[edwardk]

I never realized that my overall train performance was lacking due to missing entries and current entries that need to be modified. In my case, the first was MaxPower(). Changing the value so that the locomotive was now able to operate close to its rated max horsepower helped, but evidently there is more to change. I read in another post that if the ORTSBearingType () entry is not present, the default bearing used is the solid bearing. I had no idea this was case. This would be another reason for trains to have performance issues. With this in mind, I started looking into changing the default so that if the "ORTSBearingType()" is not present, the default bearing will be the roller bearing. According to previous posts, some of you felt it would be best if this was the case. If you want the default bearing to be the roller bearing, please let me know. I still have to submit a blueprint, but I will not do this until I hear from others. The summary of choices are below. If you want to use the friction bearing, you will have to specify it.


ORTSBearingType ( Friction )
ORTSBearingType ( Roller )
ORTSBearingType ( Low )


Edward K.

[Genma Saotome]

Ummm, except those of us who are into the steam era of railroading would always be using solid bearings -- solid, not friction is the correct term as ALL bearings have friction.

A better solution than picking one type over the other would be for the software to look at default.wag and use whichever value it finds there. People can add their default w/ one line and add exceptions to .wags and .engs where they make sense. Leaving it as-is or changing it to roller means some people will need to change most, if not all of their rolling stock files. Given that, I think my suggestion is the way to go.

[copperpen]

I think we have a "rock and a hard place" situation here. The friction bearing default actually suits a lot of UK freight rolling stock whereas the roller bearing default would suit a lot of stock in other countries. Whichever way this goes, someone somewhere is going to have to modify a lot of wag and/or eng files.

[Hobo]

As I understand so far - if the line - ORTSBearingType () - is inserted in a MSTS ENG. or a MSTS WAG. file it overrides the existing " Friction " section of that file - Correct ?
So if after it is inserted then the " Friction " section from MSTS can be removed . Does this work in any eng. and wag. file even if it is not a so called ORTS file completely and is only an existing MSTS file that has no other ORTS modifications ?

[longiron]

Just to add another perspective on this topic. Wasn't the whole purpose of FCAL tool to create realistic friction values that mimic the different bearing types. I know I went to a lot of trouble updating my entire trainset catalog with accurate values. From the documentation, "The program calculates rolling resistance, or friction, based on the Friction parameters in the Wagon section of .wag/.eng file. Open Rails identifies whether the .wag file uses the FCalc utility or other friction data. If FCalc was used to determine the Friction variables within the .wag file, Open Rails compares that data to the Open Rails Davis equations to identify the closest match with the Open Rails Davis equation."

So why do we need this data set, if the differences are already captured in the WAG friction values using FCal?

chris

[edwardk]

This is why I am asking. In my case, I would have to add "ORTSBearingType ( Roller )" since I evidently need it, but in your case, you do not have to add anything for the friction bearing. I am definitely glad I have been working on a program long before OR that would allow me to make global changes such as this. In fact, I recently modified it just for these parameters.

Edward K.

[copperpen]

I do know through testing that adding the Roller or Low bearing type parameter does alter the starting and low speed resistance of rolling stock making them easier to get rolling. AFAIK, after that either the MSTS friction or the ORTSDavis set takes over and the bearing type takes a back seat.

[longiron]

Lots of great information here: http://5at.co.uk/upl...NCE%20PAPER.PDF

[Hobo]

So we put in the ORTSBearingType () and we can keep our original MSTS FCalc adjusted Friction section .
Glad to get a bit of clarification - Thanx !
That saves us quite a bit of work .

[edwardk]

Based on the bits and pieces I have been reading from the different posts, OR evidently takes better advantage of the ORTS_Davis parameter versus the standard MSTS Friction line and this is including the ORTSBearingType () line. In my case, I was beginning to wonder why my trains are under powered in OR. As an example, the Z train activity from Seligman 2. Initially, I failed the activity because the train was unable to come close enough to the speed limit. Now, I have to make sure I do not go over the speed limit. Based on what I have been able to understand from the code, the original Friction line parameters are read in and processed. There is no distinguishing the type of bearing during the process. With the ORTS_Davis process, the bearing type is defined then added to the ORTS_Davis process. The default bearing only comes into play if I am using ORTS_Davis() from the start so you can add ORTSBearingType (), but it evidently won't be used without the ORTS_Davis paramters. In short, you can't have one without the other.

After reading the manual, I found a section that indicated that the default would be friction so the initial concept should be left as is.


Edward K.