[ightenhill]

I seemed to remember this being fixed but after the last update I seem to be getting this

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/dannyandjackie/Open%20Rails%202017-10-04%2012-18-50_zpsorboua1u.png

[ATSF3751]

it may be your Eng files and how there set up for Smoke.

[ightenhill]

What do I have to change - I tried using DPU on the eng files but it just hangs after I select the smoke type

[ErickC]

These are the parameters I am using for GM 2-stroke engines:

			IdleExhaust ( 0.1 )
			MaxExhaust ( 1 )
			ExhaustDynamics ( 3 )
			ExhaustDynamicsDown (1.2)
			ExhaustColor ( FFA4A79E )
			ExhaustTransientColor( FF665D4A )

This is, of course, under "ORTSDieselEngines." Be forewarned: the smoke is much less dense than what you are used to, because 99.999999999999999% of MSTS and OR locomotives have smoke that is a bazillion times thicker than the average non-ALCo locomotive produces in reality. In real life, this is about as thick as EMD smoke usually gets:



And even then, only when the engine is loading up. Under steady load, you usually can't see much smoke at all. I have attempted to emulate this.

[R H Steele]

ErickC, on 04 October 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

These are the parameters I am using for GM 2-stroke engines:

			IdleExhaust ( 0.1 )
			MaxExhaust ( 1 )
			ExhaustDynamics ( 3 )
			ExhaustDynamicsDown (1.2)
			ExhaustColor ( FFA4A79E )
			ExhaustTransientColor( FF665D4A )

This is, of course, under "ORTSDieselEngines." Be forewarned: the smoke is much less dense than what you are used to, because 99.999999999999999% of MSTS and OR locomotives have smoke that is a bazillion times thicker than the average non-ALCo locomotive produces in reality. In real life, this is about as thick as EMD smoke usually gets:

dieselsmokeparams.JPG

And even then, only when the engine is loading up. Under steady load, you usually can't see much smoke at all. I have attempted to emulate this.

Good information Eric, but utterly useless, unless you publish the WHOLE "ORTSDieselEngines" block. You cannot use one portion of the block - exhaust dynamics for instance, because then OR will show an error in the log file and revert back to the MSTS parameters.

Until people start posting the complete blocks for various engines, the community is at a standstill regarding converting the legacy MSTS equipment to native OR physics.
Many people simply do not grasp the concept or how to go about integrating the OpenRails folder into their trainset.
How about showing the whole "ORTSDieselEngines" block for GM 2-stroke so people can see how you constructed it and begin to learn something. Perhaps you will get some feedback and learn something in the process.

Here's the example from the manual

ORTSDieselEngines ( 2
Diesel (
IdleRPM ( 510 )
MaxRPM ( 1250 )
StartingRPM ( 400 )
StartingConfirmRPM ( 570 )
ChangeUpRPMpS ( 50 )
ChangeDownRPMpS ( 20 )
RateOfChangeUpRPMpSS ( 5 )
RateOfChangeDownRPMpSS ( 5 )
MaximalPower ( 300kW )
IdleExhaust ( 5 )
MaxExhaust ( 50 )
ExhaustDynamics ( 10 )
ExhaustDynamicsDown (10)
ExhaustColor ( 00 fe )
ExhaustTransientColor(
00 00 00 00)
DieselPowerTab (
0 0
510 2000
520 5000
600 2000
800 70000
1000 100000
1100 200000
1200 280000
1250 300000
)
DieselConsumptionTab (
0 0
510 10
1250 245
)
ThrottleRPMTab (
0 510
5 520
10 600
20 700
50 1000
75 1200
100 1250
)
DieselTorqueTab (
0 0
510 25000
1250 200000
)
MinOilPressure ( 40 )
MaxOilPressure ( 90 )
MaxTemperature ( 120 )
Cooling ( 3 )
TempTimeConstant ( 720 )
OptTemperature ( 90 )
IdleTemperature ( 70 )
)

Here's one from Tyler Bundy's most recent upload at TS - just the Engine section.

