What Offence have I committed?

[RavenX]

This is unreal. To have a RS mod/spokesperson egging on the arguement is wrong.

Sorry, but there is no argument. I have a valid question that pertain particularly to Rail Simulator, Some Senior Forum Members Conduct, & The Moderator Westerngy.

He stated that my post & thread was in effect going nowhere... (perhaps meaning of no consequence / irrelevant)

And a request:
Perhaps the Moderators should take the time & pointedly request that All Senior Members of this Forum be more welcoming and accepting of a persons enjoyment, gratitude and thanks displayed to-wards ANY particular Train / Railway Simulator, regardless of it's apparent (or non-apparent) failings.
Coupled with that, is it correct to assume from the following that if I continue to express my favourable opinion of Rail Simulator and ask that those Senior Members be disciplined in accordance with the Forum Rules, as is correct, I shall be banned?
we have all heard your opinion, yay for you. ..., or before your waffling gets you banned.

AND

Westerngy,
Enough is enough...Raven X you came on here with you own impression of RS and you yourself have turned it into a spitting match.You are here warned stop and yes this thread is LOCKED.
What exactly is "wrong" with my impressions of Rail Simulator?

and how have I turned this thread into a spitting match?

I would in all fairness appreciate some clarity as to why is is wrong of me to express my thanks towards RSDL within the Rail Simulator Forum, and query as to why you locked the threads?

I want only to discuss what I feel is a really good product. And not have to defend my stance against Senior Members & Moderators of this forum who think otherwise.

Regards

RavenX

[eaglefan9727]

RavenX, Like I told Kevin in the other thread called "Locked 3x" Can we just end it now and move on please?

[OwainGlyndwr]

I am a senior member whatever that means Gary.

To me it doesn't matter whether you have been here 5 mins or 5 years.

It`s only a poxy trainsim forum, nothing special at all. ;)

You think it is a really good product, i on the other hand after months of continual use.

Think that it is probably about half finished and a very poor clone of Trainz.

But with prettier graphics.

Each to their own mate. :D

Mike.

[Hawk]

What exactly is "wrong" with my impressions of Rail Simulator?

Regards

RavenX
Nothing is wrong with your opinion, same as nothing is wrong with the opinions of those that don't agree with you and have a different opinion.

If you want to control what people can say in a forum I suggest you start your own forum. Otherwise don't tell me what I should or shouldn't say.

[rgarber]

You gotta admit, he's sure making things lively around here. Bad publicity for RS, for sure, but the irony is he thinks he's doing RSDL a favor. :rolleyes:

[Dan1]

It's kind of ironic, all these people who have deleted the game, hate it, won't ever touch it ever again, spend all their time here. You'd have thought they'd have better things to do. But no, here they are, piling in because someone dared to say that they liked the game... where would the world be without internet warriors.

[RSDLadam]

You gotta admit, he's sure making things lively around here. Bad publicity for RS, for sure, but the irony is he thinks he's doing RSDL a favor. :rolleyes:
Personally I think Raven is being beaten down as quickly as possible by the same usual culprits, because of fear that RailSim might actually get accepted into the genre. Something that I for one can see alot of very cuddled close to MSTSX development members are doing their best to prevent.

But thats just my oppinion. Each to his own as someone said!

[Hawk]

He's not being beaten down for is opinions. It's his attitude that only his opinion matters.

[Dan1]

It's his attitude that only his opinion matters.

And that is different to every other poster on this site in what way?

As someone once said 'we only like people who agree with us'

[RSDLadam]

Animal Farm comes to mind!

All being equal and such :)

[NorfolkSouthern_37]

i dont think thats fair Adam. i think that KRS is pretty good. i can aknowlege that its lacking but i dont hate the game, and i dont think i wasted my $45 on it the very day it was released. if that isnt enough thanks then i dont know what is. i personally think this raven guy needs to get beaten down, just for being an insistant jerk and trying to keep the same topic going on and on ramming it down our throats as if we have to care about what hes saying... at first i said, yea you have a point, but so does everyone else, and he cant let that stand. it is a bit troubling that you also seem to be keeping this going. i mean no disrespect, but honestly, i think you do not accept the criticism from us even if we like the game. we get thrown into that lump of people who just want to complain or not let RS into the genre... that is kindof silly. RS is not the best rail simulator, but its a damn fine game for a few hours of enjoyment a day at least. i would think youd be able to face the fact that you did not make the best game in the world. it is acceptable, and great job on it, but it would be nice if instead of getting brsuhed off that you would respond to those who complain with something they can take away as if you cared what they thought. even if you dont its nice to see a 'we will look into it'. i think we all understand that you dont have all the time in the world to work on this game. but i think it is not really good for the game when ppl mention basic things that should exist in a 'RAILROAD simulator' and you RSDL guys seem to get offended instead of taking notice to the fact.

i am currently looking into developing more US locomotives for KRS, i hope that one day they can be fully featured.

