Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: Long Train Operation

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R. Steele View Post
    That's putting a rather drastic and misleadingly negative interpretation upon the reality of the situation Shawn, because the stated development policy on the OR website ( and in discussions I've read ) show this to be the real intentions of OR development...always has been.
    From the OR website...

    The content you are so generously ---- and expertly --- offering to the community will be usable in the future ( as is everything in the TS library back to 2001 ) --- but the forward movement of OR towards more realism will hopefully continue.
    No, I'm not actually. Who in their bright mind is going to use items from 2001, let alone my recent work that will eventually become "obsolete" compared to current or future standards of ORTS, physics wise and etc.
    https://i.imgur.com/LPZNEX4.png
    Conductor - Eastern Maine Railway
    Probably on everyone's ignore list by now.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Lubec ME USA
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Sometimes those models from 2001 or whatever are the only things out there. Not everyone has the skill or inclination to build new models. I appreciate the efforts of the dwindling number of those that do.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alhambra Sub MP 484/ Southern California
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Making new lives like refurbishing older content still gives opportunities for models to keep standing out if one doesn't want to make a whole new model like for the example of Erick Cantu default replacement equipment that replaced Couplers an trucks as I still use them but with tweaked physics. There is other older content I still use as they were an are still great reskins with couple of things showing their age that I just think of replacement parts or whole new model for them if the interest is there or just live with it with some good to worth keeping. Example of good reskins are models that Ted Curphey made or models using his contributed trucks an couplers that can keep the base model of reskins an just replace/delete obvious aged parts needing a makeover like couplers an wheels.

    As long as one can still give credit for original content giving new refurbished look up to standard then some content is still alive an put to use. My example of this is I used Jeff Auberpine Autorack Ace mapping and made a completely new shape because the thing I thought was missing is having left an right sides independent of each other, wanted the sides to have its holes to see cars on the variety of levels, animate open ramp doors and have animated slack couplers that give enough cushion room which still needs tweaks in advanced coupling. I got the experiment that I wanted to see and it gave me the opportunity to have either visually breaking a drawbar or coupler but it consumes couple of things till ORTS moves forward fixing.

    So older worth keeping content recycled at a free cost with better tweaked or new shape is a good or bad opinion to keep content a new life? Vendors payware tend to do this but on sad part with new names but same car number instead of replacing the older one or providing shape updates.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alhambra Sub MP 484/ Southern California
    Posts
    455

    Default

    On the physics related side back on topic to this subject... this week I have worked an come up with an idea that can save users time on new releases an make it simple to convert older physics to the new standard of this topic without having too much copying an pasting involved when something has been updated or tweaked to a better standard in the future. I myself get tired of updating each content with new parameters line after line but am not lazy frustrated having to do so when interest comes up as I like new improved ORTS additions and realism.

    Since we have conversion kits and standard engine files for locomotives by Gerry I think some divided advanced standard sections need to be made for the type of wagon/car as well an put to use to save people time updating each tweaked line for those that get frustrated doing it every time something new comes into picture. Only thing people need to tweak to their basics is size, COG, mass, shapes, names, couplers, legacy lines etc. Thing I am afraid of dealing with this is tons, friction, coupler strengths, brake forces and their calculations in inc. files but there is the way to start from minimum-max ton numbers of a given car dividing them up in separate files every 5 tons where users choosing will have to round off the tons to give accurate standards like a load sensing device.

    I been going through various resources about flanges, angle an it's length calculations that I made various inc files to root to test stocks as include files for where if in the future something is added, tweaked, deleted of that given coefficient standard file then the thousands of rooted converted files using that include file will get the change with one click as if its a complete rebuild to all as if one was replacing MSTS Trainset/Default/Default.wag. Other thing I divided for test stock is the type of car an their own standards that I had to make a long name as well as put abbreviated author/company name in the type of car. I am using various stocks whether worn/new flanges to give variety but also measured flanges myself at work an come by various numbers whether they were worn/average/new an need to convert those lengths vs just google resources.

    AAR-1B Profiles seems like a good average standard I been testing and using since it has been reported to have a Flange Angle of 75deg, Flange Length of 618in worn where new points to 625in. Since Treading and flange thickness are not a ORTS thing yet the average AAR-1B flange is some inch's thicker than newer modern AAR-2A thickness where AAR-2A reduce wear with its little reduced thickness given its track gauge enough little playroom instead of being tight to the exact track gauge. I wonder if changing the inches on the stocks profile track gauge some little inches up since smaller has derail risks or give a degree angle 1 number up to reduce derailments?

