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

Train Sim World 2 - Tonnage In The Canyons

Discussion in 'Dovetail Live Article Discussion' started by DTG Natster, Jun 3, 2021.

  1. Michael Newbury

    Michael Newbury Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,131
    Likes Received:
    2,754
    Not to far off now if the achievements are up now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. MYG92

    MYG92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    932
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Oh god it’s comming soon and I like the design of these trophies. Can’t wait to get a hand on this DLC
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. DB628

    DB628 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Release in 2-3 weeks to 99%
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. MetrolinkF125#916

    MetrolinkF125#916 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2019
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    Good to see the achievements have loaded in now, a week ago it said "Complete Cane Creek Scenario ' ' ":D

    So skyhook isn't opting for the creative scenario names? Not that I have a problem with it, but it might be due to the lack of interesting services/variety of services on this route.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    I don't care too much about certain visual details not being perfectly accurate since I'm mostly inside the cab.
    What I care most about is realism of the train handling, physics and sound accuracy.

    I wonder if this route will feature accurate train lengths or only shortened trains as previously? I really think DTG should add an option to drive longer trains if your PC can handle it. Maybe something analogous to how the Total War games have different number of soldiers in a unit depending on your graphic settings. Number of locomotives could scale with the number of train cars so that HP/ton is left constant.

    If the base setting is 40 cars and the train in question is 2.0 HP/ton then the "Medium" setting would be around 70 cars and one extra loco and the "High" setting would be 100 cars and 2 extra locos vs "Low"/base.


    If the trains are realistically long on CCS then it could be that even the empty trains on the descent towards Moab may need more brakeforce than the dynamic brakes can handle (depending on train length and number of locomotives) but less than a minimum reduction. From my understanding, in cases like this train engineers often use so called "soft sets". That is, they make a minimum reduction, release the brakes and then reapply before the BP has recharged which results in a less than minimum brake application (if I understand things correctly). Will this be simulated?

    DeStijl I'm out of the loop. Could you explain this dynamic brake bug?
     
  6. DeStijl

    DeStijl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2020
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    267
    As far as I am aware, the dynamic brakes on the AC4400 in SPG still increase in strength as your speed reduces, which is obviously the opposite how they should function. Maybe this has been fixed, but I don't believe so.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    Actually, they should increase as the speed reduces. The AC4400 has AC traction motors. They don't decrease in strength with reducing speed except nearly at zero speed. The reason I asked is because I had seen a similar critique of the dynamic brakes previously (which is a misunderstanding of how the dynamic brakes work) but I wasn't sure there was some other bug you meant.

    What you are describing is how the dynamic brakes work on older DC locomotives without extended range dynamic brakes.

    For an AC locomotive like the AC4400 the dynamic brakes will be 0 klbf at 0 mph then increasing quickly up to 98 klbf at something like 2 mph and then staying constant up to around 15 mph and then decreasing as 1/v. My numbers may be slightly off because I don't know what the dynamic brake power is for the AC4400, but if it is close to 3300 kW or 4400 hp then the numbers should be quite accurate.

    EDIT: I'm not an electrical engineer (my knowledge comes from undergraduate physics electrodynamics) so take the following with a grain of salt.

    On the AC4400 the generator outputs AC electrical power. This is converted into DC by a rectifier. The DC is then converted back into 3-phase AC by a VFD (variable frequency drive) at a specified frequency by (I presume) some form of traction control system.

