Unit of measure?

[muskokaandtahoe]

Ok guys, should MSTS-X be using feet & miles OR meters and kilometers as did MSTS?

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[Richard]

I vote for Feet & Miles, for me standard guage is 4'8 1/2" not 1.4351 meters :)

Take care,
Rich S.

[ricksan]

If they want to appeal to an international market, and who wouldn't, it's SI hands down. I understand there are only three countries left that still refuse to abandon their obsolete system(s). They are Burma, Liberia and one other that I can't think of.

[NW_611]

Feet and miles, with support for the metric system in case we feel like a jaunt across the SNCF's high speed lines. Can't think of any justification for me to have to learn metric in order to simulate American railroad operations.

[Erick_Cantu]

Hopefully metric, as basically every 3D app defaults to it, and basically every game does as well. When doing 3D work, working in tenths is superior to twelfths in every way.

Either way MSFS can give you either as a selectable option, but model-wise you work in metres (although I am pretty sure runway work is done in feet, but the last time I did any scenery work was with FS95, so...).

[imbubby]

I see no reason that the sim couldn't support both standards. It's a
dead easy conversion for a computer to make on the fly. You wouldn't
even notice the additional cpu useage.

[westerngy]

I say metric since lets see only 2 countries left that use standard measure.


Just Rollin Down The Tracks

http://www.notch-8.com/
http://www.railroadradio.net
http://www.RFCHosting.com/

[Richard]

The funny thing about the current version of MSTS is, it's really a mixed bag. Some measurements are in the Metric system, like scenery objects. Other measurements are available in both Metric and the English system, like speed, engine and car weights. So maybe the real question should be:
Should the converters or plug-in's for the various 3D software programs like Gmax, Google Sketchup, TSM, 3D-Max... accept measurements in both measuring systems and then convert the values to what the new sim uses internally? and Would the new Train Sim team be willing to write converters or plug-in's for the most popular modeling programs?

Take care,
Rich S.

[Turbo Bill]

North American content should be in feet/miles etc. That's how the RW railroads work and if it has "Sim" in the name then that would be appropriate. Also if footage counters etc are available they should be in feet including any length notations.

[OwainGlyndwr]

UK measurement should also be in mph and miles as a distance measurement. That is what we still use.

Then we have the mishmash of metres, kilo`s and all the other european crap that has been forced upon us, by the EEC.

At 55 yrs of age, i refuse to use any of it. ;-)

Mike.

[bm_89]

Do me a favor and use metric. It's just soo much easier to use, since it is based on a decimal system, instead of the variety that the english system uses. And, btw, most of the world uses it.

[Vince]

>>"...... I understand there are only three countries left that still refuse to abandon their obsolete system(s).They are Burma, Liberia and one other that I can't think of."<<

That would be the United States.

[Swissie]

>>"...... I understand there are only three countries left that still refuse to abandon their obsolete system(s).They are Burma, Liberia and one other that I can't think of."<<

> That would be the United States.

That was sarcasm...

But honestly: As long as MSTS X lets you put in whatever unit of measurement you want for a parameter, we'll all be fine. That's just what the deal is now: Whether you put the line MaxVelocity ( 74mph ) into an SD70M's .eng file, or the line MaxVelocity ( 200kph ) into a German 103's .eng file, the sim works as advertised in both cases. Who cares that the actual physics in the sim seem to use m/s as unit of measurement for speed rather than anything else, which nobody has sofar ever used for MaxVelocity in an .eng file. Agreed, that is a metric value as well, but while scientists all around the globe use m/s as standardised unit for measuring speed, the general public still prefers to think in either kilometres per hour or miles per hour?

Whatever the system, it should be coherent and fail-safe to use. That's all we should be pressing for.

What the sim converts it to behind the scenes is pretty moot of a discussion - but as a good 95% of the global population & industry prefers the decimal system over the imperial system, chances are that this will be used in the actual physics engine of the game or sim, whatever you call it.

Lukas a.k.a Swissie

[oakpalms]

The statement that the United States has not converted is nor quite correct. Many metric measurements are used, and more of them all the time. Realistically, a more precise measurement can be made using the metric system. Setting up something that uses both systems opens the door for a lot of mistakes and questions. It would be better to have one system that all can know for certainty that a car/wagon or engine mass is really the same as what it should be and not a couple of tons off.

I have hoping that KRS, MSTS-X, and whatever sim comes out that it will have some approved method for naming files, names for rolling stock, and such. Some type of uniformity would go a long way in making it so people don't have to retype so much.

Bob Edwards

[Richard]

Hello Bob,
I would have to disagree :) For anyone like me, who uses the English system on a daily basis and is not really that familiar with the Metric system, I just have to assume I've done the conversion from English to Metric correctly. If the actual converter or plug-in for the modeling software package did the conversion there would be less errors. An example of what I'm referring to, Let's say I'm building a model of a U33C and my U33C uses 33" diameter wheels. With the current version of MSTS I have to convert 33 inches to meters when creating the model. The answer I should get would be .8382 meters, at this point I have to assume that is the correct answer. But what happens if I hit the wrong key unknowingly? I could end up with an answer of 1.1682. Since I do not use the Metric system on a regular basis, I would probably not catch this as a wrong answer. I know that a Meter is about the same length as a yard and my wheels are about 1 yard in diameter (minus 3 inches) so this answer would seem correct even though it is not. This is why I feel we should be able to work in what ever system we are most comfortable with and let a converter electronically take care of any conversions needed on the back end.

Take care,
Rich S.

[oakpalms]

Rich,
That works great as long as everyone knows what system you are using. However, we have metric tons and then we have American tons both designated with a "t" that get intermingled with engines and wagons/cars masses. We get a program like Conbuilder that shows us the mass of an entire consist. But is it all metric or American tons that are shown? Builders in many countries probably think only in terms of the metric ton, those in the US in the American ton. Just what is the answer for the total mass of a train when trying to take that over AL Krug's program for finding horsepower required for moving that mass over a grade and at a certain speed? It helps to select the right engines and horsepower needed for a particular activity.

Concerning mass in relation to car weights, boy that is one place we need some uniformity. I have 50 foot boxcars that come with differences of over a hundred tons for gross weight. Where some modelers arrive at some of the weight settings is really a shot in the dark. However, I know that it is very hard to find data for certain cars in relation to car weight and maximum load limit.

That means 205 lbs of weight difference either more less per ton depending upon how it is used. On a train with 4000 tons identified with Conbuilder then the actual weight could be off as much as 410 tons or about 10 percent. That 10 percent could easily mean the need for another engine for the consist to work properly in an activity or the need for a different type engine.

I realize that Al Krug's calculations are not fully usable with train sim, but it at least gives one a good starting point. The more refined the pulling characteristics and other features of train sim become/have become does make it where his calculations make it better than repeated trial runs over the entire route just to find what engines are needed.

If we are to have dual systems then we need to have clear indications as to which system has been used. Maybe a data line indicating the system would go a long way in helping others to understand the data.

Bob Edwards

[geode]

>"Do me a favor and use metric."

Do YOU a favor? If I ever change my preferences it'll because my decision will be doing ME a favor. I actually work in both systems, and I use a calculator to convert from one to the other. BUT I think in inches and feet and most likely will forever. If you can hold-out a couple hundred years, you may get your wish.