Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: I need testers, serious testers - for finding mistakes and improvements.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    1,373

    Default I need testers, serious testers - for finding mistakes and improvements.

    I've got the complete original rolling stock set for the Willamette Pass ( Cascades Crossing ) Route released by MLT converted to Open Rails physics.
    I started with this set because I just happened to be looking at this early release from MLT and found the Underpowered activity and found it very interesting and enjoyable. So I got a wild idea and made up an OR Physics Conversion Kit consisting of the following:
    1. Common.inc folder with complete ORTSDieselEngine Blocks (including Max Tractive Curves), basic brakes and couplers for both locomotives and wagons.
    2. OpenRails folder installed in all engine and wagon folders. Eng and Wag include files with Davis numbers, CurtiusKniffler numbers, and path strings to the the Common.inc folder.

    So I need some testers to give them a thorough workout, critique, suggestions, and collaborate with me to make improvements on the set. Please, only folks that have a few years running OR and know what proper operation characteristics look like. I need some experienced people to check my work out and willing to offer improvements, work out any bugs. It will mean running the original activities that came with the route with the original stock.

    If, this works out, my plan is to follow up with the complete rolling stock set shipped with the SLI BNSF Scenic, ( I have this mostly completed already) then perhaps the GreenRiver set and then one of the SLI Seligmans, Mactier...and onward.

    Anyone interested can PM me.
    Regards, Gerry

    screenshot shows the trainset delivered with the Cascades Crossing route
    bandicam 2018-05-29 21-30-39-518.jpg
    Cheers, R. Steele [Gerry] It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Eltham, Australia.
    Posts
    6,410

    Default

    Count me in.
    Cheers
    Derek

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi Gerry,

    I might not be the tester you are looking for, but I would like to applaud this initiative and the importance for Open Rails. The main reason I'm still using MSTS is the lack of standardized physics like we had with MSTS provided by Bob Boudoin and Bill Prieger. Open Rails provides lots of new physics parameters, but without people actually supplying the correct values, these remain "dead letter". So I'm definitely looking forward to the results of this project!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Thanks, noli That's my intention. Just a note to others reading the thread, my machine is in the shop, overheating cpu, a friend is repairing it for me. Using my wifes laptop for the moment until mine is fixed. So not much work going on for the time being. Will post again when I'm up and running

    and thanks to Derek for offering to test, that was great. Anyone else---even if you are using your own interpretation of OR physics, would be welcome to compare our results, with a view to improvements to either.
    Cheers, R. Steele [Gerry] It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wareham, Dorset, U.K.
    Posts
    2,354

    Default

    It strikes me Gerry that you'd need REAL engineers (or drivers as we call them) with REAL experience of different types of traction to get anything "real". After all "theoretical power output" means nothing compared to the realities of hauling different types, sizes and speeds of consists and that's before you bring route factors like curves, gradients, state of track and speed limits into it?

    When Mick Clarke (creator of the UKTS distributed MEP route) was trying to create realistic physics for the stock pack the team put together for that route we actually found a real HST (High Speed Train) driver who was able to tell us at which points, having left Kings Cross Station, a real HST would reach specific speeds. Mick played around with numbers in the physics until the virtual HST sets included with the route gave convincing performance in acceleration and braking. When we first started out a (no longer available) payware DMU set we were "donated" could out accelerate the HST!!!!!!. By the time of release the physics on these geared DMU sets had been modified to performance that many of us on the team had actual experience of as passengers.

    Now, whilst I've watched many a YouTube video of massive US container trains or old 16mm footage of trains of the era that really interests me I'd have no idea of how realistic the physics on their virtual equivalents are . One has to assume that Amtrak trains have similar performance in acceleration and braking to modern passenger trains anywhere in the Western World (which BTW the SLI sets certainly don't! ....taking forever to brake to a standstill) ....but apart from Oz there are few countries that run such massive trains.

    It also occurs to me that apart from the physics of the locomotives surely the simulated weight and drag of individual freight wagons would affect what is "realistic" too?

    For example if you set up the physics for a realistic "light engine" performance would that work in multi engine lash-ups on 1.5 mile long trains to the same degree of realism?

    I think this is a great idea but given the vast number of types of Loco and traction used in the last 70 years it seems a mammoth task
    Geoff
    Dorset - near The Swanage Railway.
    UK

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA.
    Posts
    3,339

    Default

    Gerry, no qualms about proposed parameter values, you probably know more than most. Would you please reply to my PM of 5/24... I have a spreadsheet I'd like to share with you.
    Dave Nelson

    Seldom visiting, posting less often that that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Finally, got the cpu problem solved. Back in biznus.

    The Willamette Pass trainset is being tested, and I had a suggestion about doing the 3dts TEHII route - now while the stock is among the oldest around, it certainly was accomplished for the time period ... and the route, well it is one of the better ones for the time, and there are some nice upgrades (the scenery for instance) to be found. So I started the initial work on that one...making up the trainset folders found in the original offering. Probably the BNSF Scenic (SLI), the DRGW GreenRiver, and perhaps the Mactier Trainset may come first, I"ll see how things progress.

    To Geoffs post, I agree with all of it. A big project, but some-one has to start somewhere, sometime, so why not? I'll do as much as I can, and these conversion kits for OR physics are only a beginning, they are not the last word...I'm expecting to learn a lot and certainly things like the couplers and brakes, which are quite basic will be improved upon, certainly anything can be improved upon in these kits.

