[dforrest]

Is there any way to stop the hundreds (thousands?) of "A virtual wheel axle was added" entries being added to the log file? We all know about them and no one seems to know how to correct them!

[darwins]

Firstly I am not sure why virtual wheels and axles or virtual bogies need to be added. Why can't the simulator handle four wheel wagons, six wheel wagons or even eight wheel cars that have radial axles rather than bogies? Even if all the virtual things do need to be added to make the simulation work, then yes please, let us remove the error messages!

[Laci1959]

 darwins, on 08 May 2022 - 09:48 PM, said:

Firstly I am not sure why virtual wheels and axles or virtual bogies need to be added. Why can't the simulator handle four wheel wagons, six wheel wagons or even eight wheel cars that have radial axles rather than bogies? Even if all the virtual things do need to be added to make the simulation work, then yes please, let us remove the error messages!

Hello.

There are a thousand and one reasons for this.

One of many reasons. There are two-axle old vehicles where the bearing was loosely fitted into the bearing fork. With this design, the bike was able to stand in a radial direction in small radius curves. In MSTS times, this was defined as a single axle bogie. Virtual bogie because no shape is added.
I read many years ago that the OR only knows two bogies, with two axles per bogie. Which is less of a mistake.

Sincerely, Laci 1959

Post scriptum:

There are steam locomotives where the end axles can move sideways to adjust the arc. In the case of the E-axis arrangement, it was common to thin or omit the track flange for the same reason. This should also have an effect on the glide coefficient.
There are Swiss and Russian electric locomotives with three bogies. I don’t know how it works, but I think the middle bogie could move along that X-axis in that arc.

[Laci1959]

https://kephost.net/p/2022/19/9750_77c0a0f65b60.png
Another reason out of a thousand. FILRT EMU relies on Jacobs bogies. OR still doesn't know that. Or if you know then this is carefully kept secret.

https://kephost.net/p/2022/19/8349_1557e6bd2d1f.png
Caption: Jacobs bogie close up. The two car ends rest on a bogie.

https://kephost.net/p/2022/19/8661_0cc2f0ca930f.png
Caption: Unwind first image. The need for a virtual bogie and bike is clearly visible.

https://kephost.net/p/2022/19/2958_f7e74cac4cea.png
Caption: Disassemble second image.

https://kephost.net/p/2022/19/8925_fac977bfd153.png
Caption: The last image of the disassembly.

	Coupling (
		Type ( Bar )
		Spring (
			Stiffness ( 1E7N/m 1E7N/m )
			Damping ( 2E6N/m/s 2E6N/m/s )
			Break ( 3E7N 3E7N )
			r0 ( 3cm 13cm )
		)
		CouplingHasRigidConnection ( 1 )
	)
	Coupling (
		Type ( Automatic )
		Spring (
			Stiffness ( 1E7N/m 1E7N/m )
			Damping ( 2E6N/m/s 2E6N/m/s )
			Break ( 1.7E7N 1.7E7N )
			r0 ( 18cm 28cm )
		)
		CouplingHasRigidConnection ( 1 )
		Velocity ( 1.4m/s )
	)

The above code includes the Type (Bar) setting. If that worked, I wouldn't have been able to tear up EMU like that. According to the original MSTS logic, the first Coupling entry refers to the rear of the vehicle and the second to the front of the vehicle. That worked well in that game. The motor train could not be dismantled so nicely. I have a conjecture that only the last of the two entries is taken into account, so a vehicle can have only one switch structure. UNFORTUNATELY.

A Coupling (
		Type ( Automatic )
....
		CouplingUniqueType ( FLIRT )
)

The CouplingUniqueType () line has been added to the Coupling entry. This was important because it only allowed the same type to be connected. Both FLIRT and DESIRO use Scharfenbergkupplung, but in reality they cannot be connected due to the different heights. In MSTS, not because the difference in the CouplingUniqueType entry did not allow it. However, it was not possible to hook the Type (Automatic) car to the Type (Chain) car. Type (Bar) was a switch structure that could not be disassembled during the game.
But it's all over. UNFORTUNATELY.

Sorry for the bitter, ironic style.

[R H Steele]

Searching the forum using "virtual wheel axle" I found this from 2019:
Posted 18 March 2019 - 10:44 AM

 dforrest, on 18 March 2019 - 09:44 AM, said:

Can anyone enlighten me on the meaning of "A virtual wheel axle was added for bogie xxx" repeated very many times in the log attached to the above post.

 copperpen, on 18 March 2019 - 12:14 PM, said:

Many UK 4 wheel wagons for MSTS were built with two single axle bogies for proper tracking round curves. Open Rails requires two axles per bogie so adds a virtual axle to each single axle bogie it finds.

I agree that the warning in the log should be less verbose...concerning that, do you have the Verbose Eng Wag configuration messages checked in the Data Logger tab?

[Laci1959]

 R H Steele, on 08 May 2022 - 11:19 PM, said:

I agree that the warning in the log should be less verbose...concerning that, do you have the Verbose Eng Wag configuration messages checked in the Data Logger tab?

Need to alert the average user? Is this warning necessary at all?
The vehicle manufacturer chose this solution for a good reason.

[Laci1959]

Quote

Information: Number of Wagon Axles set to default value of 3
Information: Number of Wagon Axles set to default value of 2
Information: Number of Wagon Axles set to default value of 2
Information: Number of Wagon Axles set to default value of 4

If I turned on the specified option, these messages did not appear. This message is new to me, and I will follow it. Unfortunately, a lot of makers are no longer available, so the vehicle cannot be repaired. This is a mistake to live with or seek other occupation. Unfortunately, since the release of 1.4, this is a real thing.

Quote

Information: A virtual wheel axle was added for bogie 1 of D:\Train Simulator\trains\trainset\...

This message appeared in both cases.

[R H Steele]

The log message is informational, not a fatal error, all the lines in the log are essentially clutter, makes it hard to find and diagnose a real problem ( if there is one ) and so should be reduced. There was some discussions about doing this...but I cannot find the thread.

[Laci1959]

I know it doesn’t belong here, but it also adds such messages to steam locomotives. Maybe two. I tried to read afterwards to fix the locomotives, but found nothing anywhere. So if there is an actual debugging then I don’t use a steam locomotive.

[dforrest]

 R H Steele, on 09 May 2022 - 06:58 AM, said:

The log message is informational, not a fatal error, all the lines in the log are essentially clutter, makes it hard to find and diagnose a real problem ( if there is one ) and so should be reduced. There was some discussions about doing this...but I cannot find the thread.

Can an Open Rails option to ignore this error be added?