    This VFD is crucial because it lets the locomotive vary the frequency of the motors as the speed decreases to maximize the tractive effort. This will not (afaik) be enough to get full tractive effort at really low speeds so here the traction motors actually provide negative motor torque (basically like pushing the reverser into backward and then increasing the throttle, kinda). AC motors can even start to reverse if there is no system shuts off the torque at low speeds. Hence it is not purely a dynamic brake.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  8. stujoy

    stujoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2019
    Messages:
    3,900
    Likes Received:
    9,549
    Those discussions were mainly with me. At no point should the dynamic brake increase as the speed slows. At the time I assumed the dynamic brakes would work the same as with DC traction motors but with AC traction motors they do operate differently. They do not however, perform in the same way as depicted in the game, with massive brake force at low speed and minimal brake force at the speeds they are intended to be used. The problem was investigated by DTG, acknowledged as a bug, and it went on the roadmap for a fix. As of now, the fix has not been forthcoming. There was some misunderstanding of the exact way dynamic brakes work for AC traction motors but that doesn’t mean the brakes are behaving as they should be, that was clearly evident from their behaviour in game. Further investigation by myself gave me a better understanding of how dynamic brakes for AC and DC traction motors differ but they still don’t work correctly in the game, not even close. The maximum braking force should be linear across a wide range of speeds, not inversely proportional. If they did work in real life as they do in the game they would not be fit for purpose. It is possible to get some braking from them but not as they should be.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Crosstie

    Crosstie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    2,721
    I think it was last on the Roadmap Fix List at the end of January this year and has not re-appeared, as far as I can tell. In fact SPG has no presence on the Roadmap currently, Because the Roadmap itself has gone through some changes, this is not entirely surprising. It's possible that the Preservation Team might look at SPG in the future, ( Is it even considered a preserved route?) but I think that team's focus will be affected by the Rush Hour project in the near term, as was hinted at on a recent stream. So, I think we may have to live with this bug for a while yet. I don't play SPG as much as I used to, but, when I do, I choose one of the other locos.
    Getting back to Cane Creek, I would hope that the dynamic brake on that AC4400 will be addressed in the preview streams.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2021
  10. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    M
    I don't own TSW2 on any console so I presume you are talking about the AC4400 dynamic brake performance on one of those (iirc it was the PS4) but I just did a test of the dynamic brakes in TSW2 on PC and the results look realistic.

    There is probably some smoothing at the low speed cutoff etc but this was just a quick test so I couldn't capture the exact detail of the TE vs speed curve.

    AC4400_dyno.png

    "At no point should the dynamic brake increase as the speed slows."
    This is incorrect as you can see from the right hand side of the curve, but I'll interpret it as you meant that the dynamic brakes shouldn't increase with decreasing speed after it has reached something like 15-17 mph (point where motor power is enough to power the equivalent tractive effort of the motors).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. stujoy

    stujoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2019
    Messages:
    3,900
    Likes Received:
    9,549
    Your graph looks pretty much like like I have experienced it in the game, and that is not how I believe dynamic brakes should behave on the AC4400 and it fairly accurately shows the problem. It should not be tailing off dramatically like that from 12mph. It should only tail off at a much higher speed (faster than anything you encounter on the steep grade of SPG). Your graph shows the inverse relationship of the speed and braking force I have been describing and the maximum braking only being available at very low speeds.
     
  12. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    It's not dropping at 12 mph, it's dropping at around 17 mph, my graph was just imprecise because I couldn't write down each value in time (I didn't want to spend 10 minutes on a heavy train for slower deceleration and braked a 2x AC4400 "train").

    Here is a more accurate plot:
    AC4400_dyno.png
    I've compared it against the force allowed by a power of 4400 HP (Power = force x speed). As you can see the agreement is nearly perfect (or exactly perfect but with errors from my experiment).

    In your previous thread you gave data for dynamic brake performance of different types of locomotives. Only the SD80MAC is comparable since they are both AC-locomotives. The SD80MAC has max dynamic brake effort up to 20 mph. Why is it higher than the AC4400? Well the SD80MAC has 5000 HP and slightly lower max dynamic brake effort (96 klbf).

    (5000/4400) * (98'000 / 96'000) * 17 ~ 19.7 mph

    Would you look at that :D
     
  13. Monder

    Monder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    3,986
    Dynamic braking shouldn't be related to the engine that much, should it? The orange line in your graph is for when the engine is running and accelerating the train - tractive effort decreases with speed. Dynamic braking creates electricity on traction motors and that's turned into heat in heatsinks behind the cab, which is then pushed out by the fans. The faster you run, the more electricity you create, the more heat (of course based on brake setting). The engine itself is not involved in this. So AC4400W performing according to the blue line should be extremely wrong as it seems the curve is connected to the acceleration curve, just inverse, which shouldn't be the case.
     
  14. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    1. Dynamic braking shouldn't be related to the engine that much, should it?
    On the contrary. Traction and dynamic braking are very much related since it uses the same traction motors. You need excitation voltage to use the dynamic brakes (it is not a DC locomotive). Provide voltage at a frequency higher than the rotor and you get traction, provide lower frequency and you get retardation (simplified).

    The dynamic braking power will nearly always be approximately the same as the traction power or sometimes significantly less (although I should note that these are usually regenerative breaks that have been "artificially" limited) because it uses the same number/size of windings and cabling (affects current) and the same magnetic system.

    Sure, you could supersize all the electrical equipment and install a weak prime mover in some exotic condition where locomotives only travel one route where they need way more dynamic braking than traction, but how common is this?

    2. The orange line in your graph is for when the engine is running and accelerating the train - tractive effort decreases with speed. Dynamic braking creates electricity on traction motors and that's turned into heat in heatsinks behind the cab, which is then pushed out by the fans. The faster you run, the more electricity you create, the more heat (of course based on brake setting).
    I just want to make sure we are on the same page. There will be a curve for the dynamic brake effort, even if it is different than the tractive effort curve. This is just physics. Unless you let the power grow in an unbounded fashion the dynamic brake effort will decrease with increasing speed.

    Also, yes: the resistor cooling etc will limit the dynamic brake power, but so will the traction motors. You have to explain why this would be asymmetric in terms of traction vs braking if you want to make a case for why this should be very different.

    3. The engine itself is not involved in this.
    But the traction motors are!

    4. So AC4400W performing according to the blue line should be extremely wrong as it seems the curve is connected to the acceleration curve, just inverse, which shouldn't be the case.
    I'm genuinely curious of how you think the speed dependence should look.


    EDIT: I didn't make this graph.
    [​IMG]
    Calculate what the power is for the SD60 dynamic brakes. (Hint: it is nearly the exact same as the traction power).
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Monder

    Monder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    3,986
    1. and 3. Yes, I know traction motors are involved, I was talking about the engine/prime mover (sorry if it wasn't clear). The combination of prime mover and traction motors are where I'd expect the curve shown above to appear - dropping tractive effort with speed.
    2. and 4. Of course, dynamic brakes cannot go all the way to infinity, but within some reasonable measures (normal operating speed), I would expect their effect to be somewhat proportional to the speed (higher speed, higher amps, higher braking effort). Just physics - you're generating more electric energy, therefore taking more kinetic energy from the train and slowing it down more. If the limit to this effect is around 30 mph, that's news to me and I stand corrected. I would expect a maximum to be at much higher speeds than that.
     
  16. stujoy

    stujoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2019
    Messages:
    3,900
    Likes Received:
    9,549
    The thing is, I don’t know exactly how it should work but I do know that in game I can get maximum braking force at 3 mph and hardly any at 25 mph where I need it, and I really don’t think that how it should be. I don’t think cwf.green knows exactly how the brakes work on the real loco either but assumes that that behaviour is correct, based on more theoretical knowledge than me.

