The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex  (Read 1662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 19952
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2020, 03:03:29 PM »
I'd like to increase the power of the Desiro UK units as I believe the figure used in the dat file is for power-at-rail and thus already accounts for losses that would otherwise be applied using 'gear'; but it's not high priority.

Interesting - may I ask what the source is for this?



Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3370
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2020, 03:19:10 PM »
Vladki, what were your ideas on 800/801 constraints? If you like I could add them at the same time as the liveries.

Real formations according to wikipedia are:
5-car: DPTS-MS-MS-MC-DPTF
9-car: DPTS-MS-MS-TS-MS-TS-MC-MF-DPTF

But in simutrans we have:
name=BR-801Front  (DPTF)
name=BR-801MiddlePower  (MS)
name=BR-801MiddleTrailer  (TS)
name=BR-801MiddleComposite (non existent TC)
name=BR-801Rear (DPTS)

So we are missing MC (motor composite) and MF (motor first class), while TC (trailer composite) does not really exist (but probably could).
Also there is upgrade from TS to TC and back, which does not work properly, and should be removed.

I had two ideas about constrains. Flexible to allow any combination of motor and trailer cars, only forcing a motor car just next to front and rear cars, so that there is at least some power available...
More realistic: DPTF-(MF)-MC-MS/TS-MS-MS/TS-MS-DPTS
DPTF can be followed by MF or MC (or MS?)
MF must be followed by MC (or MS?)
MC can be followed by TS or MS
TS must be followed by MS
MS can be followed by TS, MS or DPTS

Here: http://www.hitachi.com/rev/pdf/2014/r2014_10_105.pdf is detailed seat plan of 5-car unit, so capacities can be checked and corrected if needed.

If you have sources for power-at-rail then you could set gear=100%, but add a comment with the source in the dat file. So that it is clear to anyone who looks at it later, that it is not a bug but a feature.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1159
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2020, 03:30:22 PM »
If you have sources for power-at-rail then you could set gear=100%, but add a comment with the source in the dat file. So that it is clear to anyone who looks at it later, that it is not a bug but a feature.
I'd rather set the known engine power and adjust gear accordingly to result in the, in this case, also known power at rail. Feels more consistent to me, especially as the long-term objective should be to set the gear of all vehicles individually according to their actual loss factor.

Offline Vladki

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3370
    • My addons, mostly roadsigns, pak128.cs
  • Languages: EN, CS
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #38 on: July 30, 2020, 03:37:24 PM »
I'd rather set the known engine power and adjust gear accordingly to result in the, in this case, also known power at rail. Feels more consistent to me, especially as the long-term objective should be to set the gear of all vehicles individually according to their actual loss factor.
Of course, if we have both values that this is the ideal situation. I thought we have ONLY power-at-rail value.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1159
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #39 on: July 30, 2020, 03:46:48 PM »
I'd use the quoted document with care.
I just had a more detailled look at it and it seems to mix up power at rail and installed traction power (engines maximum output)

As far as I know, the Velaro E has a total of 8800 kW engines installed, but the paper quotes that power as "Maximum power at wheel", so it is quite likely that further "powers at wheel" are actually the power of the installed engines.
In case of the Velaro E, the transmission losses are minimal due to the engine type, it's maybe 5% or even less, I once had a source about this and it was significiantly less than 20%, although I am not  sure about the exact number anymore.
Sorry for not putting the source here, I had posted those sources somewhere in the forums before, but I am too lazy to search for them now as it's not pretty relevant in this case anyway.

Just keep in mind, the quoted paper does not seem to be a pretty reliable source, as with any of such data collections, at least from my experience.
Those collections are nice to get started, but often unpreciese or even wrong in the details.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2020, 04:00:21 PM by Freahk »

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2020, 07:40:43 PM »
Ok, this gives me some peace of mind as max output power is what I've used on vehicles I needed new data for.

Contrary to what I said earlier classes 8xx will not be released first while I add the constraints, so as TPE Class 68, Mark 5a coaches and Class 397 are ready to go I've pushed them instead.

