OR Steam Smoke

[Rick-MONON]

With the route Cheyenne getting closer to completion, I was wondering when the OR update release schedule will include a update for better steam engine smoke exhaust.

The present smoke comes out of the stack and goes a few feet up and then directly over the engine instead of the smoke climbing 10 or more feet above the smoke stack before it comes over the engine......

I have also tried for many hours to get the smoke more like MSTS after it starts to trail the stack and engine, I think I remember a thread where the OR Team has this on their list also.

Just wondering when approx..... this may be updated some.

[rdamurphy]

The smoke parameters come directly from the MSTS .eng files. I don't have the exact references in front of me right now, but they do work... You can actually adjust the MSTS parameters as high as you want, there's no upper limit. You may not be able to see anything, though...

Thanks, Robert

[rdamurphy]

Here it is:

 		 	
Effects
        (
                SteamSpecialEffects
                (
                        comment
                        (
                                the format of these little blocks is as follow:

                                offset.x offset.y offset.z
                                normal.x normal.y normal.z
                                width in metres

                                defining the offset from the shape pivot point
                                where steam / smoke should appear, the direction
                                it should go and the width of the nozzle

I also strongly recommend replacing the smoke.ace for steam using one form How in the World? or somewhere else. The MSTS one is way too dark.

Robert

[justlooking]

OR smoke is nothing more than a joke. not even funny.
Surely someone is able to do something about it. apart from turning it off.
Everyone has been pussy footing around this for too long !

[CSRX]

Looks fine to me! Of course, I also edit my engine files to my liking for the smoke release.

All trains shown, are in notch 8. Most of them I matched to the real units. Especially 802, she really does smoke like that in notch 8!

I forget what smoke texture I use. I think the one from 3dtrains or Diesels West. I could be wrong..

Only thing I wish could be changed, was it would give off a blue-ish tint, rather than black.

[geepster775]

Everyone has been pussy footing around this for too long !

Everyone has been pussy footing around believing that content runs parallel, out-of-the-box, in both sims, for too long.

Diesel Smoke
Zero Degree Nodes
Signal Scripts
Activity Pathing

These are all areas that no longer fall inside this continuing fantasy that content can be usable in both sims, or that decisions to fish or cut bait don't have to be made. Let's have the decency to admit that divergence is happening now - albeit quietly.

Diesel smoke is an issue that ORTS-only users fixed for themselves long ago, so stop jerking your wad on the hope that convergence will come. Not helping are vendors who continue to sell new material under a One-Eng-File-Fits-All strategy.

Zero degree nodes built into routes years ago were essential for MSTS coupler-break solutions, but are not needed and absolutely silly under ORTS conditions. In ORTS, zero degree track nodes create 'switch frog battering noise' out in the middle of nowhere now. So its time to pull them back out from any re-vamped ORTS-only routes. New routes should NOT be built with them, period.

Signal script issues have been documented in other threads. With no help apparently forthcoming to solve the problem for the masses, its time to re-signal these routes with ORTS-specific scripts and signal systems. But absent the original route author jumping back in to address the problem, good luck on any of these route improvements being distributed beyond small groups or private cliques.

Activities no longer work reliably because of differences in AI pathing prerequisites. Most people haven't discovered this yet. When making ORTS activities, you have to 'unlearn' some MSTS ways of doing things. It is mostly related to the need in MSTS to specifically identify via the path which train takes the siding, a requirement that is the opposite in ORTS activity creation. Also not helping is the over-use of passing path locations deployed over the years in activities developed for MSTS. With ORTS, a restrained deployment of passing paths are how you control which train arrives first and automatically takes the siding. I had long been a critic in thinking that ORTS was the problem, but actually, once I 'unlearned' or 'ignored' some previous principles in MSTS activity creation, ORTS really started working like it should. Basically, "I get it now" on how to make complex ORTS activities really shine.

[advut]

Open Rails is nothing without MSTS content. So, it should ensure MSTS stuff works correctly. OR can already correct questionable braking parameters...so why it can't auto correct other things that it doesn't like? There are better simulators that provide either better graphics or better physics than OR. So, why should someone use OR if it can't work correctly with the stuff it says it will work with?

[gremlin1812]

G'day advut, firstly OpenRails is FREE and is being developed by a team of dedicated enthusiasts who I think are doing a great job. Yes there are things that are not quite right, but, remember that eventually OR will diverge from MSTS specific add-on's so in the mean time we the user have to get off our lazy butt and do a bit of research and fix some of these things our selves. The up side is you will learn a bit about how things work.
Have a nice day.
Regards
Barrie

[ossie]

Spot on Barrie. I don't understand the thinking that the ORTS team or content producers should be responsible for ensuring everything they produce is MSTS compatible. If you want hassle free MSTS content, keep using MSTS. I've learned a heap from the customisation aspects of using ORTS and the sooner people stop trying to drag everything back to their "MSTS mode" thinking and realise that ORTS is going to keep moving further and further away from their MSTS comfort zone the better.

