[SP 0-6-0]

Tank engine do not use tenders. So Istenderrequired(0) locomotive is tank engine.

Now sometimes tenders are used with certain tank engines so the opton to use Istenderrequired(1) locomotive requires a tender.

Robert

[conductorchris]

Robert, the problem with your approach is that the use of an auxiliary tender is not a constant for a locomotive. One trip it might have one and the next not.
Christopher

[SP 0-6-0]

Chris, Not a problem. I just have not gotten that far. Obviously some method of making ORTS smart enough to be able to add and subtract the water tender is needed. The idea of coding it so the tender is a fixed permanent coupled tender is not my idea nor do I approve of the concept. However, This would have been the way MSTS would have done it if the option had been available. Now the trick is figuring out how to improve on the concept for ORTS?

Robert

[James Ross]

SP 0-6-0, on 28 February 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

Obviously some method of making ORTS smart enough to be able to add and subtract the water tender is needed. The idea of coding it so the tender is a fixed permanent coupled tender is not my idea nor do I approve of the concept. However, This would have been the way MSTS would have done it if the option had been available. Now the trick is figuring out how to improve on the concept for ORTS?

The way I see it working is for the locomotive's available fuel to be the sum of:

• Any fuel it can carry itself
  
• Any fuel carried by adjacent (behind only) tenders.

Since we know which train cars are tenders, this is probably "easy". Of course, we should probably only calculate which cars count for each locomotive when the train changes and not every time we check the fuel level, but in theory it means there's no need to hand-code all these "aux tender" things currently in the code.