Initial state of F5 HUD

[Vince]

1. To be exact:
2.22e6 is 499075.85539362003 lbs pretty close to 500,000 lbs. which is the FRA Class E Shock Load rating.
2.22e7 is 4990758.5539362 lbs . . .Ouch! 4,990,758 lbs. constructed of pure unobtanium.

2. I don't think case matters but I've mostly seen it in caps.

3. Not sure what the double entry does. I've read something about it. Perhaps by Jin 'Sniper97' Ward but not sure.
_The values above are in Newtons and must be converted to pound force.

[UP_4848_Thunder]

For MSTS an ORTS Coupler effects I set the 2nd coupler break values to AAR FRA value ranges. While I leave the first value to higher value so MSTS track node won't be in effect an setting them to a high enough force to where I have enough dynamic buff loading of force to get them to break an get on the ground instead around the million pound ranges. So my stock in ORTS breaks with the 2nd value at a affect but no breaking affect in MSTS which is satisfying to me to set all my stock to break with the 2nd value leaving the first coupler value to a high track node resistant.

Ranges I have on file mixed in between depending on class of car, aging wear of chosen and tons of a car as the only annoying thing about ORTS setting all cars to the same identical range breaks the first car too often than a 5th or 10th car an so on. Stock of Autoracks sure have standard to little ranges as I have been around 2 SD60M's in switching breaking autoracks an know crews don't like them.

Pound Force 523804.837423= 2.33e6n
Pound Force 501323.943113= 2.23e6n
Pound Force 400159.918718= 1.78e6n
Pound Force 350701.951236= 1.56e6n
Pound Force 269770.73172= 1.20e6n
Pound Force 231553.211393= 1.03e6n
Pound Force 229305.121962= 1.02e6n
Pound Force 200079.959359= 0.89e6n

Example

Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1.2e6N/m 4.8e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.8e6N/m/s )
Break ( 2.2e7N 2.2e7N )
r0 ( 1cm 2cm )
)
Velocity ( 0.11m/s )
)
Coupling (
Type ( Automatic )
Spring (
Stiffness ( 1.2e6N/m 4.8e6N/m )
Damping ( 1.3e6N/m/s 3.8e6N/m/s )
Break ( 1.56e6n 1.56e6n )
r0 ( 1cm 2cm )
)
Velocity ( -0.11m/s )
)

[Vince]

That is a neat solution Thunder!

re:"Pound Force 501323.943113= 2.23e6n"
This value is very close to my calculated FRA Class E of 500,000 lbs. Is there a particular reason you set yours above that value?

add: almost forgot: a calculator >>>===> http://www.convertunits.com/from/newtons/to/pounds

[R. Steele]

1. To be exact:
2.22e6 is 499075.85539362003 lbs pretty close to 500,000 lbs. which is the FRA Class E Shock Load rating.
2.22e7 is 4990758.5539362 lbs . . .Ouch! 4,990,758 lbs. constructed of pure unobtanium.
_The values above are in Newtons and must be converted to pound force.

Thanks much Vince, helps quite a lot.
I asked about the difference between the two because when I first read the thread I went looking in my trainset for a few examples and the first I found was and engine with Break ( 2.22e7 2.22e7 ) written in the file. I thought, well not too far off, but I thought I should ask .... QUITE a difference!!

[UP_4848_Thunder]

I rarely set too many of them to that exact high of a rate by just cutting numbers between the ranges mentioned but not shown in mixed forms unless they are some maybe sturdy heavy cars or even center Multi articulated loaded cars like an example being a Well set with knuckled couplers set to 500k where you know the center drawbar sharing trucks have to be stronger or just be set into the millions with not much difference because the next set of knuckles are weak anyway or can be slightly stronger than AAR says they are which tends to happen as a random thing if you round it to the closest number. Except spine cars I have learned exactly 15min before new years eve 2013 when a yard crew had sets of empty spines on head end pulling double stack loads out of yard storage so all can be spotted in ramp when engineer got impatient an having 5 outbound road units (UP GEVO's ACe's and 2 SD70Ms) pulling had broke the center of a spine set first where dragging forces broke a knuckle on the more 15 cars ahead of it on head end middle 12 cars from locos to go into emergency an finely to see cars on the ground with bogies an wheels everywhere. So I tend to weaken some of my spine collections to less than what my knuckle ends are to almost represent that moment.

Mainly for articulated sets I just set the last final car to AAR breaking standard random ranges between since ORTS has no restrictions like MSTS of what can an can't be un coupled as the coupler values front an rear are read backwards by ORTS that I don't want to keep seeing my first multi articulated car with the 2nd coupler value to FRA AAR standards break my center axle sharing end (unless its a spine set maybe) where I have to set the first coupler value to AAR standards with track node problem risks in MSTS.... Single cars have no problem or end difference to me when I want to experiment knuckle breaking forces and other findings of what things I should not do with that train makeup while making a explore run or activity. The more empty my cars are, the more standard mid or weak I may make them away from their loaded values by maybe minus 0.20e6n from say 2.25e6n to 2.05e6n well because I can have emptys on headend an very heavy loads in the back pulling hard not tending to break staying normal in train makeup as if they are loads not going to pop even on a big runout.

Would be nice if ORTS has a dependent warning telling we are putting too much bunched buff forces for the train that may derail even though ORTS will never have visual string lining or derailments but use to have a message in the introduction time of OR's curve speed limit dependent saying my train bounced off the rail and on such tangent high speed curve track an have tried lately to see if it was still around but had no affect on cars with or without wag parameter ORTSUnbalancedSuperElevation ( ???mm ) even while overspeeding beyond limits. By putting 6 SD90MAC-H's on point in full dynamics down hill with empty's in front I see no restrictions except slipping.