    The other part of the bug is that there is absolutely no difference in braking force obtained at 100% brake handle position as there is at 50%. cwf.green’s analysis takes no account of brake handle position or explains why the position of the handle (brake input) isn’t working in game or how it works in real life. As with the last time it is very difficult for me to provide any evidence to counter the assumed correct behaviour with anything other than words describing how hard it is to control the speed of the train with dynamic brakes that I don’t believe anyone would design to work in that manner. Anyway DTG put it on the roadmap to fix it after I reported it (and they investigated it) and unless they are also guessing like the rest of us, they believe it isn’t working correctly either. I’m leaving this conversation now, as I did last time, without being able to say for sure that I’m correct in my analysis but that I believe it just isn’t working as it should.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Lamplight

    Lamplight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2020
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    cwf.green Would you happen to have any official documentation on North American AC diesels? Dynamic brakes are straightforward enough to understand with DC traction motors, but AC traction motors make it just complicated enough that I have trouble keeping up. If we could find something like an operator's manual on AC diesels, all of this would probably become clearer.
     
  18. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    There is a reason why tractive effort/dynamic brake effort are usually similar: if you have the magnetic flux/current capability etc to provide x HP of dynamic braking then you'd probably make sure that your tractive power is at least that since your locomotive will be powering most often and it's way easier to slow down a train than to accelerate it (far fewer locomotives than train cars).

    Also: Your example of 30 mph with 98 klbf results in a dynamic brake power of nearly 8000 HP. All that electrical power has to be lead through the alternator/rectifier to the resistors. I don't think it is likely that you would design these parts to regularly handle that kind of power when the traction power is nearly half that. Maybe I'm wrong, there is no physical law that prevents the traction motors from being 50% nerfed in traction but if think you (the royal you) need to give evidence for this being the case if DTG should "fix" the dynamic brakes.

    You are correct that I don't know exactly how the real AC4400 works, but don't you think you need to provide some kind of evidence for why the TSW2 AC4400 is unrealistic to justify a change? I know you have provided sources previously but (with all respect) they have not been (imho) applicable to the AC4400 but rather other locomotives (sometimes DC powered).

    Also, I didn't take into account the brake handle position because you didn't mention it in this thread. But I noticed it during testing (and remember that you mentioned it in the other thread). It does seem weird that I get 70 klbf in B4 when max is 98 klbf (this is in the speed regimen of max effort).

    I don't want to state that it is unrealistic too quickly though because after speaking with the guys from Searchlight simulations last year of a similar "quirk" (and they do know how the real loco works) apparently the AC4400 force readout doesn't correspond to the value at all times but instead has a hidden efficiency multiplier that means the real effort is lower (this was for traction though). The best way to test this would be to measure deceleration so that one has a real physical quantity to compare rather than a MFD reading.

     
  19. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    Unfortunately I don't. I have some documents of train handling techniques (BNSF air brake & train handling manual) and some stuff on how the brakes work (Net braking ratio etc) but I know very little about how the locomotives work other than stuff that is comparable to European locomotives.

    I'm also not very comfortable with the details of dynamic brakes in induction motors other than to say that they don't really work like generators during braking (in fact they even "power" during the very low speed regime).
     
  20. Lamplight

    Lamplight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2020
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    I think I know how AC dynamic braking works (rotation of motor slighty slower than the actual rotation of the axle - I know those are not the correct terms, but that‘s roughly what‘s happening, right?). What eludes me is what this means for the tractive effort of the dynamics vs speed (especially in comparison to classic DC locos).

    Like stujoy, all I know for sure is that the AC44 dynamics feel very off.
     
  21. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    Yes, I think the bolded part is correct. You make the phase angle larger than 90 degrees which causes the power to have a negative value from the equation

    P_in = 3I_s V cos (phi_s)

    where cos(90 < phi_s < 270) < 0.

    I_s = stator phase current, V = stator phase voltage, phi_s = phase angle between I_s and V.

    I personally think that the dynamic brakes work realistically if the actual dynamic brake effort (i.e the physical force retarding the train rather than the indicated effort) follow the curve I plotted before. Then the AC44 dynamic brakes would work like the regenerative brakes on electric locomotives (BR182 for example has 6.4 MW traction power and dynamic brake power) except that instead of the generated power being fed into an overhead line it is turned into heat.