[eaglefan9727]

fear that RailSim might actually get accepted into the genre. That is only if the sim can be salvaged and to be honest with you. I am not sure if it can, Because first impressions are a big thing when it comes to any kind of business. Dont get me wrong, Because like I have stated a couple times. I would like to see this sim progress if things get fixed properly, But I think overall. The thing that will hurt the sim in the long run is the first impression and that didnt turn out that great.

Something that I for one can see alot of very cuddled close to MSTSX development members are doing their best to prevent.

If MSTS-X releases their game in the same state that Rail Simulator was release which was not even close to being done. MSTS-X will most likely feel the same wrath as Rail Simulator did. Of course, MSTS-X is probably watching this and have realized that they need to release their sim as completed as possible. That is probably why they moved their date back.

[Hawk]

And that is different to every other poster on this site in what way?
No difference. Everyone gets bashed at one time or another. Some folks just handle it better than others.

[bnsf1959]

I think Eaglefan9727 and NorfolkSouthern_37 has some valid points there. I too would like to see the game improved. If you can fix some of the things like we asked, You would have good sim instead of half finished product. Take notes from the American side about how we run the railroads here might be different than in Europe or other places.

[RSDLadam]

...it is a bit troubling that you also seem to be keeping this going.Yep, very true, I better stop.

I would think youd be able to face the fact that you did not make the best game in the world, but it would be nice if instead of getting brushed off that you would respond to those who complain with something they can take away as if you cared what they thought. even if you dont its nice to see a 'we will look into it'.
In all fairness, it seems no matter how much time we spend on forums, how ever many documents and videos we produce, emails we answer, threads we respond to, bugs or glitches we fix, people are forever claiming RSDL dont do enough.

The global train simming community might be considered small compared to other gaming genre but its far bigger than any one developer could ever work closely with on a daily basis. We're never going to be able to respond to everyone, but we do our best :)

[Dan1]

That is only if the sim can be salvaged and to be honest with you. I am not sure if it can, Because first impressions are a big thing when it comes to any kind of business. Dont get me wrong, Because like I have stated a couple times. I would like to see this sim progress if things get fixed properly, But I think overall. The thing that will hurt the sim in the long run is the first impression and that didnt turn out that great.



If MSTS-X releases their game in the same state that Rail Simulator was release which was not even close to being done. MSTS-X will most likely feel the same wrath as Rail Simulator did. Of course, MSTS-X is probably watching this and have realized that they need to release their sim as completed as possible. That is probably why they moved their date back.

Yeah, so you keep saying time after time after time. You're like a scratched record. You have been down on the game since before it was released. Your claims about wanting the game to succeed ring very hollow. Why exactly are you posting other than a desire to make sure that any discussion of RS is as negative as possible?

[NorfolkSouthern_37]

Yep, very true, I better stop.


In all fairness, it seems no matter how much time we spend on forums, how ever many documents and videos we produce, emails we answer, threads we respond to, bugs or glitches we fix, people are forever claiming RSDL dont do enough.

The global train simming community might be considered small compared to other gaming genre but its far bigger than any one developer could ever work closely with on a daily basis. We're never going to be able to respond to everyone, but we do our best :)

it is much appreciated, at least form here Adam. i realise that there are those who cannot be reasoned with, but keep plugging away at it. you cant please everyone, but i think its best to not let them know they are getting at you.

[eaglefan9727]

Yeah, so you keep saying time after time after time. You're like a scratched record. You have been down on the game since before it was released. Your claims about wanting the game to succeed ring very hollow. Why exactly are you posting other than a desire to make sure that any discussion of RS is as negative as possible?

