[steamer_ctn]

I am currently working on some changes for vacuum braking, and in order to implement functionality consistent with real life operations, it may be necessary to increase the complexity of control within OR. For example, to release the brakes on a vacuum steam locomotive it may be necessary for the driver to manipulate up to three different controls (brake valve, large ejector and small ejector) in succession.

I appreciate that some people may not want this level of realism (or complexity), and are more interested in "just running trains", so for some time now I have been contemplating the need for a user selected option that caters for both these types of users, as well as the those who seek full realism of operation and are happy to accept the resulting complexities.

Some of the physics functions that have been added over the last couple of years have been linked to the "Advanced Adhesion Model" switch in order to provide the user with a means of making a distinction between them in order to reduce complexity of game operation if they don't want it.
I am therefore proposing to add a user selectable box on the option menu that will allow users to select either a "Simple Control and Physics" or "Full Control and Physics" mode.

In "Simple" mode OR would use very basic physics and controls, and allow the user to focus more on getting the train moving and visually running in OR. So in the case of the vacuum braking example above, the brake release would be configured so that the large ejector and small ejector are automated, and thus the user only needs to operate the drivers brake valve. This may remove some of the realism of train operation from a control and physics perspective, however it will simplify train operation.

Over time it may also be possible to include a basic generic brake operating configuration that allows the brakes to work on rolling stock that currently has the "brakes stuck on".

This switch would potentially apply across other control functions that may require a complex operating procedure, and similarly for some physics functions that require the user to drive the train within "realistic physical bounds".

Thus as suggested the "Full Control and Physics" mode would enable potentially complex control and physics functionality for those users who seek ultimate realism.

Thus users can select the degree of difficulty that they wish to operate OR at.

[engmod]

My vote is for user selectable.

[ckawahara]

Do whichever is your primary interest. If I cannot operate an engine, I do not use it.

[mikeanddi]

Simple control and physics would be preferable for me to use, so options for degrees of control would be ideal for me personally.

Mike

[Stephen]

Hi All,

I too would vote for user switchable as being able to incorporate more functions makes for a more enjoyable driving experience, plus sometimes there are engines that are very difficult to drive so they would be much easier with simple controls.

As an activity writer I am fully aware that there are many users who just simply want to drive from A to B using stock "as supplied" whereas others are happy to "get their hands dirty" in order to get the activity to work even better. I try to make a compromise between the two whenever possible.

As an aside what is the "watchdog" option and how does it work?

Regards,

Stephen

[AuzGnosis]

steamer_ctn, on 22 October 2019 - 01:31 AM, said:

I am currently working on some changes for vacuum braking, and in order to implement functionality consistent with real life operations, it may be necessary to increase the complexity of control within OR. For example, to release the brakes on a vacuum steam locomotive it may be necessary for the driver to manipulate up to three different controls (brake valve, large ejector and small ejector) in succession.

I appreciate that some people may not want this level of realism (or complexity), and are more interested in "just running trains", so for some time now I have been contemplating the need for a user selected option that caters for both these types of users, as well as the those who seek full realism of operation and are happy to accept the resulting complexities.

...{SNIP! : Lot more great stuff I hope to get back to later}...........

Totally on-board with OR-game providing for different levels of control complexity & physics realism that a user could select between.
Personally I would use either on different occasions as my erratic temperament most favored at that time.

Without the benefit of prior 'real-life' steam locomotive operational experience the mention of "large ejector and small ejector" on the same locomotive took me by surprise. From years of reading I'm well aware of the historical development, various types then operational function of injectors, just never thought about multiple injectors being needed for one engine. Is multiple separately controllable injectors on a steam locomotive something that is still common, or was it only needed on locos with vacuum braking?

Running my copy of the Zig-zag route last-night I had difficult starting my train as it had slipped my mind there was indeed more
than one brake on the engine.

Keep up the great work mate. Thanks W'Shawn Gray

[darwins]

AuzGnosis, on 23 October 2019 - 02:16 PM, said:

Without the benefit of prior 'real-life' steam locomotive operational experience the mention of "large ejector and small ejector" on the same locomotive took me by surprise. From years of reading I'm well aware of the historical development, various types then operational function of injectors, just never thought about multiple injectors being needed for one engine. Is multiple separately controllable injectors on a steam locomotive something that is still common, or was it only needed on locos with vacuum braking?

Keep up the great work mate. Thanks W'Shawn Gray

Well if I may be excused, I will divert a minute or two to answers those questions.
First to distinguish between "injectors" and "ejectors". An injector puts water into a boiler. An ejector sucks air out of a brake pipe.
Always two injectors as a fail safe (or two things to put water into the boiler - one injector and one feed water heater and pump) as if one fails, you do not want the water level to drop and risk dropping a plug or even a boiler explosion.
Usually two ejectors for a different reason (or one ejector and one vacuum pump) . A large powerful ejector to suck all the air out of the train including all the vacuum reservoirs, but that needs a lot of steam. Then for normal running, maintaining the vacuum and taking the brakes off after service stops, a small ejector is sufficient, which is more economical.

[AuzGnosis]

darwins, on 23 October 2019 - 09:15 PM, said:

Well if I may be excused, I will divert a minute or two to answers those questions.
First to distinguish between "injectors" and "ejectors". An injector puts water into a boiler. An ejector sucks air out of a brake pipe.
Always two injectors as a fail safe (or two things to put water into the boiler - one injector and one feed water heater and pump) as if one fails, you do not want the water level to drop and risk dropping a plug or even a boiler explosion.

Thanks for the clarification, all for built-in redundancy in design as protection against failure of critical systems.

Many thanks. W'Shawn Gray

[steamer_ctn]

As part of the work on vacuum brakes, I have started to add functionality for simple brake operations.

This functionality will allow users to select simple modes for brake operation. This features is aimed at those users who just want to operate a train without necessarily having 100% accuracy in brake operation.

The initial addition allows for the following two scenarios:

i) Simple operation of vacuum brakes without the need to operate all the necessary valves for the ejectors, etc.
ii) Allows incompatible brake systems to be coupled together, for example an air braked locomotive coupled to vacuum braked stock will not operate correctly, however if simple mode is selected then all cars will be set to the same brake system type as the locomotive, and allow the user to operate the brakes.

This feature is enabled through an option box on the SIMULATION TAB of the options menu in the latest unstable version (> 18/11/2019).

[atsf37l]

I support the selectable levels as mentioned in your last post Peter. I anticipate only using vacuum brakes on 2ft gauge Maine railroads, otherwise strictly air brakes. :bigboss: