MSTSBin 1.6.1 Coupler Settings

[OTTODAD]

I have again been asked to make them available on their own, just the files containing them and have included Kev Roberts rear cab file maker, which I am sure he will not mind me letting you have this way ! ;-)

www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/downloads/mstsbin-161-couplers.zip

COUPLER SETTINGS FOR MSTSBIN 1.6.1
==================================

COPY/PASTE the appropriate *.eng and *.wag files
Coupling ( ....... ) parameter blocks into your
rolling stock files, making sure you do not lose
any opening ( or closing ) brackets in the process !

Replace your TRAINSET\DEFAULT\Default.wag file
with mine.

Kev Roberts' 1.6.1 *_rv.cvf rear cabs file maker
can be found in the DASH-9 \ CABVIEW folder.

Have FUN, O t t o. :7

http://www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/downloads/mstsbin-161-couplers.jpg

[Turbo Bill]

In my testing and work with coupler regions on our C&NW vr wagon fleet, I have come up with some wagon coupler regions that closely mimic rw coupler actions and comply with the Bin patch. I must state that Otto's engine coupler values are indeed as Sharon said and his wagon values provide flawless action. The values included in my zip file are based on the work by Otto and suggestions and work by Joe Morris. There are three types of coupler regions in this zip file. They mirror as close as MSTS can slack action between cars using this type of coupler and coupling efficiency when coupling cars together. In rw situations slower speeds (below .9 mph) will many times result in the coupler pins not falling resulting the couplers coming apart when your train is stretched. On the other end of coupling speeds, cars that are coupled together above 4 mph will most times not couple together as the cars will bounce apart before the pins can fall and also it is widely accepted by most railroads that cars coupled above 4 mph will usually result in sifted commodities. When using the attached coupler values on wagons in Bin equipped MSTS installations, you will get flawless coupler action mirroring the specific slack action as well as cars sometimes failing to couple when coupled at speeds listed above. On every occasion with both the front and rear couplers the cars successfully couple when the coupling speed is between .8 mph and 4.0 mph. The cars cars also equipped with these coupler values can be successfully kicked and dropped with both couplers 100 % of the time with no re-coupling issues or sim crashing issues. You can also uncouple from a standing start at any speed mirroring rw engine handling practices and no re-coupling will occur. Unfortunetly coupler breaking charecteristics are not modelled in these values but this phenomenum happens so rarely on properly handled trains that I feel this omition is acceptable. Also since most MSTS routes usually contain exagerated gradient changes, it's impossible to have realistic coupler strengths that work on all routes. Follow the directions in each specific wag file for placement in your wagon and carriage files. Enjoy. Joe Morris and Otto and others, please feel free to test and comment on these files.

[drjoe]

Bill,

I also have to recommend the changes to the default.wag file. Either mine, or Otto's or Jim Ward's ( actually, Otto's is loosely based on mine, which is based on Jim Ward's original front coupler work ). All of them affect how the couplers perform. I think that you have already made that change, but it is important that anyone trying to use these values ( or my values ) needs to also change from the default.wag values that come with MSTS.

[Turbo Bill]

Yes Joe your correct on the default file mods. I had that as one of the items to make sure everybody adds to their Bin upgrading and somehow between the brain and my fingers it got lost. This sim just gets better and more realistic. Let me know if you get realistic knuckle failure in your endeavors. I think I got the rest of the coupler actions and traits pretty close to how I remembered them from my railroading carreer. Too bad we couldn't get cab movement synchronized with the slack action effects on the locomotives when running. That would be so coo. Also are the springs that the couplers are based on a certain coded length or can their length be changed? If so even better coupler slack physics could be modeled as some cars have more slack length then others. For instance, cushioned drawbar cars can have as much as five feet of gentle slack action and loaded grain hoppers have 6 inches of uncushioned non dampened movement. Both give quite a different nudge and pull on the power when being bunched or stretched. Also loaded cars give a big hit while some empties are so light along with cushioning that no slack is felt or transmitted. Like i said I think I got it close but a couple other parameters, if available would get it spot on for specific types of cars.

Addendum: I just tried a 30 car train with about 15 empty cushioned drawbar boxcars on the headend with about 20 loaded coal hoppers with rigid couplers and low and behold while sitting in the cab you can visably see the engines stall when the slack gets back to those loaded rigid coupled cars. The engines also had a visible change in speed when the slack got back to those same rigid couplers when the engine brakes were judiciously applied as the engines suddenly gained some speed. So the different coupler settings do translate to realistic slack action. Cool again.