    Some examples of AC electric locos:

    [​IMG]
    BR101 has 6400 kW power. P = F * v gives 154 km/h as maximum speed for 150 kN which is nearly exactly what the plot shows, the curve above that has 1/v shape. The other curves are of Thyristor drive (AC-DC) or air brakes.

    Below is the E-brake and tractive effort curves of the ES64U2 (BR182), again the dynamic brake power is the same as for the traction:
    ES64U2.png

    Lastly the SD60:
    [​IMG]
    28.5 klbf at 50 mph results in a power of 2840 kW and 23 klbf at 64 mph results in a power of 2930 kW. Both are within 5% of the 2800 kW traction power of the SD60.

    My final point is that because the AC4400 has low power compared to modern electric locomotives (4400 HP vs 5000 - 8000 HP) but a massively larger dynamic brake effort (440 kN vs 150 kN or less usually) the speed at which it can achieve maximum tractive effort assuming it follows the same "rules" as the electric locomotives (dynamic braking power ~ traction power) will be much lower.

    NOTE: The SD60 (AC variant) picture is from the Transport safety board of Canada so technically I guess I do have *some* documentation of NA AC diesel electric locomotives.
    Correction: it is a DC extended range dynamic brake.

    EDIT: I just did a quick test with 2 AC4400's (couldn't fit a whole train on a section that isn't undulating) and I measured 3300 kW (4400 HP) at 50% dynamic brake which should be nonsense. Maybe DTG can check the scripts and make sure that the percentage of the dynamic brake actually have an effect rather than off/on. This could (maybe) be realistic if there is some form of computer system that commands a specific dynamic brake effort rather than a specific power (sort of like the throttle on the BR101). In this case 50% dynamic brake setting would result in min(98/2 klbf, P/v).
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021
  22. Lamplight

    Lamplight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2020
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Very interesting! Thank you for taking the time to put this together.

    New hypothesis: Let‘s presuppose that the AC44 dynamics are working correctly as you say. Maybe the throttle lever is the issue then? From what I recall (it‘s been some months since I‘ve driven the AC44), the dynamic brakes increased sort of correctly (as far as I can tell) up to ~50% throttle lever in braking - then nothing happens if I increase the dynamics to ~75% - over ~75%, the tractive effort of the dynamics suddenly jumped up to up two times of what it was before. Same happens in reverse while decreasing dynamic braking. I have to go below ~50% to see any decrease in tractive effort.

    Could this then just be a problem with how the control over the dynamics is set up while the dynamic brake itself works correctly?
     
  23. stujoy

    stujoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2019
    Messages:
    3,900
    Likes Received:
    9,549
    No more than you have to provide any evidence that it is realistic to warrant leaving it as it is. So I’ll leave it up to people with more knowledge than either of us (or at least potentially more access to the knowledge), the guys at DTG, to decide and as they had it down in planning for a fix, I reckon they swing more to my belief than to yours, but errors in the roadmap did occur so I can’t state that they definitely think it’s wrong. It’s not really worth any more discussion for me and the only thing that can happen if I do carry on is frustration and possible fallings out, and I don’t want either. At the moment, I’m happy to agree to disagree. We’ll have another version to play with soon. Maybe it will be the same or different, we’ll see.
     
  24. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    I think you are incorrect about the physics (i.e. the curves), but you might be correct about the lever-percentage (something's iffy there). I also think that asking DTG to make changes has a "higher burden of proof" than simply being skeptical of the feedback.

    Either way, my aim was only to caution DTG against making changes based on peoples gut feeling and verify with expert sources. Hopefully I have achieved that goal so that if or when DTG make any changes the end result is more realism.

