1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thoughts On Csx Physics

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anthony Pecoraro, May 23, 2019.

  1. Anthony Pecoraro

    Anthony Pecoraro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1,362
    I am unable to experiment with the new CSX physics until tomorrow. I am wondering what everyone’s thoughts are on them.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
    • Downvote Downvote x 1
  2. Steve Cummins

    Steve Cummins Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    44
    Had a brief run taking two GP38's with a manifest up just past Falls Cut tunnel. Train needs notch 2 or 3 to get moving from Cumberland Yard which is good. Train feels heavy, also good. Didn't need to use the brakes once with the train slowing nicely on level track and as long as you're aware of speed limits you won't speed. In notch 8 on the climb after Hyndman train slowed to and maintained 15 MPH. Tunnels nice and dark. So far so good, I reckon they've nailed it, although I'm yet to test the brakes.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 2
  3. Michael Newbury

    Michael Newbury Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    505
    Not yet with me either it will be tomorrow for me as well, but looking forward to trying them out.
     
  4. nne4229

    nne4229 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Why does this not apply to the same engine on NEC?
     
  5. TrainSim-Matt

    TrainSim-Matt Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    478
    Simply because if we change the engines that come with NEC we need to also make sure that all the content on NEC works as well, so it's a second round of testing and rather than wait for that to complete we thought we'd get the stuff that was ready to go out to you to start enjoying.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 18
    • Useful Useful x 4
  6. nne4229

    nne4229 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Sounds reasonable, appreciate the response.
     
  7. Yerolo

    Yerolo Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2018
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    109
    Matt...will the NEC GP38-2 eventually receive the same physics update ?
     
  8. Schnauzahpowahz

    Schnauzahpowahz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2018
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    403
    Great seeing a few of you guys good marks for sandpatch update, cant wait to try tomorrow - spent too much time on TVL

    The lighting will be noticed off the bat, excited to see how it looks
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 2
  9. nne4229

    nne4229 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Screenshots anyone? I'm out of high speed so no update for me for awhile
     
  10. StratPlayer62

    StratPlayer62 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    247
    I've only had a chance to try out the AC4400 but so far it is MUCH improved, WAY more realistic, this update has made TSW much more enjoyable for me.

    The only weird thing I've noticed was with the dynamic brakes, just for the fun of it I put it in full dynamics with no air brakes and it brought a heavy train to almost a complete stop going downhill, then the train started moving again and the Klb meter starting going crazy.
     
  11. raildan

    raildan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    1,208
  12. dan.marcusior73

    dan.marcusior73 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    16
    Agreed! This is a HUGE improvement. I'd say they're getting close to the best of what was available for TS2019 or Run 8 now.

    Great job, DTG!
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  13. nne4229

    nne4229 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2018
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    192
    Raildan can u upload those pics here. My internet is so slow loading all the others it never gets to urs with tue csx update
     
  14. raildan

    raildan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Of course, that wasn't the only release today! We also saw the release of the long-awaited CSX PHYSICS UPDATE! And it came with LIGHTNING! And... no GP40-2 or NEC changes whatsoever, which is interesting, makes me think there will be a CSX update part 2 at one point.

    Lighting changes are obvious the moment you leave he loading screen. This AC4400CW cab looks a lot nicer and more shaded now.
    [​IMG]

    Here's what the lighting looks like from the outside. Pretty nice, huh?
    [​IMG]
    Yeah... I can't handle the fame of winning the screenshot contest. Now I have to take this picture every time I pass the summit. It's unhealthy, I know (joking, of course... probably).
    [​IMG]

    The tunnel looks better before we even go into it!
    [​IMG]

    Inside the tunnel- it's actually dark! Crazy, right?
    [​IMG]
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 4
  15. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    583
    See Matt's answers a few back in the post
     
  16. raildan

    raildan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    I just copied that post from the original thread, that was posted before Matt answered that.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. rftech

    rftech New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2018
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    10
    Good job DTG.The graphics on CSXHH are almost back to the high level I loved on the original release.Looks really great.Frame rates are fine.I had stopped using TSW because of the degraded state of CSXHH-now I'm back using it again.Please don't mess with the graphics on this route anymore.Thanks.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  18. Jpantera

    Jpantera New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2019
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    19
    It looks great after the patch, just having a run out on it tonight and the lighting change has refreshed the route well.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  19. SaMa1

    SaMa1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    42
    Thank you for the effort. The physics model is much better.