Also I added new set of coupler with stiffer rigid values. Use these values over the one posted above.

[drjoe]

Smaller r0 values will decrease the "distance" of the couplers. However, the car length in the .wag files may need to be adjusted for cars to couple correctly "visually". You can verify this by changing them ( the bigger the difference the more you can see it ) and, keeping everything else the same, then looking at the wagons in the sim. Also, the second stiffness value seems to be the one that simulates the bar of the coupler reaching the maximum travel, so it should alway be equal to or slightly higher than the first stiffness value. The first value may be the stiffness against compression and the second stiffness against extension. The real problem is that the couplers are really modelled as a spring, but one that is nearly infinitely compressible and extensible. There appears to be no way to put in the "stop" that would occur in a normal spring ( when the coils are so compressed that they physically touch each other ), or the one that would occur if the coils were stretched until the spring was essentially straight ( or even the breakage that would occur in the real world if a spring were stretched that far ).

[Turbo Bill]

Actually the springs in cushioned drawbars only are for controlled compression. They do not control damping on extension. The reason being the drawbars extend out to a pinned point with no cushioning on extension. The reason being the coupler knuckle itself is the safety point for too much slack being transmitted to the load as the knuckle is designed to fail if the amount of stretch exceeds safe commodity damage levels. So you really can't shift a lumber load stretching a train out as the knuckle will fail and prevent damage or shifting. The spring prevents shifted load or delicate commodity movement due to excessive buff/bunching presures on the drawbar. So to be actually prototypically correct you should have damping on compression but no damping on extension situations. On rigid couplers you want no damping in either direction but you want a shorter spring totalling about 6 inches in length on each end of the car. On close coupler cars such as passenger and roadrailers, you basically want no slack action at all. Roadrailers are basically swivel pinned between the truck trailers using the pin the trailer couples to trackors with and then swivel pinned to the boogies. The only couplers are on the first boogie attached to the locomotive and the rear boogie where FRED is attached and on very rare occasions maybe a helper engine or switcher. I don't yet have enough knowledge with coupler values to get the finite adjustments but I am playing with them and testing and learning. I take it the break values are the values that control how much force will cause a coupler failure. If so then the other valuse should be able to be adjusted to get desired results. Perhaps the above info will give Joe, Otto or someone well versed in coupler values the charecteristics to adjust our couplers to prototypical tendencies for the three types out there. The other value that changes how a cushioned drawbar functions is the weight of the car meaning whether it's loaded or empty. If the mass figure translates to how the car acts on coupler values then one set of values for each type of coupler should work for both loaded and empty cars. If so this is great, if not then spring stiffness and damping values would need to be created for loaded and empty cushioned drawbar cars.

[Turbo Bill]

It's taken some out of the ordinary coupler region settings, but I've gotten the rigid couplers to be spot on. No more spring like actions and the amount of slack is very prototypical. I've also improved the cushioned drawbars to very closely mimic RW charecteristics as well. I even went to far as to measure the travel on actual RW railcars and have things very close to what the real deal is. Some cushioned cars I measured have as much as close to 2 feet of travel on their cushioning systems. Again, remember that the rest postition is the extended position as the spring on the real cars cushions buff forces only. I've managed to get the MSTS cars to hold very close to the extended postition when at rest. I will post the coupler regions when I've got the feedback results from our Bin Beta team at the C&NW vr (www.vcnwrr.com). so far the effects of the slack action on the locomotives equipped with Otto's rigidline coupler settings is very realistic and eye opening. you can actually see the locomotives lurch forward when a block of rigid coupler equiped loads bunch up against a bunch of cushioned drawbared empties. And vice versa you will actually see the locomtives stall when the slack gets to those same deep loads when starting the train as well. Just like the RW.

