[scottb613]

mrmosky, on 24 January 2020 - 08:10 AM, said:

Hi Scott,

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

geoff

Hi Geoff,

So my statement wasn't true for ORTS ? You can have hierarchical parts/groups in a freight animation ? I'm pretty sure I tested in MSTS and that didn't work...

Thanks for the clarification...

Regards,
Scott

[ErickC]

I've actually used a complete locomotive model as a freight shape in one test. I seem to remember OR handles the hierarchy just fine.

[steamer_ctn]

mrmosky, on 24 January 2020 - 08:17 AM, said:

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

Thanks for that. Is this supposed to be a S file, and the relevant textures?

It looks like the relevant raw 3D model file, is this correct?

[espee]

Peter,

Here are Tim's et al couplers as .S files.

CouplerA faces forward, CouplerB faces rearward. both are centred to World Zero or 0,0,0
so as to make it easier to make it any height required.

 Couplers.zip (18.86K)
Number of downloads: 309

[steamer_ctn]

espee, on 24 January 2020 - 07:18 PM, said:

Here are Tim's et al couplers as .S files.

CouplerA faces forward, CouplerB faces rearward. both are centred to World Zero or 0,0,0
so as to make it easier to make it any height required.

Thanks for that.

[mrmosky]

steamer_ctn, on 24 January 2020 - 03:33 PM, said:

Thanks for that. Is this supposed to be a S file, and the relevant textures?

It looks like the relevant raw 3D model file, is this correct?

Sorry, I attached the wrong file. I had converted the 3d model file into an .s and then I picked the wrong one.

Still, you now have the right thing from espee.

Cheers, Geoff

[steamer_ctn]

mrmosky, on 25 January 2020 - 02:45 AM, said:

Sorry, I attached the wrong file. I had converted the 3d model file into an .s and then I picked the wrong one.

Still, you now have the right thing from espee.

Thanks, no problems.

[jared2982]

I might be missing something but are we talking about OR adding a coupler FA to cars that already have couplers built into The model itself? Which every model to date does. It would seem that the logical approach would be the addition of an animated coupler to new models, or upgrade existing ones if the modeler chooses, with appropriate naming conventions. I guess I’m just not understanding how OR is supposed to handle the FA aspect when there are no models that are absent of couplers, and so many variations and sizes of couplers out there.

[steamer_ctn]

jared2982, on 25 January 2020 - 02:20 PM, said:

I might be missing something but are we talking about OR adding a coupler FA to cars that already have couplers built into The model itself? Which every model to date does. It would seem that the logical approach would be the addition of an animated coupler to new models, or upgrade existing ones if the modeler chooses, with appropriate naming conventions. I guess I’m just not understanding how OR is supposed to handle the FA aspect when there are no models that are absent of couplers, and so many variations and sizes of couplers out there.

I would envisage two scenarios:

i) New models - can be built without couplers, and a separate FA style coupler added. This coupler can be any shape that the modeler wishes to use. This would be the only way to cater for many different varieties of couplers.

ii) Existing models - the user can choose to overlay the existing coupler with a new FA style coupler, or not.

Depending upon the slack allowed in the train, it may not be necessary for this type of coupler to be configured. In closely coupled cars, or rigid couplers there probably won't be a need.

It is probably best to wait for a first beta release to see what this concept might look like in practice.

[jared2982]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand the possible benefit of the second option since I know many modelers would not go back and remove or update older models for for various reasons, and one of OR’s big selling points is the enormous content library inherited from MSTS. As a modeler or user I have personally never had a need to want to change a coupler that a model came with. I guess it just seems that this is something that should be part of the .s file too me. Either way do you intend to implement, or attempt to, knuckle that open when uncoupled? Also as a side note couplers that compress and stretch with various slack conditions also will require pin lifters (cut levers) that also move. Particularly on cars with long draw bars that have quite a bit of slack in them such as auto racks. I eagerly await your beta test to see how things will workout.