Simple Fixes to Improve Physics (not necessary for gameplay)

[MontanaRails]

I've been browsing through the forums the past few days looking for help improving the physics of TS2013. There are a few things I've known about, and a few things I'd like to learn more about. I envisioned a thread where we can list some known and experimental patches to help create a more realistic experience for those of us who desire it. I dont aim for complete realism - lots of issues exist at the core level of the physics engine - but perhaps we can put together a list that will improve the situation.

Here's what I have so far:
---------------------------------------------------
1) Coupler Springy-ness fix (I think attribution goes at least in part to krellnut?)

What it does: Reduces/eliminates the 'stretchy coupler' syndrome, that can cause excessive amounts of slack action and visual model problems.

Sample File Name: buckeye_type_e_coupling.bin

Sample File Location: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\railworks\Assets\Kuju\RailSimulatorUS\RailVehicles\Couplings\Buckeye\Type-E

What to change: SpringCoefficient value to "20000", and Damping value to "10000"
---------------------------------------------------
2) Dynamic Brakes Improvement (I think attribution goes at least in part to GaryG?)

What it does: Improves Dynamic Brake response in diesel electric locomotives.

Sample File Name: SD40-2 Engine Simulation.bin

Sample File Location: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\railworks\Assets\Kuju\RailSimulatorUS\RailVehicles\Diesel\SD40-2\Default\Simulation

What to Change: Under the DynamicBrakesSystem section, change the MaxForce value. I'm sure others can weigh in here, but these are the values I'm using: Large road units, like the SD70, ES44, Dash 9 should be in the "100-120" range. Medium duty/switchers, like the SD40-2, F40PH, GP9 locos should be in the "60-75" range.
---------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in learning more about the train brake physics and how to correct some of the problems like I mentioned here: viewtopic.php?p=78863#p78863

I realize it has mostly to do with rolling friction and brake pipe settings...but thus far I haven't managed to do anything meaningful in my own editing/poking around.

[Chacal]

NERW has a forum dedicated to RW physics.

[NDORFN]

I like this. Surely since there is only one correct physics set up we could include a complete patch in the community asset pack? A universal fix so to speak.

[MontanaRails]

Thanks Chacal - actually I've seen that, but there are only about 5 or 6 short threads in the past 3 years. I hoped there would be more interest here. There's been quite a bit of discussion in the past, but never a concise thread where people can pull useable info from. Oh well...I suppose everyone is feeling a bit beaten down at the moment.

Anyway, for anyone who's interested, the below edits seem to help make the Cab Forward rolling stock more useable (C-40 caboose, PS1 Boxcar, and PFE Reefer). As downloaded from Steam, the package is very odd. Going up hills, its ok. Going down, its another story. Even a minor train brake application in the order of 1-3 lbs would send a minor slack action shockwave through the train, and start decelerating the train, even on a 2% downhill grade with throttle pulling it forward. Release the brakes, and another slack action shockwave would go through the cars and bunch everything up, and the train would start to accelerate faster than 'normal'.

Through trial and error I think I found out the settings that were causing the elastic brake releases and greatly overpowered decelerations. I dont know if someone was after something by setting it up how it was, but it didnt seem to work out as planned. There was something odd about the TrainBrakeAssembly sections of each rail car in the Cab Forward Pack, some of them had maximum brake line pressures above maximum system pressures (and stuff like that) so I made these changes. They're more in line with some of the Freeware out there as well as the Default HSC values.