    The biggest rant now(atleast with SD40-2) is that the electric motor model does not account the effect of speed. In reality DC motors have best torque when rotational speed is nearly zero and torque of motor rapidly drops when accelerating. As this phenomen is not properly simulated in TSW you can now drive easily 250 km/h with pair of SD40-2s.
     
  20. raildan

    raildan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Yeah, apparently the same problem exists in the Great Western physics update from a while ago. I assume (according to DTG) that you're just supposed to drive the speed limit and never notice that, I guess?
     
  21. Michael Newbury

    Michael Newbury Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    505
    So far I am impressed with the changes done everything looks so much better and the loco's seem to respond as they should. Nice work DTG job well done.
     
  22. LastTrainToClarksville

    LastTrainToClarksville Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2017
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    497
    First, Americans measure distance in miles, not kilometers; measurements can easily be changed in options. Second, whether one measures distance in kilometers or miles, that's a thoroughly unrealistic speed. Simultaneous praise for and abuse of the new physics model???
     
  23. jörgen Näslund

    jörgen Näslund Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    13
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 1
  24. jörgen Näslund

    jörgen Näslund Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    13
    Its still not good the physics, Its better in some way but in many ways it is is still very wrong.
    Its far from Run8
    I could drive 75 mph uphill with 1,4 hp/ton with 50 loaded coal cars !!!!. (yes i know it above speed limits , but it should not go. Maybe 30-40)
    The TSW train accelerate so much even in higher speed!
    The engine is to strong or wagons for light or gravity, wind resistance problems in in the formula.
    I don't know.
    Have tested 3-4 trains with AC4400 trains and it don't feel right. (compare to Open rails and Run8)

    Engine AC4400 and ES44dc have same horsepower 4400,
    But AC4400 have more tractive effort from start (30 % stronger) but in higher speed so they are equally strong.
    AC4400 180,000 lbf (800 kN) Starting 145,000 lbf (640 kN) at 13.7 mph
    ES44DC 142,000 lbs Starting.
    ES44Ac or AC4400 is not available in run8 for me

    TSW have more uphill than Run8 in the test
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notch 8 directly and let the train begin to accelerate.

    __________Run8_____________TSW
    10 mph__ 24,6 (24,6) _____12,3 (12,3)
    20 mph__ 50 (25,2)________22 (9,3)
    30 mph__ 95 (45)__________45 (23)
    40 mph__ 170 (75)________82 (37)
    50 mph__ 263 (94)________126(45)
    60 mph__ 663 (400)_______174 (48)
    70 mph__ ----_____________244 (70)
    75 mph__ ----_____________544 (300) (0,0-0,5% uphill in Tsw)

    TSW Tested with 2 ac4400 engine with 50 loaded coal cars
    Run 8.Tested with 2 es44dc engine with 50 loaded coal cars.
    (according to run8 it is 6500 ton 1,4 hp/ton. In TSW we don't know the real train weight)

    TSW AC4400 08:10 N536 Coal Nevell to to brunswick (tested directly from Nevell 0-0,6% uphill
    Run8 Jacksonville and south (Flat with some smaller slopes up and down)
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  25. raildan

    raildan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    First off, it isn't necessarily "awful," and second off, an ES44DC is DC traction, giving it a lot less tractive effort than an AC4400CW. You are comparing two different engines here. An ES44AC would be a better comparison.

    Also, I'm interested to see the results of this comparison with light engines- if those are similar, it's the freight cars and not the engins. In fact, maybe they didn't even touch the freight cars, which would explain some. And if anyone has an SD40-2 pack for Run8, a comparison there would be neat, too. (I don't have Run8 at all, so I can't do any of this.)

    The game also assumes you don't speed- all the physics updates don't work as well when you go a lot faster than you're supposed to, which was probably deemed acceptable by the dev team because, well, you're not technically supposed to. I mean, you would only reach 70 on Sand Patch if you were trying to mess with the game, and accurate physics matters less when you aren't trying to be realistic.

    (not... a great excuse, but whatever).
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  26. jörgen Näslund

    jörgen Näslund Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    13
    Test train flat (from Cumberland to Hyneman) 0-0,3% uphill. (test wind resistance and engine force etc.)
    07:56 Q130 inter modal to Chicago to Portsmoth (2 ac4400 50 stack wagons )

    75 mph (it feels it had gone much faster if the locomotive not was tightened to 75 mph)
    Run 8 same train (2 SD70Mac 50 loaded stack wagon) 65 mph. 2,4 hp/ton. It is not so bad but it could have been better.
    Is wind resistance sufficient in the formulas ? In this speed the wind is a huge resistance.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test Uphill 1,5% Hyneman hill in TSW and Run8 Ash Hill (used 1,5% track not 2,2) Same train as above
    TSW Notch 8=40 mph. Notch 5-6 to hold 25 mph
    Run8 Notch 8=22 mph Notch 4=8 mph

    So this was a very large difference. I guess i would have to have 2-4 engine more in run8 to could drive 40 mph in 1,5% uphill

    Engine
    Run 8. 2 SD70MAC 4,500 horsepower (3,400 kW). 157,000 lbf (700 kN) continuous tractive effort (191,000 lbf (850 kN) starting).
    So this time is Run8 is stronger engine than AC4400 (4400 hp tractive effort 800 starting)
    Train 50 loaded stack wagon according to run8 it is 3750 ton 2,4 hp/ton. (In TSW we don't know the real train weight)

    Have just tried to get the facts and did not go on feeling. To me this is a game and not is not a simulator when it works like this.
    It is not possible to compare directly. But after all, it gives a tip that there are big differences between them.
    But it is hard to test when i missing train weight and so much more info (F5 in open rail its a dream)
    Can be the wagons is to light, engine to strong, wind resistance, rolling resistance, Gravity. All together right and it is a simulator.
    I really hope Dovetail can solve it for the rest is so awesome.

    It would be interesting what a real driver engineer had said about this.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  27. pschlik

    pschlik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    You must realize that Heavy Haul doesn’t simulate cargo weight at all. That’s a super important detail if you are to ‘get the facts’. Every train should be assumed as empty (while you’ve been assuming they are full) regardless of how full they look, at least on CSX Heavy Haul. That’s a bug in the sim that wasn’t fully realized until recently (presumably as part of the process of updating physics) and still hasn’t been fixed.

    Yes that’s a problem but the underlying physics are fine-weight exists and traction is what it should be (heck the AC4400CW explicitly tells you how much traction it is putting down-doesn’t get easier to compare than that) but the weight of the train simply isn’t what you’d expect it to be, and as a result assumptions creep in.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  28. Steve Cummins

    Steve Cummins Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    44
    Without going into a detailed physics breakdown (mostly due to my lack of a formal education in the subject matter) I feel that DTG are still some way off where they need to be for the Simulator in TSW to be fully realised.

    I previously posted that the GP38-2 felt right and it still does however I have since tried another train, similar to the make up of the train that I first tested however this time it was lead by an SD40-2 and a GP38-2 trailing. Whereas the two GP38-2 hauled train felt heavy and needed notch 2 to get moving in Cumberland yard and notch 8 to maintain 15 MPH up Sand Patch the SD40-2/GP38-2 lead train could pull away easily in notch 1 and the speed limit of 25 MPH on Sand Patch was achieved in notch 4. Now the latter train only has 1,000 HP of extra 'grunt' so these results simply cannot be achieved in the real world.

    A possible explanation of the above is that the latter train was empty. How can we tell if this is the case?

    It was previously mentioned in a Studio Update that they were going to look at the wagon physics after the loco's had been worked on so perhaps this is yet to be done? If this is the case then they'd need more power on the GP38-2 lead trains.

    PS - Thanks for the heads up re the empty wagon bug pschlik
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  29. pschlik

    pschlik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Sounds like the GP38-2 you had might have been in YN3 paint. (The easy pull away in notch 1 is a dead giveaway that old physics are involved) I’ve had that catch me out a few times-tempted to uninstall that YN3 GP38-2 and the GP40-2 if they keep showing up as trailing locos, messing up my drive!

    Hopefully those get updated soon-ish. Having half new physics half old physics gets confusing fast!
     
  30. raildan

    raildan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    Ah- that explains a LOT, actually! Interesting, I hope they change that one day (TVL very clearly simulates differences between loaded and empty, so it can be done)... but, knowing DTG, I'm... not sure about that... maybe on NEC physics release?

    I uninstalled the GP40-2 also... let's be honest, it never really added all that much, either... an interesting thing I discovered in doing so is that the centerbeam flatcar from NEC still spawns on CSX, even without the GP40-2.
     
