cars when running thru the diverging trailing point of a switch.

That I think is a problems with all coupler versions, Bill Prieger might be able to confirm, being an expert on virtual slack action couplers !

Take care, O t t o.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Joe !

I tried this using various of Bill's slack action couplers but no matter what I tried with my 2 DASH-9 + 100 US2Freight + 2 DASH-9 slack action couplers consist could not make the velocity lines read 0.00000, which if not showing absolute ZERO will prevent the switching to other cabs of locos in that consist.

Create s similar consist and then try switching cabs on a level section of track !

O t t o

[tpilot]

In my tests, absolute zero was not required.

I could switch cabs at something like 0.00194 or below but not at 0.00240 or above or there-abouts.

However, I think with the latest versions of Bill's couplers (and possibly some modifications that Joe was making to Bill's couplers), it is possible to get below this, and anyway, Bin George said that he would increase the value, so that really is not an issue with the slack couplers.

However, personally, I would like to go to something like Otto's universal couplers, b/c:

I am NOT and don't plan to be a locomotive engineer. I don't need to have to worry about freight cars bunching up the head-end power. I have derailments turned off in the options, for that matter.

I don't want to update my couplers and have to go through every single wagon and say "Okay, this is a boxcar, is it 40' or 50', ummmh, looks like 50', was it made before 1960, uhhhhm, yes, so I guess it needs this coupler."

I want to be able to add activities and run with them and not need to worry about what order the activity writer may have placed freight into the consists b/c he didn't know I would be using Turbo Bill's couplers.

I miss my Projected Speed and accelerometers which don't jump around. Sure, they would be affected by the freight cars or missing on a real train, but they were handy . . .

I understand that many of us are after "As real as it gets" and I am impressed by what Bill and Joe and others have achieved towards these ends, but I don't think I will be going that direction.

[OTTODAD]

Exactly how I feel, Marshall and no doubt many others do too, especially those with all sorts of mixed international rolling stock, who like me would prefer one type of coupler so suit all types ! ;-)

Yes, you and Joe are right ! Just tested my 2+100+2 consist using Bill's "Large Engine" and "Cushioned Couplers" settings and the velocity dropped below 0.000 after stopping the train in the AUSTELL INTERMODAL YARD, the 0.00042 apparently good enough for MSTSBin to accept that the train has stopped and I was able to switch cabs !

Can't remember which type of Bill's couplers I used which did not.

Will have to wait and see whether George can do this for the virtual railroaders !

Take care, O t t o.

[tpilot]

>Can't remember which type of Bill's couplers I used which did
>not.

I had the problem on a MLT route and am pretty sure I was using Route-Riter's previous recommended BIN-couplers.

>Will have to wait and see whether George can do this for the
>virtual railroaders !

Well, you just said that it's not an issue any more with Bill's latest coupler recommendations, and I think that changing the cab switching cut-off velocity to less than 0.00500 would eliminate the problem and should be easy to do anyway.

(Easy to do for the person that doesn't have to do it, at least!)

[OTTODAD]

Yes, you and Joe are right ! Just tested my 2+100+2 consist using Bill's "Large Engine" and "Cushioned Couplers" settings and the velocity dropped below 0.000 after stopping the train in the AUSTELL INTERMODAL YARD, the 0.00042 apparently good enough for MSTSBin to accept that the train has stopped and I was able to switch cabs !

I am afraid I have to retract that statement after doing the same tests at Whitefish in my GOLD-SPIKE route and had the same problems with these latest coupler settings I had before, shown below, the velocity not reducing to a level to allow cab switching !

The second scene is from the rear cab of the loco at the rear of the consist, somehow having managed to switch to it !

Even if it may not be a problem with the latest coupler settings from Bill, how many use them, the continental MSTS users certainly not having heard of them, but use MSTSBin 1.6+ too !

Changing the code to ignore everything after the second decimal place like so 0.00, if George can, could provide a fail-save to cover all eventualities ? ;-)

When coding a program one has to allow for as many likely usages angles as possible !

O t t o

http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/Attachments/up1/114661.jpg

http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/Attachments/up1/114662.jpg

[tpilot]

Otto,

I may be having a senior moment today, but I'm having trouble following what you are saying. (I may be catching on, though).


I am afraid I have to retract that statement after doing the
same tests at Whitefish in my GOLD-SPIKE route and had the
same problems with these latest coupler settings I had before,
shown below, the velocity not reducing to a level to allow cab
switching !
By "these latest coupler settings", you mean Turbo Bill's latest, not your latest, correct?