Engine (
	Effects
		(
		DieselSpecialEffects
			(

				Exhaust1
				(
					0.0 4.69 -0.81
					0 1 0
					0.15
				)
                    				Exhaust2
				(
					0.0 4.69 -1.71
					0 1 0
					0.15
				)
				Exhaust3
				(
					0.0 4.69 -2.25
					0 1 0
					0.15
				)
                    				Exhaust4
				(
					0.0 4.69 -3.11
					0 1 0
					0.15
				)
			)
    			)

	MaxPower ( 1380kW )
	comment( 1,850 hp )
ORTSDieselEngines( 1
		Diesel(
     		IdleRPM ( 275 )
			MaxRPM ( 800 )
			StartingRPM ( 100 )
			StartingConfirmRPM ( 303 )
			ChangeUpRPMpS ( 45 )
			ChangeDownRPMpS ( 39 )
			RateOfChangeUpRPMpSS ( 10 )
			RateOfChangeDownRPMpSS ( 5 )
			MaximalPower ( 1380kW )
			IdleExhaust ( 1 )
			MaxExhaust ( 3 )
			ExhaustDynamics ( 2 )
			ExhaustColor ( 206B787D )
			ExhaustTransientColor ( 40212324 )
			DieselPowerTab (
				275   	0
				341 	69000
				406 	172500
				472 	345000
				538 	532680
				603	662400
				669	873540
				734	1210260
				800	1380000
			)
			DieselConsumptionTab (
				0   	0
				275 	3.5
				800	111.1
			)
			ThrottleRPMTab (
				0   275
				12.5   341
				25  406
				37.5  472
				50  538
				62.5  603
				75  669
				87.5  734
				100 800
			)
			DieselTorqueTab (
				0   	0
				275 	25000
				800	200000
			)
			MinOilPressure ( 16 )
			MaxOilPressure ( 50 )
			MaxTemperature ( 120 )
			Cooling ( 3 )
			TempTimeConstant ( 720 )
			OptTemperature ( 71 )
			IdleTemperature ( 55 )
			)
		) 
	)
)

Until people understand how to construct the various "Tabs" in the block, they will not see (in the simulation) the advantage of using the "ORTSDieselEngines" block or the advantage of using an OpenRails folder and ORTS parameters. I'm still struggling with this myself and so are both freeware and payware content providers I have corresponded with.
Tyler is the only one I know of to release content with complete blocks of ORTS parameters...how about the rest of you guys...surely there are more here...especially here.
Until people start openly sharing this knowledge OR remains tied to MSTS physics interpolated by OR. The better way is ORTS native physics.

[ErickC]

1.) I choose not to treat people like they're stupid. I assumed, perhaps inaccurately, that the OP was looking for a set of parameters to plug in to a DPU-modified .eng file. If that piece of information was enough for the OP, great, if not, I'm certain they will ask, and I will be more than happy to try to figure something out.

2.) My roots-blown EMD 567 engine RPM, torque, and HP parameters would be utterly useless for any of the turbocharged GE locomotives in the OPs consist. At least they would be no more applicable than the example in the docs, which every OR user already has. To post "useful" information, by your metric, I would have to do all the work of configuring an FDL engine, something I really haven't the time to do (I would either need detailed fuel flow and power-vs-RPM charts, which I don't have, or I would have to make a whole bunch of educated guesses and calculations).

3.) What purpose does complaining about how "useless" someone else's contribution is to you - not even the person who asked the question - serve? Couldn't it be argued that your own post is, in turn, useless, since all it does is disparage?

4.) You have Tyler's permission to post part of his work, I presume?

5.) C-K. It's literally right in front of you.

[R H Steele]

You are avoiding the question, please post the total OpenRail engine. Until I actually see proof that you have constructed one, I can't believe unsubstantiated claims. It's like science, dude, post your findings.
Don't hide behind a claim that it would be utterly useless for someone else...by posting your results it would, more than likely, give someone else a chance to see your hard work and learn from it.

You are very mistaken if you think anyone owns an OpenRails include engine file....it's open source.
But to put a lid on your assertion of permission...I actually helped Tyler with those...by providing some examples of how the ORTS engine block was constructed and where it is placed, and some other minor issues. Tyler did the hard lifting by working up all the "TAB" settings. Check out his ReadMe's if you need further proof. He was gracious enough to give me some credit...too much actually.
I'll back up anything I post with actual examples...enough...let's see your proof.