  31. pschlik

    pschlik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    Aptly perceived. But TVL's simulation of loaded and empty is a bit...cheaty since Tees Valley Line gets around the issue without fixing it (heck, if it was fixed the CSX stuff would be more difficult). Basically, what was done for TVL is that there are now multiple versions of each wagon. Thus, instead of a loaded wagon being treated as an (empty) wagon + cargo, the loaded wagon is a completely separate file that's the same as the usual wagon, but with more mass. So yes, a loaded BBA is indeed heavier than an empty one. Supposedly, the steel slabs are heavier than the steel coils too, a nice touch.
    3 bba.PNG
    3 types of BBA in the files-one for each type of cargo load. (Old DLC only have one "RailVehicleDefinition" file regardless of the cargo load.)
    2 heas.PNG
    HEA does the same thing too, except this time it's just coal or no coal.

    Might sound dandy, but remember that it still doesn't solve the issue that cargo has no effect on weight, which means that the bug isn't gone: changing the amount of cargo still doesn't change the weight. So, while a loaded HEA weighs as much as an HEA + coal should weigh (which is not the case for the CSX coal hopper) unloading it at Redcar Ore Terminal will not change the weight. And suddenly you have an empty HEA that weighs as much as a loaded one because the weight is tied to the wagon, and not to the cargo. You'd need to change the wagon to change the weight and (obviously) the wagons don't magically change when you unload them.

    Matt has said a proper fix to cargo weight is on the proverbial list. So they know about it (which is also why I found out about it), but who knows when that fix will come. And while the current 'solution' doesn't fill me with confidence for future freight operations, I need to step back and realize that I thought cargo worked fine until I was told it didn't a few weeks ago. They could have done nothing and I'd be happy as can be...so what's here now is better than what's here before...it just doesn't feel like any progress has been made. The cost of enlightenment, huh?

    Also, I hope I didn't butcher that explanation.
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  32. Steve Cummins

    Steve Cummins Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    44
    Not at all and it shouldn't be too difficult for them to code it in. You'd have thought they'd have done so during the past two years whilst they've been looking into the CSX physics, as now they'll have to re test all services going over Sand Patch to ensure that each train has adequate motive power. I guess that 'to fix' list must be pretty long.
     
  33. jörgen Näslund

    jörgen Näslund Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yes this day with loaded and unloaded cars according to the load weight is not counted in TSW trains.
    Accelerate with loaded and unloaded train
    TSW Tested with 2 ac4400 engine with 50 loaded coal cars yesterday and today same train but unloaded
    Run 8.Tested with 2 es44dc (even 2 SD70Mac not much difference) engine with 50 loaded coal cars.
    (according to run8 loaded coal is 6500 ton 1,4 hp/ton. Unloaded coal is 1613 ton 5,6 hp/ton (In TSW we don't know the real train weight)
    Notch 8 directly and let the train begin to accelerate.

    __________Run8 Loaded_____Run8 unloaded_________TSW
    10 mph__ 24,6 (24,6)_______15,5 (15,5)______________12,3 (12,3)
    20 mph__ 50 (25,2)__ ______23,5 (8)________________22 (9,3)
    30 mph__ 95 (45)__________34,5 (11)_______________45 (23)
    40 mph__ 170 (75)__________52 (18) _______________82 (37)
    50 mph__ 263 (94)__________80 (27) _______________126(45)
    60 mph__ 663 (400)_________126 (47) ______________174 (48)
    70 mph__ ----_______________200 (75)_______________244 (70)
    75 mph__ ----____________________________________544 (300) (0,0-0,5% uphill in Tsw)
    Run 8. Unloaded coal i could reach 72 mph. (TSW always 75 mph).
    Loaded stack train 62 mph (empty 75 mph)

    Uphill with unloaded train
    Tested yesterday uphill with this train. It went 22 mph Notch 8 (TSW train 40 mph)
    Run 8 (2 SD70Mac 50 loaded stack wagon) . 3750 ton 2,4 hp/ton
    Tested same train but i take away all 100 containers (just empty well wagon) 1350 ton 6,7 hp/ton
    Notch Hill again and the speed was 42 mph Notch8 and Notch 5-6 25 Mph (almost as TSW train)


    Summary
    Looking at this, it seems so. TSW only starts from the empty weight of the wagon (even if it loaded with containers and coal)
    Time comparisons was strange run8 compared to TSW (in speed 30-50) (not the same time)
    But perhaps it can be explained that it goes a bit uphill and flat in tested. (0,0-0,3)

    So when we drive a 50 stack wagons with 100 containers. So must we think the containers is not there.
    (Not a 3750 tons train it is 1350 ton) So the wind resistance and weight is not there.