    Lamplight Yes, something strange is going on with the relationship between the dynamic brake lever percentage and the actual retarding force. It's really tricky to measure in-game though because you need a heavy train and a relatively steep grade so that the train decelerates slowly to give you time to measure the deceleration. It would be much more easy if we could just check Simugraph, but hopefully DTG are doing that or will do that soon.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021
    • Like Like x 4
  25. DB628

    DB628 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    It was DTG who make the Livery for this Locos, because they recycled the work for TS also.
    But on TS the window is removed on the front
    3F8B23E6-549B-4A4D-9A3B-7DF10A28DD8D.png
     
  26. tallboy7648

    tallboy7648 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2020
    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    4,609
    the window not being there is how the train is in real life
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. DB628

    DB628 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    So why it’s not removed on TSW 2 when DTG make both Union Pacific Locos?
    Did they recycled the TSW Sand Patch Grade Version without changing the windows door?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Crosstie

    Crosstie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    2,721
    All this technical analysis and wizardry is very interesting, but the only practical thing that matters is the experience of the player in the game, rather than a theoretical prediction of how the dynamic brakes should behave in the real world. The developers may try to simulate real world braking, but the truth is it's a game, not real life and the important thing when you're in the cab is slowing down the train, which simply is not happening predictably with this loco right now.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2021
  29. tallboy7648

    tallboy7648 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2020
    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    4,609
    Could be the case
     
  30. solicitr

    solicitr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2020
    Messages:
    4,552
    Likes Received:
    6,478
    I would venture that Skyhook (not DTG) simply reskinned the CSX AC4400. Since the front door window is part of the 3d model, not the skin/livery, they were stuck with it. Same applies to the handrails, which are not the right shape for UP.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  31. mailerdemon

    mailerdemon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2021
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    37
    That is a bit harsh, considering that they completely re-trucked the beast, among other changes. Also, let's not forget that all screenshots come with that "work in progress" disclaimer. So who knows what might or might not be changed -- only DTG and SHG at this point, so I don't see what all the speculation in this thread should be good for.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  32. DB628

    DB628 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,391
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    People taught they used low entry Dostos in Screenshot because High was not ready to show yet :D
     
    • Like Like x 2
  33. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    If the physics and systems are made (or already are) realistic, then players should in principle have no problem controlling the trains since real world train engineers do that day in and day out without accidents.

    EDIT: I apologize for derailing this thread even more but I did some tests on the dynamic brake lever - klbf relation and it is as stujoy indicated: highly unintuitive if not outright unrealistic (maybe there is some computer control system working under the hood to increase or decrease dynamic brake effort to different levels than the engineer has commanded but that doesn't really make sense to me).

    All these tests were performed above 3 mph and below 16 mph (i.e. 100% dynamic brake lever input gives maximum dynamic brake effort).

    Test1:
    Lever input-------------Effort--------Percentage of max--------------------------------------------------------------
    12% ---------------------18 klbf -----18%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    24%----------------------28 klbf -----29%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    37%----------------------63 klbf -----64%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    52%----------------------77 klbf -----79%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    72%----------------------82 klbf -----84%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    100%--------------------98 klbf -----100%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test2:
    Lever input-------------Effort--------Percentage of max--------------------------------------------------------------
    12%----------------------31 klbf -----32%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    30%----------------------29 klbf -----30%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    41%----------------------67 klbf -----68%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    68%----------------------85 klbf -----87%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    87%----------------------87 klbf -----89%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    100%--------------------98 klbf -----100%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Either something is really broken about the relationship or there is some very interesting control algorithm under the hood.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2021
    • Like Like x 2
  34. cwf.green

    cwf.green Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2019
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    575
    I couldn't upload a plot of the relationship in my edit so here it is instead:

    Dyn_lever.png

    quite non-linear as you can see.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  35. tallboy7648

    tallboy7648 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2020
    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    4,609
    When something is in work in progress, it usually turns out to be the final product
     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Sharon E

