[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

[Weter]

I beg pardon, if this idea was declared already (and I missed that discussion), but
What about dedicating to tenders the separate class of rolling stock, as it is done for control car already?
MSTS AE (consist editing module) and GOKU's TSRE con builder are tend to crash, as I chose a tender from cars list.

[Lamplighter]

I tested using the parameters ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass ( x ) and ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass ( x ) in the Wagon section and canceled the parameters MaxTenderWaterMass ( x ) and MaxTenderCoalMass ( x ) in the Engine section.
Since I have all my steam locomotives set up with dynamic load (FreightAnim), the dynamic load stopped working.
I had to return the parameters MaxTenderWaterMass ( x ) and MaxTenderCoalMass ( x ) to the Engine section again.
This restores dynamic load functionality, but the locomotive has a slightly lower overall weight to begin with. So I had to increase the value of the BoilerVolume ( x ) parameter to return the locomotive's starting mass to its original value.

I assume that the initial weight of water and coal in the tender is always the same.

It follows from this that the parameters ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass ( x ) and ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass ( x ) in the Wagon section cannot replace the parameters MaxTenderWaterMass ( x ) and MaxTenderCoalMass ( x ) in the Engine section.
At least not on locomotives that use dynamic load settings (tender locomotive or tank locomotive).

[steamer_ctn]

Lamplighter, on 24 September 2023 - 01:29 AM, said:

It follows from this that the parameters ORTSTenderWagonWaterMass ( x ) and ORTSTenderWagonCoalMass ( x ) in the Wagon section cannot replace the parameters MaxTenderWaterMass ( x ) and MaxTenderCoalMass ( x ) in the Engine section.
At least not on locomotives that use dynamic load settings (tender locomotive or tank locomotive).

I will need to investigate this further, but it will not be for some time.