[Turbo Bill]

Here are my finalized coupler regions for the three types of rollingstock couplers that can be found on American railroads. These coupler regions were specifically designed to work with the Bin patch for realistic slack and coupling physics and charecteristics. There were no adverse traits exhibited by these coupler values. Both the front and rear couplers work flawlessly with no recouplings occuring as in the preBin days with front couplers as well as with the Bin rear coupler issues. These couplers very closely resemble their RW brethren in all areas of coupler action. There is an in-depth readme included with the zip file that explains each coupler type's charecteristics and features as well as a lits of railcar types that each coupler can be found on. It also explains how I got the MSTScoupler to lose most of it's dual spring charecteristics as well. If some of our seasoned "Rails" could verify for us which type of coupler is found on modern autoracks (cushioned or rigid or close couple (no slack) couplers), I would appreciate it being posted here. Also rmember that Otto Wipfel's Bin locomotive couper values and DEFAULT.wag file must be used in conjuction with these couplers on Bin updated MSTS systems. These couplers will also work on non Bin equipped MSTS installations as well.

[drjoe]

Bill,

Consider changing the following:

20e6N to 2e7N. This is the same value because these use scientific notation.

.1e6N to 1e5N. Again, scientific notation.

[Turbo Bill]

I did try changing the 7 to a 6 in another test and cars blew each other off the track with a 1 mph hook. I really don't care what value we use if they are the same as long as that extended spring area is rock hard and doesn't flex. If it does flex the car's knuckles will have a big gap between them in most cases which doesn't look good when stretching and using some real power and they bunch up way too much to the point that some cars will touch on the corners. By only using the first portion of the spring, you have the couplers almost fully extended in the rest position which is what they should be to mimic RW couplers. So I use different r0 values to have less slack distance with no spring stiffness so the cars will stay stretched or bunched when stopped as RW rigid coupler equipped cars will do and then use a longer r0 value for the cushioned drawbars with a minimul spring stiffness setting of 1 so the cars will spring back to the extended rest position when only a few cars are involved. I know the numbers seem wild and out of whack but the couplers are doing what they should be and very close to how they really are with the real deal. Also these couplers will work on any car as they hold the couplers close enough together to appear coupled and compress the correct amount again giving the visual impression that the drawbars did indeed retract into the frame housing. I know they don't really move but the opposite knuckle pushing to the rebound point of the other car gives a very real look as if the coupler really did retract. Unfortunetly I don't know scientific notation so your probably correct, but I already have over a hundred cars updated with these working values so I'll probably leave them the way they are.

[Turbo Bill]

Well as I lay in bed last night I starting mulling your examples in scientific notations and relized I had sort of only worked with half the equation. The actual value for the paart of the spring that I'm only using that I wanted was 0.6e6N/m 20e6N/m. If so then the following equation should equal what I want 6e5N/m 2e7N/m. I loaded those numbers into my test wagons and damn if the thing is doing EXACTLY what I wanted for my cushiooned drawbars. So in addendum to the above posted zip file, you want to change the Spring stiffness values for Cusioned-Coupler region in that wag master coupler file to:

Stiffness ( 6e5N/m 2e7N/m )

Again thank you Joe for taking the time to teach me how to treat and properly enter these values. I took three years of physics in high school mainly because upon inspecting the test book material for the class many of the questions and theories used trains as examples. Well being the train nut that I was even back then, that was enough for me. Little did I know that later in life when I would become an engineer, I would live out those same theories and hypothesis every day when I went to work. It is these same both scholarly taught and rw experianced theories that I have applied to this region of the wag file. Once again as I love say, "the RW meets MSTS and triumphs". Be forewarned, these coupler settings change how the MSTS train reacts to changing track elevations and how objects at rest impact moving objects when the two forces are introduced to each other. In other words that big buch of loads on the rear of your long train will give you one big kick in the a$$ when they come rolling in if you aren't using proper trainhandling techniques. So hang on and make sure that coffee cup doesn't land in your lap. My road foreman would put his coffee thermos on top of the water cooler when he would check ride me. It that cooler was still standing at the end of his ride, you got a A and a notation in your employee file for doing a good job. If it fell over, you would definetly hear it. If you broke the glass liner inside you really got the yelling and had to buy a new theroms.

[tpilot]

Thanks for your work on this, Turbo Bill - Just to clarify,

those changes only need to be made to the Cushioned-coupler.wag.wag file and made in both couplers locations but not in the buffers location, correct?

[Turbo Bill]

Just make the changes that I did in the couple region and leave the buffers as they are. To be on the safe side I use the whole region example in each one as that way all the cars will be alike. Some people may use different buffer values that might compete with my values. Joe Morris is testing a complete coupler value package with the three types and if all passes OK, the Bin Coupler Pack V1.0 will be uploaded to the FL. My first contribution to the library. I think you will like the way the slack effects your train. So far they are working fine in C&NW testing instances. All 180 of our existing activities are being tested with the new parameters and so far no coupler issues.

