[ErickC]

Funny you should mention the new things, as part of that, over the last few days, I've been digging through my computer to find and catalog all of the audio recordings I've made over the last 15 years or so. It's been a daunting task, some of the recordings are trains, some of them are conversations, some are demo recordings of song ideas I've had, some are ambient noise, many different kinds of vehicles, fire alarms, storms, weather sirens, and a garbage masher making gurgling noises. The hope is that I'll be able to find what I want more easily, since I have a pretty good working knowledge of what I have on-hand. I've been organizing them by the equipment I used to record them and the content, and, where possible, into folders by date and location.

One of the goals in the next few months is a complete re-engineering of the global sound folder and default route sounds, which also means I'll have to do some new rolling stock sounds to go with it all. It's a good thing I recorded all that stuff.

[ebnertra000]

I like the sounds of that sound work you're planning on, Erick (not a pun). I've made quite a few recordings myself along those lines, from trains (many of them), to ambient noise, power tools, animals, vehicles, sirens (of the vehicle- and telephone pole-mounted varieties). If you want to take a peek, let me know. Between great sounds and proper exhaust, they will go a long way towards proper realism in OR.

[R H Steele]

Submitted bug report today.

[steamer_ctn]

Is this a new problem or has this always been the case? Could you run some tests with the setup that you have built and confirm whether the problem existed with the following builds or not?

i) v1.2 (#3766)
ii) #3812 - available from here.


Thanks

[R H Steele]

Will do, Peter.

[R H Steele]

Peter, the dual smoke effect is evident in both versions you asked about.
The effects blocks in all locos (except lead) are identical, no dual plumes, lead has higher "Y" axis. If the "exhaust dia." in the msts files are set to 0.0 the extra plume disappears.
Partially removing the effects block from the msts files causes a warning in OR log, so OR is reading the block if present, and is looking for a complete block,
Completely removing the effects block from the msts file works, no warnings in log, OR uses the DieselEngines block...but that's not an acceptable option.
Below is the ORTSDieselEngines block used, I don't believe the problem is with the block itself, included it for reference, just in case.

ORTSDieselEngines ( 1
		Diesel(
  			IdleRPM ( 315 )
			MaxRPM ( 900 )
			StartingRPM ( 255 )
			StartingConfirmRPM ( 365 )
			ChangeUpRPMpS ( 75 )
			ChangeDownRPMpS ( 25 )
			RateOfChangeUpRPMpSS ( 10 )
			RateOfChangeDownRPMpSS ( 5 )
			MaximalPower ( 2684.52kW )
			IdleExhaust ( 1 )
			MaxExhaust ( 3 )
			ExhaustDynamics ( 2 )
			ExhaustDynamicsDown ( 1 )
			ExhaustColor ( 206B787D )
			ExhaustTransientColor ( 40212324 )
			DieselPowerTab (
		  		0	0
				315	0
				390	335565
				465	671130
				540	1006695
				615	1342260
				690	1677825
				765	2013390
				840	2348955
				900	2237100
			)
			DieselConsumptionTab (
				0	0
				315  6.2
				900  194
			)
			ThrottleRPMTab (
				0   315
				12.5  390
				25  465
				37.5  540
				50  615
				62.5  690
				75  765
				87.5  840
				100 900
			)
			DieselTorqueTab (
				0	0
				315  51155
				900  409236
			)
			MinOilPressure ( 16 )
			MaxOilPressure ( 50 )
			MaxTemperature ( 120 )
			Cooling ( 3 )
			TempTimeConstant ( 720 )
			OptTemperature ( 71 )
			IdleTemperature ( 55 )
		)
	)

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 
• 
• 

[steamer_ctn]

Hi Gerry,

Thanks for the testing.

As you suggest it appears to be a "possible issue" with the handling of INCLUDE files.

Sadly I am not familiar with the INCLUDE code in detail, so I can't give a definitive answer at the moment (nor even possibly in the future).

If I have understood the INCLUDE code concept correctly, it overwrites any parameters in the base (MSTS) file that are the same as those found in the INCLUDE file. For most parameters there would only be expected to be a single unique parameter to overwrite. Whereas for effects it is possible to have multiple (non unique) effects, thus for example, MSTS allowed two steam cylinder exhaust effects to be created with the same effect name for steam locomotives. Similarly two exhaust plumes could be created on diesels.

Thus, I am wondering if there is not a certain amount of "sense" in the way that the (multiple) effects are being handled?

Perhaps the developer of the INCLUDE code didn't want to overwrite the original (Exhaust) effects code in the MSTS, but merely allow for the addition of multiple effects. They may have considered it more likely that somebody would be adding another (exhaust) effect, rather then replacing the original MSTS effect. It might have been assumed that the base exhaust effect would be very unlikely to change.

Naturally this is all supposition as I am not sure who developed this section of the code.

I have a number of other projects on the go at the moment, so at this stage I cannot commit to investigating this problem further at this time, however this may change in the future.

Thanks

[R H Steele]

Thank you for the reply,
I'm using the crossover between the two effects blocks to my advantage.
Instead of "zeroing out" the "exhaust dia" in the msts file, I'm setting the value to less than the value found in the effects block of the eng in the OpenRails folder. (my default is 0.14)
The smoke then appears more dynamic, being comprised of two different sized textures.

That's not a good solution for those who run both MSTS and OR, and it mildly violates the principle of the include file (requires the MSTS default file be changed), so sometime, someone will get around to fixing the code.
No worries here.