Train Simulator 2013 - Railsim.

[kd7eirjim]

I guess airline pilots flying on autopilot for 95% of the flight should not be allowed to talk about physics. Or an astronaut, or a ship's captain. HOW you do something has no bearing on your understanding of the underlying physics involved in that process. If we want to get nit picky, anybody that does not have a Ph.D. in physics and talks about physics should get their head examined.

These are GAMES. How did we go so far astray in this thread? We should all take a moment to remind ourselves that we do this for FUN.

Since N3V has no rule against discussing the competition (VERY GOOD of them), then we have no reason to get so lathered up whenever this subject rears it's head. If if truly bothers you, just move on to another thread. We are ALL better than what this thread shows us to be.

 

[Robert2d6]

I guess airline pilots flying on autopilot for 95% of the flight should not be allowed to talk about physics. Or an astronaut, or a ship's captain. HOW you do something has no bearing on your understanding of the underlying physics involved in that process. If we want to get nit picky, anybody that does not have a Ph.D. in physics and talks about physics should get their head examined.

These are GAMES. How did we go so far astray in this thread? We should all take a moment to remind ourselves that we do this for FUN.

I don't think that is quite the same thing. There isn't a knob in an airplane, at least none I have ever flown myself , that allows one to turn a knob one way, the plane accelerates instantly , and turn turn it the other way and the plane instantly stops, with no other input required. That is what DCC does in Trainz, at least the once or twice I tried it. I don't of any vehicle that behaves that way either.

 

[kd7eirjim]

It's not meant to be a direct comparison. It's meant to point out that the manner someone chooses to control something has no bearing upon their underlying knowledge of the operation of the device. CHOOSING to stop your train instantly does not mean that you actually BELIEVE that it operates that way in real life.

 

[Enzo1]

I don't think that is quite the same thing. There isn't a knob in an airplane, at least none I have ever flown myself , that allows one to turn a knob one way, the plane accelerates instantly , and turn turn it the other way and the plane instantly stops, with no other input required. That is what DCC does in Trainz, at least the once or twice I tried it. I don't of any vehicle that behaves that way either.

Havent you played with a real model railroad? Thats what DCC is based off of... On Model railroads, you turn the throttle up, and the train instantly goes, turn it all the way down, it instantly stops...

 

[JCitron]

Havent you played with a real model railroad? Thats what DCC is based off of... On Model railroads, you turn the throttle up, and the train instantly goes, turn it all the way down, it instantly stops...

I've used both and enjoy a good cab ride. DCC mode is good for just having a quick drive and for testing. It's also good for electric running for trolleys and subway cars. The knob is more like the accelerator on a subway (I think anyway) making for smoother operations.

John

 

[sniper297]

Yeesh. My point was DCC mode does not have realistic physics, it was never intended to have realistic physics, so comparing Trainz physics to other train simulator physics we should always be talking about CAB mode. Trying to be polite here, anyone who thinks that railworks physics is more realistic than Trainz in CAB mode is making an error in judgment. Is that non offensive enough for everyone?

I went directly from MSTS to Railsim when it first came out in October 2007, and many of my MSTS friends wanted to know before buying - how realistic are the physics compared to Plainman's MSTS tweaks? For those who never heard of him, Plainsman AKA Bob Boudoin, is a real life physicist who made MSTS "as real as it gets" by applying real world Newtonian physics to all default MSTS engines and cars, and was always consulted by the model makers to get their creations as realistic as possible.

So the first thing I did was extensive testing, built some test routes with assorted grades according to Bob's specifications, and ran trains. A 30 car train of empty 27 ton hoppers is 810 tons, SD-40 continuous tractive effort 82,000lbs, on dry level track should be able to pull 2342 tons. 1% grade possible, 2% grade doubtful. In railsim that SD40 from a standing start would accelerate up a 2% or even 4% grade in notch 1 towing 30 empty hopper cars. Load the cars with coal, now the train weighs 3810 tons, too much for a single SD40 to even get moving on level track - but it still runs up the 4% grade in notch 1.

