[Kazareh]

As title says, that doesn't do jack anymore.. I would ask to know why this was removed from ORTS with no mention in the patch notes, and B: If it could be re-implemented to work anywhere, as that can be an invaluable tool for folks like myself whom are learning how to code Steam Physics in the .eng files, and really helps when testing a steam engine.

[copperpen]

Far as I know the T key is still there. It was removed from moving steam engines because the Y key is now active for track pan pickup.

[captain_bazza]

I assume it (Y) works for water vats and water spigots, too?

Cheers Bazza.

[copperpen]

No Bazza, the Y key is purely for track pans ( water troughs ). Other refill sources are activated using the T key.

[Csantucci]

What has been removed after approval in this forum is unconditional fillig outside of a pickup point.

[Kazareh]

Csantucci, on 31 October 2015 - 08:56 AM, said:

What has been removed after approval in this forum is unconditional fillig outside of a pickup point.

And I highly disagree with that, as I work on steam physics coding, and a good bit of the steamers blow through their water way too fast, and not all routes -have- steam fill-up points either. Not to mention I am pretty sure those only work in Activity mode as well, as I tested with the ones on the Monon 2 route and they did -not- work. Such as the one at Cedar Lake. That is a serious detriment to what I do, and is rapidly making me lose interest in correcting steam physics to bring them from MSTS to ORTS Standards. If you must, add a checkbox in the options panel so folks can enable/disable that option. There is a balance you should keep between realism, and things that are non realistic. And when adhering to the former hurts folks, then, that's a problem. ORTS in general should be fun, not a chore to run because it's 'super-realistic'. If I wanted that, I'd go with something like Run8.

[atsf37l]

I also highly disagree. As originally issued, the T key no long paid attention to the fill point on the tender as specified by the .eng file. You had to put the middle of the boiler under the spout like all engines were tank engines. This was unacceptable but no one seemed to want to fix it.

My solution was to shut down the pickup - changing it to 'gravel' and 'broken' at each tank and spout - then using the T key when actually stopping for water. Now you are telling me that the latest version takes away that functionality? Great. Just great. :thumbdown3:

Kindly show me the reference to where that was approved on this forum, if you please. :bigboss:

[midneguy]

I have to agree with Herb's comments... Besides being a problem on routes where the coal towers and water tanks may not actually be functional, this will also negatively impact anyone that wants to run steam on a modern route. This may be because they want to run modern day excursion trains, or in most cases where a modern version of a given route is the only option available. I don't like the idea of having to edit routes just to make them steamer friendly, or in the case of modern routes having to put in facilities that aren't there in the modeled era simply to be able to support running steam if one wants to.

I'd agree that it should be left as an option to allow steam refueling / re-watering "anywhere" to be on or off if one desires. This would solve the problem of running on modern routes or where the facilities don't work for whatever reason :)

[James Ross]

atsf37l, on 31 October 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:

You had to put the middle of the boiler under the spout like all engines were tank engines. This was unacceptable but no one seemed to want to fix it.

If the data is actually correct in the engine file, that should be fixed, pure and simple. Please make a bug report or highlight an existing one.

As for removing refilling away from any fuel points, this was expected and discussed - the ability to refuel away from any fuel points was always a temporary solution - and I do not recall anybody making any concerns about this until now. I find the tone of this thread a bit frustrating, but here's what we can do:

• If fuel pickup is ignoring position information in the engine file, we should fix it.
  
• If fuel pickup isn't working outside activities, we should fix it.
  
• If people still need to ignore fuel limits/refuelling for testing purposes or for badly-made routes, we can add an option to do that.

[Kazareh]

James Ross, on 31 October 2015 - 04:18 PM, said:

[*]If people still need to ignore fuel limits/refuelling for testing purposes or for badly-made routes, we can add an option to do that.
[/list]

That is definitely needed, James. Please go up and read midneguy's comments. That is a major issue, for sure. For example, say I want to run the SP Daylight with 4449, from Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo, on the Surfliner 2. To make it 'Steam Friendly', I would need to edit in fuel/water points along the route and thus not only ruining a modern appearance of the route[Or having to make a separate 'Past' version of the route taking up further disc space], or, find a way to edit the .eng file so it has a absurdly low/almost non-existent coal/water consumption. Neither of which are very good options, at all.

Further comes for as-stated, excursion runs. I also as stated cannot get the water/coal intake to work in Explore mode, and if I am testing a steamer then I Shouldn't -have- to go through the hassle of making an activity[which I cannot without an ORTS Activity Editor], or a Timetable just to test a steam locomotive; sequentially, that would also mean just to get the refueling option, folks would have to potentially make 3 timetables per-route. One for 'Modern', one for 'past'. And a potential third for 'Excursion' as well. Timetable making is, even with the program for it, rather tedious and time-consuming, and does for me at least kill my desire to run the sim after creating timetables, which while may not be that bad for small/basic routes such as, say, the ATSF Clovis Sub, routes such as the Surfliner 2, Pennsylvania Railroad Eastern Region, Monon 2? That is a very big headache..

All in all, as quoted from you above, that is the best option to take in my opinion and it seems that is also backed by midneguy and Herb. I've found the 'refuel anywhere' option to be a necessity running Steam on the PRR ER between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg in the mountains, and like heck I am gonna be making activities/timetables for that monstrous route.


I would like to kindly ask that, the above option be implemented. As for tone of this thread, I cannot speak for others; but I was merely voicing some frustrations in a[at least what was meant to be] respectful manner, if it came off otherwise then I do so apologize.