Im guessing you didnt see my review of KRS that I did with the demo version before the US version was released. I gaved it pretty high remarks if anyone remembers. I believe I gaved it a 7.5 or a 8, But when the full game was released. It was a big piece of junk. Sorry for putting it in that term, But that is how I feel about it. If you or others dont think I want to see KRS progress/fixed and become a good sim. Well, I guess that is your perspective.

[westerngy]

Sorry, but there is no argument. I have a valid question that pertain particularly to Rail Simulator, Some Senior Forum Members Conduct, & The Moderator Westerngy.

He stated that my post & thread was in effect going nowhere... (perhaps meaning of no consequence / irrelevant)

And a request:

Coupled with that, is it correct to assume from the following that if I continue to express my favourable opinion of Rail Simulator and ask that those Senior Members be disciplined in accordance with the Forum Rules, as is correct, I shall be banned?


AND

Westerngy,

What exactly is "wrong" with my impressions of Rail Simulator?

and how have I turned this thread into a spitting match?

I would in all fairness appreciate some clarity as to why is is wrong of me to express my thanks towards RSDL within the Rail Simulator Forum, and query as to why you locked the threads?

I want only to discuss what I feel is a really good product. And not have to defend my stance against Senior Members & Moderators of this forum who think otherwise.

Regards

RavenX


First off Raven X you just can't seem to stop can you.In your very first thread you stated your point but couldn't stand other folks opinion on a product.You kept banging away at a bent nail hoping to straighten it.Now you've had three threads on the same thing and still can't seem to stop.
Yes you have your opion just like others have but you personally have gone over board on a private(read your a guest here like me) forum not a public forum.
If you think the Mods are down on RS then you yourself have read something into nothing.I personelly have RS and un-installed it and thats my right to do so.Do I bash it NO but you seem to think so.What I've done is locked threads that have turned into a bashing war by you and others here and THAT will NOT be TOLERATED.

[BNSFfan]

I agree completely with you Dale. The old saying "If you Cant stand the Heat, stay out of the kitchen!" comes to mind on this one. Why keep dragging around a freight car with brakes on when you're slipping and getting no where!? Honestly I find no point in the arguments anymore and refuse to keep it going, I'd recommend everyone just ignore the tantalising moments that will allow you to voice your opinion as it doesn't get you anywhere with the simulator. Instead of whining like a bunch of baby birds that are hungry for more, just confront Kuju about the bugs and ask them to address them. "RavenX" Right now you're beating yourself up like a one legged man at an a** kicking contest, if you want to get deeper in the hole, keep posting the same thing over and over so Dale or another Moderator can lock the post...

[westerngy]

And theres no reason to continue beating this thread to death,or adding to it.

[plainsman]

I do have a suggestion. I think a MUCH more positive and constructive approach would be to give some specific instruction and direction on how to do some of the things mentioned. For example, how about a DETAILED description of how to edit the physics for a GP38-2. I would be happy to provide a complete set of specs and any data needed to the project. I think such a tutorial would be a super welcome addition to the community knowledge base. That would do so much more to foster good will for RS than a shouting match as to who has the better opinion. Show us how to do it, don't just say you know how to do it!

[Dan1]

Im guessing you didnt see my review of KRS that I did with the demo version before the US version was released. I gaved it pretty high remarks if anyone remembers. I believe I gaved it a 7.5 or a 8, But when the full game was released. It was a big piece of junk. Sorry for putting it in that term, But that is how I feel about it. If you or others dont think I want to see KRS progress/fixed and become a good sim. Well, I guess that is your perspective.

My perspective is based upon reading your posts. That is how you feel about the game, and we know this because this is all you ever say. You don't like the game, you've uninstalled it, move on and do something else. If I don't like your routes I don't make sure that in every thread you post about I am there saying how much I hate the routes.

BNSFfan - nice bit of trolling there yourself. If you see no point in the arguments then why are you even posting?

[plainsman]

Dan, be quite!!!!

[plainsman]

GP38-2 specs in brief.
weight 255,400 pounds, typical working weight.
clean dry rail adhesion limit 26.5%
Max continuous force 54,800 pounds
minimum continuouis speed 10.8 mph
Power 2,000 HP.
Transmission efficiency 84%
top speed 70 mph
max brake force 66 kN.
90 pound brake system pressure.

[Dan1]

Point taken.

Perhaps one for a separate new topic? Let this one die a death. NorfolkSouthern37 is discussing building a loco maybe a GP38 so...

[plainsman]

Let's try to move in a positve direction with this! I noted the thread on a GP38 (probably a GP38-2 but I can give specs for a GP38 as well?). That is why I suggested the change in direction with specific goals!

[Dan1]

WTF? I was responding to your comments about the GP38 spec and agreeing with you about the need for a topic/tutorial.

[plainsman]

I reread your post and edited, again let us move to positive, please.

[BX620]

I do have to agree with Plainsman, it would be really nice to see some more information for creation of RS content.

I think that one of the best forms that this information could take is the conversion of MSTS equipment into RS.

To me it is rather discouraging when people with a lot more experience with simming than myself seem to be scrambling to find information.

I myself am a modeler, not a programmer. In the real world I work with real iron, not the digital kind. I don't have the expertise to play and experiment with lines of code or whatever. It would be nice to see another media that allows me to build models without cursing at the "evil demon possessed word box."

When RS came out, I was very hopefull that it would be another medium that I could build and share models in, but to date, the number of new models seems to be very limited, and information on creating them, seem to me at least to be even scarcer.

[RSderek]

Hi,

There is a fair amount of information out there and it is fairly easy to create and share.

If you log onto the RS website there are documents on how to:

Create an Engine
Create a Wagon
Create a Loft
Create Scenery
Create Cuttings, Embankments and Tunnels


If you don't use max then there is Blender;
http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=235&t=79088

3D canvas is also supported.

This guy (Iceman) is making many shapes available.

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=234&t=80429&start=120

On UKTS there are loads of steam trains to choose from and a few narrow gauge engines.

The information is out there, lots on UKTS if you look for it, but for some reason not so much on here which is sad.

regards
Derek

[plainsman]

That does not help me, as I can't get inside that section of your website?

[Basherz]

Why on earth not Bob. There's nothing secret about it?

[kevinculla9]

Personally I think Raven is being beaten down as quickly as possible by the same usual culprits, because of fear that RailSim might actually get accepted into the genre. Something that I for one can see alot of very cuddled close to MSTSX development members are doing their best to prevent.

But thats just my oppinion. Each to his own as someone said!



Adam, I think every one of us wants Rail Simulator to be accepted into the genre!!!!.....all we have said is that we want an actual simulation not just a pretty game............I use this sim I find re-paints and add ons people make......It's not a bad game and i dont think anyone has said that its BAD......just not complete.

[theokus]

Adam, I think every one of us wants Rail Simulator to be accepted into the genre!!!!


And I think things will chance in 2009 ;)
The old “love” of MSTS is still out there and the jump
to MSTS2 will be a bit easier for those veterans of MSTS1.

But, it depends on the tools too.
That editor in MSTS was “crap”, sorry to say so.
Making terrain was even more…
Ok, the veterans know the show.

Because MSTS2 is based on “flight simulator” it’s quite possible
you have to go shopping for new parts for your computer.
And it’s even possible to download an update of “10 giga”
two months after the game is released.
We know Microsoft, don’t we.
It’s always the same: releasing to early.
(not only Microsoft…)

The principal of modeling will be the same but not everybody
can afford to buy Max.
Yes, there are alternatives but in the past a lot could be solved
by f. i. Gmax..
It’s a presumption of my part that Max is the tool to choose.

So what shall we getting from MS?
I couldn’t read one word about tools we get.
(correct me if I am wrong)

The whole process from making the plain route to a working
in-game-train-route was and is too steep and too long for beginners.
Again: so what shall we getting from MS?

With “getting” I mean for free but I haven’t much hope.
Everybody wants to make money, it’s the commerce that’s counting those days.

It would be nice to have parts.
Parts, so you could use them to assemble your own preferred wagon
or train. Plus a certain (easy) way to put some textures on those.
I don’t see any problems here, for sure when it comes to building wagons.
Trainz did it, a lang time ago.
Question: why did MSTS better then Trainz ;)
MSTS is or was more “real” and has better in-game-graphics.
It could be and it’s only my guess.

It’s also a matter of time.
People these day’s have no time to spare so to have a quick result
would be a benefit.

