[NickonWheels]

Hello, time to get dirty hands...

I´m finally trying to fix the starting friction issue by enhancing th code on a private version and eventually show results and contribution. However I´m not very experienced with coding, only done some easy contributing programs with LiveCode, but nothing about C#. I guess this is the smaller problem, but the code is lacking orientation. I cannot find the position where to enter a new line which then could be written into the .wag/eng file. I thank you for any guidance or advise on this; it already feels quite complicated to get this far into ORTS, but at least this problem made me unimaginable angry. Hopefully I can make any kind of difference.

Thanks, Nick

[PerryPlatypus]

Hi,

I will try yet again tonight to delve into seeing if I can find any current scholarly friction data on modern equipment, but as others have said, it is quite difficult to find good data for this... I will let you know if I find anything helpful.

By the way, if you want another issue to get angry about, I think OR's handling of adhesion in snow/rain with the "Advanced Adhesion Model" is a problem that causes even more dramatic variations from reality, but unfortunately it too is a topic that is extremely hard to find good scholarly data on, especially related to modern heavy-haul freight operations... The problem is such that on an upcoming payware route release, we are going to have to stipulate to users that for snow and rain activities to work, they must use the default adhesion correction factor of 135% (or whatever it is), because using the "realistic" correction factor of 100% makes it physically impossible to run prototypical (certain tonnage and locomotives) heavy trains up mountain grades in the snow...

[NickonWheels]

Navigating through the code is quite exhausting. Do you ever found a list of the ORTS lines (like ORTSEvaporationArea etc.) in the code which would be needed for adding another line or two. In all I like to enhance the code in a way to directy influence standstill friction and the speed where the linear-degrading force and the Davis values merge which at this point is always 5mph. In the end the old stuff has still to work so there´s much to do but I can´t find the starting point...

Quote

I think OR's handling of adhesion in snow/rain with the "Advanced Adhesion Model" is a problem that causes even more dramatic variations from reality,

I know the traction degrading is as much at 1 snowflake an hour as it is at 1000 snowflakes, which is just not true...

[NickonWheels]

if (IsDavisFriction)  // If set to use next Davis friction then do so
            {
                if (IsStandstillFriction)
                    if (AbsSpeedMpS > MergeSpeedMpS)     // if speed above merge speed turn off low speed calculations
                        IsLowSpeed = false;
                    if (AbsSpeedMpS == 0.0)
                        IsLowSpeed = true;
                // Davis formulas only apply above about 5mph, so different treatment required for low speed < 5mph.
                if (AbsSpeedMpS > MpS.FromMpH(5))     // if speed above 5 mph then turn off low speed calculations
                    IsLowSpeed = false;
                if (AbsSpeedMpS == 0.0)
                    IsLowSpeed = true;

I dont know if this gonna work...

[NickonWheels]

Does not work, ORTS gets back to MSTS friction stuff with this...

The basic idea was to introduce two new lines which could then be written into the wagon section of.eng/wag files called ORTSStandstillFriction and ORTSMergeSpeed which would replace ORTSBearingType, although the old line still must be working to make it shareable. Every user than would be able to insert the values best suited. No idea how this can be done, the whole friction section of this .cs file just looks overly complicated und puzzling...

I keep trying and failing, but it really depresses me...

[NickonWheels]

I made a new file at Sources/Orts.Simulation/Simulation/RollingStocks but this is not shown in VisualStudio.

I think I cannot handle this problem due to lack of experience with C#, so this problem may forever remain unsolved.

[NickonWheels]

StaticFrictionFactorN = DavisAN * (21 / 20) / (405 / 2);

Not even keeping ORTSBearingType and reworking them with factors based on the respective Davis A values works properly. It does (seemingly) for an ES44 but not for 132.2 US ton graincar... WHY?

[Csantucci]

 NickonWheels, on 11 January 2020 - 03:33 AM, said:

I made a new file at Sources/Orts.Simulation/Simulation/RollingStocks but this is not shown in VisualStudio.

I think I cannot handle this problem due to lack of experience with C#, so this problem may forever remain unsolved.