    We always drive unloaded coal wagons even we see the coal.
    (Not a 6500 tons train it is 1613 ton) Interesting to know.
    Why it is so much engine in every train with so light trains (1 would be enough)
    The Trains is 3-4 times easier than you think in many cases.

    But this must be easy to Dovetail to fix. Thanks Pschlic
    Would be very interesting to hear Matt's opinion on this.

    Have they managed to fix the locomotive. Maybe I don't know, but i think so. The route is so much good locking now (graphic) .
    But this bug is big.

    PS on the German routes i think its right. Some trains feels very heavy.
    But Dovetail may have made the whole wagon weight much heavier (always heavy) according to Pschlic DS
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  34. Steve Cummins

    Steve Cummins Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    44
    This is exactly what was occurring.

    I spent some time testing the GP38-2 and SD40-2 and found that all but the YN3 liveried loco's performed realistically. As such I've disabled the GP40-2 and NEC content until they're patched. At least I can now enjoy Sand Patch without having to check my train for non patched locomotives on each run.

    Oh, I retested the train I had previously ran that gave me crazy fast acceleration, etc and I'm happy to report that it now performs closer to the prototype. I could maintain 25 MPH in notch 6 on the 1.4% grade headed up towards Falls Cut.

    Great work DTG now please get that load weight issue fixed :)
     
  35. jörgen Näslund

    jörgen Näslund Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    13
    In Ts2019 there is the same problems, but different. But there Dovetail have solved letting loaded wagons get more friction.
    I noticed then train don't did not increase in speed at the downhill slopes (0,0-1,0 % was it more train increase speed)
    These are wagons that you can load, not others.
    Did many test with this. When I took away the cargo and made the whole wagon heavy in wagon file (Empty wagon + cargo)
    Then the wagon rolled as I expected. But then this wagon was always loaded.
    I hope this time Dovetail do it right and no cheating.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TSW I became very uncertain when everyone said what good everything was. Its like Run8 one say.
    The trains feel heavy, I thought just the opposite. Almost felt like driving a car.
    Sure, the locomotive was better (The cruise control was gone)
    But overall much was not okay with physics in this simulator. And today we know why (we think)

    Run8 People and people knows how train behaving will not at all be convinced of this improvement in engines.
    It cant be 400% wrong (loaded coal train is in simulator unloaded) and say it's okay.
    The cargo load bug thing it so much larger bug than engine bug before. (cargo bug existed before too)

    So it feels very good anyway. Many knows this and even Dovetail (some earlier)
    So now there is the pressure that this must be addressed.

    Wind resistance different wagons and load, wind resistance from weather, curve resistance, different wagon bearing. We can almost assume that it does not exist in TSW but Open rails and Run8 have them. So so there is a lot to do for dovetail if they are to approach these simulators.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
  36. TrainSim-Matt

    TrainSim-Matt Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    478
    The wagon weight issue is on the big list of things to do - but it's not just as simple as adjusting the weight of the vehicle. In reality wagons either have a lever to switch between the loaded and heavy brake setup, or they have a load sensor that does this automatically. So you have got two sets of braking configurations and some means, manual or automatic, to switch between them.

    However, hopefully you'll all agree that CSX took a big step forward with this update, even if it isn't as far as some of you might prefer :)

    Matt.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 12
  37. jörgen Näslund

    jörgen Näslund Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    13
    Thanks Matt for your answer. I am very pleased with the answer. You know the problem and have a plan to fix it.
    It was partly my reason to bring the problem out. Now we can go on.
    Yes it was a big step with engine and graphic change you did. So thanks for this. It is a awsome simulator in many ways.
     
  38. Steve Cummins

    Steve Cummins Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    44
    Thanks for chiming in here Matt, considering the gravity of the situation (see what I did there) perhaps you could give this task a gentle nudge up the queue?
     
  39. StratPlayer62

    StratPlayer62 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    247

    Matt thanks for the reply, it is very much appreciated. The engine physics are a big step forward and a good job was done on it. It is great to hear that the physics for the cars/wagons is on the to-do list. Just acknowledging the problem and telling us you have a plan to fix it is very much appreciated and goes a long way towards keeping customers happy.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  40. dan.marcusior73

    dan.marcusior73 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    16
    Disheartened by reading all of this. They've got 5+ years development time into this sim, most of it spent of CSX North American diesels, and they're still this far off physics wise? They seriously released an update they've been working on for over a year and part of that update is now you can go 150 miles per hour with an SD40-2? This simulator does not account for cargo weight? One of the most intregal and important parts of any railroads' operations is cargo weight.