One thing: the price.
Let’s say a least 60 euro ;)

[RSderek]

To log onto the RS website you have to register.
It is very simple and only requires an email address and a name.
This information is for our database and not shared anywhere else.

There are a number of free downloads and information once logged on.

regards

Derek

[plainsman]

Hi Derek,
The problem is not getting on the RS website, I do that already. The problem is, all the how to documents are underneath the license. Now I sort of understand that you guys think a person building a model is probably going to do everything, but most modelers don't do their own physics. If they do, they generally don't do a very good job, because they just don't have the required data or the understanding to apply it. Even payware shops usually don't do their own physics. For MSTS, I was more than happy to do physics for free or payware projects with my only compensation being a copy of the finished product (they usually like that as I make a decent beta tester). I have never been payed for any of the 1000s of MSTS projects I have worked on. It would be really helpful, if you could see fit to put a how to work with RS physics doc outside the license. That would give me the ability to help a lot more folks create appropriate performance in their models. I have tons of data that most don't have on almost any diesel locomotive built in North America.

[AlanCh]

Bob

PM me your email address, and I can send you the Engine How To - I assume this doesn't break the RS copyright!

[plainsman]

Hi Alan,
Thanks for the offer, but I am a stickler for not infringing on anyones IP rights. I would prefer if RS would offer to make that available outside the license.

[ohanlon]

Bob

If you want to do physics you can for anyone, all you need from the modeler is the Source
Folders/Files.

The instructions for these changes are in the PDF files.

Personal changes for anyones own use can be done opening up the Bin file, a simple procedure but harder to use than source folders.

There are chaps on the UKTS site doing this regularly to help modelers. and re-skinners.

There are Minor errors in the original programing of fuel values but these can be over
come once you realize metric has been mixed with imperial.

Regards
Ohanlon

[plainsman]

Hi Ohanlon,
"The instructions for these changes are in the PDF files." :(
That is the 10,000 pound gorilla in this problem, I don't have and can't get the POF files because I cannot sign the license agreement necessary to view them. I understand this may seem ridiculous to most, but I do have very good reasons pointed out too many times to reiterate.
Now I am perfectly willing to play along and not ever see the code or the official instructions on how to do it. I ONLY want to provide someone else who does have the needed instructions, data they can use to edit whatever process is necessary. All I need is for someone (anyone please!!:confused::confused:) to tell me what data they need. If that were accomplished, I would happily create a comprehensive spreadsheet of about 100 different North American diesel locomotives (almost everthing that has been used) with the data someone else can plug into the files and use. I have the data, just no way to provide a format that anyone else would find useful.
If RS would just please, prepare a very general instruction outside the license, along the lines of:
"Before you begin you will need the following information and data"
I could provide that data in a standardized useful format consistant with real locomotive performance. Sure some of the data may have to be tweeked or adjusted to fit under the performance of the game engine, but this would be a really useful starting point.

[ohanlon]

Bob

Understand your problem, but to my understanding the system is very much the same as
you used when doing and helping on the MSTS Diesels models, the input although looks different is to my way of thinking the same, like for example power tractive effort braking
and ancillary stuff.

Regards
Ohanlon

[plainsman]

Hi Ohanlon,
Actually there are some rather dramatic differences as I understand (just from third party discussion). For example, in RS TE can be set by a graphical curve fitting element. I don't know how it works as to data input?? Why is this useful? Let's look at a GP38-2, a GP38_Gen, and a GP40-2. I am attaching three charts to illustrate the Tractive Effort vs. Speed of each unit. Take a look, and I will explain in another thread.

[ohanlon]

Bob

Interesting, but having looked through your so called simulation, engine, and Bogie physics
in this USA side of things you certainly have a load of fixing to do.

There is no way the physics fit the diesels represented in the Cajon Route.

http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20ES44AC.HTML

http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20SD40-2.HTML

Going by this sites info if they are correct specifications for the default models.

