cab view angle change

[lateagain]

"They use the same CabView" But do they use the same CVF file? If not use a program like Context to compare the CVF files. Is Position ( 1 3.7 6 ) in the SD40-2 the same location in the cab of the C39-8?

BINGO! A bit of a fiddle as had to rename one cvf so that ConText would compare them but here is the result



Well changing the first number from 5 to 10 sorts that out but anyone with an MLT pack having this problem will have to edit all their SD40.cvf's to suit the Loco concerned.

BTW don't understand the relevance of the other additional line "RESET TWO_STATE" Anyone care to explain?

If it's not relevant or IS relevant to all EMD cabs you can save time by just copying the SD40.cvf from the SD40-2 Cabview into other EMD Cabviews and overwriting the existing file when prompted?

[crstagg]

[QUOTE=crstagg;1892364]"They use the same CabView" ,,,,,

Is Position ( 1 3.7 6 ) in the SD40-2 the same location in the cab of the C39-8?

......[QUOTE]

I'll ask my question another way. The SD40-2 is 20.98m coupler to coupler. The C39-8 is 21.54m. A difference of half a meter (0.56m). So it stands to reason that a Position of ( 1.1 3.5 6.8 ) in the C39-8 would be a quarter of a meter behind the engineers chair or rather 1 quarter of a meter further back from the front of the loco.

So when you (or whoever) decided to use the SD40-2 cabview did you measure the location of the engineer's position from the center of the C39-8?

[lateagain]

[QUOTE=crstagg;1892385][QUOTE=crstagg;1892364]"They use the same CabView" ,,,,,

Is Position ( 1 3.7 6 ) in the SD40-2 the same location in the cab of the C39-8?

......

I'll ask my question another way. The SD40-2 is 20.98m coupler to coupler. The C39-8 is 21.54m. A difference of half a meter (0.56m). So it stands to reason that a Position of ( 1.1 3.5 6.8 ) in the C39-8 would be a quarter of a meter behind the engineers chair or rather 1 quarter of a meter further back from the front of the loco.

So when you (or whoever) decided to use the SD40-2 cabview did you measure the location of the engineer's position from the center of the C39-8?

AH! I understand your point now Charles ...but not exactly where this data is or in which file? I thought I'd altered the Driver eye point height in that mod?

However this is ALL MLT's work. NO mods or tweaks by me. I just bought the pack.

I don't know enough about Cabviews to comment, nor do I understand which lines affect the driver position from the centre line (where all MSTS positions are measured) My change above APPEARS to have raised the driver rather than moved him forward?

It does however seem obvious to me that the drivers "eye line" should be at the right height? The only REAL EMD cab I've been in was a GP7 so there was no centre window because it had a hi-nose. However it would seem odd to me if, having produced low nose versions from later models on, that the driver didn't have a better forward view?

Personally I'm not very impressed by MLT's cabviews. They seem a compromise to me of Cabview OVER Drivers View.

IMHO whatever else a cabview shows it MUST show a realistic drivers view? As I said above, Drivers of any vehicle know where the controls are. They look at where they're going ...NOT at the controls.


In older models on Flight Simulator, before decent 3D "virtual cockpits", they had "Pop up" screens to monitor various instruments or navigation aids. When technology and software moved on many were annoyed that these were dropped. In Open Rails we haven't got there...YET. IMHO the best solution is to alias the cabview (Freeware or Payware) that you like best. This of course may vary from Loco to Loco.

[crstagg]

However this is ALL MLT's work. NO mods or tweaks by me. I just bought the pack.
.

Why use an EMD cab to Sim a GE cab? MLT was lazy.
See http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=176845&nseq=3
a pic of a C39-8 cab. Note that the photographer is standing behind the engineer's seat. Note how little can be seen out of the center window. Also how much wider the frame is between the vertical front window and the horizontal window than it is in the SD40-2.

BTW check out the view from an NS C39-8 Long hood forward. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...154569&nseq=17
NS (Southern RR) engineers really depended on their conductor to know what was on the other side.

[mword77]

Let's keep in mind here guys that your critiquing a nearly 12 year old cabview.

[crstagg]

Let's keep in mind here guys that your critiquing a nearly 12 year old cabview.

I have no idea how old it is. As I did not buy it. Would not have 12 years ago either. So they were lazy 12 years ago.

The differences I was pointing out have to do with the differences between the prototype EMD and GE cabs. MLT was wrong to use an EMD cab in a GE loco.

FYI the photos were made 12 years ago.

[lateagain]

Let's keep in mind here guys that your critiquing a nearly 12 year old cabview.

...and there's what to prevent that being updated? Not a personal dig at you or MLT but just a reasonable question?

