V5.10 OR Physics files

[seagoon]

Bob, I have downloaded and installed the file pack and am getting an error with BNSF337, as follows:

When in OR, although the locomotive is seen in the consist (coupled as second loco in a 4-loco lashup), the F5 menu for locomotive data does not list it......that info only sees three locos and misses 337 altogether.

Also, if I try to fire up MSTS AE, a pop-up appears stating that there is a problem in Line 831 for that .eng file.

Looking at the file in a line-counting utility, that line is "NumNotches ( 5"

Could you please check the .eng file because that's as far as my knowledge extends!

Bruce

[crstagg]

Bob, I have downloaded and installed the file pack and am getting an error with BNSF337, as follows:

When in OR, although the locomotive is seen in the consist (coupled as second loco in a 4-loco lashup), the F5 menu for locomotive data does not list it......that info only sees three locos and misses 337 altogether.

Also, if I try to fire up MSTS AE, a pop-up appears stating that there is a problem in Line 831 for that .eng file.

Looking at the file in a line-counting utility, that line is "NumNotches ( 5"

Could you please check the .eng file because that's as far as my knowledge extends!

Bruce

Did you use the Outside view? Was 337 there? Or was there a space where it should have been? If you did not look could you run it again?
-------------
I did not have this Engine in my Trainset. After installing it ConBuilder alerted me that the MaxPower line in the ENG file from c337bnsf.zip was in kN not kW. Corrected that. Installed Bob's c33-7.eng in ,,,,\TRAINS\TRAINSET\BNSFC337\OpenRails folder. Installed c33-7.eng into existing consist with 3 BN5569 and 100 hoppersc33-7 is second in consist. Ran the consist in OR.
c33-7.eng shows in the #2 view and in the HUD.

Also tried it with Bob's ENG file in my ,,,,\TRAINS\TRAINSET\BNSFC337 with original ENG file removed. Same results.

FYI if an ENG is not in the Trainset but is listed in a consist or there is a spelling difference between the data in the EngineData line in a consist file and the Engine filename or folder name, then OR will load the consist without this engine, provided it is not the lead engine. If it is the second Engine then OR will load #3 behind the lead. If it is the lead engine, then the consist will not be listed,

[plainsman]

I am trying to replicate the problem, but it seems to work fine for me?? It loads in MSTS Activity editor, I created a simple activity and assigned it the second unit in the consist along with 5569. I opened f5 and all the data was there for all four units?? I did use Conbuilder to make the initial consist, and I know Conbuilder corrects lots of errors, I don't know if it repaired my file without my knowledge?? Also, is it possible your download might have been corrupted?? You might try downloading the file again. Use the one without the underscores, I think they are the same, but the one without underscores was uploaded last, so if I fixed something in my sleep, it would be in that one. Here is a shot of it at the start of the activity??

[seagoon]

Did you use the Outside view? Was 337 there? ....

Yes, it's there graphically ("second loco in a 4-loco lashup") but its parameters are not displayed in F5.

[plainsman]

One suggestion, you might want to use a standard Dash 8 cab in these units, as they are essentially early Dash 8 after the rebuild.

[seagoon]

I am trying to replicate the problem, but it seems to work fine for me?? ..........

Okay, Bob.
I'll download both the loco file and the physics file and start over.

UPDATE
All good.
There was a double entry for engine sound and when I edited the file to remove the second entry I inadvertently took a closing bracket with it!
Counting back through the brackets (a bitch of a job at times) gave me the answer.

Love the new physics, Bob.

Bruce

[plainsman]

BTW, the cab comment had nothing to do with your issue. I tested with the default cab and I still get everything loading in AE and running with HUD in F5 with all 4 units? I moved it to a lead unit, and it still worked fine?

That is great, glad you got everything working correctly!! That drives me crazy when I can't get it to do what someone else is experiencing. Glad it was a simple fix! Glad you are enjoying the files Bruce, Thanks!!

[crstagg]

FYI another way to install Bob's ENG files.

Section 8 in the ORTS Manual describes creating a subfolder named OpenRails in .../Trains/Trainset/<eng/wag folder> and placing an eng(wag) with the same name as the one in .../Trains/Trainset/<eng/wag folder>. This eng(wag) file will have data specific to Open Rails. Then when the eng(wag) is used in Open Rails, the data the file in the OpenRails folder will used in place of the data within the .../Trains/Trainset/<eng/wag folder> folder.

So when I installed Bob's ENG files for the Burlington Northern Shop Rebuilds I just placed them in the respective OpenRails subfolders rather than replacing the original ENG files.
Example:
My ...\TRAINS\TRAINSET\BN5569 folder contained BN5569.eng with a Name line of "BN C33-7 5569 Green-H".
I created a ...\TRAINS\TRAINSET\BN5569\OpenRails folder and placed Bob's BN5569.eng in it. Then edited the Name line to "#OR BN C33-7 5569 Green-H" and edited the CabView to point to one of Charlie Sibaja C30-7 cabs instead of the default GP-38 cab.

However, apparently the using of data from the ENG file OpenRails folder does not apply for the menu data because the OR menu pulldown for Engine selection listed "BN C33-7 5569 Green-H" instead of "#OR BN C33-7 5569 Green-H" and the description was from the original ENG file not the new one. That is a shame because this information would be useful to distinguish that the ENG has an ENG file with physics written for OR. Yes, I posted a thread in the "Maybe it's Bug" OR forum at Elvas Tower.

[plainsman]

Thanks Charles, for the excellent description of the process and for turning in a bug report!
If you decide to keep the original BNSF C33-7 file, be sure to upgrade the file from the GE V4.93 physics for MSTS, as that file has some errors. While 5569 was a pretty recent MSTS version, The C36-7 file is pretty old, and would also benefit from a V4.93 upgrade if used in MSTS.

[crstagg]

Thanks Charles, for the excellent description of the process and for turning in a bug report!
If you decide to keep the original BNSF C33-7 file, be sure to upgrade the file from the GE V4.93 physics for MSTS, as that file has some errors. While 5569 was a pretty recent MSTS version, The C36-7 file is pretty old, and would also benefit from a V4.93 upgrade if used in MSTS.

That reminds me of a question I had. These "V5.10" ENG files have in the Description section "V4.9". Did you miss that when you created them?

[plainsman]

Hi Charles,
I did not edit any of the descriptions, but I did edit the comment line at the top of the file to V5.10OR. The description may not be accurate for these units, as I think these are 752E7 traction motors after the rebuild?

[crstagg]

Hi Charles,
I did not edit any of the descriptions, but I did edit the comment line at the top of the file to V5.10OR. The description may not be accurate for these units, as I think these are 752E7 traction motors after the rebuild?

But the comments don't get displayed like the Description does.

[plainsman]

Good point Charles, I will edit the comments as well in future OR conversions. Thanks for pointing that out!!

[seagoon]

FYI another way to install Bob's ENG files........

I find it simpler just to do a replacement because
(a) I no longer use MSTS and
(b) as the new data provides greater realism then I won't go back to the previous version anyway.

Bruce

[crstagg]

I find it simpler just to do a replacement because
(a) I no longer use MSTS and
(b) as the new data provides greater realism then I won't go back to the previous version anyway.

Bruce

I agree with you Bruce, but I wanted to check out what I had read in the OR manual and this offered an opportunity.

Not everyone agrees with your views. We recently held a poll on the ConBuilder Support forum asking users to choose Primary sim to run: ORTS, MSTS with Bin or MSTS w/o Bin. I thought we would get no one using MSTS w/o bin, but we got 2 or 3 that voted for that.


I have also found that I don't like how some of my routes look in OR and some are route that I like to run.