[Genma Saotome]

May I add that Tim Muir generously allowed many model builders the right to use his couplers, often used as named parts, which may allow for a more widespread utilization of the new feature.

[Genma Saotome]

One more thought: It may be a useful thing to anticipate a mixed bag of future models that added their own animation and do follow the new naming convention and other models that don't have animation but have named parts that comply with whatever naming rules are created. Does that suggest a need for two different names -- one for roll your own animation and another for static couplers?

For older model that do have named parts for couplers -- quite probably the wrong names -- those might be brought into compliance by editing the matrix names found in the .s file.

[steamer_ctn]

 ATW, on 23 January 2020 - 09:53 AM, said:

Yes but what shall the name of the part be aka like "Bogie1" "Bogie2" "Wheels11" you know for orts to read the animation part by name?

I am sorry but I am not a modeller, so perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly.

I am not looking at a "sub-component" of a model as such, and therefore requiring a name for animation within the model structure. Instead I was looking at a stand alone model which would be added in a similar fashion to a "freight animation".

Thanks

[steved]

 steamer_ctn, on 23 January 2020 - 12:39 PM, said:

I am sorry but I am not a modeller, so perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly.

I am not looking at a "sub-component" of a model as such, and therefore requiring a name for animation within the model structure. Instead I was looking at a stand alone model which would be added in a similar fashion to a "freight animation".

Thanks

Coupler A and B.
B being on the same end as the brake wheel, the B end.

Steve

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

I'm going from recollection - in MSTS and I'm assuming it may be similar in ORTS - a "freight animation" had to be a single part or flat - meaning there could be no hierarchal structure to the shape - so if you have any intention of truly animating any part of the coupler this would need to be modified - as without a hierarchal structure (part groups) - I don't think you can have animation...

Regards,
Scott

[Genma Saotome]

 steamer_ctn, on 23 January 2020 - 12:39 PM, said:

I am sorry but I am not a modeller, so perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly.

I am not looking at a "sub-component" of a model as such, and therefore requiring a name for animation within the model structure. Instead I was looking at a stand alone model which would be added in a similar fashion to a "freight animation".

Thanks

Ok... one model facing one direction. Is it safe to assume you also have in mind a second .fa model facing the other way for the other coupler? If the software can move them individually as needed per some data in the .eng and/or .wag files that should work well enough. Or are you thinking of skipping the data in the file part and assuming a preset movement will do well enough? IMO a program coded distance should be avoided as cushioned couplers of any type do move a lot more than the common ones.

[steamer_ctn]

 Genma Saotome, on 23 January 2020 - 06:37 PM, said:

Ok... one model facing one direction. Is it safe to assume you also have in mind a second .fa model facing the other way for the other coupler? If the software can move them individually as needed per some data in the .eng and/or .wag files that should work well enough. Or are you thinking of skipping the data in the file part and assuming a preset movement will do well enough? IMO a program coded distance should be avoided as cushioned couplers of any type do move a lot more than the common ones.

I am currently thinking a coupler at either end of the car. I would try and use the coupler slack distance that already moves the cars closer or further apart as the coupler goes into compression or tension.

But until I get a shape, and some time to look into the code, I am not 100% certain what can be achieved without too much effort.

[mrmosky]

 scottb613, on 23 January 2020 - 05:04 PM, said:

Hi Folks,

I'm going from recollection - in MSTS and I'm assuming it may be similar in ORTS - a "freight animation" had to be a single part or flat - meaning there could be no hierarchal structure to the shape - so if you have any intention of truly animating any part of the coupler this would need to be modified - as without a hierarchal structure (part groups) - I don't think you can have animation...

Regards,
Scott

Hi Scott,

A freight animation can be animated, just like any other shape. I have done it.

geoff

[mrmosky]

Here's Tims coupler model, converted into a shape file (+sd file)

Is this what you need?

Geoff

Attached File(s)

•  tsmcplr1.zip (67.1K)
  Number of downloads: 294

[ErickC]

Query: will the coupler rotate? I presently slave my couplers to the trucks because any other method just looks wrong any time a curve enters the equation.

I also have a dimensionally-accurate AAR Type-E coupler. I can deliver it with an animated knuckle if so desired (if that's also under consideration). Even something as simple as having two coupler models - one open, one closed - that swap out depending on coupler state would be a big improvement.