Regards
Ohanlon

[plainsman]

First to get on a level field, lets define each of these units. The First is a 255,400 pound GP38-2 (a typical example of such a unit in working configuration). The second is a 252,900 pound GP38 with generators. The third unit is a 276,700 pound GP40-2. All these are typical working configurations for the appropriate unit.
Now let's look at the GP38-2 first. The engineer needs to start a heavy train. He will be able to get about 70,000 pounds of force from the units from start up to about 8 mph. He will have to be careful, as any throttle application that would cause the unit to have more than 70,000 pounds of tractive effort would result in wheelslip. Thus the unit is adhesion limited below 8 mph. Now he can't maintain all that force for very long, as the traction motors would overheat and destruct. The max continuous tractive effort is 54,800 pounds, the blue line. Note this is very close to the same value on all three units. That is because the traction motors are the same on all three. Above 10.8 mph, the tractive effort curve is a pure function of power out to the max speed of 70 mph (ignoring slight variance in transmission efficiency with speed).
Next look at the GP38 with generators. This unit will have to undergo transition and shunting in order to deal with the back emf of the traction motors. The GP38-2 alternators put out so much voltage, they can simply overcome the problem. The older generators can't. You will note that starting tractive effort is less, as the unit is lighter and is very slightly less adhesion capable. You will also note the two slight sags in the TE curve at 35 mph and 65 mph. This is due to the drop in transmission efficiency as you get very close to transition or the top speed of the unit.
Now take a look at the GP40-2. You will note this has a much different curve, and is not power constant. The reason for this is a GP40-2, has power limiting from about 23 mph down to about 15-17 mph. Above 23 mph the unit puts out 3,000 HP. Below 15 mph, the unit is only putting out 2,000 HP, just like a GP38-2. It is a lot heavier though, so it will have a good bit more starting force. But none of that is due to the extra power of a GP40-2. If it weighed 255,400 pounds, it would NOT start any heavier train (would not have any greater tractive effort) than a GP38-2 weighing 255,400 pounds.
Please ask questions if this isn't making sense or if you don't understand anything.

[plainsman]

Hi Ohanlon,
There are two very different units there. One is a SD40-2 which will behave much like the units we are discussing, except it is a lot heavier and has additional traction motors, so it can take more current without burning out the traction motors (it is a 6 axle unit as opposed to 4 axle units discussed above). There are some obvious errors on the data shown though (I will discuss that in a moment).
The other unit is a very different animal. It is a modern unit with AC traction motors. Now AC traction motors do not behave like DC traction motors in a number of very different ways. To briefly note differences, the adhesion will be much higher as these have computer controled devices that match radar determined ground speed against the rotational speed of the wheels, and maintains control such that wheels are allowed to slip such that wheelspeed is about 11% greater than ground speed. Up to that point adhesion actually increases. Slightly more wheelslip, and adhesion drops dramatically. Thus best AC units can attain adhesion of 45% under ideal conditions. The TM are also three phase. The explanation is complicated, but the net result is that the three phase AC traction motors can do about 1.7 times the work of regular DC traction motors. Further, the AC traction motors can operate at very slow speeds without burning out. Thus more TE.
Back to the errors for the SD40-2. The horsepower is actually 3,000 HP for a SD40-2. A SD45 or SD45-2 would have 3,600 HP. Also I note that the person mixed a lot of data from SD40 (generator) model and SD40-2. The 65 mph top speed would apply to a SD40 (generator) but a SD40-2 would be 70 mph. The 82,100 pound CTE (continuous tractive effort) would apply to an SD40, a SD40-2 would be 83,000 pounds. The weight is noted at 368,000 pounds, but very few SD40 or SD40-2 units are operated at that weight in working configuration. Most are actually 385-395,000 pounds. Thus at 25% clean dry adhesion limit (without the sander running on excellent rail), the typical SD40 will have a tractive effort limit of about 97,500 pounds, and a typical SD40-2 would be about 103,000 pounds (26.5% adhesion limit on clean dry rail). See what I mean, quite a few errors. Note, the SD40-2 units modeled in the game (UP units with those numbers) actually weigh about 393,500 pounds.
Now since I can't examine the files of the RS models in the game, I have no way to observe how RS actually set up the physics model for these units??

[OwainGlyndwr]

Bob am i right in thinking that the ES44AC is rated at 4,400hp ?

If so, that is not the figure that RSDL have used.

Mike.

[plainsman]

The actual specs for a GE ES44AC, 4,400 gross hp (would be about 4,154 HP net at the rail). The unit would have a continuous tractive effort rating of 166,000 pounds and a max TE of about 183,000 pounds standard, and up to 198,000 pounds with optional equipment. The units weigh 415-420,000 pounds. The prime mover is a 12 cylinder 45 degree V.

