CSX 80Mac coupler isn't spacing right.

[nssd80mackid]

Even if I pull a train they stay like that.

[buzz456]

You are correct sir! Confirmed. One more thing for DTG to fix. I would send them a message.

[Antwerp]

Mine don't seem to be as bad as your 80Mac but are still really close.

*Probably should note that the brakes seem a bit touchy. One slight movement of the Train Brake and I'm in Emergency...*

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Check (and change) the rear coupler pivot and receiving point in the engine blueprint: 11.70 vs front 11.55, using RW_Tools' bin editor.
It could be the real engine is asymmetrical, but unless the (0,0,0) model origin coordinate has been moved off center, the model should be symmetrical in its x (length) axis.
Notice also the trucks are asymmetrical by 20 cm, but this could be prototypical. An SD80 is rather a long engine, so best check this against a construction drawing.
Extend the shank of the rear coupler to 11.70 also, and the anti-climbers no longer overlap. They rather touch each other now, so perhaps another change to 11.75 is in order to rear and perhaps front couplers, adding an extra 10 cm between locos.

[buzz456]

Why don't you post the fixed bin here for those that are afraid to be messing in their bin files? Otherwise I'll try to do it tonight.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Buzz, changing the coupler x-axis position with RW_Tools isn't difficult. The clear text display of RW_Tools is very helpful and the difference between front and rear values is obvious.

I have "edited" rather a lot, taking out the "advanced braking", which required an edited input mapper, and substituting the CSX ES44AC engine script so I get working digital display again and proper automatic train and independent brake handling and indication. I also hoped for flashing ditch lights, but found out that the SD80 doesn't have the required ditch light nodes in the shapefile, so that effort proved futile. Also no cab signals by using that simulation file. DTG took one step forwards and two steps back with their latest loco, IMO. And in its current state, the number of errors is rather large, so a complete revision by DTG is better than a lot of individual hacks.

The SD80MAC is 80' 2" in length over the couplers and stands 15' 5" high
The unit is 12' 1" wide over the snowplow
Distance between the bolsters is 54' 2".
Source: http://thecrhs.org/Information/SD80MAC- ... nformation

PS: notice in that small drawing that the trucks are asymmetrical!

Substitued brake hose couplers with no spring effect and 5 cm slack each.

Screenshot_Norfolk Southern Coal District_39.89513--80.19434_15-04-50.jpg

Screenshot_Norfolk Southern Coal District_39.89532--80.19447_15-04-37.jpg

One should also look into the FrontPivotX and RearPivotX values which influence coupling, they are at larger values and differ between fore and aft. There is help screens in the blueprint editor, but since I edit by hand, I cannot access that info. It is also in the original RSC documents, which I cannot find right now.

[nssd80mackid]

Thanks guys!

[MontanaRails]

Mine don't seem to be as bad as your 80Mac but are still really close.

*Probably should note that the brakes seem a bit touchy. One slight movement of the Train Brake and I'm in Emergency...*

It's so disappointing to hear that all of the new NA DLC has these flawed (and in my opinion, completely unusable) brakes. Based on some communication I've had with DTG over this, it would seem they wholeheartedly believe that they are functioning accurately and correctly and see no need to "fix" anything.

So I suppose I will no longer be purchasing any new DLC. But, that's getting off topic.

Just sad, really. One step forward, two steps back is completely right.

[CrimsonKing]

Things like the brakes being too sensitive could be reduced or outright prevented with better documentation and communication between developers (especially those in DTG's partner program).