Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 78

Thread: Long Train Operation

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steamer_ctn View Post
    Hi Gerry,
    Thanks for doing this testing, it is nice to have the confirmation that it works in this scenario as well.

    This ideally should be "5.0ft 3.6in" or you could do "5.3ft 0in".

    The value that is entered is probably slightly higher then what you intended.


    I have also come across a formula for "platform" cars that I will be looking to add at some stage. I am not familiar with the terminology of a platform. However I am assuming that it is a number of flat cars connected together by a supporting bogie between them. Is this correct?

    When I do this, I will need to create a special type of car to distinguish between a "platform" and a "normal" car.
    Re: Rigid wheel base measurement -- agree -- I've already converted/adjusted UoM to metric.. ORTSRigidWheelBase ( 1.76m ) -- which for this car was not from plans/schematic, but a careful - repeated - measurement on the model...so it could use some tweaking.

    Re: Platform car: I'd only be guessing at this point...referring you to my tagline >>> "Forever, ridin' drag in railroad knowledge".

    ...and lastly to all others reading this...referring to the locomotive parameters I posted...ignore the ORTSRigidWheelBase data -- they are incorrect!
    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.


  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    45 loads and a coupler breaks, with three locomotives on the head end. That doesn't seem accurate at all. (using Gerry's updates on the salt cars I did)

    I pull 35-50 loads out of Whitehall per night, with 3-4 locomotives, and no broken couplers, on grades that are almost 1.5%-2.0%, with tight curves.

    Some things just don't seem right in this, which is why I check a lot of these boxes off like Broken Couplers and Derailments...

    Edit:
    Tested again, SD70M-2, GP38-2, GP38-2, SD70M-2, with 40 loads out of Whitehall on my route, no issues.
    Oddly, an SD70ACe, SD40-2XR(2), with 45 cars, broke a coupler. Shrugs. Maybe just a fluke.. Or maybe they aren't appreciated being on the Mullan Pass when they probably have never seen that line in reality. haha
    Last edited by CSRX; 12-14-2021 at 02:38 PM.
    -Shawn Kelley-
    Retired ORTS/MSTS Content Creator
    Conductor - Eastern Maine Railway
    Probably on everyone's ignore list by now.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSRX View Post
    45 loads and a coupler breaks, with three locomotives on the head end. That doesn't seem accurate at all. (using Gerry's updates on the salt cars I did)

    I pull 35-50 loads out of Whitehall per night, with 3-4 locomotives, and no broken couplers, on grades that are almost 1.5%-2.0%, with tight curves.

    Some things just don't seem right in this, which is why I check a lot of these boxes off like Broken Couplers and Derailments...

    Edit:
    Tested again, SD70M-2, GP38-2, GP38-2, SD70M-2, with 40 loads out of Whitehall on my route, no issues.
    Oddly, an SD70ACe, SD40-2XR(2), with 45 cars, broke a coupler. Shrugs. Maybe just a fluke.. Or maybe they aren't appreciated being on the Mullan Pass when they probably have never seen that line in reality. haha
    Hi Shawn, may I ask you to provide copies of the consist, route, path and the activity -- if you were using one --- I'll PM my email or you could attach a zip here...your choice.

    I'd like to test this particular situation out...that's the way to figure out if the data input is accurate or something needs adjusting. You could have found a bug...only one way to find out. Apply all the recent OR parameters and see what happens. Be Happy to give it a go. Maybe you'll provide some guidance, train handling, speeds, etc....I'll need it.

    If I recall, the salt car OR modifications were the addition of CurtiusKniffler values, and Davis numbers...plus some OR brake settings. They really need to be updated to conform to the code parameters that are the subject of this thread.
    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.


  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    So we are in a constant state of updating parameters with no solid values that are accurate? Well that seems like a battle I am not interesting into dealing with.
    Just used those OR modifications of yours on my other cars I'd like to release, but that sounds like I may have just wasted two hours updating..
    -Shawn Kelley-
    Retired ORTS/MSTS Content Creator
    Conductor - Eastern Maine Railway
    Probably on everyone's ignore list by now.