    Example of the root inc file setup (bellow) I have now but plan to change the root names if this AAR/FRA like standard for ORTS files to save many time based on subject of the car by making a pack of parameters up to standard. If something is changed or added like Global Tsection.dat for example then a advanced physics team will update, upload for one to download overwritten files to change the thousands of rooted files to a tweaked standard that's met? Conversion kits are what authors once finished need to convert from templates an upload to get more downloads of their previous file uploads as if they the carmen.

    Comment ( Dimensions based on Erick Cantu 78' Centerbeam Shape )
    Comment ( Wheel Base an Axles based on AAR-1B Worn Profile )
    Comment ( include ( "..\\..\\1V.Common_Physics.inc\\NA_Freight\\Center beam\\DerailCoeff\\Centerbeam-EC_78'_WFLange0.618In-75Deg.inc" ) )


    Comment ( **************** Derailment Coefficients **********************
    Included in this section - Wheelbase, Gauge, Flange, Axles etc
    ************************************************** ************* )
    ORTSUnbalancedSuperElevation ( 2.56in )
    ORTSTrackGauge ( 4.0ft 8.5in )
    ORTSRigidWheelBase ( 5.0ft 10.8in )
    ORTSWheelFlangeLength ( 0.618in )
    ORTSMaximumWheelFlangeAngle ( 75deg )
    ORTSNumberAxles ( 4 )
    ORTSNumberBogies ( 2 )


    Comment ( Dimensions based on Erick Cantu 78' Centerbeam Shape )
    ORTSLengthBogieCentre ( 56.201ft )
    ORTSLengthCarBody ( 69.822ft )
    ORTSLengthCouplerFace ( 77.822ft )


    The setup you see may be divided into 2 where the type of car may have its own folders of Dimensions an Wheel profiles instead of the words related to Derail Coeffiecients for NorthAmerican Content.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UP_4848_Thunder View Post
    ... I think some divided advanced standard sections need to be made for the type of wagon/car ...
    That's a fine idea for a resource for people to use...much of that information can be found in various manual, specification drawings, and various editions of the "Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice"...it does take time to research and find all the stuff, not to mention the expense of buying editions of the cyclopedia. I've put together quite a few of these for various locomotives and cars...however--this might be a problem--all mine are in the default or metric units of OR, not in the common US units. They also lack the Open Rails "best practice" comment sections outline by steamer_ctn in his website --- they do have comments...more about sourcing and use of the materials.

    One other problem is the file naming conventions I used...they are all over the place and really don't reflect any advanced understanding of railroad nomenclature or names...that would have to be addressed by someone with more experience than myself.

    I'd be willing to make these public domain, if anyone is interested in using them, users will have to convert them. Currently I have 62 for cars and 46 for locomotives. Below is a sample of both.

    File name: 65ft_MILL_GON.inc
    Code:
    Comment ( The Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice 4th Editon 1980 Page-127 )
    Comment ( Builder - Greenville Steel Car Company 1979 -- 3242cuft )
    Comment ( Example Missouri Pacific Gon Number-650944 )
    Comment ( Frontal Area == 8.509015 meters squared = 91.59028ft^2 )
    Comment ( Load Limits - Light Weight = 59525lbs - Load Limit 190000lbs - Gross Rail Load = 249525lbs )
    Comment ( Load Limits - Light Weight = 27t - Load Limit 86.18255t - Gross Rail Load = 113.1826t )
    Comment ( include ( "..\\..\\..\\..\\..\\Common.inc\\Fleet\\CarBody\\65ft_MILL_GON.inc" ) )
    
    	ORTSNumberAxles ( 4 )
    	ORTSNumberBogies ( 2 )
    	ORTSLengthBogieCentre ( 16.9926m )
    	ORTSLengthCarBody ( 20.828m )
    	ORTSLengthCouplerFace ( 21.6281m )
    	ORTSWagonFrontalArea ( 91.59028ft^2 )
    	ORTSRigidWheelBase ( 1.778m )
    	ORTSWheelFlangeLength ( 19.1516mm )
    	ORTSMaximumWheelFlangeAngle ( 1.308996rad )
    	ORTSTrackGauge ( 1435.1mm )
    	ORTSUnbalancedSuperelevation ( 65.024mm )
    File Name: EMD_SD40-2.inc


