gap between couplings
#11
Posted 12 August 2016 - 01:04 PM
Edward K.
#12
Posted 12 August 2016 - 04:29 PM
#13
Posted 12 August 2016 - 06:28 PM
Edward K.
#14
Posted 12 August 2016 - 11:00 PM
Hobo, on 11 August 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:
Please check your mailbox
ianmacmillan, on 12 August 2016 - 01:38 AM, said:
Thanks. An unexpected solution. Placing an "invisible car" between the locomotive and tender I think is not a good idea. I expect a tender as a second car does not function properly. The gap is at the front, but then you turn out the light problems ( incl. headlight on track). So it will have to be placed on the tender side. I will try it once soon .
slipperman, on 12 August 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:
Thank you for testing. Now I understand why I had no problems in MSTS...
I'm not sure, but I see in the default file the following lines:
CentreOfGravity ( 0m 2m -1.3m )
Centre ( 0m 0m -1.3m)
Is it just CentreOfGravity or maybe a combination with Centre? (Difference in MSTS or ORTS)
.
#15
Posted 13 August 2016 - 12:30 AM
#16
Posted 12 December 2016 - 06:25 AM
#17
Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:22 AM
slipperman, on 12 August 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:
As has been mentioned previously, it seems that the only way to correct it for the current version of OR is to modify the shape file. That doesn't seem to be the right way to go, because who knows how many other locos will have the same problem? Wouldn't it be better if OR read that entry and acted on it as MSTS does?
This should be fixed in X3693.
#18
Posted 15 December 2016 - 12:22 AM
Lindsay
#19
Posted 28 December 2016 - 01:56 AM
James Ross, on 12 December 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:
Just been dealing with an articulated locomotive that uses centreofgravity to position the lead section. This works fine in MSTS, but with the OR version of CofG, I have to subtract 2 meters to get it in the same place. Seems like the OR CofG is working in reverse when compared to MSTS because OR offsets the lead unit to the rear by those 2 meters'
#20
Posted 28 December 2016 - 08:50 AM
copperpen, on 28 December 2016 - 01:56 AM, said:
Hmm, strange. The CoG calculation in Open Rails is very simple: shift wagon by amount. The problem I found was that MSTS has a lot of interaction between Wagon>Size, Wagon>CentreOfGravity, and the bounding box of the shape. Lots of things I tried to experiment with just did garbage in MSTS or it ignored some settings, or even positioned everything visually where I expected but broke the couplings! I am pretty sure I got the direction right but if you have an example I can look at where it's deviating from MSTS, we can check.