    The only way we all are going to find answers to the questions Geoff asks is to start working with eng and wag files that employ OR native physics and parameters...not keep working with MSTS default files that OR interpolates, no matter how ingeniously that is coded. So a beginning is all this effort is. Time will tell.

    Hopefully they will perform the task of helping folks understand the purpose of the OpenRails folders found inside engine and wagon folders
    (treat them just like CabView and Sound folders found in many MSTS trainset folders for engines and wagons. (MSTS ignores this folder, OR will read the eng or wag files inside) Also how to use the Common.inc folder ( thanks Dave for the name ) - treat it just like the Common.Cab or Common.Snd folder found in all MSTS TRAINSET folders. Only in the Common.inc folder you will find all the include files for wagon and engine physics, couplers, brakes, etc.

    Anyone else interested in testing...don't be shy...maybe my first ask for serious testers was a little over the top...I'd say about 80 to 90% of the members know more than me about railroad ops than me (I can some of you saying...more like 99% ) - so anyone, care to try out the beta set for the Willamette Pass, run an old activity you liked with MSTS and see what happens??? Come on...nothing ventured, nothing gained. Drop me a PM for the set.
    Cheers, R. Steele [Gerry] It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA.
    Posts
    3,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R. Steele View Post
    Finally, got the cpu problem solved. Back in biznus.
    ... Also how to use the Common.inc folder ( thanks Dave for the name ) - treat it just like the Common.Cab or Common.Snd folder found in all MSTS TRAINSET folders. Only in the Common.inc folder you will find all the include files for wagon and engine physics, couplers, brakes, etc.
    A reminder: Inside of common,inc I am proposing two folders; Fleet and Models. What I recommend for \Fleet are those .inc files that can be used by most of your rolling stock -- couplers and brake equipment for starters.

    What I'm proposing for \Models are folders to hold .inc files that will be used by .wags and .engs that share a common mesh file skinned for many railroads -- think EMD F7's, GP20's etc. etc. Rather that put any .inc files into each .eng folder it made sense to set up a neutral location folder -- \GP20 for instance and to put the .inc files there. It didn't take very long to see another level in the tree was necessary, that being WHO made those GP20 models. I'm recommending we use the person or company name. That way you won't accidentally mix .inc from multiple sources.

    For example:
    \common.inc\models\3dtrains\F7
    \common.inc\models\3dtrains\FT
    \common.inc\models\Percy & Norton\Alco S2

    and so on.

    I think this will work out particular well for payware content as their models tend to be skinned for many railroads. It will work equally well for freeware when those models are also skinned for multiple roads.

    Hope this helps.
    Dave Nelson

    Seldom visiting, posting less often that that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Progress Report...files out to testers, some feedback already, made some corrections, reorganizing files...working.
    I have started testing the SLI DRGW Greenriver trainset included with the GreenRiver Route. It was a small set, so it will probably be released next.
    Any suggestions on what people would like to have would be appreciated, cannot promise anything, but all suggestions help.
    Cheers, R. Steele [Gerry] It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    I uploaded the first Open Rails Physics Conversion Kit to the library today. The kit is for MLT's Willamette Pass - SP Cascades Crossing - Route. No modifications are made to the default locomotives or wagons supplied with the route. Rather, conversion to OR is accomplished by the use of the OpenRails folder, Common.inc folder and include files.
    Provided are:
    1. ORTSDieselEngines block (eng)
    2. ORTS Brake Parameters (eng&wag)
    3. ORTS Coupler Parameters (eng&wag)
    4. ORTS Davis Numbers - used to calculate friction forces (eng&wag)
    5. ORTS CurtiusKniffler numbers - used to calculate adhesion (eng&wag)
    6. Changes the Diesel Exhaust characteristics from default MSTS to ORTS.

    Be sure to read the Known-DieselExhaust-Bug readme to understand how to use and adjust the OR diesel exhaust parameters.
    Reading all the instructions will be beneficial in understanding how all this works.

    Not included is the ORTSMaxTractive Curve block. During testing it was determined that the use of this block reduced the "power to the rail" at Run8 to considerably less than the normal 80-90% range. It was proportionally lower at all other power notch settings.
    Using the default MSTS engine files with or without the addition of the ORTSDieselEngines block (and without the MaxTractive Curves) the power to rails at notch8 was in the normal range and proportionally correct at all other power notches. A bug will probably be reported, still looking at the problem.

    I'm hoping these files provide people who are interested with an introduction to OR physics. These files are Public Domain, so please use them to experiment or change in any way that you may choose. They certainly do not represent the last word by any means, I'm still learning about OR, like most folks, and still learning about RR physics (way behind most of you ). So I am sure that there are changes that can and will be made to these files. Any questions, I can always be reached at the email address included in the Conversion Docs or by PM here.

    Here's a preview of the Conversion Docs, for those who want to get a head start.
    ConversionDocs.zip

    More to come, I am finishing up on the BNSF Scenic trainset, looking forward I'm hoping to add the trainset needed for the activity templates for the new version of the CN Blackfoot, BNSF & ATSF Seligman Trainsets, CP Mactier, DRGW GreenRiver, and more. Lots of work. We'll see how it goes. Feedback appreciated, comments, errors found, mistakes, etc...all welcome.
    Regards to all, Gerry
    Cheers, R. Steele [Gerry] It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •