Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2

Sorry about the excessive length of this posting. I've been reading through the postings on this forum, and have actually done searches on the subjects I'm going to ask about, but could find nothing that matched my keywords, so here goes...There's really only 2 annoying flaws I've found in the way the original MSTS runs trains, and I'm hoping that they will be dealt with better in MSTS2.ANNOYING FLAW #1) HELPERS: In the steam-transition era, especially on challenging mountain grades like MariasPass, prototype RR practice was to cut helper locomotives into the consist of a heavy freight headed upgrade. These helpers were usually cut in between freight cars about 2/3rds of the way down the consist in order to equalize strain on the couplers fore and aft. This was a common, every-day practice on any RR with a mountain grade to climb anywhere in North America. Of couse Im aware that RRs occasionally put helpers at the front of the train (usually passenger trains, or short underpowered freights). I also know that the practice of putting helpers at the rear of a train did not begin until after steel cabeese with reinforced chasis/bolsters were introduced post-war (the pressure/strain of a helper engine at the rear of a train could easily turn an older wood frame caboose into kindling!) However, helper locos 2/3rds down was by far the more common practice.Unfortunately, the present version of MSTS does not allow the inclusion of helper engines WITHIN THE CONSIST. I strongly believe the developers of any TrainSim do everything reasonable to allow users to duplicate prototype practices. Does anyone out there know if MSTS2 will allow prototype helper service as described above?ANNOYING FLAW #2) TRAIN PHYSICS: I know that the individual locomotives and cars in MSTS have been programed with various data concering weight, tractive effort, power, top speed, etc., all of which strongly effects how a piece of equipment will perform in the game. Ever since exploring various pieces of equipment on MSTS (both default and ad-on) I am extremely skeptical as to the prototype realism of such data. For example: 4 mu'ed FT units (prototypes of which had roughly same tractive effort as a UP Big-Boy) are incapable of lifting a mere 20 transition-era cars past Java East on Marias Pass without stalling dead and then slipping back downhill? EVERY TIME!? Add 10 more cars, and the locos can't even budge on a level track at full power! I also attempted the same grade and pulled the same consist with 2 default DASH-9s (roughly equivalent in horsepower and tractive effort to the FTs mentioned above) same result! Now, if these physics are reflective of the real world, then the Great Northern RR would have gone out of business many decades ago! There would be no BN and no BNSF today, and the Marias Pass line would have been abandoned for one that trains could actually climb!My second objection to the train physics concerns posted speed-limits and derailments. I've learned never to trust the default speed limits when running trains with "Derailments ON" There are several curves on Marias Pass where you will observe the spectacle of your observation car or caboose go flying off into the woods taking several other cars with it. This occurrs on curves when the train is travelling at or slightly under the posted speed limits. To test that this was not a phenomenon exclusive to ad-on passenger cars, I tried the same speeds with the default Dash-9s and container flats -- same result.Anyone out there knowledgeable enough to know if MSTS2 will correct this problem?Sincerely,
EChicas@aol.com" target="_blank">PEChicas@aol.com

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2, OTTODAD, Dec-14-03, 03:46 PM, (1) RE: Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2, dgauci, Dec-14-03, 03:59 PM, (2) RE: Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2, derekmorton, Dec-16-03, 09:34 PM, (3) RE: Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2, plainsman, Dec-31-03, 11:19 AM, (6) RE: Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2, heffed, Dec-18-03, 10:58 AM, (4) RE: Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2, StoneC0ld, Dec-31-03, 00:55 AM, (5) RE: Questions for anyone knowledgeable about MSTS2, landnrailroader, Dec-31-03, 05:01 PM, (7)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Right now we all would be happy to know that there is going to be another MSTS, Graphics wise fundamentally improved over the current version.We can deal with any Warts afterwards ! O t t o

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Since the release of the freeware Marias Pass 3.1 route, no one uses the default Marias Pass as included in MSTS, because the grades are completely unrealistic and non-prototypical. Marias Pass 3.1 is available in the file library here at Train-sim.com and includes many fixes and enhancements over the default original.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>ANNOYING FLAW #1) HELPERS: In the steam-transition era,
>especially on challenging mountain grades like MariasPass,
>prototype RR practice was to cut helper locomotives into the
>consist of a heavy freight headed upgrade.MLT are running trains with helpers in the middle and at the end.>Unfortunately, the present version of MSTS does not allow
>the inclusion of helper engines WITHIN THE CONSIST.I run like that?>ANNOYING FLAW #2) TRAIN PHYSICS: I know that the individual
>locomotives and cars in MSTS have been programed with
>various data concering weight, tractive effort, power, top
>speed, etc., all of which strongly effects how a piece of
>equipment will perform in the game.I prefer to call it a simulator >Ever since exploring
>various pieces of equipment on MSTS (both default and ad-on)
>I am extremely skeptical as to the prototype realism of such
>data.The original Marias pass has some problems, the grades are twice what they should be due to a mixup.Does that make you feel better about MSTS1?Derek

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Hi Derek,
Actually that is 3 times real grade. Actual 1.8% MSTS Marias 5.4%.
Real a few short 2.2% grades, MSTS over 5.6% on short grades.
Bob

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Unfortunately, the present version of MSTS does not allow
>the inclusion of helper engines WITHIN THE CONSIST. Hmm... I can stick a helper anywhere I want in a consist. Are you saying you can not do this?The biggest flaw with helpers in MSTS is that sanding is not applied to helpers. This is I'm sure what you're noticing on Marias. A helper that's spinning it's wheels is only helping to drag you down the hill.As for the physics flaws, yep. There are too many to mention. However, with the talented folks hacking around in the .eng files, many of the flaws have been either corrected or at least made tolerable.Will MSTS 2 fix the flaws? Unfortunately, no one except M$ can really say how MSTS 2 will perform. We'll have to wait until it's released. -Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Yes, you can insert helpers, but it appears that each helper only serves to increase the horsepower of the lead loco that you're driving. It appears that as far as slack goes, helper locos behave exactly the same as regular cars....Looks like that to me, anyway..... I've put a helper on the back of a long train, and had the front locos moving and the rear helper still stopped or even rolling backwards until the slack is completely taken up...

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I believe the problem with helpers lies not an inability to include them, but in an inability to control them seperately from the head-end. Today, distributed power is often used, and when helpers are inserted in a train, they behave pretty much like distributed power.An example. In checking out the RMD-2, I created a freight train of about 80 cars, long enough to stretch around the Vendome Loop. Although the boxcabs had no trouble pulling this train, I consistently got a broken coupler around the east switch at Cedric. An examination of the profile revealed that the maximum pull on the front drawbar occurred around this point - although the grade is constant, the curves are not. So I inserted another boxcab set (you will need to genuflect and beg before the throne of Tim Muir to get those) and then the train behaved correctly.Real World: The practise was usually for the helper to start shoving first, and he would push ahead about 15 cars as determined by 15x(coupler slack), or about 15-20ft. By that time the head end was pulling out the slack, and once the train was moving, the helper engineer watched his front coupler and made sure he was "pushing" but only a little. If, however, the helper did not start moving immediately, he would likely roll back, because his brakes were affected by the train air - the independent was usually cut out on a helper, once it was in the train.J. H. Sullivan

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.