[ATW]

Genma Saotome, on 30 November 2019 - 02:58 PM, said:

I gave up on that folder long ago. What I've done is set up a mini-route for those few routes I have where I want/need to be using train.exe and everything else is now OR only. That lets me do a straightforward conversion on the OR side (like 95% plus of what I have) to using OR parameters, culling obsolete MSTS parameters, and simple use of the Include command and related files. Essentially looking as-if it had been this way since 2001.

FWIW, back when OR 1.0 was getting ready to release I was advocating to the OR team that 1.0 should be the the last release intended specifically for forward compatibility in train.exe. I did not convince the OR team then... but I am still of the opinion it needs to be done.

Well I’m not that much of a fan to use identical include files yet but I have done it to most payware products. Reason I’m not a fan is because not all stock like engines perform the same even if it’s the same prototype. A good example would be different traction curves based on axles of power, throttle HP settings, weight, railroad specific settings, weather condition, intentional defect performances etc.

Reason I say not identical because I have railroaded in enough prototypes of the same brand and not all them started or performed the same but some averaged each other while others way off did not. A simple example would be how I have writing down various speeds, traction/dynamic, throttle an compared them and converted them to ORTS. I like how GEVO’s averaged close to each other well while 70ACe’s differed where the older was stronger then the new or company specific softwares kept getting changed and traction motor/truck cut out or in wasn’t one of them.

I’m not saying I’m going to make every renumber/reskin of the same prototype different in performances but have that variety of selections for future include files in the future till ORTS is complete an in good standing of parameters where newer features are complete. Besides I’m starting to get tired of waiting to release new content do to my waiting for satisfaction or keep having doubts of completion in stages of different enthusiasm seasons or months when time is available.

[Lamplighter]

Until recently, there was no problem using an advanced engine variant using a diesel engine code block. But without traction characteristics. It may not be available on many locomotives.
Stable version OR 1.3.1 still can do this.
Unstable OR version no longer.

The diesel engine code block can do other things: Smoke effects, monitoring water temperature and oil pressure, fuel consumption, etc.
I have many older diesel locomotives built with a diesel engine code block, but without traction characteristics.

I have to give up the unstable version of the OR or throw away all the work on the locomotives :( .

[Lamplighter]

The stumbling block is the fact that the BASIC configuration of a diesel engine locomotive more or less follows old MSTS. Even with known errors and shortcomings.
The new parameter ORTSDieselEngineMaxPower will partially save the situation. But not everything.
The ADVANCED configuration diesel engine block code now does not work (on an unstable OR version) without traction curves.

I'd like to join the group. But I'm not a programmer and I really don't know English well.
I am glad that at least here I can communicate my worries and ideas.

[steamer_ctn]

Lamplighter, on 02 December 2019 - 03:37 AM, said:

Until recently, there was no problem using an advanced engine variant using a diesel engine code block. But without traction characteristics. It may not be available on many locomotives.
Stable version OR 1.3.1 still can do this.
Unstable OR version no longer.

Can you provide an ENG file that demonstrates the issues that you are having with your locomotives?

Thanks

[Lamplighter]

Yes, it has already happened. I sent them to CTN contact.

[steamer_ctn]

Ok. It looks like it has gone astray, can you please resend it.

Thanks

[SP 0-6-0]

Hi Peter, What about hydraulic or mechanical drive locomotives?

Can we setup a steam turbine to work as a steam locomotive, but take advantage of electric traction motors? These are oddities sure. But would be neat if it could be done.

Robert

[railguy]

ATW, on 02 December 2019 - 02:34 AM, said:

Well I’m not that much of a fan to use identical include files yet but I have done it to most payware products. Reason I’m not a fan is because not all stock like engines perform the same even if it’s the same prototype. A good example would be different traction curves based on axles of power, throttle HP settings, weight, railroad specific settings, weather condition, intentional defect performances etc.

Reason I say not identical because I have railroaded in enough prototypes of the same brand and not all them started or performed the same but some averaged each other while others way off did not. A simple example would be how I have writing down various speeds, traction/dynamic, throttle an compared them and converted them to ORTS. I like how GEVO’s averaged close to each other well while 70ACe’s differed where the older was stronger then the new or company specific softwares kept getting changed and traction motor/truck cut out or in wasn’t one of them.

I'm also not a fan of tying a whole class of locomotive to a single include file in an OR folder. Here is how I solved the problem: I'll use the example of a fictional locomotive ABCRR123, an SD40-2. I'll locate (or build) an SD40-2 include file. Then I copy it to the locomotive folder for ABCRR123, and rename the include file to ABCRR123.inc . Then I put the "Include" line in the "legacy" .eng file, pointing to ABCRR123.inc . Now I can "tweak" any parameter in the ABCRR123.inc file to make that locomotive unique.

[edwardk]

Peter,

Either there is a math problem or the HUD display that shows the hp to the rail is off. I first ran which should be the updated unstable version with your fix. MaxPower(3057.37kW)(4100hp) which is hp to rail and ORTSDieselEngineMaxPower ( 3281kW )(4400hp). The hp to rail was showing as 4,003hp?? I even ran it on the monogame version that I am using as my test bed and the numbers were not that far off from the unstable version, but still not close to what it should be and this is at full throttle.

Edit: Since this is suppose to be the basic set up, the above items is what I need and nothing else.

Edit: I put a trace on MaxPowerW and the value is correct which is in watts. The problem is either with the HUD process or the internal calculation that the HUD is using.

[steamer_ctn]

edwardk, on 03 December 2019 - 03:43 PM, said:

Either there is a math problem or the HUD display that shows the hp to the rail is off. I first ran which should be the updated unstable version with your fix. MaxPower(3057.37kW)(4100hp) which is hp to rail and ORTSDieselEngineMaxPower ( 3281kW )(4400hp). The hp to rail was showing as 4,003hp?? I even ran it on the monogame version that I am using as my test bed and the numbers were not that far off from the unstable version, but still not close to what it should be and this is at full throttle.

What Power value are you using on the HuD?

If it is the value on the LOCOMOTIVE INFORMATION screen on the LHS, then this value will not always show the value that you have entered in MaxPower. Instead it shows the real time Power delivered to the rail based upon the train movement.

This power value is the Power to Rail, but it is determined by using the Motive Force value (shown to the right of it) required to move the train as a base. Thus if the amount of motive force required to move the train is less then the power to rail, then this value may not reach the value that you are expecting.

So at the moment I don't think that there is a calculation error, but more a question of how to best interpret the information displayed on the HuD. Similarly an understanding of the type of efficiency shown on the HuD is needed to interpret the results that OR is producing.