The more examples one can look at the easier the learning experience becomes. It's actual usefulness may not be readily apparent.

I will admit to not helping the OP....but I'll wager the OP was asking about how to adjust the Diesel Smoke parameters and the Exhaust nozzle width to suit OR. The greatest percentage of users are still at that level...never actually having seen native OR exhaust (as used in the ORTSDieselEngines block) in the sim.

Instead of getting all huffy you could have posted the ORTS engine file you put together and let us all benefit from it. Easy enough to do.

So...for the OP
Try a nozzle width of around 0.3 (found in the effects section of the engine file)

and...
DieselSmokeEffectInitialMagnitude( 1 )
DieselSmokeEffectMaxMagnitude( 3.4 )
DieselSmokeEffectInitialSmokeRate( 2 )
DieselSmokeEffectMaxSmokeRate( 5.0 )

That should help for starters.

[railguy]

I've been experimenting with the OR exhaust parameters for way over a year now. They offer more flexibility than the MSTS model, but still have some basic shortcomings. I believe that the essential problem is that the OR parameter calculations are, as were the MSTS calculations, based on the 2-cycle Roots blower non-turbocharged prime mover. Let me explain:

In a 2-cycle Roots blower non-turbocharged 2-cycle diesel prime mover, the Roots blower essentially acts as a supercharger at all RPM levels. In the 2-cycle engine, it has to do this because the engine relies on positive air pressure in the cylinder to assist in moving exhaust gases from the engine. As RPM increases, the blower increases air delivery to the cylinders up to essentially the maximum output of the blower. The smoke effect this generates is very little smoke at low RPM, with smoke output increasing fairly evenly with RPM, reaching a maximum when the engine is at full load. 2-cycle engines tend to "spool up" to higher RPMs faster than a 4-cycle engine, so "over-fueling" of the engine during RPM increases is shorter-lived and with lighter smoke than with a 4-cycle engine. The OR smoke model can model this type of engine quite well.

A turbocharged 2-cycle prime mover behaves fairly similarly because the engine still has the Roots blower for lower RPMs, but has a turbocharger to add an additional air charge at higher RPMs. The fundamental difference between and non-turbo and turbocharged 2-cycle prime mover is that the turbo'ed prime mover will tend to smoke less than the non-turbo'ed model would at higher RPMs and loads. And, of course altitude will not have much effect on the turbo model.

So, most EMD 2-cycle prime movers will tend to smoke some, due to their 2-cycle design, at all RPM levels, with "throttle up" additional smoke fairly short-lived. By the way, the inherent levels of smoke in a 2-cycle design are why the 2-cycle EMD prime movers, notwithstanding their other advantages, could not meet the US Tier 4 emission standards.

Now, the 4 cycle prime movers found in GE and Alco prime movers are a different matter, and the OR smoke parameters do not really model them well--and MSTS didn't model them at all, really. Non-turbocharged 4-cycle prime movers--which essentially disappeared from locomotive factory offerings by the late 1960's, could smoke similarly to a 2-cycle offering, with the exception that the throttle-up smoke was much longer-lived, due to the slow RPM spool-up of the 4-cycle design.

The turbocharged version of the 4-cycle design behaves differently yet, and it is the design that the OR exhaust parameters can not model very well. Here's why: as a 4-cycle prime mover begins to throttle up from idle, there is no supercharger to add air charge to the fuel-air mixture. Concurrently, there is not enough exhaust being produced to spool up the turbocharger, nor can the 4-cycle engine rapidly increase in RPM. The result is an overfueling condition as the prime mover increases off of idle. The result is a very dark cloud of smoke off idle, which lasts until the RPM of the prime mover provides enough exhaust velocity to spool up the turbocharger. Once the RPM is at a sufficient level to run the turbocharger at an adequate RPM, the visible smoke can stop or nearly stop until the throttle is notched out again and the process repeats. HOWEVER, and this what OR struggles to emulate, as the prime mover RPM increases higher, the turbo has an increasing ability to provide sufficient boost to avoid higher levels of "throttle-up turbo lag" smoke. So, while the quantity of exhaust increases as the RPM increases, the amount of throttle-up smoke actually decreases as RPM increases to higher throttle setting levels. Indeed, a well-tuned turbocharged prime mover may exhibit almost no visible smoke (other than heat waves) at high throttle levels. I have yet to find a way that OR can model this behavior accurately.