[Turbo Bill]

Just to give all an update. I have been extensively testing the coupler theories I have developed with the help of others and will soon post an update file with added couplers. I've been able to create a good working engine coupler that does not need the rigidline (1) value and still works very well with the Bin patch. Realistic coupling speeds will result in a perfect coupling. Going too slow (under 1mph) or too fast (over 3.9) will result in sometimes needing to stretch the train and recouple at a speed that will "shake" those pins down resulting in a good hook. Remember real couplers do not stay coupled if coupled into too fast or too slow. I've also had no recoupling issues with either front or back coupler on single and multi unit lashups and kicks and flying drops work like a charm on the first click. I've worked to try and keep the number of coupler types to a few as possible and to work with just about every car out there with no node grabbing and binding. I'm about 98% there with one final battery of tests and I will hand Joe and Otto a Beta version then post the Beta here and then see if I can get it up in the FL for everybody. I've also kept the files simple in that you easily can do a copy and paste and update your fleet with as little hassle as possible. Thanks for your patience and time.

Bill

[OTTODAD]

Looking forward to your further improved couplers, Bill !

Testing them should I use all the coupler varieties there are, Automatic, Bar and Chain, as all mine are set to AUTOMATIC so that all my rolling stock is interchangeable !

As I also use "Rigid ( 1 )" with all my couplers. Would that have to be changed to "Rigid ( 0 )" to get the benefit of your "slack" settings ? I think that somebody has said that an absent "Rigid" line is interpreted as "Rigid ( 0 )[/b] by MSTS ?

Take care, O t t o.

[Turbo Bill]

I have no Rigidline () at all on my versions. What you will do is sub one coupler set for each type of engine. At this point there is a rigid no cushioned version for switch engines and one for road units. I'm now testing to see if that will need to be broken down to 4 axle and six axle road unit versions. You can also update on of your rigid coupler versioned US 2 cars with the rigid version and one of the lumber IBeams with the cushioned ones and play with them. So far I'm very pleased with this set and believe they are ready for release after you and Joe give your blessings on them. I'm also going to post the Beta set here as there are other coupler experts here I just don't know their names yet. So please, none of you take offense.

Oh, Otto I just realized what your are asking. These are North American couplers only. Since I have no RW knowledge of slack charecteristics or even how European couplers and British coupler work, I would be misleading in trying to say these couplers work with those systems and that would be plain wrong to do. I'm only applying slcak and physical attributes to coupler systems that I have run in RW trains and actually pulled pins on in yard and road switching situations. Perhaps one of over the pond wag file experts could give some guidance in those areas and we could collaborate on the chain type coupler sometime down the road as well.

[Turbo Bill]

Here is the Bin Coupler Beta Pack V1.1. I encourage any and all who are experianced in eng/wag files to check these out and report back if you find any issues. This is very close to if not what the actual released coupler pack will be when uploaded to the FL. The slack in the eng files is slightly more then what you will find in RW conditions but was necessary to prevent bounding box binding on tight curves. Also no other mods to the eng file or .sd bounding box values should be required. I purposely made the values general enought to work with all cars intended in these files.

Follow the instructions for proper usage in the read me along with specific installation instructions in each wag/eng file. Enjoy these new couplers and remember they will effect how your train reacts to control changes on mainline runs as well as grade changes.

[tpilot]

Bill,

I think I found some errors initially, or at least I have questions:

Looking at Small-Road-Engine-Coupler.eng:

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 2e2 6e6N/m )
Damping ( 1e7N/m/s 1e7N/m/s )
Break ( 5.1e7N 5.1e7N )
r0 ( 25cm 25cm )
)
Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
)
Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 2e2 6e6N/m )
Damping ( 1e7N/m/s 1e7N/m/s )
Break ( 5.1e7N 5.1e7N )
r0 ( 25cm 25cm )
)
Velocity ( -0.2m/s )
)
Buffers (
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1e6N/m/s 1e6N/m/s )
r0 ( 0m 1e9 )
)
Centre ( 0.5 )
Radius ( 1 )
Angle ( 0.5deg )
)

In first Stiffness line, you are missing units on the first value. Shouldn't this be:

Stiffness ( 2e2N/m 6e6N/m )

Second Stiffness line is missing units also, but we previously were swapping values, you aren't anymore.

Should this be:

Stiffness ( 6e6N/M 2e2N/m )
Or should it be the same as the first line.

Large Road Engine Couplers and Switch Engine Couplers have same issues.

For Cushioned Couplers, Stiffness changed a LOT from your previous values, is this correct (intended)?

There is no mention in the readme about the 80ft plus coupler values, but I guess that's self-explanatory.

[tpilot]

Turbo Bill - Please also see my post in this forum about the SD70M in Atlanta and the possible requirement for a CouplerHasRigidConnection () line.

[drjoe]

Bill,

As has been discussed above, certain cars with extra length need the "rigid" coupling line in at least one ( but usually both ) of the coupler sections to prevent coupler "binding" through lower radius turns such as most yard and often siding turnouts ( switches ). I also use it "between" cars of a "group" like some of the "stackers" who share trucks. I will use "normal" coupler values on the "ends", but use the "rigid" in between. I also use this for the couplings in high speed train cars like the TGV.

[Turbo Bill]

I did intend to raise the coupler stiffness but in testing I have done a lot of fine tuning and inadvertantly left the proper N/m out. Those values started at "0" so that is how that happened. Thanks Joe for the tip on the Rigidline. And I also saw the stretching problem with high Horsepower locomotives. In my many hour of testing in switching situations I tried to make to those couplers stretch and they always held. I had to lower my second stiffness to prevent "node grabbing" and the stretch problem came back. I'm currently working on another theory to solve this problem. Thanks for the feedback and keep 'em coming as I will get these issues solved. The effects the new couplers have on train handling is tremendous and do require very realistic train handling skills and a very gently hand on the controls. Eerie to say the least.

[tpilot]

Are we no longer swapping stiffness values on the front and rear couplers? (Asked above).

[Turbo Bill]

I think I understand you question now Tpilot. On all instances that I have seen the r) values are swapped but I've never seen the stiffness values swapped as well where the first spring extension is the first value on the first coupler region and the second stiffness value on the second coupler region. If they indeed are supposed to be swapped then this may be were my coupler seperation is coming from with high horsepower units. Let me investigate this more and I will get back with you tonight.

[tpilot]

They were swapped previously - both in your earlier posted suggestions, in Otto's MP3Kcons engines, and in the recommended BIN coupler values that come with Route-Riter.

(None of which match each other, BTW, but that's a separate issue).

You are now using symmetrical damping, but that was different as well previously.

What I am talking about - I will use RR's examples:

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1.2e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.8e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 2cm 5cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( 0.2m/s )
)

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 5e6N/m 1.2e6N/m )
Damping ( 3.8e6N/m/s 1.3e6N/m/s )
Break ( 5.4e7N 5.4e7N )
r0 ( 5cm 2cm )
)
CouplingHasRigidConnection (1)
Velocity ( -0.2m/s )
)
Buffers (
Spring (
Stiffness ( 9e6N/m 5e6N/m )
Damping ( 1e6N/m/s 1e6N/m/s )
r0 ( 0m 10cm )
)
Centre ( 0.5 )
Radius ( 1 )
Angle ( 0.5deg )
)

[Turbo Bill]

Well, you learn something new everyday. I've looked at several of the cars in my fleet and not one of them have these values swapped where dual coupler regions are implemented. They have the swapped r0 values but that was all. This may solve some of the delemas I have encountered. I will report back and BTW thank you for taking the time to show me this. I am learning a new area and trying to get real world coupler traits into MSTS. I know exactly how they should act and with all your help and knowledge in what the various entries do and how they should be implemented will help me achieve my goal.

Also anybody that has the V1.1 couple pack, please hold off implementing into your fleet until we resolve a couple of issues that have arisen. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

[drjoe]

Bill,

It is my opinion ( based on extensive testing ) that the values need not be "reversed". The reversal of the velocity setting reverses all the other values ( like introducing a negative value in an equation, one negative makes all negative ). I treat the first value as the value in compression, and the second value as the value in extension, for all values of stiffness, damping, and r0.

The testing was done originally without Bin, but so far, I haven't noted any need to reverse them with my ( so far ) uncompleted testing in Bin. The values that Sniper showed to assist with coupling of MU locomotives do not have any reversed values in them other than the negative velocity value in the "front" coupler.