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

Good stuff...

Yeah - I don't think I've seen a broken coupler in MSTS since the initial node issue in MSTS on Marias - and - I've never seen a broken coupler in ORTS... I guess we over compensated and set the coupler values way too high... I'd like to see more realistic performance and I'll give some of this a try - it adds more realism to the sim to have ramifications for your actions...

Along those lines - as posted above - yeah - if we are tracking all the physics so precisely - I'd like to see a "derail" error message if the sim detects you've exceeded realistic values to stay on the track - for the same reasons... I don't think we need any visuals to go along with it - you wouldn't even have to stop the sim - just a simple "your train has derailed" message would be fine...

Did steam locomotives have problems with broken couplers - or - is that simply a modern problem with high torque motors and massive horse power ???

[R. Steele]

Hi Folks,
Good stuff...
Along those lines - as posted above - yeah - if we are tracking all the physics so precisely - I'd like to see a "derail" error message if the sim detects you've exceeded realistic values to stay on the track - for the same reasons... I don't think we need any visuals to go along with it - you wouldn't even have to stop the sim - just a simple "your train has derailed" message would be fine...

I agree. I think the decision to make OR visually "derail-crash proof" is a good choice, but I also would like some notice that I am exceeding the bounds of real world physics.
Or perhaps an option that the user could choose that would
1. Notify of a derail - (and why the derail?) ... and ...
2. Stop the sim, forcing the user to start from the last good save.
I'd use it to improve skills.

[OTTODAD]

Along those lines - as posted above - yeah - if we are tracking all the physics so precisely - I'd like to see a "derail" error message if the sim detects you've exceeded realistic values to stay on the track - for the same reasons... I don't think we need any visuals to go along with it - you wouldn't even have to stop the sim - just a simple "your train has derailed" message would be fine...

A waste of time considering that ORTS as well as MSTS can be run speeded up far in excess of reality and the same goes for the repeating OVERSPEED and other alerts one gets in ORTS when doing that, it not being aware that this function is being used !

[UP_4848_Thunder]

Not all of us all the time like running sims like a game doing whatever an not get warned of real life standards.

Nothing visual but an option to Stop the train by going into emergency (air disconnected from derailed car) locking us in a view from seeing any impact happen (not like there will be any seen) like in cab or just a black paused like screen by letting cleanup time force time in a movie scene with error message warning and 3 or more hours fast forward as if scene was being cleaned up investigated then re spawned with even derailed cars knocked out of sim the more the severe it's away from track like around cliffs. Have us even couple to re railed cars back together an see what traffic piled up in those forced hours.

Other thing is how can we find out if it was really are fault when really it could be route, train make up or physic .wag .eng related for times where we wasn't exceeding speed limits, coupler forces, obeying signals not running any red's head on etc.

Just like Railworks I would like to also see evaluation points in gaining or losing related to your skill an timing bonuses.

[R. Steele]

A waste of time considering that ORTS as well as MSTS can be run speeded up far in excess of reality and the same goes for the repeating OVERSPEED and other alerts one gets in ORTS when doing that, it not being aware that this function is being used !

Not Really - if it was offerred as an "Option" the user could either select or ignore. With selection comes the set of consequences if you break a coupler... if not selected --- ops as normal.

I am assuming this is all post V1.0 - and you know what they say about "assume" ... makes an a** of u and me!

[OTTODAD]

Not Really - if it was offered as an "Option" the user could either select or ignore. With selection comes the set of consequences if you break a coupler... if not selected --- ops as normal.

So how could ORTS be coded so that when running at speed-accelleration it will ignore Overspeeds, Coupler Breaks and Derailment Alerts ?

[UP_4848_Thunder]

In the options simulation tab. Just uncheck what you don't want ORTS to warn an alert you about or have in the sim like broken couplers.

[R. Steele]

So how could ORTS be coded so that when running at speed-accelleration it will ignore Overspeeds, Coupler Breaks and Derailment Alerts ?

Gee Otto, if you are asking how the code would work, or even if it could be written -- wrong guy here, don't have a clue. I was thinking of something like Andrey said in post #27, perfectly simple. The mention of consequences was just an afterthought, could be anything from trivial - a message - or something more definite - a halt, stoppage (I don't fathom much support for that)

First the idea of such an option would be discussed, taken up in forums, if not supported by the community and the team - a non starter.

Given the excellent work done to this point, I would say that if there was a way, a good line of reasoning to support such an option, and the support was there -- then it has a chance of becoming part of the sim. Probably past V1.0

I'm thankful to have such an excellent piece of software to run all the excellent MSTS heritage content. What a deal.

[woodfyr]

Getting back to the original thread on HUD (f5, et al.). With build X2822 recently loaded, I no longer can access fuel info. X2738 had it.

A big part of train ops is being able to run efficiently. It isn't just getting there and completing an activity, but being able to do it and show that you can do it and save the "Company" some money. For example:

In activity ABC covering 120 miles, you start out with 3000 gallons of fuel. At the end of the activity (120 miles) you have covered the distance in 4.0 hours and have burned 1800 gallons. That works out to 450 gallons per hour or 15 gallons per mile. At $3.00 per gallon, we get a cost of $5400.00.

Now -- Run the activity again and try to better your numbers. Makes for an interesting competition with one's self. You can also add a penalty factor for time accumulated during "Overspeed" (add cost per minute ($75.00).

That, gentlemen is my reason for wanting fuel info on "My" HUD

[baldwin]

Fuel info is now located on the Locomotive Information page over to the right side of the page. Everything that was on the HUD and is now "missing" can be found on the appropriate page of the extended HUD.