[dforrest]

WaltN, on 11 September 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Why not a test route with just straight sections? No scenery, no structures, just grades of different amounts at defined locations. Small enough for a manageable download on Elvas Tower. (Every time you place a curve on a route you downgrade the grade. This is because MSTS track sections are rigid bodies and don't climb as far as you think they do. This effect is small for gentle curves. Lay in a 90-degree curve of dynamic track, elevate it, and look at the angle on the far end. It will be horizontal, meaning level. Add another dynamic track subsection with another 90-degree curve and you'll end up at the same elevation as you started.)

As noted here:

Lindsayts, on 05 September 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Peter (Steamer_ctn) has a test route on his Coals to Newcastle web site specificly for testing OR/MSTS loco performance see

http://www.coalstone...u/physics/test/

Lindsay

David

[steamer_ctn]

Lindsayts, on 05 September 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Peter (Steamer_ctn) has a test route on his Coals to Newcastle web site specificly for testing OR/MSTS loco performance see

http://www.coalstone...u/physics/test/

Lindsay

I would be interested in:

i) adding to this route if there is an interest and a need for extra functionality
ii) receiving suggestions and information to be added to the Test webpage to help people to better test their stock.

Cheers

Peter

[copperpen]

steamer_ctn, on 12 September 2013 - 02:21 AM, said:

I would be interested in:

i) adding to this route if there is an interest and a need for extra functionality
ii) receiving suggestions and information to be added to the Test webpage to help people to better test their stock.

Cheers

Peter

Your test route as it stands is great for testing on grades, but probably needs maybe a couple of extra lower graded hills to climb. There were not many grades here in the UK like the two you already have. For distance testing I am using the test route from Trainsim.com that has a 15 mile oval with three short grades in the centre linked to the oval.

Mervyn

[steamer_ctn]

Hi Mervyn,

copperpen, on 13 September 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

Your test route as it stands is great for testing on grades, but probably needs maybe a couple of extra lower graded hills to climb. There were not many grades here in the UK like the two you already have. For distance testing I am using the test route from Trainsim.com that has a 15 mile oval with three short grades in the centre linked to the oval.

What would the typical ruling gradient be in the uk?

Thanks

[copperpen]

Difficult to say. It would depend on which section of line you were on and where it was in the country. The Devon Banks are quite severe, there is Lickey, Shap, Settle & Carlisle northbound, the section north of Essendine on the East coast line, the list goes on. Still, for UK purposes, 0.5%, 0.75%, 0.95% and probably 1.25% would deal with most hard climbs. It there is also the element of distance in these climbs.

[rdamurphy]

copperpen, on 05 September 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

In the SteamLocomotive.cs there is a line dealing with steam usage

SteamUsageFactor = 2 * NumCylinders * 3.281f * CylinderDiameterM / 2 * 3.281f * CylinderDiameterM / 2 * 3.281f * CylinderStrokeM / (2 * DriverWheelRadiusM)

There's a rather obvious error in this formula: Every value is converted from metric to feet except for DriversWheelRadiusM - which is in meters (hence the "m".

In addition, each cylinder fills twice and makes 2 power strokes for every revolution of the wheel. Is that why there's a 2 * before DriverWheelRadiusM?

I think that this could be much better written, much more clearly:

And the formula for the volume of a cylinder is PI * Radius^2 * Height.

SteamUsageFactor = 4 * (NumCylinders * ( Math.Pi * ( 3.281f * CylinderDiameterM /2 ) * ( 3.281f * CylinderDiameterM / 2 ) ) * ( 3.281f * CylinderStrokeM )) / DriverWheelRadiusM * 3.281f;

And, yes, I know this code won't compile, Math.Pi must be cast...

Robert

[rdamurphy]

Just for grins, I changed this equation in OR, and the results were amazing! I could start the Berkshire with about 50% cutoff and 50% throttle with nothing on the drawbar, and drop the throttle almost immediately back to 30% and steam usage dropped quickly below generation.

I believe someone's working on this, I'll send them a message and see if they want to try this...

Robert

[Lindsayts]

rdamurphy, on 23 September 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

There's a rather obvious error in this formula: Every value is converted from metric to feet except for DriversWheelRadiusM - which is in meters (hence the "m".

In addition, each cylinder fills twice and makes 2 power strokes for every revolution of the wheel. Is that why there's a 2 * before DriverWheelRadiusM?

I think that this could be much better written, much more clearly:

And the formula for the volume of a cylinder is PI * Radius^2 * Height.

SteamUsageFactor = 4 * (NumCylinders * ( Math.Pi * ( 3.281f * CylinderDiameterM /2 ) * ( 3.281f * CylinderDiameterM / 2 ) ) * ( 3.281f * CylinderStrokeM )) / DriverWheelRadiusM * 3.281f;

And, yes, I know this code won't compile, Math.Pi must be cast...

Robert

Thats not an error (I think) SteamUsageFactor is the volume of the cylinder in cubic feet used per __metre__ of the travel of the machine see line 582 and 545. The variable "speed" is in metres/sec.

Lindsay