Even if it may not be a problem with the latest coupler
settings from Bill, how many use them, the continental MSTS
users certainly not having heard of them, but use MSTSBin 1.6+
too !

Totally lost me on the "contintental MSTS users not heard of them part" Do you mean European users don't use Bill's coupler values? Continental to me means the 48-states not including Alaska and Hawaii, but we Americans have a bad tendency of viewing the world as the USA and "everything else".
Changing the code to ignore everything after the second decimal place like so 0.00, if George can, could
provide a fail-save to cover all eventualities ? ;-)

Actually, maybe not. I was recommending a value of 0.00500, you are now recommending a value of 0.00999, however, if you look at your second screenshot, your train is at 0.15153 and I looked at a previous post and I was seeing steady-state values after a half-hour of between 0.02500 and 0.02700. Both of these are higher than your proposed cut-off limits and likely higher than BIN George wants to take it.

However, I think there was a post by Dr. Joe stating that some of the values in Bill's couplers were too high and produced too much springiness, and from Joe's earlier post in this thread, I get the impression he at least has revised values that allow slack and low enough values to swap cabs, but I don't know if these values have been communicated to Turbo Bill yet, much less whether you have seen them.

When coding a program one has to allow for as many likely usages angles as possible !

Within reason. The 0.00220 value is way too low for a determination that the train is stopped, but setting it to 10.0 mph would ensure that you would never have a stopped train and not be able to swap cabs, but would cause other issues.

[Richard]

Hello Otto,
I completely understand why you are using the CouplingHasRigidConnection ( 1 ) statement. Someone posted something about having slack action and the way to enable this was to remove the CouplingHasRigidConnection ( 1 ) statement. I've also experienced the same phenomena as Jim Ward talked about in another post when using the Rigid coupler and running thru the diverging end of a switch. One minute you see the train on the siding, the next it's on the main, that's just to freaky for me :) Trains are suppose to follow the tracks, not jump across tracks :) :) Since removing the Rigid coupler statement, I've not experienced this problem.

Otto, I think you've done some great work with these coupler values and the updated textures for the default rolling stock. These and all the other little goodies on your web site are very appreciated.

Take care,
Rich S.

[tpilot]

Otto,

Suggest the following:

Test your couplers going through diverging switches with both rigid statements and with one of them disabled.

I know you are aware of the problems (you posted about it in previous threads, but I was not, so I did some research):

Here is a thread where you talk about it: http://www.trainsim.com/ts/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=170058&mesg_id=170058&page=&topic_page=1

That links to this thread: http://www.trainsim.com/ts/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=157044&mesg_id=157044&page=&topic_page=1

In that thread, Joe has this important reply: http://www.trainsim.com/ts/dcboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=3&topic_id=157044&mesg_id=160837

Quoting the important parts here: "Rigid coupling combined with high stiffness settings ( the first line in the coupler block ) can cause problems. Generally only one of the two coupler values should have the "rigid" line. The rear coupler on locomotives, and the front coupler on wagons. And, if the stiffness and damping are set low enough, long cars and passenger cars can successfully use rigid coupling statements in both the front and rear section. Use of the rigid statement in a wagon or locomotive using only one coupler section is probably a sure way to cause a problem."

I think your values with only the front coupler rigid on locos and only the rear rigid on wagons is what I will test with.

Front is the first section in the .eng and .wag files, correct?

[OTTODAD]

Hi Marshall !

I may be having a senior moment today, but I'm having trouble following what you are saying. (I may be catching on, though).

Senior moments ? How old are you then ? ;-)

Yes, you and Joe are right ! Just tested my 2+100+2 consist using Bill's "Large Engine" and "Cushioned Couplers" settings and the velocity dropped below 0.000 after stopping the train in the AUSTELL INTERMODAL YARD, the 0.00042 apparently good enough for MSTSBin to accept that the train has stopped and I was able to switch cabs !

I am afraid I have to retract that statement after doing the same tests at Whitefish in my GOLD-SPIKE route and had the same problems with these latest coupler settings I had before, shown below, the velocity not reducing to a level to allow cab switching !

You got to read both these paragraphs in one go. Perhaps I should have said "Bill's latest coupler settings above ? ;-)

Do you mean European users don't use Bill's coupler values? Continental to me means the 48-states not including Alaska and Hawaii.

"Continental" to Europeans means Europe without the U.K. ! German, Austrian, Swiss, French, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Polish, Czech, Danish, etc, forum readers have never heard of Bill Prieger and most of them not speaking English do not monitor the English speaking MSTSBin forums either.

