Acceptable DW exhaust levels?

[hnt4redoktober]

I've seen a few threads talking about nozzle width, but has anyone had success adjusting DW UP ES44AC and SD90MAC?

-Kyle

[Vince]

What release of OR are you using?

Have you read through this at MLT? http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...imized-for-or/

[bprice]

I am still tinkering with settings on various locos. What I have discovered is the default nozzle of .10 is too narrow. The effect, especially at higher rpms, is that exhaust has a balloon effect (see the attached screen shot.) If the nozzle is too wide the upward movement of the exhaust is reduced. I have found that a nozzle width between .15 and .3 works well.

I would like to know more about getting more upward movement or (sideways movement for steam cylinders) indicating higher pressure in the stack, while minimizing the balloon effect.

OR is certainly on the right track.

These are the exhaust settings I am currently using for DW ES44's:

DieselSmokeEffectInitialMagnitude( 0.2 )
DieselSmokeEffectMaxMagnitude( 1.1 )
DieselSmokeEffectInitialSmokeRate( 0.2 )
DieselSmokeEffectMaxSmokeRate( 1.8 )

Open Rails 2014-01-25 09-16-37.jpg

[baldwin]

The steam exhaust effect is the subject of discussion over at Elvas Tower. The steam locomotive code uses very little of the engine section MSTS eng file and the workings of the MSTS steam exhaust remain a mystery.

Sideways or any other direction movement of steam from the cylinders is controlled by the cylinderFX in the eng file.

[markus1996]

Diesel and steamer smoke in ORTS have only one thing in common with each other: The nozzle width parameter. For the rest, it´s two different worlds, in one of which (steam) not even all parameters are implemented yet.

I´m not going to talk about steam here, since it has not originally been inquired about and since I´ve just caused a little confusion over at ET in that regard.

On diesel smoke:

The height of the plume depends on two factors: The "smoke ball" (particles) emitted per a given time (I guess seconds, but not sure on that) as defined in DieselSmokeEffectInitialSmokeRate() and DieselSmokeEffectMaxSmokeRate() and the nozzle width. Reducing either both smoke rate parameters or incrementing the nozzle width will help get the plume lower and thus reduce also the balloon effect.

AFAICT, the DieselSmokeEffectInitialMagnitude() and DieselSmokeEffectMaxMagnitude() parameters define how much the plume spreads (the angle of the cone, if you will) and could thus, in theory, also be used to reduce the balloon effect, but I have not had much success with that strategy yet. It´s more or less just cosmetically.

If you want a good starting point for further tweaking your exhaust settings, you might want to download Diesel Power Updater VX3.0 (DPU in abbreviation) right here from the library. It can be used to bulk-convert ENG files to good-looking exhaust, with th data being used taken from external, user-customiseable data files. Of course, if you don´t want the program to go over your ENG file, you can open the data file and simply copy the interesting lines. Once you have found something that looks good, you can also define a custom data file and run DPU with that file on other engines.

Cheers, Markus

[gpz]

After checking the code, the only option in use is the DieselSmokeEffectMaxMagnitude out of the four mentioned.

[markus1996]

Really? That´s interesting, because last time I experimented with it (about 2 months ago) the smoke rate parameters definitely worked...

Cheers, Markus

[gpz]

Yes. And its value is used as a particle lifetime in seconds. (aka how long the smoke is)

[markus1996]

OK... seems like my experimenting has not been thorough enough, then. Will have to look into it for the next version of DPU.

Anyway, since when are the magnitudes no longer used? Having had a black screen because of too much exhaust, and no longer having it after changing the rate values is an almost 100% sure sign they are used.

Cheers, Markus

[gpz]

Using "blame", I don't see any changes since February, and I think that one was also just a restructuring, although I haven't investigated further.

[markus1996]

Hm, I will do a few tests, as soon as I can get the other problems resolved that I´m having on my PC currently (had to restore the full PC from a backup...). I can´t believe that my experimentation has gone so terribly wrong.

Cheers, Markus

[hnt4redoktober]

Downloaded and used the UTIL in the library (DPU 3.0) and it works like charm. Thanks for the education!

[markus1996]

You´re welcome, and thank you for the kind feedback

BTW, if I haven´t already mentioned it, the settings DPU currently uses were made in trial-and-error experiments, using 3DTrains' replacement dieselsmoke texture pack, with the light smoke in use. Probably, using that texture will give the smoke another bit of realism, though of course, it´s not necessary to use the replacement.

Cheers, Markus

[rdamurphy]

What I recommend is using the default settings for the GP38, SD40-2, or D9, and then adjusting from there.

Small changes in the numbers yield huge results. In other words, don't go, from say "2" to "3". Use smaller increments, say from "2" to "2.2".

Don't try to match the nozzle width to the actual width of the nozzle - although that is a good place to start. It's not really used as "nozzle" width" in OR, it's used as a diameter of the emission hole. Doesn't exactly work the way you'd expect since most exhausts on diesel locomotives aren't round.

One of the issues with the exhaust is that MSTS values were "clamped" or had upper limits programmed in. So, people would write .eng files all the way up to the max - and then way beyond. OR values aren't "clamped" so values that looked good in MSTS, that were actually way over the limits, pour out WAY too much exhaust in OR.

I also recommend using the Diesel Smoke Replacement files available here: http://www.3dtrains.com/downloads/misc.shtml

Hope that helps!

Robert