    Edited: Removed unnecessary emotional outburst.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
    • Downvote Downvote x 6
  41. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    583
    Where are you getting that most of their development time has been spent on CSX diesels? They've released a heck of a lot of other things between then and now, all of which would have had dev time

    And I'm sure like any development manager Matt's sleep gets disturbed at times, but other times he remembers it's "just a sim" and there are much more important things in life
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
  42. dan.marcusior73

    dan.marcusior73 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    16
    They spent 3+ years working on the base game before it was released. Recall it was initally released with only CSX content, so these locos received the majority of work. Testing time, research and development. And then the past year trying to fix the physics. So, 4 out of 5 years this game has been in development, they've been actively working on the CSX locos in some capacity.

    I'm well aware it's just a game. And it's not a simulator. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I've removed it from my computer until they get it right. By the time they do, I'm sure it will be obsolete technology. All I was saying is that if I were Matt, I'd be floored and sickened they've spent so much time and effort on something that is still so inherently inaccurate at a foundational level. Imagine 5+ years of your time being spent on something you bill as the most realistic simulator out there, come to find out, it's the least accurate one on the market. It just has to be a crushing defeat.
     
    • Downvote Downvote x 4
  43. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    583
    The game was in dev for 3+ years, including the base program, routes etc etc so probably less than a few months on the CSX locos themselves, but then you're talking about wagon physics as well, so that's not even the engine itself, so make that a few weeks
    Then you have the fixes, which probably weren't high priority as such, so again a few weeks.

    Your point falls on the time you believe has been spent on each thing, when they had to develop the entire thing from the ground up rather than focussing on one principal asset.
    I can see it probably took a lot more time to develop simugraph generally rather than specifically physics mechanics for a single loco.

    One thing I have seen recently though was an advert in a local paper for a physical programmer for DTG so maybe new things are a coming... We can but hope, even if it is then likely that the average player will find it almost impossible to drive any given unit with any accuracy
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  44. dan.marcusior73

    dan.marcusior73 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    16
    I'm not sure about the original development time spent, but I do know from second hand converations that they spent the last year working on trying to fix the physics pretty much continually. It wasnt weeks of time, it was many, many months.

    All I'm saying is that as paying customers, I dont think it's too much to ask for foundational basic elements to be there, like cargo weight, and basic physics. We're not asking them to model the effect different wheel bearings have on the motion of the train. But it's absurd that our locomotives can attain 150 miles per hour, even if you're not supposed to go that fast. That indicates a fundamental and egregious problem in how they implemented their fix.

    I guess they've reached the limits of their knowledge and abilities. All we can hope is that they do get a physics programmer.
     
    • Downvote Downvote x 1
  45. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    583
    See, my car is only supposed to do 130 miles an hour. It does more. By your rating this means Volkswagen "have reached the limits of their knowledge and abilities" when what they probably did was make the assumption that nobody would try to do it, so stick to what people will use the most under normal circumstances rather than on the margins

    That may not be the best way to do things, but that is probably a close enough explanation.

    I do notice that nobody above has said what the maximum speed that particular unit can run at under extreme situations actually is
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  46. dan.marcusior73

    dan.marcusior73 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    16
    Most North American diesel electrics are either electrically or mechanically limited to around 71 mph. They're prevented from ever exceeding these speeds (aside from a runway train, which breaks everything anyway). The SD40-2, for example, with 62:15 gearing in the traction motors is 65 mph (just over 100km/h). No EMD or GE locomotive made for the USA is rated to 150+ mph.
     
  47. Shukal

    Shukal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    407
    Well failures aren't implemented.
     
  48. ARuscoe

    ARuscoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    583
    Didn't ask what they are rated to...

    People in game are breaking several limits for the feels, so apply that to real life.
     
  49. dan.marcusior73

    dan.marcusior73 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    16
    Im not sure who's post that was in response to. If it was mine, I fail to see the relevance...?
     
  50. raildan

    raildan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2018
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    1,208
    I do think he's being a bit overly harsh about it... but dan.marcusior73 is right here. And failures have nothing to so with this?

    The gearing means they can't accelerate past that speed (at least under their own power).

    What DTG did was just not model that upper bound at all, which I still think is excusable since you aren't really supposed to test it. Anyone actually trying to drive remotely realistically will not have to deal with this at all.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 2

Share This Page