[Weter]

Quote

ORTSTensionStiffness ( 200kn 1200kN )

Must be N capital.
I've read on CTN's page, that animated couplers and animated hoses are incompatible with each others, so modeler should choose something one.

[Aldarion]

Weter, on 13 December 2022 - 02:44 PM, said:

I've read on CTN's page, that animated couplers and animated hoses are incompatible with each others, so modeler should choose something one.

Welll that would be bad because I could only get some coupler shapes to show after i introduced the hose codelines...

I'll run a few more tests today and report back

[steamer_ctn]

Aldarion, on 14 December 2022 - 02:56 AM, said:

Welll that would be bad because I could only get some coupler shapes to show after i introduced the hose codelines...

I'll run a few more tests today and report back

I will have a look at it sometime after Christmas.

Can you use CTN stock to describe the problem so that I have a "definite" issue to solve.

[Aldarion]

Sure thing.
I'll make a couple of tests during christmas and have some reports for you.

[Laci1959]

Hello.

Basically, my problem is that it's very American. That is, when connecting, both coupling structures work. There are 3 cases that can occur with the screw clamp [ Type ( Chain )].
1. Both coupling structures of the vehicle work.
2a. Only the first coupling of the vehicle works. The structure of the rear coupling (Coupling) is hung on the support hook.
2b. Only the rear coupling of the vehicle works. The structure of the first coupling (Coupling) is hung on the support hook.
3. Both coupling structures of the vehicle are hung on the support hook. One of the neighboring cars is in state 1.
I temporarily solved it so that the first coupling (Coupling) structure is modeled hung on a support hook. This matches the MSTS Bin, but I can reverse it if needed. I tried to get it together sometime in the spring, but I didn't succeed.

Sincerely, Laci1959

[ATW]

Advance coupling has gotten back to my interest to build not just the various North American Couplers/Knuckles shapes but also the proper Draft System shapes of various kinds I have come by. But before I start building and upgrading some simple sets, I am curious how some will perform and what more advanced ones will need in future.

The Easy ones for now seem to be the TypeE and TypeF coupling systems as they don't need much slack action to see unless they are attached to say a adapter like device for compatibility conversion on retro rebuilds or just to see drawbars give that slight eye-catching bunch stretch look without car body.

Here I have one of many TypeE 3D Draft and Couplers testing on a tankcar but without animation as they are rigid normal:


But the hard advanced ones that I feel I am splitting into separate wag files is the TypeEF couplers for them long Cushion cars like Centerbeams, Boxcars, Autoracks, Bulkhead flats etc. I have for the years had to have 3 split wag files for a single autorack and it showed satisfying slack results before advanced coupling was introduced and now the slack is limited to a R0 2nd value no more then 7cm as exceeding that amount doesn't show more slack displacement but makes wag wheels slip with locomotive wheels slipping at start, glitching that they even cushion the remainder rear portion of train to have 0 coupling forces. Now I am not just getting this glitch with advanced coupling parameters but with legacy MSTS parameter coupling lines. Other glitch is ORTS only reads rear coupling.

Will Advanced coupling get the opportunity some day to simulate the various coupling systems and animations to cushion-balance enough distance in a single file or can one file besides using TSRE engine sets make it simple to turn a articulated or cushion set into one wag like perhaps how .EOT file but new format .wagset or .engset? Spring Cushion and Cushion Adapter.



Now it would be considered a broken drawbar split in a single set as broke derailed instead of knuckle wouldn't it as thats longer to repair then a knuckle and Carmen may bring the wrong replacement lol.