I am making European Continentals aware of my coupler settings via the MSTSBin Guest Book, read by nationalities, which have already helped some of it's posters !

I was recommending a value of 0.00500, you are now recommending a value of 0.00.

I started the same as you, passing the 0.005 to George and after testing this consist in the ATLANTA route and before testing it in the GOLD-SPIKE thought that the 0.00 might be more appropriate. It was only by chance that I switched to the rear loco's rear cab and driving from it and then stopping the train noticed these higher velocity settings, rendering the 0.00 useless !

Like I said, I am happy with my Universal Coupler settings, which create no problems no matter what you do with them, using any type of rolling stock.

O t t o

[Richard]

Hello Marshall,
From my understanding, MSTS couplers are backwards in the .eng and .wag files. The front coupler on engines and wagons (freight cars) is the second coupler section in the file and the rear coupler is the first coupler section.

Take care,
Rich S.

[drjoe]

Rich, you have it right. The first coupler section is the rear coupler and the second coupler section ( if two sections are used ) is the front coupler. Locomotives should have the rigid statement "set" in the rear coupler ( first section ) and commented out or removed in the front coupler ( second section ). Rolling stock should be reversed from that, i.e., the rigid statement is commented out or removed in the rear coupler ( first section ), and "set" in the front coupler ( second section ). This is based on pre-Bin coupler work, but is also valid with Bin.

[OTTODAD]

Thanks Joe !

Am going to give that a try tomorrow.

Any progress on the other revised by you values Marshall is telling me about ?

O t t o

[tpilot]

This will ramble a bit, but I’ll try to stay somewhat on-topic:

MSTS is terrible for benchmarking. I had been getting about 16-17 FPS consistently in an activity. Set my Open GL settings from 0 to 6X, and FPS jumped to 20 FPS. Didn’t think that sounded right, so set it back to 0 and FPS stayed at 20 . . .

(I am pretty sure MSTS uses D3D only and not OGL, but was trying to verify this).

With that in mind, I played with the default wagon file some. On an XP Barton 2800, in the same activity:
Timestep 1ms gave FPS of 4.
Timestep 2ms gave FPS of 11
Timestep 3ms gave FPS of 15
Timestep 10ms gave FPS of 19
Timestep 15ms also gave FPS of 19

Not much visible change in image quality in any case.

NOTE: While my system is no longer new, it is WAY BETTER than what you COULD use to play MSTS. Based on this, I agree with others that it is not a good idea to drop the timestep below 10ms in a publicly released default .wag file.

I also played around with my coupler values. You will recall in Rogers Pushers, the train was still moving at 0.02500 after 30 minutes with the brake applied. Ran the activity with the new coupler values, and the train settled down to 0.00100 or less, spiked to 0.6000 for 2-3 seconds, then settled down to 0.00100 or less again. It stayed at this speed and never settled down, however, this was well within the cab switching limits. I also swapped cabs (which released a lot of the brakes) and afterward was able to stop the train at 0.00000, so I suspect the if I either released the brakes, let the train relax and then re-applied the brakes, or applied power to stretch the train and then re-applied the brakes, I would achieve a full stop.

BONUS: Accelerometer and projected speed work again in cabs that have it.

CAUTION: If you have MLT equipment, don’t let RR modify the FRED.wag file. I did this once and forget why it was a bad idea (I think I let it do the Bounding Box fix on it). Anyway, I think it is probably best left alone.

Note that I did not use Otto’s recommended values, I only used one Rigid line (and I didn't see the replies from Joe and Richard before I left, so I need to swap my locomotive and wagon values), so for engines I used:

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1.2e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.8e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 2cm 5cm )
)
Comment(CouplingHasRigidConnection (1))
Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
)
Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1e2N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.86N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 2cm 5cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( -0.2m/s )
)

And for wagons I used:

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1.2e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.8e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 2cm 5cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
)
Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1e2N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.86N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 2cm 5cm )
)
Comment(CouplingHasRigidConnection (1))
Velocity ( -0.2m/s )
)

I didn’t know what to set Steam and Tenders to, so I left them alone.

Note that these are very similar to what Route-Riter was previously using, which was:

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1.2e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.8e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 2cm 5cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
)
Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 5e6N/m 1.2e6N/m )
Damping ( 3.8e6N/m/s 1.3e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 5cm 2cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( -0.2m/s )
)
Buffers (
Spring (
Stiffness ( 9e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1e6N/m/s 1e6N/m/s )
r0 ( 0m 10cm )
)
Centre ( 0.5 )
Radius ( 1 )
Angle ( 0.5deg )
)

Although I am not sure if R-R used different values for freight.

