You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you access to view most discussions. By joining the Australian MSTS Workshops forum, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls and Download MSTS addon content that is not available to non members. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please register and Join the Australian MSTS Workshops Forum today!
Not long after the release of Nick Fletcher's N class back in 2005, I was creating some textures and cabview for a newer shape made by Alexander Jamieson. While Nick's was great when it came out, Alex had done a superior job on the newer shape which was also a alot more texture friendly.
It got very close to getting released but for some reason fell by the wayside. Anyway, I've dragged it out of the cupboard recently and have been mucking around with some new textures for it taken with a 10 megapixel compact camera. Still very much a work in progress texture wise, but a vast improvement on what it looked like before.
Very nice work particularly the cab view, but being Victorian I am biased I sincerely hope this post is not seen as any critisism of Nick or Peters (or G-513) work. Now I downloaded Nick Fletchers N class as well as the reskin by Peter Fischer on testing these machines I found they were pulling way to hard on looking over the eng files found the following,
Maxpower ( 3263kW ) MaxForce ( 650.65kN )
These were changed to as set out below, note the MaxDieselLevel has also been changed to the figure of 1500 gallons. These figures have been taken from the State Tranport Authority drawing "loco Class N" The now behaves very realisticly with these figures.
These are the figures I use for the throttle notchs on all vehicles. This produces a vehicle that drives much better particularly on a Vline pass. I will put up a post explaining how I have come to these figures soon. (They are based on an analysis of the governer control system used on EMD engines)
Cheers fellas, Woodward I appreciate your advice with regards to the eng file and while the ones supplied with Nick's N class are not very accurate, I do intend to make the eng file for the newer shape a lot more closer to the real thing. On saying that, I am still yet to start on the eng file so any advice is always appreciated.
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:53 am Posts: 6 Location: Brisbane
Hi Woodward
I'm very impressed someone has seriously tackled the "uberpower" of locomotives (generally) in MSTS. I have been experimenting for some time in trying to align train sim performance with real data taken during my years of train travel. The easiest solution I had found was to downrate B, S, T and X class by 20% or thereabouts whereby I achieved fairly realistic performance but the performance through the full power range was inconsistent.
For example, using Ingliston bank, just before Bank Box Loop: * The Overland, with two S class and 750 tons, would be plugging away around 23 mph. * A B class with 265 tons (passenger) would be around 22-23 mph at the same location. In MSTS, mine hits that spot at above 40mph.
On Glenroy Bank: * S Class, 600 tons SoP would come through Gelnroy station at around 22mph. It's closer to 40mph in MSTS * B Class with 300 tons would go through Glenroy station at around 22-25mph.
It is even worse in steam locomotives where I feel that, generally, speaking, they are double the power they should be. * S Class steam with 550 tons SoP would get through Glenroy at around 15-17mph, whereas MSTS sees it going through above 30 mph. * R Class with 240 tons would climb Ingliston Bank around 25 mph, yet in MSTS, it climbs at better than 50 mph. * 38 class on the Newcastl Express (310 tons) would generally top Hawkmount at around 38 mph (unless being seriously pushed).
It may not be generally known that despite the line speed being 60mph from Essendon to Broadmeadows for passenger trains in the 50s and 60s, the steam SoP was tolerated to be at 70mph at Pascoe Vale station to ensure an efficient run up the hill. This is also why the gatekeeper at Pascoe Vale was contacted when the SoP came through Essendon (instread of Glenbervie (then North Essendon)) for other trains.
Hope this prompts others to share their experiences with real time performance and reveal how they have modified the various engine files to achieve realistic performance. And please don't think this is anyway a criticfdisam of the efforts of model builders ... theit efforts are fantastic and way beyond what I could do, but I, for one, am a little preoccupied with trying to make it as realistic as I recall it.
Hi jpc, Interesting post, jpc. My main focus is steam, and because I share your concerns, plus a few other reasons, I am now building my own .eng files and the results are stunning. I would recommend that you get the "Manual for .ENG and .WAG files by Rudolf Richter" from the Steam4Me site and spend a heap of time working through it. There are a number of parameters which play a vital part and there are many parameters which do absolutely nothing. The trick is to understand what everything does and the implication of each parameter for the overall performance of the loco. One of my next projects is SAR narrow gauge diseasels, and I am going to have to practice what I preach and swat up on them too. Cheers Allan
As my locos are based on US models I used Bob Boudoin’s physics values as the basis for my eng/wag files. I contacted him and he kindly tweaked them for me to suit the heavier (than US model) Dash 8’s as used by BHP Billiton.
I used Bob’s settings and thought that what I was experiencing in MSTS was a close approximation when in reality I was not even close when it came to braking. When I gave the train and route to a BHP Billiton driver for testing and he reported back the issues relating to brake performance and provided me with information that in turn allowed me to develop a better physics model.
The most important thing in my mind relating to this topic is that without the real world performance data and/or testing/feedback from someone with experience, getting an accurate physics simulation would be impossible, in my case anyway.
I was fortunate enough to get a couple of graphs showing ore train performance and found that traction performance was within 1-2 km/h of real world so I was happy with that.
Braking on the other hand involved a considerable amount of time and mental anguish to get close. Using Bob’s values for gondola ore cars that suit US vehicles provided abysmal braking performance compared to the feedback and information I received on BHP Billiton’s ore trains.
This was compounded by the long train lengths (212 vehicles) as MSTS does not scale braking well. Distributed Power Units in the real world consists considerably assist braking performance but are not simulated in the MSTS. Quick release brakes (also assisted by mid train units) required a greater deviation in the braking parameters from Bob’s ‘norm’ in order to better simulate real world performance.
On top of that MSTS does not use Boyle’s Law for air compression so the compressors had to be given higher output values than the norm to compensate for the longer trains/DPU units/quick release brakes. This means brake pipe pressure is restored much quicker than one would experience viewing the brake gauge but the train can be restarted after an emergency brake application within a few minutes as per real world.
I have ended up with physics settings that closely simulate ‘real world’ performance if you drive the train as a real world driver would. The main compromise I have had to make is that in order to simulate real world performance my trains have to be run as 2 rake units as all the testing was done on this configuration to match the data I had. The more you deviate from the 2 rake consist the greater the departure from real world braking performance.
On a side note I have read some of Bob’s posts relating to his findings on long trains and their behavior in MSTS. If I recall correctly he found (for US rolling stock) that using his physics values works reasonably well up to 60 to 70 vehicles. Once you exceed that amount he suggested having ‘special’ wag files for those 70+ wagons with different brake values for an improved simulation. I think on unit trains this is feasible but on mixed rakes the management of ‘special’ compared to ‘standard’ vehicles and their position in a consist would become unwieldy. As I understand it few US trains would exceed 120 cars per consist. As my trains are unit trains and nearly double US norms, I chose to use one wag file for all wagons and tune the physics accordingly.
I concur with Allan’s comments re: reading the ENG/WAG documentation as a foundation. I found that using that document as well as all I could read up on (the train-sim.com forums are full of physics topics) the subject in various forums left me swimming in a quagmire of information. In my case, hopefully some of this information has congealed into eng and wag files that lift the simulation aspect of this game a little.
I do have some video from the N class cab which has some great sounds that could be used for the sim.
As for the maccas livery, Alex has done a wonderful job with the texture mapping so it shouldnt be too hard to get right... Got to do the tangerine livery first, but I have to put the word out for some kind photographer to donate a good quality straight-side on pic as all the pics I took years ago are from horrible angles and the quality isn't that great either.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