  5. #55

    Default

    I think Shawn's making an important point here. If someone has two hours after work-time and before bed-time, and they want to spend that time running a train; if they have to spend two hours tweaking physics then they'd be better off watching a movie or a game, or finding another hobby. They may see it as an exercise in regressive realism.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSRX View Post
    So we are in a constant state of updating parameters with no solid values that are accurate? Well that seems like a battle I am not interesting into dealing with.
    Just used those OR modifications of yours on my other cars I'd like to release, but that sounds like I may have just wasted two hours updating..
    There are solid values that are accurate...of course you might face updating or adding new parameters as the code is developed towards better realism both in the rendering of models and physics, most of us have been doing that since the beginning or OR.

    Again, if you don't feel like updating now...and I can appreciate and sympathize with that -- I was working at one time and had little time to spend on hobbies...what time I did have was precious --- so, please, just copy the consist, I can probably figure out the rolling stock from it and let me know the route and where the derails occurred ( or an activity you were running ) and I will test and do all the updates and provide them to you. Cannot ask fairer than that.

    ...and not having seen the modifications you made to the cars, I really comment on them - whether time wasted or not.
    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.


  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    I wouldn't mind knowing what the current standards are for US freight car physics. Would like to us them. As I mentioned, currently, I use the ones you had provided in the salt car updates here in the library. I get a few "warnings" for certain cars on my route for the derailcoeff, but that's about it.
    -Shawn Kelley-
    Retired ORTS/MSTS Content Creator
    Conductor - Eastern Maine Railway
    Probably on everyone's ignore list by now.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dcarleton View Post
    I think Shawn's making an important point here. If someone has two hours after work-time and before bed-time, and they want to spend that time running a train; if they have to spend two hours tweaking physics then they'd be better off watching a movie or a game, or finding another hobby. They may see it as an exercise in regressive realism.
    This raises an interesting philosophical question.

    If we don't want to spend time adjusting files as new features come out then the easy solution is for a user to stay on the current version that they are on. Some commercial software adopts this approach by "locking" their content to a particular version. For example, some older software is no longer supported in Win10, hence we can't upgrade our O/S if we want to continue using it.

    So if we want "MSTS" functionality then why not just continue to use it. I understand that it still works in Win 10 (after a fashion). I suspect that users wanted better functionality (and features) so that they have moved to OR, but it is not a clone of MSTS, so some adjustments need to be made. Again they could stay on the original version of OR, but I suspect that new features have attracted them to update to more recent versions.

    Commercial software often introduces changes that the user needs to adjust to when a new version is released. OR is about continual improvement, and hence we can expect changes to occur in the future. It would be interesting to compare the rate of change (improvements) introduced by other train simulator platforms.

    Life is all about compromises, to bring about improvements (or change in our lives) always requires some effort. So at what point will a user determine that they have reached a point that they don't want to put any more effort into making changes, and instead stay on the version that they are on? The answer to this question will vary from user to user.

    So perhaps another thread needs to opened to consider how OR users, and content providers, can cope with changes in OR as new versions (with new features) are released.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Same question can be raised to those constantly making these changes to Open Rails. At what point will it be enough is enough before we push everyone out with this constant changes and updates, a user has to do to keep things running? I like some of the changes, but it's absolutely ridiculous half of the products I produced, as many others, are going to become useless, with the constant changes provided. I myself don't have all the time in the world to sit down, make changes to every car I create, just to continue to run in a simulator/game.

    This isn't real life, and it becomes to the point, it will become far more work, than play, and honestly, no thanks..
    -Shawn Kelley-
    Retired ORTS/MSTS Content Creator
    Conductor - Eastern Maine Railway
    Probably on everyone's ignore list by now.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Torino, Italy.
    Posts
    880

    Default

    In my opinion refinements and improvements in OR shouldn't require changes in pre-existing rolling stock to continue using it as usual. If these refinements and improvements require such changes, they should either subject to option checkboxes or should become operational only if additional parameters are inserted in the .wag and .eng files. Backwards compatibility is important IMHO.

Posting Permissions

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