Odd wobbling with MILW "Little Joe" electrics.

[seagoon]

When using these locos (by Frank Musick and Tim Muir) in the latest WIP edition of Open Rails there is a disconcerting wobble, or oscillation, of the body. The bogies remain firmly seated on the track but the bodies themselves set up this strange movement.

Any clues as to what could be done to correct it would be appreciated.

Note that these items have been around for quite a few years now so maybe there is something in their makeup which just isn't handled by the current build of Open Rails.

[dcarleton]

If you turn 'Car Vibration' off, does the problem go away? The 'Joe is a three part model, where the running gear is two long pieces that track nicely, but the carbody is defined as a short piece in between. Imagine a see-saw, the further you get from the fulcrum the more exaggerated the motion becomes. The short distance between the two running gear pieces acts as a fulcrum, and the ends of the carbody, where the cab is, reacts like a see-saw!

[seagoon]

If you turn 'Car Vibration' off, does the problem go away? ....

Many thanks, squire.
You know, it's been a while since I fired up Open Rails and I didn't realise that I had the "vibration" turned on (level 2).
Bringing it back to zero fixed the anomaly.

[Komachi]

I think we need to work on a solution other than 'turn off the vibration' as some of us quite like the realism of it..

[lateagain]

I think we need to work on a solution other than 'turn off the vibration' as some of us quite like the realism of it..

Always liked the idea of vibration but it seems to be all longditudinal (i.e.seeswaw) rather than side to side as in sway? Looking at videos shot with long telephotos lenses of trains on rough track both seem to be present but on really rough track the sway is more pronounced?

[crstagg]

Always liked the idea of vibration but it seems to be all longditudinal (i.e.seeswaw) rather than side to side as in sway? Looking at videos shot with long telephotos lenses of trains on rough track both seem to be present but on really rough track the sway is more pronounced?

During my cab ride in an F7 about 12 years ago all the sway was from side to side.

[NW 2156]

My ride on a CN steamer was all side to side swaying.

Seagoon, I filed a bug report on the ORTS ET forum.

Robert

[geepster775]

What bug?

The problem is the way a made-for-msts model operates under some Open Rails features. Instead of making bug reports, how about making requests for replacement models built without the MSTS handicaps.

[R. Steele]

What bug?
The problem is the way a made-for-msts model operates under some Open Rails features. Instead of making bug reports, how about making requests for replacement models built without the MSTS handicaps.

What bug, indeed! I cannot speak for the OR Devs, but I suspect they may see this as a MSTS compatibility issue and try to address it. That is part of the stated mission of ORTS, but maybe not...depends on what the problem is. Personally I do not see why OR has to make right every hack, workaround, and jerry-rig that MSTS content creators were forced to make because they were dealing with incoherent and sloppy coding.

At some point in time, the sooner the better IMO, the MSTS backwards compatibility effort will end and OR can begin to fulfill the promise to leave MSTS in the past. I don't possess enough expertise or knowledge to say when that will be, I'm sure the OR Team will know.

[lateagain]

How can vibration built into OR (NEVER part of MSTS) be a compatibility issue with MSTS models? I'm not aware of any purely OR models (and I don't mean just hi-poly count ones that MSTS won't run) so I stand to be corrected if such a beast exists and the vibration is more realistic with that as already coded

I'd agree that vibration may work exactly as designed... ???? ....and therefore it's not a "bug" as such, but if you want to develop something you shouldn't attack people who give constructive feedback! Modification shouldn't be restricted merely to fixing bugs in what already exists.

Surely the rate of seesaw is part of the coding in OR? As such it has to be modifiable? If you can induce movement in one axis then surely inducing it in another axis can't be that difficult? Not being a coder I'm interested to know. Perhaps it was (as coded) an "either/or" axis option?

[woodfyr]

OR needs a level 4 vibration. Back in the early 80s I had the opportunity to get a footplate pass on Amtrak when it was running the Zephyr from Ogden to Denver via Cheyenne(Sherman Hill). Riding cab in an F40 was like bring on a USCG 40 footer in a 3 foot chop. Some rough ride. A similar ride on the ScotRail 125 from Inverness to Perth was like a baby carriage.

[R. Steele]

OR needs a level 4 vibration. Back in the early 80s I had the opportunity to get a footplate pass on Amtrak when it was running the Zephyr from Ogden to Denver via Cheyenne(Sherman Hill). Riding cab in an F40 was like bring on a USCG 40 footer in a 3 foot chop. Some rough ride. A similar ride on the ScotRail 125 from Inverness to Perth was like a baby carriage.

I've ridden in B52's practicing TA (terrain avoidance) runs at low level... another rough ride, but it was fun~! Not as wet, unless we got hit by spray from a lawn sprinkler.

[seagoon]

What bug, indeed! .....
At some point in time, the sooner the better IMO, the MSTS backwards compatibility effort will end and OR can begin to fulfill the promise to leave MSTS in the past.....

I have no problem whatsoever with that. In fact, why on earth should the OR team have to be concerned about the operation of a locomotive in OR when it was made for MSTS over six years ago?
I'm just delighted that it still runs fine without the Vibration feature on.

[lateagain]

I have no problem whatsoever with that. In fact, why on earth should the OR team have to be concerned about the operation of a locomotive in OR when it was made for MSTS over six years ago?
I'm just delighted that it still runs fine without the Vibration feature on.

I say again.... What part of the vibration element is controlled by the stock model?????

Not attacking ANY individual here but whilst a certain section of the community KEEPS trying to lay every problem with OR at the foot of a sim developed 16 years ago, and which didn't feature vibration (in fact AFAIK BVE was the first sim to feature cab sway), there will be no progress.

I stand to be corrected ....but as I said in the post above where in the MSTS model coding is the issue that constricts or "spoils" vibration in OR?

Where are the "pure" OR stock models (untarnished by the now "Demonised" MSTS ) that show that the feature as currently implemented works perfectly and realistically?

Perhaps this thread would be more useful if we concentrated on the feature in OR and how REAL trains react to bad track?

As Russ G points out above, here in the UK where nearly all track is used for high speed passenger running we have very high track standards. Even here there is train movement. Not all US track is as bad as the clip here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0EgQBOiB24 but this does illustrate that trains pitch AND sway? The settings in OR already offer different levels of vibration. Maybe this could be doubled to 6 instead of 3 to cover more subtle variation? However the lack of noticeable sway and the current extreme of pitching seem somewhat at odds with this real life behaviour.

[baldwin]

No vibration is controlled by the stock model. Vibration is controlled by OR code. There are several of the Milwaukee electrics that do not work well in OR, so far reasons are unknown, but they are all multipart models.