Not wanting to start a Fanboi War here but BLW has updated their cabs several times and have even declined to model relevant Loco's by other manufacturers BECAUSE of lack of photographic views of what those old machines cabs actually looked like.

Having said that I would point out that the thread is about how OR displays cabs AND bearing in mind that so far all the views were designed for MSTS which only had a 4x3 aspect ratio.

It's good that ANY cab is playable given that?

However I'd have to say again that you can alias whatever cabview you prefer. Charles' point and pictures are perfectly valid. BLW are the only company to provide actual "photoreal" cabs and to update them.

The excellent graphics in SLI/MLT/DW cabs are a close second but there were fundamental difference between the various manufacturers cabs and MLT could have gone the extra mile for Loco Packs?

[lateagain]

I've encountered a really annoying problem installing Photoshop7 on my Sim Box. Seems it's a well known issue and as PS7 is so old now Adobe don't support it, having produced many updated versions since, so there is no fix. Just a work around. It seems that PS7 won't recognise any disk larger than 1Tb (small fry today of course) so you have to install it on something smaller. It's all about scratch discs but Googling Photoshop 7 won't install on Win7 64bit should explain for anyone else having a problem

That's wasted a lot of time but asap I'll post screenshots of as many cab view types that I have showing how they look with the settings I found to be stable and give a reasonable drivers view. Basically that's setting 0 2D screen stretch and a FOV of 40

Obviously any 4x3 image shown in a 16x9 screen but filling the greater width is going to lose some top and bottom part of the image. In effect you're looking at a 16x12 image through a 16x9 slot.

[lateagain]

Charles Links in post #19 got me trawling for some other cabviews.

What I did find was this shot http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...344414&nseq=75 which is taken in a GP40. What is more interesting in this picture is that it shows the drivers eye height in relation to the windows and control panel.

Of course not all drivers are the same build so I'm guessing (any real drivers out there?) that the seat height was adjustable like any other "office" chair?

Obviously window sizes vary and control consoles vary in type, shape and height too.

[canuckster19]

Any more news on this one? I recently got back into MSTS via Open Rails, really love the program btw and the amount of heartache it resolves, I have the exact same issue on some, but not all, MLT as well as Streamlines (Trainsimulations) locomotives, always caused by going out to the #2 or #3 view and then going back into the cab and the cab is pointing more downwards. It is remedied with Ctrl-8, but it'd be nice not to have to Ctrl-8 all the time.

[R. Steele]

Any more news on this one? I recently got back into MSTS via Open Rails, really love the program btw and the amount of heartache it resolves, I have the exact same issue on some, but not all, MLT as well as Streamlines (Trainsimulations) locomotives, always caused by going out to the #2 or #3 view and then going back into the cab and the cab is pointing more downwards. It is remedied with Ctrl-8, but it'd be nice not to have to Ctrl-8 all the time.

For a starting point, try this: Options>Video> % 2D Cab Stretch - set to 70. Try some different percentages until you find the one that provides a balance for you. None will be absolutely perfect, because of the different aspect ratios between MSTS and ORTS.

[canuckster19]

Yeah I did my own bit of testing, I was playing in windowed mode, but I went to full screen, and since I'm 16:9 I used the 1900x1080 resolution. I tried a 51deg FOV which said was equivalent to 90deg on 16:9 ratio, it seemed to work at first as I went in and out of the cabview, but it triggered again after about the 4th or 5th time. Again ctrl-8

[R. Steele]

You have something else happening here, I have not experienced this at all with OR, any version. The engineer view (#1 camera) stays the same unless I use the arrow keys while in the cab. Going to another camera does not affect the #1 camera, maybe someone else has had this happen.

Perhaps posting the cabview and cvf file you are using would help - just a suggestion.

[bwbrgb]

I've had it happen with quit a few cabs also . If you start #1 view , go outside with #2 view and move around then go back in the cab the view set in the CVF is off and the up/down arrows for cab stretch correction are no help. seems CTRL 8 is the only cure I've found so far . The amount that the view change is past the stretch percentage .

[coolhand101]

It's been like this for quite some time with any setting other than 100%. I haven't seen any method so far to prevent this from happening.

I have made some cabs at 1.33 , 1.55 ,1.60 and 1.77. The 1.55 and 1.77 was when i got my new monitor from 1.60:1 to 1.77:1.

My settings for the OR 2D stretch with a 1.77 monitor :-

1.33 = 0% stretch
1.55 = 50% stretch
1.60 = 63% stretch
1.77 = 100% stretch

FOV = 38

The reason for the 1.55 stretch was to allow the vertical panning with a wider cab view.

If the stretch is wrong, some of the cab needles can give inacccurate results.

Be intresting to see other results on this matter.

Thanks