    Code:
    Comment ( The Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice 4th Editon 1980 Pages768-769 )
    Comment ( Dimensions apply to EMD SD40-2 & SD40T2, SD40-2F, and safety cab "W" model )
    Comment ( Frontal Area == cross sectional area == 14.5 meters squared = 156.0767ft^2 )
    Comment ( SD40-2F  Frontal Area == cross sectional area == 14.9 meters squared = 160.3823ft^2 )
    Comment ( Mass Range: 368000lbs = 166.922t to 420000lbs = 190.5088t fully loaded and ballasted )
    Comment ( ORTS Parameters for wagon section of ENG file )
    Comment ( include ( "..\\..\\..\\..\\..\\Common.inc\\Locomotives\\CarBody\\EMD_SD40-2.inc" ) )
    
    	ORTSNumberAxles ( 0 )
    	ORTSNumberBogies ( 2 )
    	ORTSLengthBogieCentre ( 13.2588m )
    	ORTSLengthCarBody ( 19.7104m )
    	ORTSLengthCouplerFace ( 20.9804m )
    	ORTSWagonFrontalArea ( 156.0767ft^2 )
    	ORTSRigidWheelBase ( 4.149725m )
    	ORTSWheelFlangeLength ( 19.1516mm )
    	ORTSMaximumWheelFlangeAngle ( 1.308996rad )
    	ORTSTrackGauge ( 1435.1mm )
    	ORTSUnbalancedSuperelevation ( 65.024mm )
    They all would probably need to be reworked to make the usable for the wider OR community...but the basic data is accurate and sourced. Some are from measurements taken from models and are commented as such.
    Cheers, Gerry
    It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.
    Forever, ridin' drag in railroad knowledge.


  6. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alhambra Sub MP 484/ Southern California
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Yea I have been converting everything to U.S. Units from the beginning. I got lots of templates and more to come but soon as I have more time, I will send you what examples I have converted. They got their own comment name info that can be revised but they are mostly separated without being in the same file. I have quite the number of different Coupler systems for pivot reasons. Wheel/bogie sets of different kinds are getting final finishes converted then tested.

    When I got time, I will pack what I got, show what setup I have and maybe combine work later.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,727

    Default

    Andre, good about the couplers, have not begun to use more than one standard typeF coupler, followed the thread at ET about animated couplers for OR...that's a nice improvement.

    I could convert all mine from standard metric to US, just too lazy to do the work, and OR default UoM of measure have always been my best practice.
    Cheers, Gerry
    It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.
    Forever, ridin' drag in railroad knowledge.


  8. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alhambra Sub MP 484/ Southern California
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Yea there is so many coupler types out there as I got the sketch dimensions for them. The couplers/drawbars on my end of resources are pretty helpful that the direction is good in ORTS test files that they are helping for accurate pivot reasons from easily derailing. I been paying close attention to the real world of railroading seeing what coupler-bogie system of the various freight cars used around me since I deal with manifest and mis routed intermodal and on the side or back tell me what coupler/draft system or wheels used. They are starting to show satisfaction results both in dimension and wheel profiles.

    As far as ORTS coupler system away from pivot derail coefficients there tends to be a bug for long cushion slack exceeding an R0 of 8cm as there is no coupler force that train slips vs a 7cm or under things are ok. But away from that bug the coupler animations are interesting too I wish my sketch resources would help existing couplers to be modeled for separate files once bug is looked into for long cushion cars.

    Haha no problem in being lazy to convert as I have been tackling that an came up with quite the work sofar in converting a lot of templates of freeware stock so when I am done converting the many more it may have saved you time an is the point to my idea to upload replaceable common physics of a given car where it saves future uploads from changing so much because it's an inc file. I am slowly progressing/testing when I got the time in putting my template pack up for you and others to test then convert. Since long overhang cars are... or were.... the issue of derailing easily in ORTS I been heavily stress testing long cars like Autoracks and empty Centerbeams in heavy twisty grades of Tehachapi Pass as they are the ones that stringline so much where I work if one isn't too careful, or placement errors exist. But the results for them in ORTS have made a great stage from the resources used and I am starting from long to moderate to short car templates of various freeware basic stocks and default replacement equipment.

    I just need to fix up the Gondola and tankcars to be in good standing for the template pack for testers and test out handbrake forces for empties.

Posting Permissions

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