[OwainGlyndwr]

RSDL uses....................

<MaxPower d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="000000C0CC38A840" d:precision="string">3100.3999</MaxPower>

<MaxForce d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000004062C06840" d:precision="string">198.0120</MaxForce>

<MaxSpeed d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000C05240" d:precision="string">75.0000</MaxSpeed>

<MaxContinuousForce d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="00000000ACC06440" d:precision="string">166.0210</MaxContinuousForce>

Am i right in thinking that the locos are underpowered.

I asked this in the first place because i needed 6x ES44AC locos to climb away from SB and the speed dropped to 14mph by the time i reached the top of the grade with 75x BoxCars in tow.

cheers,
Mike.

[plainsman]

Hi Mike,
I suspect (I don't know the fact, I don't have the docs??) the power rating RS is using is in KiloWatts rather than Horsepower. It is strange that units are mixed in kpounds of force, and metric kW for power?? 3100 kW would be about right for Net Power at the rail.
I am guessing the problem with the train you describe may actaully be in the friction data for the locomotives and cars (this can create some large errors if off, as it compounds over many cars), and lack of precision with grade work (or artistic license)?

[OwainGlyndwr]

Hi Bob,

not sure what unit of measurement the maxpower is given as in the US locos.

But in the example diesel loco blueprint, it is measured in HP. ;)

On the friction data, i managed to get my head around the MSTS configurations.

But 3 or 4 years down the line and with increased mental health problems, i am finding RS a bit more taxing. :)

regards,
Mike.

[plainsman]

Several things to check, What is the power reported for the SD40-2? What is reported for the Class 47? In other words, are they in HP or kW?
BTW, what is the weight for the ES44AC and the SD40-2?
Adam or Derek, can you enlighten us as to correct units for power?
Note, I PMed Adam requesting clarification as to correct unit to use.

[plainsman]

After examining the SD40-2 and Class 47 files with Bill Scott's tools, it does appear that power is in horsepower. Thus for the ES44AC, max power would be 4400 (currently 3100). Further down, there is a power at the rail parameter. This should be 4147.5 (currently 3100). I cannot open the TE vs speed graph with Bill's tools. That may be in error if incorrect power was used??
BTW, for the UP units modeled, the weight of the SD40-2 in the BIN file should be 178.4 instead of 177.0. That will also raise max force proportionally in the simulation file.

[ohanlon]

Bob

Horsepower is the factor used in all models whether it is steam diesel or electric traction

Pounds-foot is used in all for tractive, effort PSI for pressures

One major concern though is fluids they are put out as the USA value so it would seem
and when used for gallons in tenders 4000 Imperial will come out as 4803 as it does on
the Black5 UK steamer, also of course effecting the 7F which has a 3500 gallon tender
but shows 4200 gasllons. this I reckon will effect Diesel fuel as well.

Can you if I may ask move onto Dynamic braking can you supply any figures power/force
for the USA models.

Like I mentioned before we are dealing with MSTS numbers all over again.

Regards
Ohanlon

[ohanlon]

Bob

This is the ES44AC

<Mass d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="000000A099896740" d:precision="string">216.3000</Mass>

and the SD40-2

<Mass d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000206640" d:precision="string">177.0000</Mass>


Regards
Ohanlon

[ohanlon]

Bob

And another point is can we be sure that the depicted grades are correct there has been errors found in UK routes, plus does it matter as "the game notice I do not use sim" has
been "and they have stated it is for all users above the age of 3 year plus"

I think myself out of all models USA and Europe the UK ones are more near the mark than anything else.


Regards
Ohanlon

[plainsman]

On dymamic braking. The SD40-2 has EMD extended range DBs. These have 267kN or 60,000 pounds of retarding force. They have a minimum effective speed of 3.5 mph and reach max retarding force at 25 mph.

The GE Transportation site says ES44AC dynamic braking can be "up to 117,000 pounds". I don't know if that is standard equipment or not and if not if it applies to UP version? Older AC4400s had 98,000 pounds of retarding force. These dynamics will work down to almost a stop.

For SD40-2 IF mass or weight is in metric tons (this number 177, is a metric ton value derived apparently from the V4.8 files I did for MSTS, only some of the units of measure are not the same?? ), then the value ought to be 178.4 for a UP SD40-2 with that number. As before that will change max TE proportionally. If mass is US short tons, then the value would be 196.7??