[R. Steele]

Since I never used MSTS ('cept for three months in early 2013 when I found the unopened 2001 CD set in a box of unused computer gear) - therefore I never got familiar with it. Had to learn all the msts file structure, how the files operate, and so forth when first using OR (also in early 2013).

Now since I only use train.exe for the editors I'm changing all my eng and wag files over to ORTS.
1. Changed out the extremely unbreakable msts coupler values to OR values ( low end 750kN to high 1050kN )
2. Removed msts Adheasion and added the ORTSadhesion - ORTSCurtius_Kniffler parameter
3. Removed the msts Friction parameter and added the ORTSBearingType and ORTSDavis parameters
4. Changing brake values (still experimenting with these)
5. Converted MaxPower to actual full Hp ( or kW if one prefers - OR accepts either UoM)
6. Added ORTSAdhesion-ORTSSlipWarningThreshold, ORTS-ORTSWheelSlipCausesThrottleDown, and Antislip lines in the proper place to the Engine file.
7. Adjust engine exhaust/smoke
That's just a few of the mods/changes I'm making to the files. Now I don't mind doing these tasks, find the right tools/utility programs, learn some new computer/digital skills and the job is a heck of a lot easier.

I also realize that some people do not like to do these chores...but I have always considered this hobby to be V-Scale** model trains.
So instead of having to master modeling making, painting, carpentry, wiring, layout and a hundred other tools/skills I'm having to learn new computer skills...like the language used to write OR (yep doing some VERY beginning reading into it).

My grandfather used to say (back in the day) - "if you don't like cutting and pasting string, wood, and paper, don't go into kite flying!"

**I admit to first reading this phrase on Andre Ming's website http://www.vscalecreations.com/ - I stole it from him.

[R. Steele]

Now directly to Rick's point - which I happen to agree with. The smoke does not escape the exhaust hood with a marked velocity. It just does not come shooting out like you see in real life, until it cools slightly and begins to dissipate.

Although I've read some developers threads discussing this very problem, and how to adjust the exhaust, which I've done to some extent as mentioned in other posts in this thread. I still cannot duplicate/simulate the velocity of the exhaust escaping from the engine - this includes diesels.

Are we missing something? Can the escape velocity and distance be adjusted in the engines Exhaust section? (speaking of diesel here...is it the same in the steam engine files?)

[ossie]

Hopefully we are missing something Gerry and one of the developers can provide some pointers. I also agree with Rick's point and have spent a lot of time messing with my diesel .eng files trying to get something more satisfactory happening with smoke without any real success to speak of.

Without filling the page with things I've tried and in broad terms, it basically boils down to a choice between a more realistic start up effect or a more realistic running effect I think. The release velocity issue aside, when I've had a start up effect that I've been pleased with, the locos have then produced way too much smoke once they're running, but cutting back on the smoke volume for once the train has a bit of speed up means that the amount of smoke released for start up and notching is under done.

Shaun's point about #802 notwithstanding, most modern diesels don't seem to produce masses of smoke, especially the black stuff, unless they're really under the pump but in my case at least, trying to replicate that means I've had to cut right back on how much smoke I get on the occasions when there should be plenty.

As with the great stuff Robert's currently doing with environments, if it's possible to change, hopefully at some point we'll have a more realistic smoke effect too.

[qballbandit]

You are correct Peter, the newer Tier3/4 engines are pretty clean in terms of exhaust output.

Does anyone use DPU, by Markus Gelbmann? I don't manually edit the smoke parms in the .eng files, mainly because my knowledge of the values is slim. When I use DPU, I can say that I like the results with regards to amount of smoke expelled. Options for little/hazy/much/very much (for GE/EMD/Alco).
Can't say that is does anything for the speed in output, or makes any difference in startup vs. running, but at least it controls the amount generated nicely.

[ebnertra000]

I have actually downloaded DPU, but I have yet to use it. The smoke does sort of bother me in some cases. My Alcos look like they've caught fire, and on some of my other diesels (have yet to try steam power in OR), the smoke comes out and then gently curves in the direction of the wind. It looks like a miniaturized tornado. Apart from that, I quite like what I'm seeing from OR, having converted just a month or two ago

[CSRX]

I don't use DPU, I feel as if this doesn't adjust them as they should, hence why I do them myself, especially the units I use each day at the real deal.