[tpilot]

> . . .with all your help and knowledge in what the various entries >do and how they should be implemented will help me achieve my goal.

I have no knowledge, I am just parroting what I have seen elsewhere and read in the various postings.

And btw, it's not just like trying to hit a moving target, it's like trying to hit a bullet with a slingshot. Everytime I think I have a clue, something else contradicts it.

[OTTODAD]

I think it was Lukas Lusser (SWISSIE) who recommended reversing all values in the second coupler section on the basis of applying logic, considering that these coupler parts move in the opposite direction to the other and therefore need different damping, etc.

It works perfectly with all my couplers I prefer to be RIGID to prevent couplers doing this below or worse.

The wagons in the first scene use RIGID couplers and the wagons in the other two pictures do not.

O t t o

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113429.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113430.jpg

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/113431.jpg

[Turbo Bill]

This is very good knowledge and I appreciate all sharing as this gives me areas to test theories. When your very close the effects desired one little tidbit from somewhere will lock it all into play.

Otto I do realize the couplers don't follow the slack in and out but in most cases they do look like they are actually compressing and stretching the way the two large knuckle parts slide for and aft on each other. I do realize that some visual appreance of the how the couplers look on some cars will be less the realistic, but no slack at all is totally unrealistice. I'me after the total visual effect of the cars slacking in and out when being switched and also how they affect trainhandling. So far the slack has been eye opening in how the train now really reacts to whats happening behind the engines and raises the reality bar quite a bit.

[OTTODAD]

Yes Bill, I agree that some realism is desirable, if an acceptable compromise can be found, you no doubt having modified much of your rolling stock's measurements and bounding boxes to achieve that !

But some of the wagons I have come across, letting others penetrate into them by feet, would need too much work to sort out and am taking the easy way out, making all couplers Rigid ( 1 ), trainsets like ACELA, ICE, TGV and others prefer anyway ! ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

P.S.: Thinking about this while I am having a late Brunch, the ideal solution would have been to animate the buffer bars so that they move spring-loaded and dampened, not separating the knuckles themselves, like the real couplers do !

[Turbo Bill]

i'm trying to make the coupler pack generic enough so that only few oddball cars will need bounding box work. So far I've got the no cusioned slack couplers working on short 40 foot cement cars and 70 foot woodchippers with good reults and no binding. I hope to get he cushioned drawbar versions to work this way as well. Oh and the engines too.

[tpilot]

Bill, to me the bounding box thing is not much of an issue. The donationware version of Route-Riter will read all the cars and adjust the bounding box to proper values automatically. (Assuming those values are correct).

What I would rather see is more generic settings, so preferably I have only a couple of sets of coupler values to use on all trains and don't have to go through "Okay, is this engine 4 or 6 axle, so should it use A or B coupler values, and is this boxcar 40' so it uses coupler D or 50' so it uses coupler E, unless it was made after 1955, in which case it uses coupler F or 60' so it uses coupler G, etc."

[Turbo Bill]

I am trying to do that and so far there are only 5 coupler sets including three for engines. Those are broken down into the Switch engine/small road unit/large road unit catagories and three wagon types: rigid couplers (no cushioned slack)/ cushioned drawbars/ cars over 80 feet in length/ passenger cars (no slack at all). The railcars all are broken down into the type of coupler they are for that specific car as there are three basic types. The 80 foot and longer coupler set is for the abnormal behavior these cars have because of MSTS and the engines are again broken down due to the vast size difference you can find with Diesel locomotives. Now you can take a real easy way out and test this theory but so far it has held up in my testing. Change the velocity values on all your fleet items to the numbers I posted in the SD70 thread. You should get good working couplers with no ill effects. But you do need Otto's DEFAULT wag file. I could take the easy road out and just to that but I'm chasing realistic slack charecteristics as they really increase the effects these factors have on your train. It very closely mimics what happens on a real train and does raise the bar for train handling skills required.

[seern]

After reading through the threads associated with the coupler value issue, I have concluded that what you are willing to take for realism is depended on what type of MSTS player you are. All through my experience with the sim, I have divided people into two basic groups, the drivers and the sightseers. A driver tends to stay in the cab, view 1, except when doing switching, while the sightseer will spend most of their time in views 2, 3 and 4. Looking at Otto's pictures, as a driver, I really don't care if the cars separate that much for the sake of realistic handling because I won't see it anyway. I feel Bill is onto something here in making train handling come closer to what he has experienced in the real world. I look forward to putting what he has done into practice. And have actually tested some of his earlier values on the C&NW. When running over a section of that route that is really up and down you can get a feel as the slack runs in and out.

