Simple Fixes to Improve Physics (not necessary for gameplay)

[hertsbob]

Only if it's preceeded by 'Put another shrimp on the barbie'...

[NDORFN]

Only if it's preceeded by 'Put another shrimp on the barbie'...

Blimin' Austraaaaaarlians.

[MontanaRails]

One of the things you are going to have to be careful of is if you start making modifications to suit yourself which results in making the "stock" game unusable you will be chasing a lot of noobs away who don't care about the physics.
Buzz

I can see that if realistic physics were pushed out by RSC and didnt have an off switch (simple controls/physics), but in my view, if someone is willing and able to open up a .bin file and make changes, or hunt down pre-packaged mods, they probably know what they're doing and wont be upset by the changes that are made. Also, I dont imagine very many physics mods alter scenarios or game play to the extent that it will break anything. The one's I posted so far dont - they just make the sim more enjoyable.

[MikeK]

What to change: SpringCoefficient value to "20000", and Damping value to "10000"

Nope. Add a couple of zeroes and you're getting close. 1000000 and 4000000 are the values I used to use. I found that damping had to be higher than the spring coefficient to remove the silly bounciness out of the train.

[MontanaRails]

What to change: SpringCoefficient value to "20000", and Damping value to "10000"

Nope. Add a couple of zeroes and you're getting close. 1000000 and 4000000 are the values I used to use. I found that damping had to be higher than the spring coefficient to remove the silly bounciness out of the train.

Oh wow! I just tried this and the train actually felt too firm. Real trains actually do have a little perceived stretchiness to them (in addition to the slack action) from what I've heard. The slack action seemed to be reduced too much with these numbers...but I'm not sure yet. The 20,000 and 10,000 are the values that have been the 'default' fix for some time now, but your 'million' fixes are intriguing. I'll have to keep playing with it and see. Thanks for posting! I love feedback - its how we come up with solutions.

[BNSFdude]

I personally do. The rest of Minnesota? Well donchyaknow, we be out in out boats fishing on ice y'know.

[GaryG]

Hi and Best Wishes of the Season to all,

I haven't tinkered with physics too much lately but on a PostIt stuck to the edge of my monitor....

RW3 DB MaxForce (K-LBF NOT KN)

GP9 / F7 40 (a guess)
GP7 35 (another guess)
Dash 9 74.636
SD40-2 59.799
SD70 90
SD70AC 98

I have noticed that the more recent locos released do have improved Dynamic Braking where a '4' setting no longer locks the loco wheels. The forces are still higher than I think they should be but I feel the primary problem is now a train braking issue where a minimum set will still hold and slow a train on steep grades. The fast release and apply rates are also unreal as well.

Overall, I think RailWorks is slowly improving the physics if you consider what we had when we started.

Buckeye couplers - why, oh why, can't they (RW) use the numbers that solve many strange train handling problems; such a simple fix. I use the file that Kali supplied but there are others as well who have come up with the rubber drawbar fix. To see the problem all you need is lots of headend power with a heavy train; crank up the power and watch the couplers of the cars behind the locos, the couplers and drawbars pull completely out of the car.

Close enough now to January 1 so I wish all a Happy New Year,

GaryG

[MikeK]

Oh wow! I just tried this and the train actually felt too firm. Real trains actually do have a little perceived stretchiness to them (in addition to the slack action) from what I've heard. The slack action seemed to be reduced too much with these numbers...but I'm not sure yet. The 20,000 and 10,000 are the values that have been the 'default' fix for some time now, but your 'million' fixes are intriguing. I'll have to keep playing with it and see. Thanks for posting! I love feedback - its how we come up with solutions.

I picked firmer numbers after playing Run 8 for a while. I also dropped the slack distance from 0.1 to 0.05 to try to make it feel as close to run 8 as I could. Just a personal preference. I have never driven a real freight train, (or even been on one), so I can only go by what games have done, so take it with a grain of salt I guess.

Whatever the correct numbers should be, I agree with Gary. Such a simple fix and it solves so many problems in the game, but we have to fix it ourselves. I wonder how many people play the game who never visit a forum and just live with the crappy RSC values?

[dfcfu342]

I've messed with the Sherman Hill values several times and am slowly zeroing in on what I feel to be as close to real as possible. When I get them finalized I'll add them to the rest of the adjustments posted here.

Whats interesting is they fixed the couplers on the new ES44 and SD70 but left the cars the same.

[OldProf]

One of the things you are going to have to be careful of is if you start making modifications to suit yourself which results in making the "stock" game unusable you will be chasing a lot of noobs away who don't care about the physics.
Buzz

And not only "noobs" (I've always heard newbies ... this term strikes me as deliberately insulting -- see "boobs" or "rubes") ... Anyway, there are a lot of us out here who aren't fixated on physics and won't bother with even "simple" fixes that have to be reapplied after every cache verification and RSC update. IMNSHO*, railroad simulators are called that for a reason; I enjoy running scenarios in RSC's simulator because its appearance strikes me as more realistic and because the types of scenarios I enjoy present a puzzle or a challenge of some kind. I'm not condemning the physics phans, just pointing out that they're only one coalition of this diverse community. Those of us who don't care much about physics are another coalition and it is not made up exclusively of neophytes.

{* In My Not-So-Humble Opinion}

[buzz456]

Agreed. The term noobs is used quite often nowadays and is not meant to be derogatory in any sense.

[GaryG]

Game - Who cares about physics?

Simulator - Physics should be simulated as well as objects.

I think it is sold as a simulator, not a game. I guess the fix could be a 1-10 scale for physics as well as scenery.

'nuff said for now. Have a great 2013!

GaryG

[MontanaRails]

One of the things you are going to have to be careful of is if you start making modifications to suit yourself which results in making the "stock" game unusable you will be chasing a lot of noobs away who don't care about the physics.
Buzz

And not only "noobs" (I've always heard newbies ... this term strikes me as deliberately insulting -- see "boobs" or "rubes") ... Anyway, there are a lot of us out here who aren't fixated on physics and won't bother with even "simple" fixes that have to be reapplied after every cache verification and RSC update. IMNSHO*, railroad simulators are called that for a reason; I enjoy running scenarios in RSC's simulator because its appearance strikes me as more realistic and because the types of scenarios I enjoy present a puzzle or a challenge of some kind. I'm not condemning the physics phans, just pointing out that they're only one coalition of this diverse community. Those of us who don't care much about physics are another coalition and it is not made up exclusively of neophytes.

{* In My Not-So-Humble Opinion}

I'll update the title of this thread to clarify.

[NDORFN]

**!!2cents!!**

Game - Who cares about physics?

Simulator - Physics should be simulated as well as objects.

I think it is sold as a simulator, not a game. I guess the fix could be a 1-10 scale for physics as well as scenery.

'nuff said for now. Have a great 2013!

GaryG

I'm down with that

[Chacal]

Sounds good. Several games have a "realism" or "difficulty" level, or user-selectable realism options.
Submarine simulators in the Silent Hunter series, for example.

This doesn't change physics calculations, it changes parameters.

For example, you could have a setting for "realistic brakes" or "strong brakes". In the latter case, you would just get amazing brake shoes with a very high friction coefficient yet no overheating.

Another example would be "realistic brake recharge rate" or "fast brake recharge rate". You just get a better compressor.