The 216.3 can't be right for either. If it is Metric tons, then about 191 would fit, if US tons then 211. I don't know the exact weight for these units, I think UP runs them 420-425,000 pounds. CSX may have some heavier. BNSF has some 415,000 pounds.
Help!! Adam or Derek, which is correct, metric or US tons???

[ohanlon]

Bob

Thanks for that dynamic info will do nicely and the rest of course, should be able to re-do
xml/bin files now without to much of a problem.

By the way you should know that the values for braking are set at Newtons
same as in MSTS.

If you have the time some ancillary info would be handy for generators and the like
amperage would be useful to, very good start Bob thanks again.

Regards
Ohanlon

[ohanlon]

Bob

Have you ever as a thought, done any of these model eng files for MSTS ??

Below you see dynamic braking as it stands for the AS44AC Black version

Regards
Ohanlon

<EngineSimulation-cDynamicBrakeBlueprint d:id="16259168">
<DelayBeforeEngaging d:type="sFloat32">8.000000</DelayBeforeEngaging>
<MaxEffectiveSpeed d:type="sFloat32">27.000000</MaxEffectiveSpeed>
<AutomaticCutInSpeed d:type="sFloat32">8.000000</AutomaticCutInSpeed>
<MinimumUsableSpeed d:type="sFloat32">5.000000</MinimumUsableSpeed>
<MaxForce d:type="sFloat32">520.000000</MaxForce>
<MaxResistorCurrent d:type="sFloat32">1200.000000</MaxResistorCurrent>
<BrakeEffortVsSpeed>

[jamesc25313]

Hey my sink was clogged and I fixed that...!

[plainsman]

"Have you ever as a thought, done any of these model eng files for MSTS ??"

Although this is not a comprehensive list the following files cover about 100 different models of diesel electric locomotives for MSTS: v4_7sd.zip, v4_7ge6.zip, v47gp.zip, v48ge4.zip, v48fm_c.zip, e_f_v48.zip, v48ac.zip, v47al.zip. In addition these two files use a later V4.9 version of the files, bn5569u.zip and mr_u28b.zip. I am attaching a V4.92 file for a dash9-44w(BNSF) and GP38-2. The reason I noted BNSF, is there were some lightweight versions that Santa Fe had before the merger, this file is for the heavier version. In addition there are many many files in the library that use my physics files in some form or another. Several payware shops also use some or all the data. All the .zip files are available in the file library here except the V4.92 files. The V4.92 version fixes a bug in the emergency brakes.
For a comprehensive tutorial on how to use the files see:
http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=213238&highlight=physics+tutorial
A number of actual railroaders use these files. Although there are a number of things MSTS cannot do compared to a $30,000 simulator, many of the RR folks feel this gets about as close as MSTS has been. I was fortunate to have a few really good RR engineers as beta testers, they helped with a lot of things you can't get out of specs.

[OwainGlyndwr]

Bob,

do you think you will be able to sort out the RS locos, or are you even interested ? ;)

regards,
Mike.

[plainsman]

Hi Mike,
Right now I am still trying to figure out what units of measure fit each parameter. Somethings are contradictory, such as the weight of the SD40-2 in metric tons and the ES44AC in US short tons with CSX or CP weight instead of UP. This is a bit more scatterbrained, in that I don't have the docs to work with. Even if you had all the docs, usually a few things end up working a bit differently than described. The V4.92 files fixed a bug in emergency braking, that turned out to work opposite to what was described or expected from the values. Since you can't see under the hood to how a program uses data, it is trial and lots of errors before the obscure problems finally resolve.
I am very confident that with time a lot of things will be really significant improvements in RS. The power limiting in things like a GP40-2 is a good example. This could not be modeled in MSTS. It can be done in RS, only I don't have a way to see how the graph inputs data to fit the info into the program. Hopefully someone who has the docs will work with me to use the data I have to fit it into the input of the program?

[ohanlon]

Bob

Thanks for your input I have all I need now to make the changes.

Regards
Ohanlon

[OwainGlyndwr]

Hi Bob,

sounds like you are getting to grips with the workings of RS.

I am hoping to see the improvements you speak of and with your involvement, they will be spot on. ;)

regards,
Mike.