Interesting - may I ask what the source is for this?
The definition I found for power-at-rail is here:
https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/3181161
« Last Edit: July 30, 2020, 08:55:17 PM by jonbridg »

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #41 on: Yesterday at 10:53:18 AM »
A summary of what I've been up to so far:

After much deliberation I have opted not to separate the 800 and 802 classes. My initial plan was to distinguish the 800 as cheaper-to-maintain, possibly with down-rated engines, and with restricted coupling constraints. This would be justified as the class was ordered to specifications laid down by the UK government.
802 on the other hand would be as Hitachi might present the product to a private customer, i.e. full-rated engines, and largely unrestricted constraints.
I tried this with separate vehicles, a number of common vehicles, and deleting liveries on vehicles that don't carry them in reality, but the effect in the depot window was confusing, particularly for new players. I also wanted to add new vehicles for variety and constraint purposes which resulted in a lot of duplication so, ultimately, I dropped the 800 side of the plan.
Proposed changes look like this:
Too speed: 200km/h (225 unrealistic in diesel mode)
Tractive effort: better than 65 (to reflect higher acceleration of 802, about 0.85m/s/s. Will be calculated using data published by Rail Performance Society and Eversholt Rail
New vehicles: front and rear motor standards  (constraint purposes), 18+58 composite (Hull spec) and Driving Trailer (compact; 10 extra seats, lesser catering. TPE/Hull spec)
All liveries will be supported.

I'll be ready to upload once the 68/397/Mk5a have been added to the pakset, to avoid a backlog for James Petts who is kindly merging the vehicles.
 

Offline jamespetts

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 19952
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #42 on: Yesterday at 11:21:52 AM »
Excellent, thank you for this.

Can I check whether there is anything waiting to be merged at present of your work? It would be helpful if this could be indicated on this thread in future so that I can keep a track of what is awaiting merger.

Thank you again.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1159
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #43 on: Yesterday at 04:57:35 PM »
and deleting liveries on vehicles that don't carry them in reality
I do not think this matches the spirit of the pakset, which is "design vehicles according to what would be possible in the real-world rather than what was actually ordered"
There's always much room for interpretation in this statement.

To my interpretation, adding more liveries to train that didn't carry these might not be a priority, but existing ones are totally fine and shouldn't be deleted.

Offline jonbridg

  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #44 on: Yesterday at 10:19:34 PM »
To my interpretation, adding more liveries to train that didn't carry these might not be a priority, but existing ones are totally fine and shouldn't be deleted.

I agree. The deletions were temporarily made to a few vehicles, and then, only liveries I have created. These have now been reversed anyway. You won't find a Motor First vehicle on any real TransPennine class 802, but you will in Simutrans!

For the same reason I haven't changed kierongreen/TheHood's Virgin livery for Class 801, which is based on an early livery design that was not used in the real-world. A different Virgin livery was later applied to Class 800 and I have added this, but I don't know if it was ever used for Class 801.

Can I check whether there is anything waiting to be merged at present of your work? It would be helpful if this could be indicated on this thread in future so that I can keep a track of what is awaiting merger.

Of course, I've added a To Be Merged list in the original post. I haven't uploaded the .blends yet as I want to tidy them up before public release: the livery is packed within the .blends as a .png image, which is 'UV' mapped to the mesh using a material texture. My hope is that new liveries can be created using a 2D graphics program (which many more people seem to be familiar with) such as Photoshop, and Blender only used for final tweaking and rendering. I will write a more in-depth post explaining how it works soon.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:29:44 PM by jonbridg »

Offline KneeOn

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 217
  • Pak64.GB
  • Languages: EN
Re: Modern rail vehicles for pak128.britain-ex
« Reply #45 on: Today at 04:30:21 AM »
These look fantastic and you've made serious progress in a very short space of time. That's commendable!

For what it's worth, I think keeping the various 80x as one unit until features directly relating to these come in to effect is the best way forward and agree with your decisions.

Keep the work up!