[Weter]

My plan is - to take one or two locomotives of the each class, and to "follow trends", which are applicable to them and which I consider reasonable to add in their *.eng-(*.wag- *.cvf- *.sms- *.inc-)-files; one by one - then test&tune those new features. These are diesel and electric locomotives of available systems, EMU/DMU, steam ones...
The information about their characteristics and performance is more or less present in technical literature. Certainly, I have some circle of interest, talking about rolling stock (e.g. Country of origin, era, etc.)
Then, once features would become well-worked - to spread them to all my fleet.
I see, CTN test fleet has a lack of electric rolling stock and quite few diesels.

Here, our tasks might diverge: Your mission (IMHO) is to present new features in form of code, inserted into properly-working configuration-files of stock models from all over the World - for illustrating their functioning in game, FOR TESTING&fine-tuning, and for provision of right-written sample-files to modelers.
While my task seems to me in making rolling-stock, interesting to me, featured with well-working ORTS-provided functions - for making it's behavior and appearance in game more prototype-like. Also - to make ORTS-functional modules (as brake, resistance, couplers) for refering from whide spread of rolling stock.
So, where our tasks have common elements - why not to collaborate?

The collateral effect of my usage of CTN-site's tutorials is translation of text and correction/improvement/extension of it's sense, as for completely understanding, I need to carefully translate all, You have written there. Hence, the results, with Your approval, may be made public available, retaining Your suggestions about links, directing to Your site for keeping visitors count high. As a variant, You can mind the possibility of adding localized variants of related pages into Your site itself.

[superheatedsteam]

steamer_ctn, on 01 January 2023 - 08:28 PM, said:

One thing that I would really appreciate is a couple of people to work with me to keep the CTN test stock physics up to date. In some instances even for a modeller to rebuild the stock to allow the fitting and show casing of new features.

Whilst I appreciate that most people would like to use their own stock, a lot of the CTN stock has railway company test reports, and hence provides a very accurate yard stick to test against. Any takers?

Hi Peter,

I see the NS SD70ACE #1030 has a 3D model that is unable to be modified. If you can lower your standards, then I have an incomplete SD70ACe/Lc that could be used as a base. With an open licence, interested contributors in their respective fields can collaborate to compile a peer reviewed model of a SD70ACe locomotive for Open Rails.

Is this the sort of thing that you are interested in hosting or should it be put it on git?

For hydro mechanical, electric and steam, others will have to come to the party.

Cheers,

Marek.

[ATSF3751]

Hey Peter,

I would be willing to help out. If you would like I could build an updated NYC Niagara 4-8-4 for testing purposes so we have a proper American 4-8-4. I just found a big article about there testing on the road. I will see if I can find any more American steam locomotives that have testing by the railroads. I do understand where you are coming from Peter with wanting test results but they are very hard to come by here in the USA and I honestly feel we have so many steam locomotives over here that people know how they operate under specific conditions that it is okay if we don't have test results for every single one of them. Every steam locomotive class performs differently so it is okay to not have test results for everything. I feel like lowering your standards just a little bit would be helpful because then more would be willing to help out in the cause.

Brandon

https://nycshs.files...ingniagaras.pdf

[scottb613]

Hi Peter,

I've tested your Atlantic and have the same feedback that's already been reported.

The Wheel Slip is a big improvement.

The Steam Cylinder Exhaust - through no fault of your own - not so much. I realize we need improved particle effects to make any meaningful change. Is there anyone on the development team that has even a basic understanding of how the particle system works?

The other parameters I have less of a grasp on - I did use the old method to cycle the Cylinder Cock Exhaust - I didn't even know it was wrong.

I'm certainly willing to help where and when I can - perhaps it would be better - to post the individual tasks you want done and we can evaluate our own abilities to accomplish said task? I've certainly spent a great deal of time trying to come up with the best physics possible for my locomotives.

As far as 3D Modeling goes - as long as detailed realistic textures aren't needed - we should be able to accommodate anything you need. UV Mapping and Textures are the most time-consuming aspects of any model for me.

