[NickonWheels]

http://www.elvastowe...eenshot&id=2897
File Name: New friction calculator
File Submitter: NickonWheels
File Submitted: 04 Aug 2020
File Category: Computer Utilities

This is a new calculation tool for rolling stock friction settings based around the extension of the appropriate code to facilitate values given by individual users. As of today it only works for static weights. This is mostly intended as a guide, if you think the values are wrong you can just change them to whatever suits. You can just ignore ORTSBearingType when using ORTSStandstillFriction (default unit is newton but can use 'lb') and ORTSMergeSpeed (default unit is meters per second but can use 'mph' and 'kph'). Sample picture provided; was previously uploaded to the thread concerning said code extension.

Click here to download this file

[Aldarion]

I'm certainly going to give this a try.
I give much empashys on these sort of figures to keep my rolling stock properly configured.

[Aldarion]

It is very practical, I must say.
Will it saty has it is or will you be adding more features and options in the future?

[NickonWheels]

 Aldarion, on 06 August 2020 - 06:19 AM, said:

Will it saty has it is or will you be adding more features and options in the future?

Probably not; or do you suggest something is missing?

[Aldarion]

Well. I've been using some spreadsheets from version 1 of Friction Calculator.
On those spread shhets i had some interesting variants taken into account like trailing and non-trailing vehicles and diferent C values for lelectric locomotives with raised pantographs.
And actually I feel i could use the estimation of the frontal area from the actual loco's dimensions...
.. so I was just wondering if this handy tool would get a bit more complex or not.

[NickonWheels]

For the three Davis lines you could of course still use FCalC if you prefer that, but it won´t put out the newer lines. Finding out what values FCalc puts out as starting friction is basicly trial and error.

Merge speed is maybe not existent as friction changes rapidly when a given vehicle got into motion; is this regard for mimicing FCalc behavior ORTSMergeSpeed ( 0.000001 ) might be the solution. If ORTSMergeSpeed is missing ORTS basicly reverts to ORTSBearingType ( Friction ) as a default setting.

About the raised pantograph there is no such feature in ORTS currently.

[dcarleton]

Is there a tool for determining what to put on the ORTSAdhesion line?

[NickonWheels]

 dcarleton, on 07 August 2020 - 04:38 PM, said:

Is there a tool for determining what to put on the ORTSAdhesion line?

I don´t know because I never used that line. Does it really impact the wheelslip characteristics? The manual is quite complicated on this.

[conductorchris]

Can you explain for the confused (me) what this does differently or better than FCalc?

[NickonWheels]

You can define every value with this and FClaC could still be used for the Davis lines. However FCalC (referring to the MSTS friction settings) puts out data as a rigid system where just slightly changing one number could lead to not defineable values (at least ORTS says so in the HUD) i.e. disappearing axles.

Also quick reminder the friction code extension and this tool are different things, one enables to write down values the other just calculates those values. What is duly better is you can select what unit of measurement you need as FCalC is set on metric/US units seperately.

In this regard the revised code alone is more of a replacement for ORTSBearingType which is even more rigid than FCalC, having only three options and some complicated code which to me looked simplistic and unrealistic. In the end friction values may be subjective and I´m not arguing with anybody that such rigid and/or obsolete systems have any advantage. Maybe a simpler version only calculating ORTSStandstillFriction and ORTSMergeSpeed would be an idea but the value input fields, unit selection buttons etc are still the same.