[scottb613]

slipperman, on 23 October 2021 - 05:16 AM, said:

Hi Scott,
Although I find this thread interesting, it is way above my head, so please bear with me :)

From the chart of empty car and load mass figures, it appears that the maximum permitted load is 94.5t-us.
Here's my, very silly, suggestion! Does the loco .eng file have the parameter MaxTenderCoalMass? If so, does its value (probably in lbs) equate to 94.5t-us?

OK! I'll get my coat now! Goodbye :)

Ged

Hi Ged,

Anyone is more than welcome to play here.
:)

You know - I’ve had tunnel vision that this is a tender WAG issue - I hadn’t really thought to look at my ENG file.

Let me check when I get back home and I will let you know.

Thanks for the interest.

Regards,
Scott

[scottb613]

slipperman, on 23 October 2021 - 05:16 AM, said:

Hi Scott,
Although I find this thread interesting, it is way above my head, so please bear with me :)

From the chart of empty car and load mass figures, it appears that the maximum permitted load is 94.5t-us.
Here's my, very silly, suggestion! Does the loco .eng file have the parameter MaxTenderCoalMass? If so, does its value (probably in lbs) equate to 94.5t-us?

OK! I'll get my coat now! Goodbye :)

Ged

Hi Ged,

BINGO - winner winner chicken dinner...

Nailed it - my humble friend.

I had some old values in the ENG file that needed to be cleaned up.

186t-us - - - we're good.

Thanks so much for everyone's time helping to solve this puzzle for me.

So - there's interplay between the ENG and WAG files for the dynamic freight animations to work.

In my ENG file - I now have:

	
MaxTenderCoalMass ( 21t-us ) 
MaxTenderWaterMass ( 96t-us )

In my WAG file - I now have:

	ORTSFreightAnims 
	( 
		WagonEmptyWeight( 69t-us )
		EmptyMaxBrakeForce ( 103kN )    
		EmptyMaxHandbrakeForce ( 50kN ) 
		ORTSBearingType ( Roller )
		EmptyORTSDavis_A ( 176.00lbf ) 
		EmptyORTSDavis_B ( 1.0350lbf/mph ) 
		EmptyORTSDavis_C ( 0.005000lbf/mph^2 ) 
		EmptyCentreOfGravity_Y ( 1.4 ) 

		FreightAnimContinuous 
		( 
			FreightWeightWhenFull( 117t-us ) 
			FullMaxBrakeForce ( 279kN )
			FullMaxHandbrakeForce ( 50kN ) 
			ORTSBearingType ( Roller )
			FullORTSDavis_A ( 351.50lbf ) 
			FullORTSDavis_B ( 2.7901lbf/mph ) 
			FullORTSDavis_C ( 0.005000lbf/mph^2 ) 
			FullCentreOfGravity_Y ( 1.8 ) 
		) 
	)
ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass ( 21t-us )
ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass ( 96t-us )

Do I need the coal and water mass defined in two locations?

Perhaps we need a note that these values will affect the dynamic freight animation calculations?

Thanks so much one and all.

Regards,
Scott

[steamer_ctn]

scottb613, on 23 October 2021 - 01:46 AM, said:

The problem has been isolated - to the best of my knowledge - to the "dynaminc Weight and Friction chunk of code" as follows - which the Niagara doesn't have.

This mystifies me a little bit as I have downloaded the Niagara from my site, and checked it. It contains a INC file with the dynamic physics defined and working.

Anyway I am glad that you have resolved your problem.

scottb613, on 23 October 2021 - 10:50 AM, said:

Do I need the coal and water mass defined in two locations?

I don't believe that you need to have both parameters in the two files.

I would suggest trying to leave out the ENG file values.

[darwins]

I am a little concerned by this. I thought that coal and water mass added to the tender wag file were supposed to override any values in the eng file. It seems that they do override the amount of fuel available to use, but they do not override the mass of fuel/water in the tender.

[steamer_ctn]

darwins, on 23 October 2021 - 10:34 PM, said:

I am a little concerned by this. I thought that coal and water mass added to the tender wag file were supposed to override any values in the eng file.

They should override the coal and water values.

darwins, on 23 October 2021 - 10:34 PM, said:

It seems that they do override the amount of fuel available to use, but they do not override the mass of fuel/water in the tender.