Also, I noticed that I did not originally modify my Rogers Pass Equipment, so that may have been why the train would not settle down. I checked with my backup file (yeah, yeah, no guts, no glory) and found the following values:

All the engines were correctly modified:

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1.2e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.8e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 2cm 5cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
)

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 5e6N/m 1.2e6N/m )
Damping ( 3.8e6N/m/s 1.3e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 5cm 2cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( -0.2m/s )
)
Buffers (
Spring (
Stiffness ( 9e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1e6N/m/s 1e6N/m/s )
r0 ( 0m 10cm )
)
Centre ( 0.5 )
Radius ( 1 )
Angle ( 0.5deg )
)

However, the sulfur cars (97 of them) were using this (no second coupler section, no buffer section):
Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1e7N/m/s 1e8N/m/s )
Break ( 5e7N 5e7N )
r0 ( 10cm 10cm )
)
Velocity ( 0.1m/s )
)
Not sure where this came from, it might be MLT default settings . . .

NOTE: I still think BIN George needs to change his cut off value because (obviously) we can’t rely on everyone having their entire fleet modified to acceptable coupler physics.

[OTTODAD]

Further to my coupler tests yesterday and what I said to Joe, I have been thinking about what I read somewhere that a second coupler section is only required if the loco / tender / wagon / car has different couplers at both ends.

So I put the theory to the test with this coupler section, no CouplingHasRigidConnection ( ? ) line of any sort and applied it to all locos, wagons and cars:

http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/Attachments/up1/114676.jpg

The slack action of the couplers was as real as can be, and stopping the train, the throttle at 0%-IDLE and train brakes, had no problems switchings cabs with this low velocity value, which was 0.00000 doing coupling test in the GOLD-SPIKE's Whitefish yard !

http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/Attachments/up1/114677.jpg

Using 3ms timestep in the [/b]Default.wag[/b] I am getting these frame rates:

http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/Attachments/up1/114678.jpg

and changing them to 10ms timestep made no difference !

It is up to users of my OTTO-COUPLERS to apply one of the included Default.wag files which they think suits them best, but would strongly recommend using the 3ms timestep version unless they are happy to see the wagons in their trains bounce backward and forward as if their couplers were rubber bands, driving from loco's rear cabs, ! ;-)

I am now going to apply this new single coupler section to all my rolling stock and think that this is now the end of my coupler tests as far as I am concerned, all of them passing the various severe coupling tests I applied to test their reliability.

Do test them yourself and try to find faults using them !

O t t o

B.t.w., installed the ATI TRAY TOOLS and running them for the first time got a BSOD, the computer re-booted and starting had to do a Scandisk. I thing I shall stick with what I know works on my computer in future !

No problem, my NORTON GHOST C: drive IMAGE restore wiping out any possible damage to it !

[tpilot]

>Further to my coupler tests yesterday and what I said to Joe,
>I have been thinking about what I read somewhere that a second
>coupler section is only required if the loco / tender / wagon
>/ car has different couplers at both ends.

Sounds like you are trusting the TechDocs over the MSTS user base again.

>Changing from 3ms timestep to 10ms timestep made
>no difference to the 28 FpS here at Whitefish in the
>GOLD-SPIKE

On an A64-Something with tons of RAM and 10,000 RPM Raptors . . .

>driving from loco's rear cabs, !

Almost never do this!

>B.t.w., installed the ATI TRAY TOOLS and running them for the
>first time got a BSOD, the computer re-booted and starting had
>to do a Scandisk. I thing I shall stick with what I know works
>on my computer in future !

Odd, it is generally recommended to un-install the Catalyst Control Center before installing them, although I expected the only problems to be registry entries being different and some changes not taking, not BSOD's.

Sorry they did not work for you, they are working fine for me.

[OTTODAD]

Sounds like you are trusting the TechDocs over the MSTS user base again.

I only trust what my own tests prove and so far all have passed with flying colors ! The Buffer sections not being required also proven by my countless coupler tests !

If I had believed what my medics said works with their patients user base and taken what they prescribed to deal with my health problems I could be dead by now, VIOXX having been but one example ! :-(

Why don't you test them in a special MINI route and find out for yourself ? I am sure that they will work with almost all WIN-XP computers the same as they do on mine, perhaps not with the same frame rates, but according to their hard ware and what they do it, not showing any frame rate difference between 3ms & 10ms timestep either.

driving from loco's rear cabs, almost never do this!

