[edwardk]

Is advanced adhesion still a work in progress. I sometimes switch back and forth between simple and advanced adhesion, but this is the first time I tried using it in snow and on a 1.3% grade. I get the wheel slip message and I lose all traction. All drive axles spin like crazy. Sanding does not help at all. I tried using the ORTSDriveWheelWeight() parameter, but no change.

Edit: I am using diesel locomotives.


Edward K.

[engmod]

It does not do what I expect either, especially with AC units.

[ATW]

Try converting the drive wheel weight into LBS. If you need more details I will be glad to help when I get home.

[copperpen]

For steam and early diesel/electric locomotives I have no problems with advanced adhesion in snow. Just reduce the load or add a locomotive to the consist.

[edwardk]

Yes, converting the initial value for ORTSDriveWheelWeight() to lbs did the trick. Keep in mind that the default is flawed because if you do not use ORTSDriveWheelWeight() and advanced adhesion is selected, the default is to use the Mass value directly and this is when I first experienced the issue. The initial metric ton value must be converted to lbs so this is an actual bug. Based on my notes, to convert metric ton to lbs, metric ton is multiplied by 2205 or 2204.6(176.9t*2205 = lbs).

Edit: I meant to multiply, not divide.

Peter, if you read this, this is a bug.

Edward K.

[edwardk]

ORTSDriveWheelWeight is processed as kilograms, but it appears that Mass needs to be converted to lbs first, then to kilograms.

Edward K.

[steamer_ctn]

edwardk, on 26 October 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

Peter, if you read this, this is a bug.

I am sorry, but I don't quite understand the bug.

As suggested the OR code reads the value ORTSDriveWheelWeight() from the ENG file as a Mass quantity. The STFReader reads the value and then converts the value entered into kg to be used internally within OR.

The STFReader will accept any of the following units of measure (UoM): kg, lb, t (tonne), tons (uk) or tons (us). If no UoM are included in the parameter, then the STFReader assumes that the value is already in kg, and uses the figure directly as entered.

The UoM must be specified for correct conversion by OR, eg ORTSDriveWheelWeight( 104.0t-uk ).

What was the original ORTSDriveWheelWeight() statement in your ENG file?

[edwardk]

steamer_ctn, on 26 October 2016 - 08:55 PM, said:

I am sorry, but I don't quite understand the bug.

As suggested the OR code reads the value ORTSDriveWheelWeight() from the ENG file as a Mass quantity. The STFReader reads the value and then converts the value entered into kg to be used internally within OR.

The STFReader will accept any of the following units of measure (UoM): kg, lb, t (tonne), tons (uk) or tons (us). If no UoM are included in the parameter, then the STFReader assumes that the value is already in kg, and uses the figure directly as entered.

The UoM must be specified for correct conversion by OR, eg ORTSDriveWheelWeight( 104.0t-uk ).

What was the original ORTSDriveWheelWeight() statement in your ENG file?

Peter,

When I experienced the above issue, I was not using ORTSDriveWheelWeight()(at first). This means the initial metric ton value in Mass() value was used. I was experiencing spinning axles on a 1.3% grade using the initial Mass() value or in this case MassKG in the code. It was not until I converted the metric ton value to lbs and used it in ORTSDriveWheelWeight(), I was able to stop the severe wheelslip issue. I actually noticed this on another locomotive I was testing for someone here and advanced adhesion was selected with no snow.

Edit: It was one of the previous posts that mentioned to try converting the metric ton value to lbs.

[steamer_ctn]

edwardk, on 27 October 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:

This means the initial metric ton value in Mass() value was used.

Does this mean that the Mass() statement in the ENG file was not reading the correct locomotive weight?

What was the Mass() statement in the ENG file?

[ATW]

I myself never saw any big difference with using the tons or mass an used LBS instead an saw big differences an slippage reduced making AC motors come to life as well as DC motors along with my custom Tractive Effort curves.

Using:
Antislip (1) & ORTSWheelSlipCausesThrottleDown together I also see modern computerized slippage control systems a help to reduce severe slipping to a lower throttle setting.