Msts - no

[gremlin1812]

G'day All, I noticed in my open rails on the experimental page on the lower right it has (level: MSTS compatible) see screen shot.
Why is this and how do I get rid of it? I get the feeling that some things occur because of this, of course I could be wrong.
Regards
Barrie

OR.jpg

[ebnertra000]

Adjust the two sliders above it. They control certain aspects of the physics in the sim

[derekmorton]

MSTS compatible refers to "adhesion factor correction" being at 130%
Put it back to 100% to be realistic.

[R. Steele]

G'day All, I noticed in my open rails on the experimental page on the lower right it has (level: MSTS compatible) see screen shot.
Why is this and how do I get rid of it? I get the feeling that some things occur because of this, of course I could be wrong.
Regards
Barrie

Barrie, here's the settings I'm currently using.
bandicam 2021-02-03 18-51-18-358.jpg

bandicam 2021-02-03 18-49-50-721.jpg

Explanation for the adhesion settings

6.10.13 Adhesion factor correction
The adhesion is multiplied by this percentage factor. Therefore lower values of the slider reduce adhesion
and cause more frequent wheel slips and therefore a more dicult, but more challenging driving
experience.
6.10.14 Level of detail bias
This option is an expansion (and replacement) of an earlier experimental option: Always use highest level of
detail. The new option allows you to increase or reduce the level of detail generally shown independently
of the viewing distance and world object density.
6.10.15 Adhesion proportional to rain/snow/fog
When this option is selected, adhesion becomes dependent on the intensity of rain and snow and the
density of fog. Intensities and density can be modified at runtime by the player.
6.10.16 Adhesion factor random change
This factor randomizes the adhesion factor corrector by the entered percentage. The higher the value,
the higher the adhesion variations.

Some users do not check the proportional to rain/snow/fog because they feel the code dealing with that has some bugs in it...still needs work... try with and without box checked especially in an activity with rain or snow...wet rail conditions.

On the "Simulations" tab looking at the Advanced Adhesion model I keep that checked to take advantage of OR physics. Usually most users keep it at the default of 10...turning this down to seven is acceptable if you have a faster PC...essentially it is telling OR to take fewer average measurements regarding adhesion. Start at "10" and see how it feels, then try "7" and see if you can detect any difference...with wheelslip or adhesion in general.

Adhesion factor correction is usually at 100% to 130% for me, got it cranked up for a specific test.

I would never choose "MSTS Compatible" on the experimental options tab, that would mean you are not using OR physics.

[gremlin1812]

G'day ebnertra000, well it took the msts comment away but I think that is all it did. Here is another one I found in the "OpenRailsLog".
"Information: Reindexing semaphore entries of signal type switchlamp for compatibility with MSTS" why would it do this as I am using OpenRails and have nothing to do with msts. Is there some way of stopping this? I also seem to have issues on some routes/sessions with passing on single track routes with passing tracks and having stand off's.
Regards
Barrie

[R. Steele]

.... Here is another one I found in the "OpenRailsLog".
"Information: Reindexing semaphore entries of signal type switchlamp for compatibility with MSTS" why would it do this as I am using OpenRails and have nothing to do with msts. Is there some way of stopping this?
Barrie

That's an indicator that a patch to the code ( made in 2016 ) is making the semaphore animations compatible with ORTS, so they operate as intended in MSTS...backward compatibility.

If you're interested here's the thread at Elvas >> http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...of-semaphores/

I also seem to have issues on some routes/sessions with passing on single track routes with passing tracks and having stand off's.
Regards
Barrie

Try checking or unchecking the location-linked passing path processing >>> Options\Simulation

6.10.3 Location-linked passing path processing
When this option is NOT selected, ORTS acts similarly to MSTS. That is, if two trains meet whose paths
share some track section in a station, but are both provided with passing paths as defined with the MSTS
Activity Editor, one of them will run through the passing path, therefore allowing the meet. Passing paths
in this case are only available to the trains whose path has passing paths.
When this option is selected, ORTS makes available to all trains the main and the passing path of the
player train. Moreover, it takes into account the train length in selecting which path to assign to a train in
case of a meet.
For content developers
A more detailed description of this feature can be found under Location-Linked Passing Path Processing in
the chapter Open Rails Train Operation.

[gremlin1812]

G'day All, here are some screen shots of the face off.


face off 2.jpg
face off 1.jpg

[gremlin1812]

G'day Gerry, "unchecking the location-linked passing path processing" that did the trick , the route is "MILW Idaho Division V2" and was supposedly built for OR but I guess some leeway was given fore those still using MSTS.
Regards and thank you.
Barrie

[R. Steele]

G'day Gerry, "unchecking the location-linked passing path processing" that did the trick , the route is "MILW Idaho Division V2" and was supposedly built for OR but I guess some leeway was given fore those still using MSTS.
Regards and thank you.
Barrie

"Built for OR" can mean most anything, usually not having to do with activities. Like the using DDS files instead of ACE for textures, etc. You can use the Dispatch Window to change the path of the player train to avoid AI traffic, just keep an eye out for potential cornfields and watch where the AI path ( in red ) is going. You can then use manual mode to direct the player to the appropriate track in a siding to avoid the AI, then back to the player and ( and auto mode ) when the AI is past.

[conductorchris]

I went back and looked at my own settings, which I hadn't thought about in ... years.
What do people do with "correct questionable braking parameters". Is life better with that on? I am basically operating with the physics of the rolling stock as it came - haven't done any fleet wide modifications.
Christopher