That is correct and has always been the case.

They are purely used as a weight reduction.

The starting weight of the car is purely determined by the values in the "FreightAnimation" data.

If we tried to use these values in initialising the weight, the code complexity would be increased, as we would need to consider a number of different scenarios, and code for each of these options to override the freight animation weight.

For example, a diesel would need to be handled differently to a steam locomotive, a wagon different to a wagon, etc. So it was considered better to allow the user to calculate and set the correct values rather then trying guess all the different scenarios possible.

[scottb613]

steamer_ctn, on 23 October 2021 - 10:05 PM, said:

This mystifies me a little bit as I have downloaded the Niagara from my site, and checked it. It contains a INC file with the dynamic physics defined and working.

Anyway I am glad that you have resolved your problem.

I don't believe that you need to have both parameters in the two files.

I would suggest trying to leave out the ENG file values.

Hi Peter,

Let me look again - perhaps I’m delirious - I downloaded the Niagara ran the installer and looked at the code - it looked like a conventional WAG without INC files. I apologize if I am mistaken.

Regards,
Scott

[NickonWheels]

I just tested an FEF-3 with no entries about fuel quantity in the .eng file but this in the tender .wag file

comment ( 77.9 us tons empty / 210 us tons loaded / 7 axles / 13.125 square meters frontal area )
ORTSMergeSpeed ( 0.270342 )
ORTSBearingType ( Roller )
	ORTSFreightAnims 
	(
		WagonEmptyWeight( 77.9t-us )
		EmptyMaxBrakeForce ( 77.9kN )
		EmptyMaxHandbrakeForce ( 50kN )
		EmptyORTSDavis_A ( 1039.549388 )
		EmptyORTSDavis_B ( 9.951805 )
		EmptyORTSDavis_C ( 1.572244 )

		FreightAnimContinuous 
		(
			FreightWeightWhenFull( 132.1t-us )
			FullMaxBrakeForce ( 210kN )
			FullMaxHandbrakeForce ( 100kN )
			FullORTSDavis_A ( 2802.379608 )
			FullORTSDavis_B ( 26.827715 )
			FullORTSDavis_C ( 1.572244 )
		)
	)
	ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass ( 56000lb )
	ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass ( 208200lb )

After loading ORTS tells me the loco has no fuel and will fail but F5 HUD tells the is fuel in the told quantity. But the full tender weight is given as 106t-us though it should be 210t-us. Sounds like ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass and ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass are faulty.

[scottb613]

NickonWheels, on 24 October 2021 - 04:45 AM, said:

I just tested an FEF-3 with no entries about fuel quantity in the .eng file but this in the tender .wag file

After loading ORTS tells me the loco has no fuel and will fail but F5 HUD tells the is fuel in the told quantity. But the full tender weight is given as 106t-us though it should be 210t-us. Sounds like ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass and ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass are faulty.

Hi Nick,

Ditto - sounds like we need one set of values to rule them all - makes no sense to require double entry.

Regards,
Scott

[steamer_ctn]

NickonWheels, on 24 October 2021 - 04:45 AM, said:

I just tested an FEF-3 with no entries about fuel quantity in the .eng file but this in the tender .wag file

scottb613, on 24 October 2021 - 07:00 AM, said:

Ditto - sounds like we need one set of values to rule them all - makes no sense to require double entry.

I have had a look at this, and there was a small issue that has been corrected with a patch to the unstable version.

Thanks to both for highlighting it.

[scottb613]

steamer_ctn, on 24 October 2021 - 08:45 PM, said:

I have had a look at this, and there was a small issue that has been corrected with a patch to the unstable version.

Thanks to both for highlighting it.

Hi Peter,

Thanks as well. Just for clarification - we should use ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass and ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass in the WAG - omitting the parameters in the ENG file?

And I see what threw me on your Niagara - - - I've always called my "INCLUDE" files (labeled as "*.inc") from the ENG/WAG file - - - you're calling the ENG/WAG file from the "INCLUDE" file. There's actually two ENG and two WAG files for this locomotive. Sorry I missed that when I was looking initially - just wasn't familiar with this format.