To add a new .cs file to the project within RollingStocks use the Solution Explorer within Visual Studio. In your specific case right-click on RollingStocks within the Solution Explorer, select Add - Existing item, an Explorer window will open, go to the folder of your interest, click on the .cs file you want to add, and click on Add.

[NickonWheels]

Quote

To add a new .cs file to the project within RollingStocks use the Solution Explorer within Visual Studio. In your specific case right-click on RollingStocks within the Solution Explorer, select Add - Existing item, an Explorer window will open, go to the folder of your interest, click on the .cs file you want to add, and click on Add.

Thanks

Do you think a new file could replace parts of MSTSWagon.cs, I mean there would then be two definitions of the friction model although with some differences. Fromm all the presented experiments it would makes me wonder if C# coding works at all because in last example it looks like a Davis A value of 1500 multiplied by 1.1 is >70900 pound-force. I always intended to get around this with the new lines, at last I expected too much...

[NickonWheels]

(Beware .txt file)

Can someone with more experience have a look on this and all these red lines indications something must be missing. As far as i know only FrictionV2 is missing in the lists. I know it´s a lot...

[steamer_ctn]

 PerryPlatypus, on 10 January 2020 - 11:02 AM, said:

By the way, if you want another issue to get angry about, I think OR's handling of adhesion in snow/rain with the "Advanced Adhesion Model" is a problem that causes even more dramatic variations from reality, but unfortunately it too is a topic that is extremely hard to find good scholarly data on, especially related to modern heavy-haul freight operations... The problem is such that on an upcoming payware route release, we are going to have to stipulate to users that for snow and rain activities to work, they must use the default adhesion correction factor of 135% (or whatever it is), because using the "realistic" correction factor of 100% makes it physically impossible to run prototypical (certain tonnage and locomotives) heavy trains up mountain grades in the snow...

Can you provide some more detail on the trains that you are trying to run up the hill, and what is happening?

Locomotive types, tonnage, grade, etc?

Thanks

[PerryPlatypus]

 steamer_ctn, on 11 January 2020 - 12:13 PM, said:

Can you provide some more detail on the trains that you are trying to run up the hill, and what is happening?

Locomotive types, tonnage, grade, etc?

Thanks

Hi Peter,

Feel free to PM me or start a separate thread on the below if we don't want to pollute this thread with the discussion.

An example consist below, which can go up the steady 2.2% grade of Mullan Pass in real life at a steady 10 to 12 MPH during rain or snowfall.

Consist: A 125-car coal train configured as follows: 3 x ES44AC, 78 loaded coal cars (286,000 lbs each), 4 x SD70ACe mid-train (I have seen either 4 or 5 mid-train units in snow), 47 more loaded coal cars (286,000 lbs each), 1 x ES44AC on rear.

When I try to run this consist in OR during snowfall, it slips like crazy, cannot keep moving (quickly stalls out if I get a run at the hill at the bottom of the grade). I believe we are using realistic Curtius Kniffler adhesion numbers, because in clear weather we get spot-on starting and "continuous" tractive effort and very realistic speed compared to reality, but I'm curious to see the results you can get. Getting going from a stop on the grade is essentially impossible, and even keeping moving if you get a run at the hill seems impossible for me. Again, using 100% correction factor for adhesion, and adhesion proportional to snow/rain/fog turned ON.

[steamer_ctn]

Hi Sean,


Thanks I will PM you.

[NickonWheels]

Updates on the subject...

I deleted ORTSFriction and am currently shifting everything done so far into the usual MSTSWagon file. From the first look I think that the old parts of the code (meaning the equation with ORTSBearingType) would still work outside of the new part in making, hopefully it then works too as it requires more lines in the wagon section to work; for the moment these being the three Davis lines plus ORTSStandstillFriction and ORTSMergeSpeed. I will get further onto describing this when I got it done for the moment.

[NickonWheels]

After much reshuffling it still does not work, ORTS always reverts to the old equation. Is there anyone who can describe to me what is wrong here?

Maybe it works when kicking out the current code section but then the addition of mine would not be eligable for anything useful...