[Genma Saotome]

There remains a very important problem: Many compound locomotives are built with multiple .s files and each of those ./s files has its own .eng or .wag file. I don't think anyone can ever get the performance right in that situation no matter what kind of locomotive it is.

IMO the solution is to provide the means to use one .eng file for the assembly of one locomotive from several .s files. That would result in one .eng file so everything related to power, weight, etc. etc., is one place as it it should be. I don't know if the .fa method would work or whether something new needs to be done (the likely gotcha here is bogies appearing in different .s files). But until that problem is fixed there are a whole lot of locomotives whose performance will remain completely funky at best.

[copperpen]

That is something I suggested some time ago, but at that time it gained very little support. The same would apply to all multi part model locomotives where the power is split among several parts of what in real life is a single unit. Articulated steam both simple and compound, the Milwaukee boxcabs and the Baldwin Centipedes come to mind for starters.

[RTP]

About one year ago, I proposed:

"Add in the wagon section of the loco.eng:

ORTSCarriages (
(
Pivot ( x.x y.y z.z )
Shape ( "shape.s")
ShapePivot ( x.x y.y z.z )
Flip ( 0 )
)
(
Pivot ( x.x y.y z.z )
Shape ( "othershape.s")
ShapePivot ( x.x y.y z.z )
Flip ( 1 )
)
)

Where x.x <> 0.0 allows for some lateral displacement.
That is useful for three trucks locos, where the central one have this movement.
"

Perhaps this proposal needs more discussion, but is a solution for most of the articulated locos, steeamers, electrics or diesel.

Regards.

[xavivilla]

Sorry, but i´m talking about Compound locomotives, not articulated. In my case, studing 242 A1 of Mr. Chapelón. I think you know this real prototype. It is very sad look the HUD of this engine and verify "0" value Indicated power, with locomotive running. This is the cause I think we are finding with a bug, for compound locomotives in general.
And I propose another question: Really do you think is the indicated power well calculated in modern steam locomotives? In this case, appears in HUD 2394 kW calculated power, but this engine had a performance of 3560kW. Not maximun, of course.
Well, you can see there are some new questions to discuss...

[copperpen]

Both items are under investigation. I also realise that you are not referring to an articulated locomotive, but this is a forum for discussion, and discussions do sometimes diverge from the original subject.

[Genma Saotome]

My bad. I assumed any locomotive with 4 cylinders would be articulated and -- and consequently for MSTS/OR built in multiple .s files.

[xavivilla]

copperpen, on 29 March 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

Both items are under investigation. I also realise that you are not referring to an articulated locomotive, but this is a forum for discussion, and discussions do sometimes diverge from the original subject.

Thank you. Hopefully we can find a solution to this problem soon

Genma Saotome, on 29 March 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

My bad. I assumed any locomotive with 4 cylinders would be articulated and -- and consequently for MSTS/OR built in multiple .s files.

Do not worry, nobody is free of confusion.

[copperpen]

Genma Saotome, on 29 March 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

My bad. I assumed any locomotive with 4 cylinders would be articulated and -- and consequently for MSTS/OR built in multiple .s files.

Jon Davis made several GN articulated and a B&O one, all one piece models. Several UK express steam locomotives also had 4 cylinders, but were not articulated. There were some articulated locomotives used in the UK, but they were freight locos and of the garret type, not Mallet style.

[xavivilla]

Good morning.
Using steam locomotives we can discover what I think they are some mistakes in this type of engines. For instance...
Is it posible that the "blowback" effect doesn't appears inside the tunnels? yes, we could test whatever activity with tunnels, and this effect doesn't exist. I hope you are thinking to keep in mind by the future.

Are you thougth in steam locomotives feed with diésel, not only with coal? In last age of steam, USA an Europe used this locomotives, that were easier to drive and manage by the fireman. In this case, the "blowback" effect doesn´t exist, y we could maintain feeding inside the tunnels. I hope, again, you are thinking to keep in mind for the simulator.

Thank you very much.

[xavivilla]

Good morning.
Here I copy a screenshot where we can watch what I think is a mistake: Would you see in reverse mode a disparity of indicated power and traction effort?
Thanks.

http://www.railclub.org/xavivilla/imagen/Open_Rails_2017-07-14 12-42-41.jpg

[steamer_ctn]

xavivilla, on 14 July 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

Here I copy a screenshot where we can watch what I think is a mistake: Would you see in reverse mode a disparity of indicated power and traction effort?

This should be now corrected in #3901.

Please confirm

Thanks

[xavivilla]

steamer_ctn, on 14 July 2017 - 10:38 PM, said:

This should be now corrected in #3901.

Please confirm

Thanks

New versión X3901 works correctly. Mistake is missing.
Thank you very much.