[Hannes44]

So now we are getting sophisticated selectors, the finest braking details, derailment calculations etc. but the panto-height of different models are all over the place. Most are to high, but all are different according to their respective modelers panto-philosophy. It looks ridiculous, when pantos "crash" through the catenary especially, when different locos in a frequented station do so at different heights. Is there a feasable, relatively easy to apply remedy for this, or do I have to live with this graphical abomination?

[Weter]

Guten tag.
As far, as I know, pantograph animation is two key frames (lowered and rised state positions), which are hardcoded in *.s file of locomotive model.
The speed of animation is defined in default.wag file of MSTS. Or maybe hardcoded in *.s-files as well - I'm not sure.
Furthermore, program doesn't take in account this animation speed, so author owe to define the proper delay manually (in case of ORTS, there are special parameters-see Manual) at model's *.eng-file for synchronization of moments, when panto is completely rised (so touched contact wire) and when program considers, that power is available.
So, sorry, but I can't say any positive answer to your question.
Let's wait for replies from other members together.

[keystoneaholic]

One of the problems is that, in the real world, catenery height varies enormously. As an example, on a single system (Indian Railways) the new freight trunk lines are intended for double stacked container trains which are the best part of 7 metres high, whilst on the majority of lines the train height is about 4.5 metres. The locomotives intended for use on the new freight lines have much larger pantographs to achieve the greater height but are still capable of running under the normal height catenery. In Europe the catenery height in the Channel Tunnel is higher than that on the 'conventional' lines in UK and France, to allow for the extra height of the vehicle carrying shuttle trains. This means that trains like Eurostar running through have to accommodate both heights. I have no doubt that there will be other equivalent examples around the world.

As far as I am aware, the height of catenery is fixed for a given route in MSTS / OR. Maybe we have to have a means of setting catenery height according to specific sections of track, together with a means of transitioning from one height to another in a gradual manner. In connection with this, the locomotive pantographs would have to adjust to suit the catenery height for the particular point of the track where they currently are.

It's easy to outline a requirement for this, but it will probably be a real pig to develop and code, and potentially heavy on the calculations needed! It probably means a new batch of variables as well.

To be honest I don't see this getting a high priority for development.

[Weter]

Quote

the height of catenery is fixed for a given route in MSTS / OR

Yes, that's so.

As an addition, i can say, that many route builders set wire's height to 500m for making it "invisible" (considering, this looks nasty) while planting modelled katenary. As an example, at 3kV stretches, where heavy trains run, double wire is used, as single 85mm² can't tolerate such currents.
Under old bridges and in some tunnels, the wire height are being decreased, sertainly.

Quote

To be honest I don't see this getting a high priority for development.

Maybe so, Rob, maybe so...

[Hannes44]

It would be great to have pantographs adjusting themselves to different catenary height, but that's not what I'm looking for. I wish, we had a way, to set a specific fixed height for pantographs to fit the norm height of the used route, maybe in the *.sd file e.g. pantoheight=5.5m. In most routes catenary height does not vary.

[QJ-6811]

I have already adapted many models, but it is always a bit of a puzzle..........
A short description from Steam4me site.

 Pantograph.txt (3.19K)
Number of downloads: 234


In short, calculate the angle (degrees) of the SIN and COS values in the .S file, and compare them on your screen image. Then adjust the angle slightly and calculate the SIN, COS again.
(You must first try out which angle is which..... (bottom, panto, top), with some locomotives this is different....!)

But I agree with you, it would be nice if this could be a little easier............... :D :sweatingbullets:

[Weter]

Hello.
So, *.s-file values must be adjusted, right?

[Genma Saotome]

 Weter, on 28 November 2021 - 09:29 AM, said:

Yes, that's so.

As an addition, i can say, that many route builders set wire's height to 500m for making it "invisible" (considering, this looks nasty) while planting modelled catenary.

Why would anyone do this? Why not just put in modeled wire so it looks good and stop there?

[Weter]

1. MSTS wire is thin, single, straight above straight sections and has nasty "ladders" above curved ones.
2. Real wire always placed in zig-zag manner at straight parts, at curved parts is straight from fixator to fixator, and is doubled in case of DC mainlines with intensive traffic of heavy trains.
3. It hang under holding rope, supported by strings, though "double contact wire" option of ORTS compensates that less or more satisfactory.

I'll look for pictures for you later.
https://www.google.r...bXHBKQQ_AUIBSgB

[Laci1959]

 Genma Saotome, on 29 November 2021 - 10:57 AM, said:

Why would anyone do this? Why not just put in modeled wire so it looks good and stop there?

Hello.

Because we are not the same. With us, track builders do not use the built overhead line. Except, of course, the Great Plain. If a simple player turns on the Overhead wire option, it won’t be ugly. That is, the overhead line generated by the program and the built overhead line are not visible at the same time because the height of the generated overhead line is 3000 meters on the Great Plain track.

Sincerely, Laci 1959