Issues

How do I...

A) Close up the gap between the two drive sections EL2B-1 and EL2B-3
B) Widen the gap between the two locomotives A and B
Without messing up the way the thing works?The pivot points can't move.Help!Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

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

RE: Issues..., 6330trainfan, Jul-11-04, 05:26 AM, (1) RE: Issues..., KeltikSylk, Jul-11-04, 12:58 PM, (2) RE: Issues..., 6330trainfan, Jul-12-04, 04:48 AM, (3) RE: Issues..., KeltikSylk, Jul-12-04, 07:58 AM, (4) RE: Issues..., mjs2101, Jul-12-04, 11:51 AM, (5) RE: Issues..., tryagin, Jul-13-04, 11:18 AM, (6) RE: Issues..., KeltikSylk, Jul-13-04, 12:44 PM, (7) RE: Issues..., tryagin, Jul-13-04, 02:04 PM, (8) RE: Issues..., KeltikSylk, Jul-14-04, 10:23 AM, (9) RE: Issues..., KeltikSylk, Jul-14-04, 07:51 PM, (10) RE: Issues..., KeltikSylk, Jul-14-04, 09:32 PM, (11)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Hi Frank,
I`m not familiar with the loco in question but you can alter the size parameter in the eng file to open up the gap between the two units, don`t forget to adjust the InertiaTensor setting as well.
As for closing the gap, if they each have separate wag or eng files then reducing the Size parameter will do what you want and again don`t forget to adjust the InertiaTensor settings. If the two drive sections are part of the loco closing the gap could only be done by editing the s. file, not a good option
Stew aka 6330trainfan
Albany WA Australia

Alert | IP

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

The locomotive is three seperate units. It was the only way to get the bogies to operate with the independent frames the way they should.I've tried adjusting the tensor/size and keep getting a huge overhang out back...I took a look at Tim Muir's version of the Lil' Joe (a similar articulation) and saw how he was able to get his parts working...
I notice that his bounding boxes don't overlap like mine. If I follow you're suggestion, and make sure the units are consecutive (as in Tim's) instead of overlapping it may work.I'll give it a go!Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

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

Hi Frank,
Just a follow up to my earlier post, having had a good look at the loco, adjusting the size parameters in the lower two sections wont accomplish what your looking for, multipart models can be a pain at times if the spacings are not to your liking, the loco really needs to be altered by the person who made it in the first place. Maybe a friendly email asking if it could be possible to reposition the various parts would be the best way to go.Regards
Stew aka 6330trainfan
Albany WA Australia

Alert | IP

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

I AM the one with the parts Doesn't seem to help.Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

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

Frank, so that I understand correctly, the unit is in 3 parts. A being the body (.wag file?) and the 2 drive sections being 2 .eng files? Correct? If I understand correctly, then you should be able to adjust the length in the .eng file of EL2B-3. Also you can play around with the .wag file for EL2B-1 to try and get things correct. In working with 3DC, I have noticed that when I first export a model, the size is usually a little longer meaning that the couplers do not match up correctly. Simply decreasing the length lines until the couplers line up properly will fix this. Then just recheck the bounding boxes to make sure all is in line. Then use the same proceedure to widen the gap between the 2 bodies, then adjust the length in the .wag file on each engine, make sure you also adjust other length lines. I would say that seeing EL2B-1 looks to be in the correct place under the body, you probably don't have to adjust that one. But it will depend on how things look after adjusting the others. Hope this helps!Mykel

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jul-13-04 AT 11:25 AM (EST)

Hi Frank,Have you got this sorted yet? Oh the joys of multiple-part locomotives, eh? I notice one thing that you need to fix, just by looking at your screenshot here. The bounding boxes on EL2B-1 and 2 need to be adjusted up in the Y plane to equal that of the carbody. Otherwise, you will have problems coupling and uncoupling, ie, cars going into orbit, front coupler running through cars, etc. Then the carbody Bbox needs to be shortened to fit between those of the trucks (Z values). I also noticed that your pivot points are equi-distant from each other ( the blue poles of the ID F7 key are at the X-Z pivot-points). Remember how your beta version of the EF4 Little Joes used to have the "jitters"?
The carbody was being "pinched" between the two trucks' couplers, because the trucks' pivot points were exactly centered between the actual "ends" of the trucks, ie, the truck Z size value in the engine file was too long. By placing the pivot point a bit forward where you had it, off-centered, this created space for the carbody's enginefile Z-value to increase, spreading it's wheelbase out, as it were. This got rid of those nasty jitters, for the most part. It was only fortunate happenstance that the prototype Joe's truck bolsters were located under the cab, off center of their physical length. But you might be able to use this fix in the EL2B. It may not be that noticeable if the trucks' pivots were a bit off-center, and it just may fix these gaps too. Below is an illustration showing the pivot points of the Joes. Note the blue poles, which show the pivot points, and the length of the bounding boxes show about where the engine file Z-size ends on the trucks, and carbody ( an engine by the way).By making these adjustments, you might find your future articulateds running a bit smoother, and spaced correctly.Hope this helps. Edit: The height of these bounding boxes in the illustration are set at the original Milwaukee Road units' height of 7.3 meters, I believe; I just now realised I need to adjust them down for the 6.2 wire here.Tim