Regards,
Scott

[Laci1959]

steamer_ctn, on 23 October 2021 - 10:05 PM, said:

This mystifies me a little bit as I have downloaded the Niagara from my site, and checked it. It contains a INC file with the dynamic physics defined and working.

Hello.

I searched for the said Niagara steam locomotive but could not find it. I don't know American names.
Please help. I always learn a lot from such examples.

Sincerely, Laci1959

[scottb613]

Laci1959, on 25 October 2021 - 06:39 AM, said:

Hello.

I searched for the said Niagara steam locomotive but could not find it. I don't know American names.
Please help. I always learn a lot from such examples.

Sincerely, Laci1959

Hi Laci,

Peter's site is worth a serious look if you haven't been there. It's full of tons of important information.

He has a fleet of test vehicles that I assume he has verified the physics for - to some degree or another - they're all here:
http://www.coalstone.../physics/stock/

Regards,
Scott

[Laci1959]

scottb613, on 25 October 2021 - 07:36 AM, said:

Hi Laci,

Peter's site is worth a serious look if you haven't been there. It's full of tons of important information.

He has a fleet of test vehicles that I assume he has verified the physics for - to some degree or another - they're all here:
http://www.coalstone.../physics/stock/

Regards,
Scott

Thanks.
I was looking in the wrong place. I was looking for the Rolling Stock part, I forgot about the Test Locomotive part.
When you submit a link you will always look at it because a lot of interesting and useful information can be found.

[steamer_ctn]

scottb613, on 25 October 2021 - 03:47 AM, said:

Thanks as well. Just for clarification - we should use ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass and ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass in the WAG - omitting the parameters in the ENG file?

This feature was to allow users to add different tenders to the same locomotive without having to have different ENG files for each tender.

As a general principal I prefer a minimalist approach, ie only add a parameter if you need it, rather then adding every parameter just in case. This seems to have been the approach with MSTS stock, and sometimes it causes drama as the parameter is not relevant to the model being produced, and can cause issues.

The only downside to this approach would be if a tender is coupled to the locomotive which does not have some default coal and water values in it, then there would be none in either the tender or the locomotive.

scottb613, on 25 October 2021 - 03:47 AM, said:

And I see what threw me on your Niagara - - - I've always called my "INCLUDE" files (labeled as "*.inc") from the ENG/WAG file - - - you're calling the ENG/WAG file from the "INCLUDE" file. There's actually two ENG and two WAG files for this locomotive. Sorry I missed that when I was looking initially - just wasn't familiar with this format.

As you have pointed out elsewhere, I have created this stock for the following reasons:

Firstly I now that the feature worked with these models, and also that they should be configured "correctly", hence it confirms for me very quickly whether it is likely to be a code issue or a configuration issue.

Secondly it saves me wasting developer time. If a user can reproduce the problem with the CTN stock, then I can quickly see and experience the problem. This saves me having to search for the stock in question, and then check its configuration, etc. This all takes time, and reduces the time available to investigate the bug.

In terms of using the INC file with this type of approach, it potentially allows the base file to set up as a MSTS operation, and the INC file as a OR configuration. (However I personally think that it is time to move beyond MSTS as it has reached its 20th anniversary).

[AuzGnosis]

steamer_ctn, on 25 October 2021 - 08:40 PM, said:

(However I personally think that it is time to move beyond MSTS as it has reached its 20th anniversary).

Oh Peter I couldn't agree more.

From my Knowledge Engineering employment I learnt; the hardest thing for any expert to know then recall (no mater what their technical specialty, background maybe) are those critical fundamentals they've used everyday of their long career. For with regular repetition such knowledge gems slip from the consciousness through to finely tuned reflexes buried so deep within the subconscious many in a professional sphere simply dismiss them as "common sense" within a profession's culture (so not common after all).

As someone with absolutely no exposure to train simulations till starting on ORTS, the MSTS heritage often trips me up. Like today while attempting to write a few of the wagon files for the BLW tenders I've been plugging away at I came across a variable "IntakePoint" that I've not seen before. Opening "Open Rails Manual, Release 1.3" it has the oh so unhelpful explanation "IntakePoint has the same format and the same meaning of the IntakePoint line within the standard MSTS freight animations". Searching Elvas Tower's forums for IntakePoint this was the first thread the result returned.

Many thanks. Shawn