[steamer_ctn]

 Weter, on 18 July 2021 - 12:58 AM, said:

Excuse me please, if I upset you, as Gerry have prompted me to do the same yesterday, but I have no PC now.

You haven't upset me, however having to respond to lots of questions where they can be answered elsewhere takes time off me that could be put into ongoing development of OR.

As indicated in the post the activities were created to assist people in setting up features in their rolling stock.

Since you don't have a PC at the moment, and therefore are unable to use the feature at the moment, I suspect that your questions are more aimed at driving your ongoing theme about the gaps in the manual rather then trying to get the feature working on your version of OR.

 Weter, on 18 July 2021 - 12:58 AM, said:

But I'm sure, all the features should be clearly documented for those, who doesn't know CTN website tutorials to be able to use them.
The manual is manual, the tutorials are an addition.

As you would appreciate developing code for OR takes a lot of effort, and there are many ways that non-developers could assist to lighten the load on the developers.

The manual is one way that a non-developer (read non OR code writer) could contribute to the OR project. A lot of non-developers have a good understanding of the OR features, you only have to look at the forums to see community members helping each other and filling in details for them This thread is an obvious example.

Given the fact that you have a passion about the manual, can I suggest that you take on a role to fill in any gaps that you feel are present in the current manual.

This type of approach would probably produce better results rather then just pointing out deficiencies in the manual, and expecting "somebody" else to correct the deficiencies.

When we all work as a community we will get a better result.

[Weter]

Nothing to argue with.
But you missed this: before, as you meant, "pointing someone else" or beginning to act by myself, I need full information about the subject, for acting efficiently:
I mean, maybe I don't know something yet, or did miss something, or understood that wrong.
So, please, accept my apology and thanks for answering first. But try to understand me right too.
How can that "someone else" or myself write correct manual section, without knowing exactly, how the things, to be described, were done?
How can that be known without consultation with an author (as other non-coder is at risqué to have wrong vision of the subject)
And, I think, such dialogues are more suitable for private conversations, rather for flooding any concrete question-oriented threads-I say it to myself first, don't take as mentoring you.
Again, please don't take it personally.
I never meant, you have to drop everything and run to write manual
(Furthermore, CTN site accumulates a lot of priceless tutorials and very clear explainations of many things about ORTS physics and more)

I think, the misunderstood was in, that you don't have to force yourself do everything personally. Definitely, that's better, when specialists will give their attention to code, while enthusiasts help them with documenting.
You just mention, we are community, as well as our efforts and time, alas, have tight limits.
Me-the same. But the conclusion is wrong. If I have some time today to read, analyze and formulate, I better write my notes to forum, declaring: I see the problem, I offer the ways to solve that as follows. Since I will not have time tomorrow to do it by myself, but the other members might have... At least, everyone will know that. To warn is better, than to keep in mind silence, eh?
Can you understand my motives?
The composing of correct report to ORMT about expired parts of the manual is better contribution, than intention to write something one day, then forgetting that, the day after tomorrow, isn't it?
What about manual...I don't know as others, but when I am working on something, it's more handy for me, to see the manual for refer or remember things, than run tutorial activities. The activity is great for first evaluation, for new-users. And for cases, when you have plenty of time today, for enjoy, for relax and for understand all, that author have intended to tell us. The manual is a primary technical reference. It should be correct and actual.

[Laci1959]

https://kephost.net/p/2021/28/4198_1b37e8913ed9.png

Hello
The following code snippet should be inserted in the Wagon section. HeatingHoseFX is listed twice because there is a steam effect on the front and back. Also for locomotives and cars.

		Effects (
			SpecialEffects (
 				HeatingHoseFX (
					-0.23 0.83 5.08		Comment ( == pozíció == )
					0 -1 0			Comment ( == irányultság, ez az érték jó == )
					0.15			Comment ( == mennyiség == )
				)
 				HeatingHoseFX (
					0.23 0.83 -5.08
					0 -1 0
					0.15
				)
			)
		)

https://kephost.net/p/2021/28/7553_60d8278e8213.png

That's all you need in the Engine section

MaxSteamHeatingPressure ( 80.0 )

In addition, in the case of wagons, the size of the glass surface, the size of the heating surface, the insulation characteristic ?, the parameters of the pipe carrying the steam can be specified. The list is not complete but there is a detailed explanation in Manul on the net. If you are a diesel locomotive, you can enter the fuel and water consumption of the boiler, the effect of the exhaust smoke.
I’m sorry for a bit of a clash, but I haven’t even used these. Works except Nar, Alt + U on, Alt + D off.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t work on AI trains, though it would be good.

Sincerely, Laci1959