[pschlik]

Laci1959, on 21 August 2023 - 09:50 PM, said:

Hello.

Is it necessary to introduce a new parameter? Wouldn't the existing but currently unused one be better instead of a new one? In many vehicles, the AuxilaryLeakRate (XYbar/s) parameter is included (remained included).

Then you don't have to deal with those, only the vehicles that are missing.

Sincerely, Laci 1959

Well the issue with AuxilaryLeakRate is that it only makes sense to apply to, you know, leaking auxiliary reservoirs. You still need new parameters if you want to simulate the wagon's brake pipe leaking (TrainPipeLeakRate is an engine parameter, not a wagon parameter), main res leaking, brake cylinder leaking...I also have concerns about auxiliary leaks in particular. Like you say, this is something that has been included for a long time...a long time without being simulated properly/at all (I highly doubt MSTS correctly simulated the consequences of an aux res leak, they didn't even spell auxiliary correctly). Because it's never been simulated right, and there's no documentation on how to set it right, there's a very real chance anyone who has put an aux res leak in their wagon has entered an unreasonable amount of leakage and had no way of knowing it was unreasonable. I don't see many references to AuxilaryLeakRate online, but the ones I do see are settings of like 0.1 psi/sec-that's a pretty hefty leak of 6 psi/min!

But that's not game breaking-the real problem is that a direct release brake system can not function properly with aux res leaks faster than a few psi per hour. If the aux res pressure leaks out, that can trick the triple valve into thinking it needs to release the brakes (because BP > AUX), which is a serious safety issue. And what do you know, I see a case out there where someone has set an AuxilaryLeakRate of 0.1 on a direct release coach...that would make the wagon undrivable. On graduated release, a leaking aux res is not a problem at all, but that doesn't cancel out the very real risk of breaking content that used to work. Not sure what the best solution is here, maybe adding some checks if 'correct questionable braking parameters' is on, but that does make it the player's responsibility.
(It's also feasible to implement something to gradually let air into the aux res from the brake pipe in lap based on the value set for brake insensitivity? There's a bit of evidence such a thing exists in reality to reduce the risks of leaky reservoirs.)


Compare this to TrainPipeLeakRate which, although it's not been simulated properly, has generally been set up correctly because the feature is documented in the OR manual, including the real life limit (no more than 5 psi/minute). I'm much more confident turning that on as I haven't seen anyone enter anything absurd like 5 psi/s, and it isn't going to end up causing trains to become impossible to drive by releasing the brakes every time you try to apply them.

[railguy]

My thought would be to design a MainReservoirLeakRate that would reside in each .eng file. That would, as in prototype operation, simulate a leak in the main reservoir that would periodically trigger the air compressor of the locomotive to start to recharge the main reservoir. This parameter could function on Player locomotives, loose consist locomotives, and AI locomotives. The MainReservoirLeakRate could also function as a "surrogate" for non-airbrake items that are "parasitic" on the locomotive air supply--moisture ejectors, horn, etc.

[charland]

The problem with designing anything for engine or wag file is that people out here may have hundreds of files to change.

Paul

[pschlik]

charland, on 22 August 2023 - 12:50 PM, said:

The problem with designing anything for engine or wag file is that people out here may have hundreds of files to change.

Paul

In that case, you have not used include files enough!

[ATW]

Inc files a very helpful I got lots of parameters of difference types and enough Brake Valve types. Only one I have paused on as there is bugs is couplers.

But Inc files are very helpful to change one file to change thousands of conversions depending what parameter.

[charland]

I'm a route builder along with building rolling stock for those routes. I have enough trouble getting people to follow simple instructions on how to install routes, I've made about eight routes and this is common for them all. I don't imagine people who are using Open Rails are going to be any better modifying eng files when they don't usually read the ReadMe file that is supplied with each route.

Paul

[Genma Saotome]

charland, on 22 August 2023 - 01:59 PM, said:

I'm a route builder along with building rolling stock for those routes. I have enough trouble getting people to follow simple instructions on how to install routes, I've made about eight routes and this is common for them all. I don't imagine people who are using Open Rails are going to be any better modifying eng files when they don't usually read the ReadMe file that is supplied with each route.

Paul

Paul, those .inc files are as much for you as the end user. If you want I can send you a few examples of what I've been doing... easier than trying to explain it all here.

[charland]

Please do Dave. I've been working on a route for months and really haven't been keeping up with new things for OR.

Paul :-)

[Genma Saotome]

charland, on 22 August 2023 - 02:21 PM, said:

Please do Dave. I've been working on a route for months and really haven't been keeping up with new things for OR.

Paul :-)

Send me a PM w/ the necessary e-mail address.

[Albertosaurio65]

Hello, I have discovered a small bug with the effect of smoke in diesel trains, I use ORTSDieselEngines to adjust the smoke values with IdleExhaust and MaxExhaust. The bug occurs when two identical locomotives of the same eng are used in a consist. When OR detects two equal ones, it copies the data of the first one but in this case it does not copy the parameters of the smoke, making it look like this:  dwqe.jpg (43.05K)
Number of downloads: 2

The correct form of the smoke effect is like the one on the left, it is clear that it is a mistake by not copying all the parameters, because when they are different due to having different livery but the same train and model, the smoke is seen well in both.

Thanks in advance and sorry for the inconvenience.