Open Rails No Longer Fun!!!

[longiron]

While I hesitate to "preview" anything because of potentially "jinxing" the development process, I thought I would show you a prototype of the steam configuration tool the OR team is developing. These parameters will be saved in a separate OR-specific file, so there's no impact to user's MSTS installation or current ENG file. This will be required for use of OR's next generation steam thermodynamic model. If the OR-specific file doesn't not exist, then the current OR behavior will be exactly as it is today.



When it's released there will be accompaning documentation of the valid values and performance impact of those values.

[GoGoran]

I know that Open Rails is big on physics but it is becoming un-drivable.

Undriveable is not what I would call "big on physics." ;-))

I never liked the OR physics, and sadly it just keeps getting worse - not only in my opinion.

OR should try to mimick MSTS physics as closely as possible. The MSTS physics are tried and true, and after ten years, everybody knows how to tweak them to his liking with Realmuto or Kuju friction values, or something else, realistic or generous power values, or the opposite, etc. -- the possibilities are endless.

I see no problem with adding additional features which are not present in MSTS, but it should all be backwards compatible. I already suggested such a system, with special command lines coded into "Comment ( ... )"-lines, so that MSTS would just ignore them, and thought the OR team was pursuing this road.

By the way, in all my personal driving tests which I did with several models I repainted and fine-tuned, I came to the conclusion that the friction as defined by Kuju was even too high in most cases. I generally set my wagons and high speed trains at 50 N/m/s, and freight wagons, steam locos etc. at 100 - 150 N/m/s. Yielding realistic results in acceleration, driving and breaking. Not my gut feeling, but based on actual, official and verified values from the real-life original, such as acceleration from 0 - 200 kph, which I then strive to meet in driving tests in MSTS by adjusting the eng parameters adequately. And every time I do so, I come to realize that Kuju did a damn fine job at the physics, as original values for weight, kW, kN, etc. generally lead to very good initial results, which only require some fine-tuning.

One exception is electric locos, but once you figure out how to set them up properly ( I wrote about that topic here: https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showth...ctrics-in-MSTS ), the problem is solved, too.

OR is heading in the diagonally opposed direction, with unreal high friction values and zero traction. Lord knows why. Realism is something different.

[GoGoran]

While I hesitate to "preview" anything because of potentially "jinxing" the development process, I thought I would show you a prototype of the steam configuration tool the OR team is developing. These parameters will be saved in a separate OR-specific file, so there's no impact to user's MSTS installation or current ENG file. This will be required for use of OR's next generation steam thermodynamic model. If the OR-specific file doesn't not exist, then the current OR behavior will be exactly as it is today.

Well, that's some good news !

However, I would still suggest that OR should try to be as close to MSTS-physics as possible when using the default MSTS-eng-file information. When using the new OR-specific information, it may be different.

Just for sake of simplicity, you know. Otherwise you cannot run the same rolling stock on both MSTS and OR, since either it has been tweaked for MSTS, or for OR, and it just won't wirk properly in the other simulator.

[muskokaandtahoe]

By the way, in all my personal driving tests which I did with several models I repainted and fine-tuned, I came to the conclusion that the friction as defined by Kuju was even too high in most cases. I generally set my wagons and high speed trains at 50 N/m/s, and freight wagons, steam locos etc. at 100 - 150 N/m/s.

What's right will depend on the weight of the cars and the power curve of the locomotive. Perhaps for the cars and locomotives you run the Kuju values are a bit high, but for North American railroads of the last 70-90 years the friction values you mention are preposterously low.

As for OR, one needs to keep in mind it is a work in progress, which is why I usually advise people who like to fiddle for performance -- me for instance -- to not over invest their time doing that if there is a reasonable chance their time could be productively spent elsewhere doing something that will last.

[kox]

However, I would still suggest that OR should try to be as close to MSTS-physics as possible when using the default MSTS-eng-file information.

Openrails is meant to focus on realism, and MSTS wasn't too realistic, so to stick to MSTS compatible physics even just on legacy eng infos, would mean to drop realism just to make to make old things work as they were. If you want msts like physics use msts, if you want openrails, then you need to wait for addon makert to make the contents OR ready, or you need to do it yourself.
As for steamers i don't care, because i don't like them much, but for diesels and electrics it's much better if we have the chance to make them more realistic with some configuration work, than use them like in msts.
For pre 80's diesels and AC/DC electrics i'd like to see correctly working shunt circuits, realistic series wound motor traction curves for each throttle notch, realistic tap controllers, etc.

BTW Openrails is open, so if you or others want MSTS compatible physics, then you can do that

Is that screenshot from an editor for Openrails?

[3Directions]

While I hesitate to "preview" anything because of potentially "jinxing" the development process, .............

Hoping it won't jinx things further by saying that's a highly interesting pic .. and thanks for posting , next release sure sounds good

Regards

[longiron]

Is that screenshot from an editor for Openrails?

No, it's a POTENTIAL configuration tool for setting up steam locomotive parameter files.

[lindsayts]

Thanks for the information "longiron", your warning is noted ;-).

What is important of course is the "physics" in the sim be as good as possible and as far as I am concerned V0.6.2 was a considereable inprovement. As I understand it from what OR has previosuly said one will have a choice of the improved "physics' or some representation of the way MSTS did things. The old physics being required for some routes an example being the " Switch Gravity Railroad Route" which requires the wheels to not slip at all to correctly simulate the cable hauled inclines.

On the subject of resistance figures one must test the loco VERY well. In a number of recently released steamers I found the performance well below standard. On working back from the reistance figures displayed in the hud in OR it worked out that at 80 KPH with an engine developing 2800 BHP at the wheel rims 1200BHP was being wasted in the loco alone in bearing and cylinder friction etc a figure WWWWWAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY to high. Mechanical efficiency usually being quoted as being between 90 and 95%. One point it is worth noting, the plain bearings as used in most of the older rolling stock are in fact quite good if lubricated correctly. The main difference between them and roller bearings being the starting resistance.