'AAR' type standards for MSTS

[Paul112554]

First, let me be clear that I greatly admire those who are able to take an idea from initial conception and development to a final product. I do not pretend to understand what effort it takes to come up the objects we all use in MSTS...or any game for that matter!

That said...

What I have noticed over the years is the apparent lack of 'standards' when it comes to certain things we see with regards to train objects in MSTS...in particular, wheels, truck sides, couplers, and air hose placement.

Those familiar with 'real world' model railroading know that every manufacturer has their own 'take' on what these parts should look like, even though the 1:1 folks have to submit to strict 'AAR' standards across the board...no matter WHO makes those parts.

I suspect this has a lot to do with patents and copyrights...even thought THEY are making copies of things covered by same...hmmmmmmm

Think about this the next time you're out train-spotting or watching a train at a crossing...

ALL the wheels, trucks (ok,bogies to some LOL), and couplers look pretty much the same. Unless they are 'fresh'/new, or covered by some substance particular to a cars load (cement, sulfur, etc.), they pretty much 'patina' the same over years of use.

As long as I can remember there has been only four different roller bearing end-cap designs (not counting pre-70's grease fitting style), three roller bearing truck frames, one 'AAR' type friction truck frame (1950's on - not counting cabooses, MOW, or frames fitted for roller wheels), two couplers in freight use ('E' and 'F' type), and the only difference with wheels is pretty much the diameter. Even air hose position and height-from-rail is governed by 'AAR' rules.

Now that we have 'BIN' and can roll-by an entire train from head-end to caboose/EOT, the lack of 'AAR' type standards in MSTS sticks out like a sore thumb!!!

Isn't it about time something was done about all those egg-shaped wheels, wheels that don't even turn or are six inches BELOW the rail-head, couplers that look like anything BUT...and hoses dangling between cars as if some inspector didn't make the 'hook'...???

Now, there ARE some very nicely done truck, wheel, coupler, and air hose textures out there. Perhaps a poll (or contest?) should be done to see what would look best and work as an accepted 'standard' for these particular items in MSTS. Then perhaps 'those who know and do' could work up some sort of 'FIX' to improve on the LOOK and FEEL for the trains in this otherwise very nice train simulator.

Hey...just something to think about...'nuff said

p.s., hope i'm posting this in the CORRECT forum this time...

[USRailFan]

When it comes to bogies/couplers/air hoses, Ted Curphey's stuff (and derivations thereof) is pretty close to having become a de facto 'standard' over the past few years (yes, there are some exceptions, primarily Danny Beck who does not use separate truck/coupler textures, Diesels West, Hauke Hey and Erick Cantu, which all seem to have made their own versions).

[PORU333]

David Rowe also has his own set of Trucks & Couplers, and they look pretty darn fine, but I guess his stuff just isn't noticed like it should be.

[pwillard]

Don't think it's not been considered. A discussion similar to this ages ago had Larry Goss provide us with a common knuckle coupler that would be shared among modelers. I'm also pretty sure it's one of the reasons that TRAINZ does not consider the "truck/wheels" to be a part of the wagon. There are fewer truck types than body styles for sure... but your way would also have the effect stifling those who want to create what they believe to be correct. I mean... who decides the standards?

Do we just say we all use Ted Curphey's trucks from now on? That's the standard? What if Paul Fowler doesn't want to use Ted's trucks?

See where this goes? We all do our best to interpret the world in 3D. Sorry it isn't always pretty... Heck, my first 3D MSTS models are junk compared to what I can make now.

Standards or no... we still have to rely on our learned skills.

[sooner]

I'd be happy if builders just used the same scale. I don't know the first thing about modelling, but it's obvious there are significant differences between models that are nominally the same size.

[pwillard]

All models are build 12" = 1FT scale. 1:1


KUJU was the worst offender. Much of the default items were way off.


Some sources for drawings may be incorrect...

In some cases, methods used draw from images can lead to inaccuracies.

So... do you plan to try modeling yourself?

[sooner]

Too old.

[Erick_Cantu]

I've tinkered with the idea of making transition cars that would transition my stock to those of various other popular modellers (and between those), but I haven't had the time to do it. All I can tell you is that my wheels and couplers conform to AAR tolerances for coupler height (not all couplers are the same height in the real world, either, AAR specifies a height range) and are of the correct scale. I made sure of that much. I also uploaded my basic wheels, trucks, and draft gear for anyone interested in making compatible stock.

[mestevet]

One thing the original poster should keep in mind is that there would have to be standard parts for each 3D modeling package (i.e. TSM, GMax, 3DCanvas, and others). While I'm sure someone could figure out a way to graft trucks, wheels & couplers from one .S file (the mutually common model format) to another, that's getting into a whole gray area of decompiling .S files that makes some folks skiddish.

Another thing is that there are actually a lot of different truck styles out there. Many appear to be similar, and could probably be represented by a common style, but then there are some which are purely unique. I did a PRR "Crown" style friction bearing truck for use on the ore gons I did (a unique style of friction bearing truck common on the Pennsy). You could argue that was duplicating the effort of Tom Pearce's model done for his H21 cars, but I didn't have access to his model.

