Water Troughs (or Water Pans as they are called in US)
#31
Posted 21 February 2020 - 03:29 AM
I will answer myself. After several tests it is clear: Not possible.
The TenderWaterOverflowFX effect is dependent on the Water scoop parameter, which in turn depends on the locomotive's speed.
Does not matter. The water flow is replaced by small clouds of steam and the effect doesn't look very plausible.
The TenderWaterOverflowFX effect is dependent on the Water scoop parameter, which in turn depends on the locomotive's speed.
Does not matter. The water flow is replaced by small clouds of steam and the effect doesn't look very plausible.
#32
Posted 21 February 2020 - 09:21 AM
Lamplighter, on 21 February 2020 - 03:29 AM, said:
I will answer myself. After several tests it is clear: Not possible.
The TenderWaterOverflowFX effect is dependent on the Water scoop parameter, which in turn depends on the locomotive's speed.
Does not matter. The water flow is replaced by small clouds of steam and the effect doesn't look very plausible.
The TenderWaterOverflowFX effect is dependent on the Water scoop parameter, which in turn depends on the locomotive's speed.
Does not matter. The water flow is replaced by small clouds of steam and the effect doesn't look very plausible.
The reason that I suggested on Trello that water particle physics and graphics be considered as an alternative to those of steam or smoke. At the moment passing over a water trough at low speed is not very convincing - but it looks really good if you are going fast.
I imagine that water particle graphics behaviour could also help with rain on windscreens and windows.
#33
Posted 12 January 2022 - 09:42 AM
In British Railways days, when the water scoop was inadvertently lowered when the loco is not over a water trough, the scoop was broken and rendered useless. It could no longer be used. This was simulated in MSTS with an appropriate message and the scoop no longer being able to be used. This is not simulated in Open Rails. Can this be added?
Edited once
Edited once
#34
Posted 12 January 2022 - 11:39 AM
Hi David,
Nice idea - and included in the Activity Evaluation perhaps. Doesn't sound very difficult.
Please would you add a Trello card to the RoadMap so it can be picked up by a developer who is looking for the next task to have a go at?
Nice idea - and included in the Activity Evaluation perhaps. Doesn't sound very difficult.
Please would you add a Trello card to the RoadMap so it can be picked up by a developer who is looking for the next task to have a go at?
#36
Posted 12 January 2022 - 08:03 PM
dforrest, on 12 January 2022 - 09:42 AM, said:
In British Railways days, when the water scoop was inadvertently lowered when the loco is not over a water trough, the scoop was broken and rendered useless. It could no longer be used. This was simulated in MSTS with an appropriate message and the scoop no longer being able to be used. This is not simulated in Open Rails. Can this be added?
At the time that this feature was implemented, there was some discussion about the "appropriate" behaviour of the scoop if it was lowered outside of the water trough. Based upon the relevant feedback at the time the feature, in regards to damaging the scoop, was implemented as described here.
I believe that this was an improvement on MSTS. If you have any documentation suggesting a different view, then it would probably be good to add (link) it to the trello card so that the developer taking up the looking at the card, can determine the changes required.
#37
Posted 13 January 2022 - 04:29 AM
Peter is the activity, loco and route available for download from the link you gave above, applicable for use with Open Rails v1.4, the stable version for example?
#39
Posted 13 January 2022 - 11:45 PM
dforrest, on 12 January 2022 - 09:42 AM, said:
In British Railways days, when the water scoop was inadvertently lowered when the loco is not over a water trough, the scoop was broken and rendered useless. It could no longer be used. This was simulated in MSTS with an appropriate message and the scoop no longer being able to be used. This is not simulated in Open Rails. Can this be added?
Edited once
Edited once
I don't understand this question?
A waterscoop was not used earlier or later than above a trough, but if it was used earlier or later outside the trough was it not immediately defective?
This is because the rails before/after are slightly higher and thus "sink" above the trough at "water level".
You get damage if there is something between the rails, such as with points.
This effect just works on ORTS. You can do this testing with "the Jubilee" steam locomotive on UKsim, this one itself gives these effects including sounds (also the damage sound...!) So it just works in ORTS?
#40
Posted 14 January 2022 - 02:43 PM
I have followed this thread with interest, run the test activity and also run the test consist on my own Chiltern route, which has three sets of water troughs in it. First, I would like to express my appreciation of the work that has gone in to producing the very satisfactory effects when taking up water in this way.
That said, although the feature whereby the water scoop breaks if it passes over an obstruction in the lowered state works in the test activity, it does not work in my Chiltern route. In the latter the lowered scoop passes over points etc without breaking. Could this be something to do with the fact that the Chiltern route uses the UK Fine Scale track system whereas the test route of course uses the default track system?
Secondly, I wonder what the purpose is of the following entry in the Engine Controls section of the Hall .eng file used in the CTN water trough test activity.
WaterScoop ( 0 1 0 )
Since no water scoop mechanism is or should be visible in the cab, I wonder why it is necessary to include a water scoop control entry in the .eng file.
Martin
That said, although the feature whereby the water scoop breaks if it passes over an obstruction in the lowered state works in the test activity, it does not work in my Chiltern route. In the latter the lowered scoop passes over points etc without breaking. Could this be something to do with the fact that the Chiltern route uses the UK Fine Scale track system whereas the test route of course uses the default track system?
Secondly, I wonder what the purpose is of the following entry in the Engine Controls section of the Hall .eng file used in the CTN water trough test activity.
WaterScoop ( 0 1 0 )
Since no water scoop mechanism is or should be visible in the cab, I wonder why it is necessary to include a water scoop control entry in the .eng file.
Martin