Last time I tried Railworks was before I got TS2010 and discovered how versatile Trainz AI traffic was, in comparison to railworks completely hopeless useless AI traffic, so even if the physics had been equal I would have moved anyway. But it wasn't equal, and from what I've read it still isn't, railworks core physics are so unrealistic the loco makers can only fudge it the best they can. And many don't bother, dynamic brakes that stop the loco dead in the first notch derailing the entire train behind, a payware SD-45 with dynamic brakes that don't work at all, physics numbers applied to the player train when the session starts don't change depending on number of cars coupled on or uncoupled or loaded or emptied during the session, I'm trying to find anything they did RIGHT and coming up completely empty.

If someone likes railworks physics better than Trainz physics that's fine, different strokes for different folks. But if you're under the impression that railworks physics are even close to realistic, your impression is in error.

 

[Kennilworth]

Hi

I have followed this thread with interest as I had been considering buying the Railworks sim myself. Unfortunately I am not one of those superior beings who only drive in cab mode and look down on people such as myself who never use it. I never drive at all myself, preferring to run all AI trains in an attempt to replicate the real thing with trains running to timetables and carrying out the operations that they would do in real life. Thanks to the OP for opening this thread and sniper for providing the links to the threads that have led me to the conclusion that Railworks will not allow me to easily do what I am currently doing in Trainz and therefore I will not be buying it.

There has been quite a bit of vitriol splashed about in this thread with a lot of abuse thrown about by both sides but you all need to remember that there hundreds and possibly thousands of people reading these threads and some of them may be able to glean some useful information from them. Just because you find it boring or inflamatory doesn't mean that it is of no use to anyone else.

Regards

Brian

 

[clam1952]

Reduce the value for acceleration and braking in the Motor container and you can control the excessive acceleration in DCC to some degree. If some one could come up with an AI only invisible speed marker a script job I would think? You could probably at least give the impression of crawling up a steep incline.

 

[Robert2d6]

Havent you played with a real model railroad? Thats what DCC is based off of... On Model railroads, you turn the throttle up, and the train instantly goes, turn it all the way down, it instantly stops...

Yes when I was around 9 years old I had a Lionel Train set. Got bored with that rather quickly.

 

[sniper297]

I don't have a problem with the way AI accelerates and stops for the most part, the only thing I dislike is the way it slows for restricted speed curves miles before it needs to. The only place that really irritates me is on the Chicago Elevated parts of my route, the L trains in real life have bone jarring teeth rattling acceleration and deceleration because speed is more important than passenger comfort, even to the passengers who ride the things every day. The fake speed limit signs with the flashing red lights were made just for that purpose, to let the player know a curve was coming up and he should slow down - if you put a real 15mph speed limit there the AI would slow to 15mph 2 miles away.

"one of those superior beings who only drive in cab mode and look down on people such as myself who never use it" I think most of that is merely joking or teasing, but for me the whole point of any simulator is the "you are there" feeling, suspension of disbelief to enhance the fantasy that you're actually driving a train or airplane or submarine or whatever is what defines simulation. If I don't have the same challenges starting, stopping, and controlling all that tonnage that a real engineer would have, it would ruin the effect for me.

AI only mode, many people do that, I'm doing it now while testing an AI traffic pattern - leave the player train parked, hop an AI train and ride along to see what it does when and where there might be problems with the session. If just watching AI trains do intelligent things without actually running a train yourself is the way you like to play, I suspect railworks would be extremely disappointing.

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=359&t=117900

That's what it takes to set up ONE simple meet in RW, and if you get lucky and the scenario editor doesn't crash too often you may be able to get that to work after a couple weeks of debugging, but the player has to meet the exact timetable to keep the AI from going catatonic. It still surprises me that anyone finds that even remotely acceptable.

 

[stovepipe]

Reduce the value for acceleration and braking in the Motor container and you can control the excessive acceleration in DCC to some degree. If some one could come up with an AI only invisible speed marker a script job I would think? You could probably at least give the impression of crawling up a steep incline.

It is perfectly possible to get AI trains to react to inclines by playing with the friction values in the enginespec. However it tends to spoil the CAB driving physics in the process, so you would need seperate assets of the locos you wanted to use for AI and CAB.

