The APT cab camera develops a very uncomfortable shake (I think it's a yaw oscillation) at high speeds - enough to start making me feel almost nauseous, and that's not normally a problem I have with computer games. Has anyone played with the camera settings to try to improve this?
Yep, I've fixed that one. - Smoother cab sway (rapid shaking due to the same values for spring and damping by default - this pushes you back to normal position with the same force that pushes you away - leads to that effect) - Adjusted camera position to be more realistic (default was a bit too laid back for me) - Fixed wipers not removing rain on the DTS (wrong animation defined in the blueprint) - removed shadow casting from cab lights which was eating FPS and looked too harsh for a diffused light source. I'm doing this for all cabs except when the light source is a light bulb which is not behind a diffusor cover, or if it is a spotlight type. Just unzip and drop my "Assets" folder into your RailWorks folder.
Hey Spike If you ever talk with someone about this... one thing I noticed is that as the scenario progresses, something changes with the driver's view. Most obviously it slowly moves in some direction, easiest to see if you go to an external camera and back, it shifts. Can be proven by standstill neutral cab shots. Depending on how it moves, you can stop (or start) seeing certain gauges, side windows. Similar to that, the sensitivity of the view also changes. I noticed that before, but driving the ICE 1 last year, it was more than obvious. The overspeed scenario from Siegen to Hagen is practically unbearable, but simply driving from München to Augsburg was funny as well. It's less pronounced for slower trains (like the 158 you kindly adjusted, reducing but not removing the effect), but it is very much there. The nasty thing with both is that they certainly cannot be unit tested since they take a lot of time to develop, be it frames, simulation frames, time, distance... but they should be possible to prove logically just by looking at the algorithm.
Hey Andy! Never ever noticed what you are describing, but I will test this Hagen-Siegen run. The spring and damping values in the cab camera blueprint affect the rate at which the g-forces push you (spring acts in the opposite direction as damping), but they should always end up in the defined cab cam position which is relative to the center of the loco model (not the cab model). Are you saying that at the end of the scenario your camera position is different than at start? While accelerating, you should be pushed into the seat thus your camera will move back, and when braking you should be moving forth, and when stationary all should be reset. When going into fast right curves, the centrifugal "force" pushes you to the left and vice versa. I can't see the issue you are describing. Yes, Hagen-Siegen is uncomfortable at high speeds but that's because there's no superelevated tracks, and the train is not leaning into curves causing lesser side g forces, as superelevation moves some of the X axis g force to the Y axis. (Less pushing you to left and right, force on superelevation presses you down relative to the train's axis instead, like a rear spoiler/wing on a car does) Again, I find the simulation to be very realistic. Just like Einstein said, Gravity and Acceleration cannot be distinguished from one another
Yes. Absolutely always. It gradually develops in a very specific direction. When activating camera 1 it resets to the original position, but then the view moves as if under force. It's not route specific. What happens is, at the start of the scenario, the head is moving at a certain rate, direction, etc. but over time this becomes more and more pronounced, to the point where during Hagen-Siegen the view almost jumps out of the cab entirely. I just basically decided to drive with Shift+2 to avoid the hassle. It's the same on München-Augsburg. I noted the higher speed Ruhr-Sieg scenario because it's more obvious there. It gets annoying past halfway. Case in point, it's not a setting, it's something with the physics, maybe it has something to do with a cumulative amount of head bobs, like some residual value remains and eventually adds up. I never tested what happens if I simply leave the game running for two hours, compared to when I drive. As you may know from my screenies I tend to run longer routes / scenarios (90-180 minutes, and the odd 300+). Notably, save / resume, as well as cab switching removes the effect, or more or less. The London-Pb roundtrip could have been bonkers but involving the direction change it was fine.
