[mirekkr]

Thanks, Carlo.
What is the probability now? I mean: how many miles/hours am I to go to get a failure? (I expect I'll be busy testing for the whole Xmas :-) )
Going into it...

Mirek

[Csantucci]

The loco MTBF for randomizing level = 1 is 2 Million seconds of traction or dynamic braking, that is about 555 hours. So with your 5-hour activity you have about 1% of probability of getting a loco failure :) . I know real trains have better numbers, but inserting very real numbers would have been quite the same of not inserting probability at all.

[mirekkr]

ok.
(As I wrote: I've got a Xmas gift ...)

Thanks,
Mirek

[Csantucci]

Patch committed in x.4013.

[mirekkr]

Partial report:
After 6 hours of driving, with Activity randomizing set to 3, no failures (loco or wags) occured yet...

(Thanks for commiting.)

Mirek

[Icik]

Carlo, can you get pls this patch in to the version of MG 3.6?

[Csantucci]

OK, go to the OR MG thread and you'll get the Christmas gift...

[ATW]

Questions

1. On level 3 no failures are to happen beyond 6 hours and what do each level have on the minimum time for random failures?

2. Are there any additional failures to be implemented or considered?

[Csantucci]

1. At level 1 there is every second 1 probability over 2Million to have a loco failure. Such probability is multiplied with the number of locos in the player train. At level 2 there are every second 7 probabilities over 2Million, and at level 3 there are 29 probabilities over 2Million.
2. At the moment no.

[ATW]

Csantucci, on 25 December 2017 - 12:35 PM, said:

1. At level 1 there is every second 1 probability over 2Million to have a loco failure. Such probability is multiplied with the number of locos in the player train. At level 2 there are every second 7 probabilities over 2Million, and at level 3 there are 29 probabilities over 2Million.
2. At the moment no.

Oh thanks for info, I see now. I am at 4017 as there is no build update available for 4018 an thought level 3 limited it by many hours of no failures. But trying it out again I see failures still come soon like before depending how long your braking, in traction etc which is good for testing.

But I do have a couple of suggestions an ideas since I mentioned early before if parameters can make specific units to have the failure over others but there is an alternate to that for responsible activity creators.


If you ever make additional thoughts on additional failures I am sure some of us would like to see:

Flat Spots: Caused by wheel skids, heavy braking for long length of time or stuck brakes causing a bumpy shaky rounds of vibration on effected cars/locos acting like they going over switches.
Engine Fires: Similar to compressor failures but random by traction or engine overloads too long or intentional by engine temperatures which later needs tweaks in heating an cooling systems.
Brake Pipe holes: Random for cars/locos by set an releases of train brakes or heavy BP charging systems being too strong.
Locked Axles: Similar to both stuck brakes an bogie failure but locos having traction motors on a bogie stuck not revving properly and brakes set. Solver would be to bleed the locomotive brakes an turn off.
Shifted loads: Random for cars/locos around curves to have loads shift to a side since high center level of gravity cars are known to have loads sway on curves an shift left or right an detectors detect them leaning on straight rail.

Regardless if the additional future of failures will be considered or not, I would like to see my idea for intentional failures in activity mode be of help. We already had James in post #49 mention about having a future with defect detectors which made me come up with an idea to make that possible for intentional events since we can add .wav files or just a message in location events. But it's not just location events triggering this but is triggered by the authors path an special waiting point shunts to trigger these failures intentionally with users not expecting it on first try because of no warnings.

Example with the existing default activity in Marias Pass "Auto Train With Setout" the scenario is to setout a hotbox/hot wheel autorack that was intentionally a challenge but nothing really wrong with the autorack unless you were me changing the intentional autorack car number in a con file with a defective auto as a eng file spewing steam smoke on the axle, stuck brake, an having a glowing fire like light. Instead how about have a special waiting point codes like the AI shunt when telling which car to pickup/drop off but telling which car/loco in route to give the chosen failure code to of authors choosing and own sound responsibility to trigger detector sounds or triggered messages. On harmless no failure runs, the train clearing up the detector already has an opportunity upon building a activity to trigger messages/.wav when train length, axles, temperature and speeds has cleared a detector briefing as I do have a automated voice that speaks what I types an records them.

Message or .wav file, the author is a pro of placing events at the right location at an after detectors distance as well as placing the waiting point failure codes on path like stuck brakes, applied handbrake on activity start departures then detectors or inspectors catching it soon or later based on speed heating axles/box or other failures for even chosen engine.