[tpilot]

Good points, I would make three groups - sightseers, gamers, and simmers.

As you said, sightseers are mostly in the 2, 3, and 4, views.

Gamers are in the cabview most of the time, but . . . they are just there for the illusion of running a train and feeling like they are sitting in the engine. They prefer non-prototypical physics, easy train handling, no alerters, no derailments, don't really care how the train is SUPPOSED to work. "Throw this thing in reverse notch 8, I'm going 50 and I've got to stop at that station in .5 miles".

Simmers are most of the members on here, that really do care how it is SUPPOSED to work and really do want realistic action.

[OTTODAD]

Simmers are most of the members on here, that really do care how it is SUPPOSED to work and really do want realistic action.

Having responded to many questions and problems from members over the years, I can say that very few would know what "Realistic Action" related to railways is and how they operate, most of them not seeing glaring visual anomalies such as wheels not running on top of the rails or pantos not touching the overhead wire ! ;-)

The real railroaders, driving actual trains, are in the minority. Reading messages in train sim forums every day I am acutely aware of that.

When you buy a model railway layout you do not expect it to work like the real thing, but expect it to do what it is meant to, couplers not pulling apart or breaking unless derailed, their spring loaded self-centering bars providing slack realism !

The realism which MSTS does provide now is unsurpassed by any other train simulator and I would rather have one bird in my hand than 2 in the bush, as they say ! ;-)

O t t o

[seern]

Otto, that is the beauty of the old girl. You can have the visual effects you want so the cars don't pull apart by 2 - 3 feet we are currently seeing with Bill's latest efforts. Others of us can ignore this effect to get as close to a real world driving experience as possible. I agree with you that the vast majority of people who play the sim could care less about RW simming, but there is a minority that does want this and are willing to take the time to edit their wag/eng files to get it. Except for a few cars and engines all of my stock has your coupler lines, so I know what you have created and use it all the time to do what I do in the sim. When Bill comes up with his final changes I will install it at least on the C&NW stock and probably the rest of my North American stock. I will leave the British stock with your settings because they work well on DC3, LSE, GW, TM, etc. You brought up the model railroading example. Even there we can run the gamete from people who just want to run trains and those who spend hours and money to make their layouts as detailed as possible. Many of us with some age will remember John Allen's G&D and how wonderfully detailed it was and how he developed an operating system that closely mimicked the RW in its operations

[OTTODAD]

That is the beauty of the old girl.

Yes indeed, Sharon, SENIOR but still beautiful and like wine getting better with age ! :7

I appreciate that there are guys like RAGTIMER, Peter Smith, who drive locos for a living and virtual railroaders who prefer MSTS locos and trains to behave the same as the real ones, all their physics and controls working as the should, which MSTS lets you modify to suit almost everybody's expectations, if they know the "How-To" ! ;-)

I now find MSTS as real as can be, sometimes applying modifications to tracks, rolling stock and scenery to suit my tastes and on the whole all is now working as it should, thanks to ongoing improvements from George's MSTSBin and others like Bill, yourself and many more !

Did you notice that interest in KRS has almost evaporated ?

I am a happy dude, having fun with MSTS, working on the GOLD-SPIKE and assisting in the forums ! ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

[Turbo Bill]

While I stive to have prototypical train charecteristics, and Sharon knows the estent that I got to achieve these results. I do also very much look at the visual end of what I do. The coupler gaps in my last release is totally unacceptable and I have been using every free minute I have to rectify this problem. I have reduced it to just a couple inches under a full pull with four high powered engines. They come back together after the loads are moving so it's much more realistic. The major problems I've been working on is the centerbeams empties and the autoracks. I have made good advances on the switch node issue and the coupler gap issue. The problem being is that we will have to have a compromise possibly in this area because if you fix the node grabbling the coupler gap problems show up and vice versa. But give me time and I will fix this. All the rest of the coupler styles have been upgraded and are working fine. I will post a new pack as soon as I get these two railcar types satisfactory. Again thanks to all for your patience time and support in this effort.