Essentially, the OR ExhaustDynamics parameter increases exhaust smoke as a multiplier to the amount of total exhaust produced (and exhaust produced does and should increase with RPM increase), but, for a 4-cycle prime mover, the multiplier should be higher at lower RPM levels and decrease as RPM increases. So, for example, the ExhaustDynamic parameter might be at 4 when going from a throttle setting of idle to Run 1 or 2, but only 1.1 or 1.2 going from Run7 to Run 8. Meanwhile, total exhaust volume might go from 0.0 at idle to, say 4, at Run 8.

Incidentally, Tier 4 Final locomotives (there are few out in the Train-sim file library) should not show ANY visible smoke at all, however, their .eng file parameters "out of the box" are not set up correctly for that.

[espee]

Quote

Tyler is the only one I know of to release content with complete blocks of ORTS parameters...how about the rest of you guys...surely there are more here...especially here.

Actually superheatedsteam (Marek) has uploaded locos with complete ORTS blocks in fact complete OR eng files.

But they are Australian prototype and over on Trainsim and even GE's, so most people here may have missed seeing them with only 163 downloads...

https://www.trainsim...earchid=9719978

filename: au__nr.zip in case the above link fails...

[ErickC]

R H Steele, on 04 October 2017 - 02:06 PM, said:

You are avoiding the question, please post the total OpenRail engine. Until I actually see proof that you have constructed one, I can't believe unsubstantiated claims. It's like science, dude, post your findings.
Don't hide behind a claim that it would be utterly useless for someone else...by posting your results it would, more than likely, give someone else a chance to see your hard work and learn from it.

Avoiding what question? You asked no questions, you complained that I didn't post more than what I did. Sorry, I don't respond well to that.

Quote

You are very mistaken if you think anyone owns an OpenRails include engine file....it's open source.

While it is open-source, it's a question of basic politeness that I don't believe in throwing around other people's code. There's a difference between what is legal and what is ethical.

Quote

But to put a lid on your assertion of permission...I actually helped Tyler with those...by providing some examples of how the ORTS engine block was constructed and where it is placed, and some other minor issues. Tyler did the hard lifting by working up all the "TAB" settings. Check out his ReadMe's if you need further proof. He was gracious enough to give me some credit...too much actually.

In that case, I apologize for my assertion.

Quote

I'll back up anything I post with actual examples...enough...let's see your proof.

Proof of what? That I wrote some exhaust parameters? Well, I posted them, so plug them into something and see what happens. Like the song says - I don't owe you anything.

Quote

The more examples one can look at the easier the learning experience becomes. It's actual usefulness may not be readily apparent.

The problem here isn't the suggestion, which I otherwise agree with, it's entirely your attitude.

Quote

I will admit to not helping the OP....but I'll wager the OP was asking about how to adjust the Diesel Smoke parameters and the Exhaust nozzle width to suit OR. The greatest percentage of users are still at that level...never actually having seen native OR exhaust (as used in the ORTSDieselEngines block) in the sim.

As I said, my mistake... but my non-exhaust parameters will still be as useless as the sample in the docs for anything but formatting. I can try to come up with something relevant when I have the time, but I thought it might be helpful to post what I did have - something that could be copied and pasted - in the meantime.

Quote

Instead of getting all huffy you could have posted the ORTS engine file you put together and let us all benefit from it. Easy enough to do.

Life lesson for you - most people don't respond well when people call their contributions useless. Why would I bother posting more when you're just going to complain anyway? You've already proven that this is what you're going to do, so what further proof do I really need? What incentive do I have to engage with you? Come to think of it, why am I even bothering to respond to you in the first place?