[Lindsayts]

I wonder would it be worth while having a forum just to provide details of OR's advances in the eng file and the basic principles behind why a paramater should be a particular value. Few appear to be interested in this VERY important area and an accurate eng file has developed into some thing of a "black" art as a result of lack of understanding in basic principles.

With OR V0700 it is possible to get quite a good reasonably accurate performing (superheated) steamer, with proper power output and almost correct water consumption under a wide range of conditions, something simply not possible under MSTS, but there is no "central" location where all who wish to find said information can look.

Lindsay

[Shay 5]

Oh please??? I'm in. This is something that would help probably a lot of folks out, me included.

[captain_bazza]

It is further complicated by the fact that some bits of the ENG are used, but other bits refer to OR coding which comes into play when running the vehicle in Open Rails.

There hasn't been much discussion recently on matters physics. I can see this is going to be an ongoing development. I'm in agreement for a special physics forum at some stage.

Cheers Bazza

[Matej Pacha]

The physics in the ENG file should and it will be well documented. At this time all the physics is something sticked on the old MSTS style to test what we can do. Now, you can experience a very basic model, something like what MSTS does (except of steam locos). But there are new parameters and features in a testing process, to be implemented in the new ORTS ENG file structure. You've been already in touch with some of these features - e.g. diesel smoke effects. We cannot open these parameters for public because of good reasons
- we are not sure about MSTS compatibility with these new parameters (extended ENG file will not work in MSTS probably)
- we are working on the new physics based on a modular structure - something completely different that MSTS offers. Thus any of the settings would have to be rebuilt into the new format.
- every parameter needs to be documented. This is a 10x more work than writing a code. ORTS is a free-time activity, especially for me. This is why I need to be sure that the feature is what it is supposed to be, before I create a documentation. As I wrote - the new ORTS ENG file and model structure is about to be implemented and any documentation of the old style parameters is useless.

If I were you, I would be very curious and impatient. But if you were me, you'd be careful as I am. We have many aplha testers - professionals volunteering for ORTS so don't worry - every feature is tested well. After we have a stable beta, the testing is on you. We apreciate your interest and work, it is necessary to test the new features with your trainsets. Just be patient ;-)

Regards,

Matej

[captain_bazza]

Thank you for the update, Matej.

Cheers Bazza

[Lindsayts]

Matej Pacha said,

"We have many aplha testers - professionals volunteering for ORTS"


Are good. I no longer have to bother writing up my test results for the rolling stock for the up comming release, that WILL save a bit of time not to say angst.

Lindsay

[Lindsayts]

Matej Pacha, on 10 September 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

The physics in the ENG file should and it will be well documented. At this time all the physics is something sticked on the old MSTS style to test what we can do. Now, you can experience a very basic model, something like what MSTS does (except of steam locos). But there are new parameters and features in a testing process, to be implemented in the new ORTS ENG file structure. You've been already in touch with some of these features - e.g. diesel smoke effects. We cannot open these parameters for public because of good reasons
- we are not sure about MSTS compatibility with these new parameters (extended ENG file will not work in MSTS probably)
- we are working on the new physics based on a modular structure - something completely different that MSTS offers. Thus any of the settings would have to be rebuilt into the new format.
- every parameter needs to be documented. This is a 10x more work than writing a code. ORTS is a free-time activity, especially for me. This is why I need to be sure that the feature is what it is supposed to be, before I create a documentation. As I wrote - the new ORTS ENG file and model structure is about to be implemented and any documentation of the old style parameters is useless.

If I were you, I would be very curious and impatient. But if you were me, you'd be careful as I am. We have many aplha testers - professionals volunteering for ORTS so don't worry - every feature is tested well. After we have a stable beta, the testing is on you. We apreciate your interest and work, it is necessary to test the new features with your trainsets. Just be patient ;-)

Regards,

Matej

I apologise in advance if this reply sounds WAY to negative............

You have miss understood what I was asking for, please read the first post more carefully without assuming what answer is required.

It is clear that few in the community understand machinery physics in general and the physics of rail rolling stock in particular. Of the around a dozen or so steam locos I have downloaded all the eng files had to be modified to give anything like a realistic peformance. While OR (0.7) uses MSTS eng files OR itself uses more of the parameters than MSTS and has enhanced quite a few others. This makes OR only sort of compatible to MSTS. This does not improve the situation at all.

Hardly anyone appears to understand locos well enough to set up a real good eng file, making things more complex to allow greater accuracy while much approved of by this writer will only make the situation worse. What I would like to see is a forum to be able to explain some of the parameters such as the very much missunderstood parameter "power" to enable a better understanding and hopefully allow more of the rolling stock creators to produce more realisticly performing rolling stock.

Sadly I have regarded this for some time now as an impossible dream as few are even willing to consider the idea. Of three attempts (two by me one by another, so I am not the only one) to set up such forums this is the only one to get a single positive response (shay 5's), so such a forum will unlikely serve any usefull purpose :scarerun: :bigboss: :lol:.

Note 1: Most rolling stock come with a restrictive intellectual property rights licence, this restricts one from modifying/correcting the eng file and redisributing it. Interestingly 4 MSTS model builders disagreed with me on this saying the licence only covered the model itselfs shape and texture files. The problem with this stance is that the cabview and eng files do NOT have an exclusion clause in the licence. I sort a legal opinion on this and it said that that means the cabview and eng files were covered by the IPR doc and there fore cannot be modified and redistributed.

Lindsay

[thegrindre]

I believe the issue is of complicated math work. I only passed basic math, myself. The only newton I ever knew was Alfred E. I couldn't put together a .wag file if my life depended on it. Let alone an .eng file.
It's far far too complicated for most of us, IMO.

:scarerun:

[captain_bazza]

Open Rails is being developed as a train simmer's train sim. There has to be a fiddle factor, because some of us will want to experiment in order to learn and understand. That's what we've done for years with MSTS and even with its fudged logic we managed to achieve good performance when dealing with known prototypical performance.

MSTS survived so long because it was so fiddleable and tweakable.

Cheers Bazza