Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 72

Thread: Long Train Operation

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steamer_ctn View Post
    If you are operating long trains, then you will be interested in potential derailment issues, and your trains will need to be marshalled appropriately.

    Open Rails supports derailment detection, and this feature is demonstrated in the mini route described here -

    http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...51#entry278251

    The scenarios described are based upon actual Accident Reports describing derailments.
    That feature is way off. I get derailed cars when I use the minimum of Dynamic Brake. I am glad I didn't have this problem when I was running. Brian

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alhambra Sub MP 484/ Southern California
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Lucky no discipline actions or visuals happen in ORTS yet but tells you something or someone is wrong an that's a good thing till stock and trains are marshaled to real standards around curves. String line or jacknife has always been needed to test a skill an stock.

    Quote Originally Posted by motormaster532 View Post
    That feature is way off. I get derailed cars when I use the minimum of Dynamic Brake. I am glad I didn't have this problem when I was running. Brian
    What stock are you using and how has your train been made up for this to happen? Missing needed dimension parameters or poor adjusted wag/eng files can derail the train regardless how smooth you run. Derailments are not always the engineers fault either but how train is built or mechanical issues in stock or track.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motormaster532 View Post
    That feature is way off. I get derailed cars when I use the minimum of Dynamic Brake. I am glad I didn't have this problem when I was running. Brian
    If you follow the link in the thread that you have quoted you will ultimately be pointed to a derailment test route.

    This test route was built to demonstrate that the feature has a very close correlation to real world operations as described in Canadian Railway Accident reports.

    So is this the route you are using when you get derailments with minimum operation of the dynamic brake, or another route and stock?

    Quote Originally Posted by R. Steele View Post
    It doesn't...in OR there is a notification in the F5 Train Driving Info window that a car ( or cars ) have derailed, nothing else happens.
    OR at the moment only provides a derailment "notification" because I suspect that a lot of stock and train consists are not accurately set up to real world standards (as demonstrated by the early posts in this thread).

  4. #14

    Default

    Hopefully this can be turned on and off...

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steamer_ctn View Post
    If you follow the link in the thread that you have quoted you will ultimately be pointed to a derailment test route.

    This test route was built to demonstrate that the feature has a very close correlation to real world operations as described in Canadian Railway Accident reports.

    So is this the route you are using when you get derailments with minimum operation of the dynamic brake, or another route and stock?


    OR at the moment only provides a derailment "notification" because I suspect that a lot of stock and train consists are not accurately set up to real world standards (as demonstrated by the early posts in this thread).
    Which brings me to something I've been thinking about...a special route has been setup to demonstrate (&test) the derailment feature...How about all the legacy MSTS routes that were built to varying standards of craft and care....what impact do they have on the derailment code.

    Appears that Eric has a good suggestion...the feature should have an off switch.
    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. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Mixed feelings on any on/off switch.

    Objective here should be to rattle our minds and search our inventories and start looking for cars that have a unique design requirements that might offer trouble. And discuss that content and/or solutions.

    It is totally insufficient to simply state "my stuff is derailing" without giving us accurate descriptions of specific content involved. The addition of any on/off switch just kicks the 'day of reckoning' can down the road.

    The suggestions offered here for Rowie's long runners worked. Having tested them, I also found no troubles with the SLI 8-axle QTTX heavy duty flats that were broken into 3 parts for MSTS max axle count reasons.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motormaster532 View Post
    That feature is way off. I get derailed cars when I use the minimum of Dynamic Brake. I am glad I didn't have this problem when I was running. Brian

    When you were running, the cars on your drawbar did not have many generations of sub-par, limp-wristed MSTS freeware physics passed around by 'fake CEOs' for an eternity on some forum somewhere. Heaven forbid something new gets programmed in that demonstrates just how comically failed that era was.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Worksop, UK
    Posts
    2,438

    Default

    Hi geepster775,
    While I respect that you have your own views, I cannot understand your attitude! Without MSTS there wouldn't be any such thing as Open Rails, because there'd be no ready-made potential user-base or the vast array of routes and stock.

    It may be taking many of us some time to fully embrace OR but its developers should beware that the current trend to make it "more realistic" also increases its complexity, running the risk of 'frightening' some users off. The way to get more users on-board is to make the transition from MSTS as 'seamfree' as possible and, in that respect, quite a good job has been done. Most of us don't want to have to do all the mundane jobs an engine driver/engineer has to do, but just drive a passenger train from A to B, stopping at intermediate stations and attempting to keep to the timetable, or a freight train, probably performing occasional shunting, but everything in reasonable accuracy.
    As you might guess, I'd support an on/off switch!!

    Cheers,
    Ged

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geepster775 View Post
    Mixed feelings on any on/off switch.

    Objective here should be to rattle our minds and search our inventories and start looking for cars that have a unique design requirements that might offer trouble. And discuss that content and/or solutions.

    It is totally insufficient to simply state "my stuff is derailing" without giving us accurate descriptions of specific content involved. The addition of any on/off switch just kicks the 'day of reckoning' can down the road.

    The suggestions offered here for Rowie's long runners worked. Having tested them, I also found no troubles with the SLI 8-axle QTTX heavy duty flats that were broken into 3 parts for MSTS max axle count reasons.
    I can appreciate your position ... as I also like to delve into new OR features and add them to my trainset...but this does take time and effort, sometimes users just want to run some trains...therefore I'm also very much in agreement with slipperman.

    My test is...what harm? What harm is it for you, geepster, to have an on-off switch...you can keep it on. However, for someone new to OR, or for the users who wish to simply run trains...what harm to them? With no on/off switch their choices are limited, therefore the simulator is inaccessible to a group of users.

    There should always be a path to simple physics for users to follow, until they gain the experience, knowledge or decide to choose the path of advanced operations ( and physics )...which realistically speaking will never be identical with real world ops.
    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.


  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slipperman View Post
    Hi geepster775,
    While I respect that you have your own views, I cannot understand your attitude! Without MSTS there wouldn't be any such thing as Open Rails, because there'd be no ready-made potential user-base or the vast array of routes and stock.

    It may be taking many of us some time to fully embrace OR but its developers should beware that the current trend to make it "more realistic" also increases its complexity, running the risk of 'frightening' some users off. The way to get more users on-board is to make the transition from MSTS as 'seamfree' as possible and, in that respect, quite a good job has been done. Most of us don't want to have to do all the mundane jobs an engine driver/engineer has to do, but just drive a passenger train from A to B, stopping at intermediate stations and attempting to keep to the timetable, or a freight train, probably performing occasional shunting, but everything in reasonable accuracy.
    As you might guess, I'd support an on/off switch!!

    Cheers,
    Ged
    I completely agree!
    Mateus

Posting Permissions

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