Train Slack Any model builders who can assist?
#11
Posted 23 January 2020 - 09:56 AM
#12
Posted 23 January 2020 - 10:12 AM
For older model that do have named parts for couplers -- quite probably the wrong names -- those might be brought into compliance by editing the matrix names found in the .s file.
#13
Posted 23 January 2020 - 12:39 PM
ATW, on 23 January 2020 - 09:53 AM, said:
I am sorry but I am not a modeller, so perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly.
I am not looking at a "sub-component" of a model as such, and therefore requiring a name for animation within the model structure. Instead I was looking at a stand alone model which would be added in a similar fashion to a "freight animation".
Thanks
#14
Posted 23 January 2020 - 02:14 PM
steamer_ctn, on 23 January 2020 - 12:39 PM, said:
I am not looking at a "sub-component" of a model as such, and therefore requiring a name for animation within the model structure. Instead I was looking at a stand alone model which would be added in a similar fashion to a "freight animation".
Thanks
Coupler A and B.
B being on the same end as the brake wheel, the B end.
Steve
#15
Posted 23 January 2020 - 05:04 PM
I'm going from recollection - in MSTS and I'm assuming it may be similar in ORTS - a "freight animation" had to be a single part or flat - meaning there could be no hierarchal structure to the shape - so if you have any intention of truly animating any part of the coupler this would need to be modified - as without a hierarchal structure (part groups) - I don't think you can have animation...
Regards,
Scott
#16
Posted 23 January 2020 - 06:37 PM
steamer_ctn, on 23 January 2020 - 12:39 PM, said:
I am not looking at a "sub-component" of a model as such, and therefore requiring a name for animation within the model structure. Instead I was looking at a stand alone model which would be added in a similar fashion to a "freight animation".
Thanks
Ok... one model facing one direction. Is it safe to assume you also have in mind a second .fa model facing the other way for the other coupler? If the software can move them individually as needed per some data in the .eng and/or .wag files that should work well enough. Or are you thinking of skipping the data in the file part and assuming a preset movement will do well enough? IMO a program coded distance should be avoided as cushioned couplers of any type do move a lot more than the common ones.
#17
Posted 24 January 2020 - 01:50 AM
Genma Saotome, on 23 January 2020 - 06:37 PM, said:
I am currently thinking a coupler at either end of the car. I would try and use the coupler slack distance that already moves the cars closer or further apart as the coupler goes into compression or tension.
But until I get a shape, and some time to look into the code, I am not 100% certain what can be achieved without too much effort.
#18
Posted 24 January 2020 - 08:10 AM
scottb613, on 23 January 2020 - 05:04 PM, said:
I'm going from recollection - in MSTS and I'm assuming it may be similar in ORTS - a "freight animation" had to be a single part or flat - meaning there could be no hierarchal structure to the shape - so if you have any intention of truly animating any part of the coupler this would need to be modified - as without a hierarchal structure (part groups) - I don't think you can have animation...
Regards,
Scott
Hi Scott,
A freight animation can be animated, just like any other shape. I have done it.
geoff
#19
Posted 24 January 2020 - 08:17 AM
Is this what you need?
Geoff
Attached File(s)
-
tsmcplr1.zip (67.1K)
Number of downloads: 297
#20
Posted 24 January 2020 - 08:44 AM
I also have a dimensionally-accurate AAR Type-E coupler. I can deliver it with an animated knuckle if so desired (if that's also under consideration). Even something as simple as having two coupler models - one open, one closed - that swap out depending on coupler state would be a big improvement.