Drop this in and replace the relevant section of each cars' .bin file:

Code: Select all

               <TrainBrakeAssembly>
                  <EngineSimulation-cTrainAirBrakeBlueprint d:id="63245968">
                     <BrakeType>
                        <EngineSimulation-cTrainAirBrakeDataBlueprint d:id="63033360">
                           <EquipmentType d:type="cDeltaString">eAirSinglePipe</EquipmentType>
                           <MaxForcePercentOfVehicleWeight d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000805140" d:precision="string">70</MaxForcePercentOfVehicleWeight>
                           <Control/>
                           <Handbrake>
                              <EngineSimulation-cHandbrake d:id="63153040">
                                 <MaxForce d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="000000000070C740" d:precision="string">12000</MaxForce>
                              </EngineSimulation-cHandbrake>
                           </Handbrake>
                           <GraduatedRelease d:type="cDeltaString">eTrue</GraduatedRelease>
                           <ProportionalBrake d:type="cDeltaString">eTrue</ProportionalBrake>
                           <MaxReleaseRate d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="000000608FC2ED3F" d:precision="string">0.93</MaxReleaseRate>
                           <MaxApplicationRate d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="00000000295CDF3F" d:precision="string">0.49</MaxApplicationRate>
                           <MaxCylinderPressure d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000004940" d:precision="string">50</MaxCylinderPressure>
                           <PressureForMaxForce d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000004940" d:precision="string">50</PressureForMaxForce>
                           <MaxSystemPressure d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000805640" d:precision="string">90</MaxSystemPressure>
                           <MinSystemPressure d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000000000" d:precision="string">0</MinSystemPressure>

So much better! Now I can enjoy downhill running with these scenarios. I don't know if this makes it 'less realistic' from a numbers standpoint, but it seems the 'real numbers' often dont work at all with the way the program is set up to read them. We have to guestimate. At least now a long train feels heavy going down a grade, and its braking action and physics seem more predictable and realistic to me. Its a little scary being on the head end of a big articulated steamer running down a 2.4% grade and having to add brake applications...and watch the train slowly change acceleration.

EDIT: I forgot to mention - be sure to apply the Coupler spring fix, above, to the couplings on the Cab Forward pack, too.

[Chacal]

There's a lot of rolling stock that doesn't have correct weight values, so they have incorrect physics. Adjusting each manually is tedious work because values are unique for each type of car. RW Tools makes this easier, at least you can select several cars of same type and give them same values.

Even better would be to have a rolling stock database, with correct values for each car. Then it would be trivial to make a program that adjusts them all.

Kali and others have done interesting work on engine and train brakes. I remember some F7 repaints have the corrected values. They seem to have brake shoes made of ice, which apparently is close to reality.

I would love to have correct values for all equipment, since we can't alter the physics calculations in the game engine.
I hope people keep posting about it.

[BNSFdude]

That's a great idea. Have the RCAP guys assemble a total US DLC Engine Simulation fix out there, also including Air brake recharge and Compressor Recharge fixes.

[NDORFN]

I'm sticking on this one. As a route creator one of my biggest concerns is that the dynamics of driving for the end user will vary. I don't wanna be posting about a new scenario saying "Check out the growl in the GP16 when you notch 8 up this hill" only to have people saying "I cruised up on notch 2" sort of thing. Even if the physics aren't perfect, if we can getthem closer to prototypical, the fact we a re all using a unified set will mean we can share the same experiences.

[thebigroyboyski]

Chacal I've been compiling a big list of wagon weights from various manufacturers and operators I've found online. I'll try and dig them out.
Although they do all have to be entered manually for now. Combined with braking mods they make train control a lot more interesting.

[buzz456]

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

[Chacal]

True, but it's the kind of mod only an advanced user would want.

[GSkid]

As long as RSC views physics as a matter of someone's personal taste instead of it's mathematical reality..... we are stuck with resorting to these tedious tweaks.

[BNSFdude]

Not necessarily true mate. Most of the time its a matter of them simply not knowing how the trains works. I've invited them to come over for a real world Operational session, but we'll see if that happens.

[NDORFN]

I don't think we should be looking at it from any 'beginner' or 'advanced' user perspectives. Reality is reality and it is a simulator after all. If a beginner wants to make things easy there's always simple controls.

[Chacal]

Agreed. Even with simple controls, realistic physics should still be applied.
After crashing a few trains, new users will learn that they don't stop on a dime.

[NDORFN]

Not necessarily true mate

Do people say "Mate" in the U.S? I thought it was just a Kiwi/Ozzie thing