Regards,
Scott

[darwins]

scottb613, on 02 January 2023 - 07:40 AM, said:

The Steam Cylinder Exhaust - through no fault of your own - not so much. I realize we need improved particle effects to make any meaningful change. Is there anyone on the development team that has even a basic understanding of how the particle system works?

Not just for steam and smoke - we need some particle physics and graphics for water as well to cover things like over filling the tender.

Quote

The other parameters I have less of a grasp on - I did use the old method to cycle the Cylinder Cock Exhaust - I didn't even know it was wrong.

It was fine for two cylinder locos, but did not work for three cylinder locos.

[scottb613]

darwins, on 02 January 2023 - 09:15 AM, said:

Not just for steam and smoke - we need some particle physics and graphics for water as well to cover things like over filling the tender.



It was fine for two cylinder locos, but did not work for three cylinder locos.

Hi Darwin,

Thanks - perhaps that's why I didn't notice.
:)

Yeah - would love to see some kind of dust/smoke when loading coal.

Regards,
Scott

[Weter]

Happy new year, gents!
You've just remind to me:
In MSTS, smoke collided with bridges/tunnel's arcs; in ORTS - no.

Two-cilinders actually have 90⁰ offset.
Currently, FX are appearing as it's 180⁰ offset.

[copperpen]

I do not think that the OR smoke/steam display is particle based, but instead uses sprites. It is the code that handles these sprites that needs an overhaul, with each type of emission needing different arrangements, cylinder cocks need fast expansion to display great clouds of steam, generators are different, softer whispey kind of thing.

[darwins]

Weter, on 02 January 2023 - 09:20 AM, said:

Happy new year, gents!
You've just remind to me:
In MSTS, smoke collided with bridges/tunnel's arcs; in ORTS - no.

Two-cilinders actually have 90⁰ offset.
Currently, FX are appearing as it's 180⁰ offset.

A problem in the first release that should be corrected in the latest unstable version. I have just tested and got 90 degrees for 2-cylinder or 4-cylinder locos, 120 degrees for 3-cylinder locos and 45 degrees with the 4-cylinder Lord Nelson!

[steamer_ctn]

Thanks for the various replies and offers of assistance.

superheatedsteam, on 02 January 2023 - 03:10 AM, said:

I see the NS SD70ACE #1030 has a 3D model that is unable to be modified. If you can lower your standards, then I have an incomplete SD70ACe/Lc that could be used as a base. With an open licence, interested contributors in their respective fields can collaborate to compile a peer reviewed model of a SD70ACe locomotive for Open Rails.

ATSF3751, on 02 January 2023 - 05:06 AM, said:

I would be willing to help out. If you would like I could build an updated NYC Niagara 4-8-4 for testing purposes so we have a proper American 4-8-4. I just found a big article about there testing on the road. I will see if I can find any more American steam locomotives that have testing by the railroads. I do understand where you are coming from Peter with wanting test results but they are very hard to come by here in the USA and I honestly feel we have so many steam locomotives over here that people know how they operate under specific conditions that it is okay if we don't have test results for every single one of them. Every steam locomotive class performs differently so it is okay to not have test results for everything. I feel like lowering your standards just a little bit would be helpful because then more would be willing to help out in the cause.

scottb613, on 02 January 2023 - 07:40 AM, said:

I'm certainly willing to help where and when I can - perhaps it would be better - to post the individual tasks you want done and we can evaluate our own abilities to accomplish said task? I've certainly spent a great deal of time trying to come up with the best physics possible for my locomotives.

As far as 3D Modeling goes - as long as detailed realistic textures aren't needed - we should be able to accommodate anything you need. UV Mapping and Textures are the most time-consuming aspects of any model for me.

I have created a new thread to follow through on the testing support ideas and offers.

In short, my goal would be to have:

i) Good physics and features in the ENG and WAG files that are maintained up to date.

ii) Good looking models representative of the test report or scenario for which the test locomotive is created for.

I see that the principal task will be review of older ENG and WAG files to bring them up to date with the latest features of OR.

From time to time some new models maybe required (having said this some of the existing models could be rebuilt to facilitate features not currently available on them (for example dynamic movement of coal loads in the tender).