Common practice in Europe, most modern trainsets having driver cabs at both ends !

O t t o

[tpilot]

>I only trust what my own tests prove and so far all have
>passed with flying colors ! The Buffer sections not being
>required also proven by my countless coupler tests !

Yep, I took the buffer sections out last night as well, didn't notice any ill-effects, but I only ran a couple of activities.

BTW, you edited your previous post, it originally had a couplerhasrigidconnection line in it and you said you couldn't get 0.000 stop velocities, right?

>Why don't you test them in a special MINI route and find out
>for yourself ?

Planning to!

>but according to their hard ware and
>what they do it, not showing any frame rate difference between
>3ms & 10ms timestep either.

I saw a 4 FPS drop between those two settings.

>Common practice in Europe, most modern trainsets having driver
>cabs at both ends !

Understood, I still almost never do this.

[OTTODAD]

Getting curious about what the effect of changing the timestep values would be on my WIN-98SE 512 Mb RAM computer, I added the mp3kcons rolling stock to it's basic MSTS install I use for testing installed routes like the ATLANTA and run the 2+100+2 consist in it.

With a 10ms timestep it did 13 FpS and with a 3ms timestep 9 FpS. So yes, there is a case for not changing these settings on certain computers, WIN-98SE being an extreme example.

Like I said, it's up to users of my coupler settings to choose with Default.wag works best for them !

O t t o

[tpilot]

What's the processor in the Win98SE box again? That's pretty close to the drop I saw with the XP Barton 2800 under XPSP2.

[tpilot]

>Thanks Joe !
>Any progress on the other revised by you values Marshall is
>telling me about ?
>O t t o

I'm curious about this also!

[OTTODAD]

It's a Pentium-4 2.93 Ghz.

Running a second session of MSTS in the same computer session got "File not found" errors running the ATLANTA, like reported by many others who are getting these errors and is not surprising, this computer having only 256 Mb RAM ! ;-)

O t t o

[Turbo Bill]

My latest coupler values have been adjusted per Joe's suggestions. Will be handing him the next set to peruse and then perhaps a release. These coupler templates were never intended for other then North American equipment. Since I've never ran anything other then North American railroad equipment, I will not be releasing any coupler values for other types of railroad rollingstock. I will leave that area to Otto's capable hands. Although I have not yet heard anything concerning the track jumping issues when trailing thru a non player path lined switch on equipment with double couplinghasrigidconnection lines. Also there is also the bounding box binding on really tight curves as well.

[tpilot]

Ran Otto’s single couplers last night and overall am pretty happy with the results. (I ran several trains - the rogers pushers, an F45 train with an accelerometer, an SD70M-2 with an accelerometer, a MLT SD90, etc.)

THE GOOD:

The dreaded Rogers Pushers activity, the train settled to 0.00050 (fluctuating) after coupling, which allowed me to easily switch cabviews. (Slack couplers)

Accelerometers and Projected Speed again worked as they originally did. (Slack couplers)

THE BAD:

Not sure if I am seeing proper slack action or not and not sure how to tell. . .

Started a long train and noticed the last car stationary when F4 said 0.5 mph, indicating slack action. (with slack couplers)
Looked at extended F5 and saw the lead engine at higher velocity than the trailing wagon, indicating slack action. (with slack couplers)
Accelerometer was stable, indicating lack of slack action. (with slack couplers)
However, ran an activity using the Acela (which has rigid couplers) and trailing unit again was running slower than lead unit in F5 display, indicating slack action. (???)

[OTTODAD]

Looked at extended F5 and saw the lead engine at higher velocity than the trailing wagon, indicating slack action.

That foxed me too for a while, Marshall, until I realized that the first velocity line shows mph and the other two m/s ! ;-)

I now have two cut down MINI routes, requiring only TRAINS and ROUTES folders, the latter with at least one small route in it and any train.exe in their root folders. One for all the knuckle couplers rolling stock using my non-rigid single coupling section and the other for all rigid couplers on steam locos/tenders and multi-car passenger trainsets like the ACELA, ICEs and TGVs, etc.

That way I can change their setting easily with the Route Riter, getting the best from both versions of my latest coupler settings ! ;-)

O t t o

[tpilot]

>That foxed me too for a while, Marshall, until I realized that
>the first velocity line shows mph and the other two
>m/s ! ;-)

:+ Missed that - Thanks!