    Sharon E Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    269
    I will come in here on train length for the Cane Creek. The recent train article on this route states that UP hauls about 750 to 1200 car loads a year off this line which equates to about 20 cars in the weekly train that they run, So do not look for long trains on this route if Skyhook is doing anything close to accurate. The route has 4 "dirt trains" a week which are not being modeled accurately from what has been shown. They run with blue containers on flat cars. My thoughts are they are going with the open hoppers just to allow for operation of a loader and unloader for this train to give more action.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  37. mailerdemon

    mailerdemon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2021
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    37
    That's a very good point you've made. I did a quick online search and there are a lot of rail fan pictures of the real Cane Creek available. Most show trains of generally shorter car counts, up to a maximum of maybe 3 engines and 30-40 cars.

    And of course there's the thing that Matt said in one of the Clinchfield live streams that car counts of around 40 (IIRC) seem to be the sweet spot of what works well enough across all platforms PC and console. So we probably shouldn't expect longer trains than that anyway.

    Getting a 'wrong' car in exchange for added interactivity is an intriguing trade in my opinion. Less realistic visuals but added gameplay options? Count me in for that!
     
    • Like Like x 4
  38. Blacknred81

    Blacknred81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    5,263
    Ok, now I'm really confused on the AC4400CW model, as this is a photo from the June Sale Newsletter.
    qj2ry1mAJune_Sale_Social_Assets_DTS_Carousel_1400x5002_1400_500_Q80.jpg
    mail (1).jpg

    If you notice, both the Handrails AND the front door are fixed on it. Though other issues such as the damping struts and the reflective tape on the side sill are still wrong.

    But if this is the model that will be in the final release of Cane Creek, I can be happy with it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Challenger3985

    Challenger3985 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    794
    Not gonna trust that rendering one bit (not even on a banner). Not until I see it in-game.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  40. DeStijl

    DeStijl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2020
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    267
    To be honest, I highly doubt the graphics used in marketing materials, especially for routes which are not even released, are based on the in-game models.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  41. Lamplight

    Lamplight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2020
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    My thoughts as well. Not to bring up HHL again, but comparing the promotional Br 112 image to the in-game model reveals quite a few inaccuracies.

    Be that as it may, we should hopefully get clarity next week.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  42. breblimator

    breblimator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    3,199
    Ever since Natalka announced this, I've been wearing a diaper - excitement :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  43. MYG92

    MYG92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    932
    Likes Received:
    1,663
    Don’t forget that every ads from DTG are heavily photoshopped so yeah it’s unlikely it will looks like that in the game
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  44. 59321747

    59321747 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2020
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    218
    It seems that TSW will not take this path in the short term. TS is only 68 miles away. Even if it appears on TSW, it will not exceed this distance and may be shorter.
     
  45. Blacknred81

    Blacknred81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    5,263
    You cant really make it shorter without sacrificing the route though....

    Where are you gonna put the end of the line? In the middle of nowhere?

    Granted, I did catch a crew change at Sandcut, but I think if DTG does want to bring Tehachapi to TSW2 in the future, they have to have at least the full 68 miles between Bakersfield Yard and Mojave Yard.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  46. 59321747

    59321747 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2020
    Messages:
    418
    Likes Received:
    218
    I hope I can see that this route is to Batos in TSW
     
  47. Lamplight

    Lamplight Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2020
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    1,946
    Exactly. There aren‘t really any other places to start/end the route. Plus
    isn‘t that far off from what we‘re getting now - especially seeing how there are few stations (or similarly complicated structures) on the route as far as I know.
     
  48. Michael Newbury

    Michael Newbury Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,131
    Likes Received:
    2,754
    We get our first look at this route on Thrusday with Matt, JD and Skyhook
     
    • Like Like x 5
  49. Monder

    Monder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2019
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    3,986
    Interestingly enough it is not described as a "Preview Stream"
     
  50. Michael Newbury

    Michael Newbury Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,131
    Likes Received:
    2,754
    Could be a typo mistake, but then again who knows we will have to wait and see.
     

Share This Page