Street and Interurban Electric Railway Models
Sumpter Valley B&B Gang
Willamette Valley Route
(No timetable for release)
T.W.Muir

Alert | IP

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

I was going crazy last night trying to recreate the bounding boxes found on your models. I even went so far as to create bounding boxes in the TSM file and then exporting...This created the unique apparition of pantographs rising out of huge black rectangles in MSTS. It did however give me bounding boxes similar to yours.I then tried setting the BoundingBox material to transparent normal, hoping to make the big black rectangles disappear. Didn't help. I tried a couple of other things, including setting the Reference Part Only property and hiding reference parts. The only thing of value I accomplished was creating an invisible BoundingBox that doesn't show up in MSTS.Just before I gave up for the night I found a reference to the bounding box settings in the SD file. Did not know they were there. Of course if I had researched a bit more...So now you can understand why I'm laughing so far at myself after reading your message. I really worked hard at making a simple prcess as difficult as I could....Are you changing the values in the ENG file, the SD file or both?Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

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

You change the bounding box values in the .sd and the Z-size values (the distance between coupler faces) in the engine file. I'd concentrate on the Z-sizing first, then adjust your bboxes after you get your sizing right. Open your TSM project for your EL2B trucks and try shifting the whole shebang towards the back so that your pivot-point is fore of the original PP, to off-set it around a foot or so. It may take some tweaking back and forth to get this distance right on. But using the measuring tool, take down the distance from the new pivot-point to the pulling face of the front coupler, then multiply that figure by two. This is the size value you type in in the engine file (and don't forget the inertial tensor). Do this to the rear truck too,in opposite, only measure from the pivot to the rear coupler, and you'll end up with equal space between the trucks to fit the carbody between. Experiment. The thing I'd take into consideration when doing this is the front truck is a bit longer due to the pilot. You may have to adjust the rear truck pivot point a bit farther aft to compensate. I'm basing this on surmises, without seeing the actual model.At least you're working with a somewhat symmetrical locomotive. Building those Milwaukee boxcabs, with those three trucks, was a major headache!!!Tim

Street and Interurban Electric Railway Models
Sumpter Valley B&B Gang
Willamette Valley Route
(No timetable for release)
T.W.Muir

Alert | IP

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

I WAS working on this last night, but then a squall line passed through and the power went out for about 6 hours...At least there were no tornadoes.I'll try again tonight...I have one thought for now though. Since I started on the Triplex about a year and a half ago, I've been wishing there was a way to control the relationship of the pivot to the bounding box...Of course now I know this is the job of the SD file. I even found the tutorial on manipulating the thing (yesterday). Aside from feeling dumb, it occurred to me that if the SD file controls the location of the box in relation to the pivot I could work out the necessary dimensions from the prototype drawings. Rather than work arbitrarily, I could use the "real" dimensions as a starting point.For example;ESD_Bounding_Box ( a b c d e f )Where...
a = Pivot to left
b = bottom
c = pivot to rear
d = pivot to right
e = top
f = pivot to frontIn this case the items of most concern are c and f as they control the dimensions in the Z axis. As you pointed out e would be a secondary issue so the parts don't "telescope" over each other (quite like the prototype in the days of wood frames).I figured I could set f on ELB2-1 and c on EL2B-2 to prototype dimensions and forget them. All the "fudging" would be done with the remaining distance. I'm gonna start with c on EL2B-1 and f on EL2B-2 set to 1 meter. This will mean c and f on EL2B-2 would be the difference.The reason for this is that the EL2B drawings have very specific dimensions for the pivot locations and I wanted to start there. If it doesn't work at that point, I could then work in increments in the SD file rather than just move the pivot in TSM.I'll let you know what happens, provided the tonights scheduled line of squalls doesn't interfere.Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

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

Well, I said I would let you know what happens...Not much!...I did get the bounding boxes the proper height, but the rest of my brainstorm didn't work. Read a little more and learned that the BoundingBox is only "collision" information. Too bad! It would have been nice if I could have corrupted it for my own devices...So without further ado I will endeavor to follow your advice to the letter...Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com}>

Alert | IP

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

Progress?

I got the bounding boxes. I did a little digging and found I needed some coupler adjustment, so I did that too...Pushed the pivots around until most things looked good. The front one may be too far forward but that's not the biggest problem.By the way, when you move the pivot point on the second unit, the pantographs explode The drive parts all line up like they should. There is a huge joint between the frame sections and that lines up too. You can make it out inside the bounding box for the second unit.The spacing with the trailing unit (almost out of picture) is good too.In fact the truck spacing looks right. The front two should be a little closer together, but for the most part they space out evenly, just like the prototype.So now the nose hangs way out in the air.It's almost as if the body is too long for the drive. I double checked and they were all made from the same drawing to the same scale. I'm think of shortening the thing, but not quite yet.Getting there.Frank MusickMoving America into the 19th Century!

www.kelticsylk.com

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | How To... | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.