Wheel design can also be different, and while some differences could probably be adequately handled via texturing, others may not.

Maybe what's called for is a sticky posting of the true standards for things like coupler height (I'm not where my notes are right now, but isn't it something like 31" to 34" on centerline??) I think there are also standards for things like axle diameter vs. car load rating (also somewhat dependent on wheel diameter - in roller bearings, the bearing size is proportional to the car capacity, I believe). As far as trucks are concerned, there may be links to diagrams of common types, I know there are diagrams of many PRR style trucks on one of the PRR enthusiast web pages, for instance.

I think making the standards readily available may be the best way to keep future models consistent, but it does seem to me that a lot of the newly created stuff has some fine modeling in this regard.

Steve

[Paul112554]

Ohhhhhhhhh believe me, I did by all means consider the different truck, wheel, and coupler types that have existed on U.S. rails since at least the turn of the last century.

I remember all too clearly several 'hospital' trains that we processed through Selkirk back in the mid-70's (around the time we'd just become CONRAIL). Cars that the only thing wrong with them was that they were too old...cars more worthy of being in some museum then going to the inglorious fate we knew they were headed for. Cars with Arch-Bars, Andrews trucks, rib-backed and cast iron wheels, and couplers you'd almost swear a 'beefy' shop carman could probably pick up and slip into the pocket all by himself (i watched an 'old hand' do that...just once).

As I implied, I have no clue what it takes to render a car with all its components for MSTS. Some folks make it sound like it takes months to do a car...other make it sound like they could rip off an entire consist in the span of a lazy afternoon...what's the story with that?!

If I knew what I was doing (and if it were possible) I'd simply find the trucks, wheels, and couplers that IMHO look the best and 'cut n' paste' them on the rest of the cars I use on my route.

But I have this sneaking suspicion things aren't quite that simple in the MSTS world...

oh btw...yes i'm a 30+ year carman (PC/CR/csx) and my dad was 30 years on the NYC

[Erick_Cantu]

With the right materials it's not actually very difficult to create a basic freight car. You just need a basic knowledge of modelling and mapping, since there are basic wheelsets and couplers available for TSM and GMax formats.

I did my best to make mine pretty painless, which is why it never takes me long to build a car if I have time - I just build right on top of my basic parts, which are the same ones that are on the internet.

[pwillard]

Well, there really "are" standards. Since all 3D models are created FULL SIZE... and hopefully built from scale drawings or real dimensional data, the issue comes down to how well people adhere to the data when creating the 3D models they create.

Early in MSTS history... a lot of work was done to keep tiny details "OFF" the 3D models and the "close enough" attitude was adopted by most modelers. This led to some 8-sided "wheels", for example. The state of the art PC in the year 2000 was a 1.8Ghz Processor 512M system RAM, Windows 98 with an NVIDIA GFORCE2Ti chip and 128M of graphic RAM. With that being close to the TOP of what was available then, MSTS still had to contend with the multitudes of lesser PC's in terms of performance.

Creating a close to exact replica in 3D meant it could only run on small number of PC's. Certainly a lot has changed since then and we see much better 3D models for the SIM now. Even having the MASTER 3D files for "most" of my own content doesn't mean that I'm going back to them all and updating them to be more accurate. I may do this for some models (like my Dash-8 B40) but it's a huge time sink...

Example: My first models had a 30 polygon coupler, but since late 2002, I've used 300 poly coupler that looks much more accurate.

This discussion does raise the question about sharing parts. Certainly people like Ted Curphey, John Fleming, Larry Goss, Tim Muir, Richard Osborne, Robert Guy, Charles Hastings and Dave Rowe have understood the need and provided standard "parts" for people to use in their 3D Models.

Most are DST files for Train Sim Modeler however, with the many 3D modeling tools available this may not be useful to all content creators.

Do *we* need to create an INDEX of available "off the shelf" 3D parts?

[Erick_Cantu]

I just wish more people would taper their wheels correctly. It sticks out like a sore thumb to me when I'm looking at a new model.

[pwillard]

I completely agree about wheels. The wheels on my early tank cars, (65' LPG and Carbon Dioxide tank especially), are a complete embarrassment now. (At the time... I was amazed I could even make wheels... so there... {raspberry sound})

My early goals were to to try to recreate my real life model railroad items that I had created custom decal artwork for. I was focused more on the textures and finding a place to put them than being 100% accurate on the cars. The 3D modeling occurred ONLY because I could not find what I needed not because I new I could do it.

While I think I'm far from being one of the best 3D Modelers... I certainly have a parts collection some might find useful. The downside of offering this is that my parts are in 3D CANVAS format and NOT DST format since I am not a fan of TSM.

People might notice that I ALWAYS give credit to LARRY GOSS for my couplers. How many other people give credit to parts they have used (appropriated somehow) from other modelers. (I will not elaborate...)

When people share so others can a) Save Time b) match up correctly... the least the recipient can do is say thanks by giving credit in "readme.txt" files.

Meanwhile... I'll see if I can collect some parts I can share.