 

[Robert2d6]

I don't have a problem with the way AI accelerates and stops for the most part, the only thing I dislike is the way it slows for restricted speed curves miles before it needs to. The only place that really irritates me is on the Chicago Elevated parts of my route, the L trains in real life have bone jarring teeth rattling acceleration and deceleration because speed is more important than passenger comfort, even to the passengers who ride the things every day. The fake speed limit signs with the flashing red lights were made just for that purpose, to let the player know a curve was coming up and he should slow down - if you put a real 15mph speed limit there the AI would slow to 15mph 2 miles away.

"one of those superior beings who only drive in cab mode and look down on people such as myself who never use it" I think most of that is merely joking or teasing, but for me the whole point of any simulator is the "you are there" feeling, suspension of disbelief to enhance the fantasy that you're actually driving a train or airplane or submarine or whatever is what defines simulation. If I don't have the same challenges starting, stopping, and controlling all that tonnage that a real engineer would have, it would ruin the effect for me.

AI only mode, many people do that, I'm doing it now while testing an AI traffic pattern - leave the player train parked, hop an AI train and ride along to see what it does when and where there might be problems with the session. If just watching AI trains do intelligent things without actually running a train yourself is the way you like to play, I suspect railworks would be extremely disappointing.

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=359&t=117900

That's what it takes to set up ONE simple meet in RW, and if you get lucky and the scenario editor doesn't crash too often you may be able to get that to work after a couple weeks of debugging, but the player has to meet the exact timetable to keep the AI from going catatonic. It still surprises me that anyone finds that even remotely acceptable.

I think if someone had a race car game and the car was controlled by a knob and could go from 0 mph to 160 mph instantly, and 160 to 0 in the same amount of time, it would be beyond boring. That is the sensation that I get with Trainz in DCC mode. Some flight games used to be the same way, the aircraft would instantly jump into the air and when landing come to an instant stop no matter how heavy the aircraft was, whether it was loaded or not, etc.....No challenge at all. I prefer something that is a bit of a challenge, like running a steam train up a steep grade in Cab mode.

 

[sniper297]

"you would need seperate assets of the locos you wanted to use for AI and CAB." I did that for the CTA trains since I had to do it anyway for the poles and spark effects. An AI train with pantographs (or poles which are classed as "pantos") won't move unless one is up. The player can drive around with both poles down (these cars were dual powered, ran on overhead wires outside the city and outside third rail in the city) but the AI can't, so I had to make separate AI cars anyway with a fake front pole down and stowed while the real front pole inside the body is invisible. Since I had to do that anyway I used a different engine spec for the player train which releases the brakes faster (later CTA cars didn't even have air brakes, the dymanics were powerful enough to use instead since every axle in the train is geared to a traction motor, they got rid of all the trailer cars after 1940 or so) so the player doesn't have to wait more than 15 seconds at each stop (I timed that with a friend on the Lake Street line one day during rush hour, each stop is about 15 seconds on the real thing). If there was a way to simplify an engine spec for AI only that didn't hog a lot of CPU cycles for every AI train I would use that, but testing with 50+ AI trains using stripped down engine specs showed no difference in framerates.

Robert, that's why I mentioned the GUNSHIP! versus Comanche "simulator" comparison, a real helicopter you pull up on the collective to lift to a hover, push forward on the cyclic to start moving forward while increasing collective to stop settling. When the airspeed gets up to 30 or 40 you get translational lift and start climbing. Once flying you adjust collective and cyclic for speed, when you want to dive or climb moving the cyclic fore and aft it flies just like a fixed wing aircraft. Comanche didn't do that, fore and aft on the cyclic would speed up or slow down while staying at the same altitude, moving the collective up and down changed altitude with no effect on forward speed, they didn't even attempt realistic physics or aerodynamics even in turns and it just ruined the whole thing for me. I spent days searching the docs and the internet to see if there was a way to toggle realism ON for the blasted thing because it was so PRETTY, but there was none - it was an arcade game that merely looked like a simulator. And that's my opinion of railworks, it's a train driving game, not a simulator.

 

[pdkoester]

I think this says it all, might end the discussion. That is why I do not use MSTS, and switched to Trainz 2004, and up and up...

Yeesh. My point was DCC mode does not have realistic physics, it was never intended to have realistic physics, so comparing Trainz physics to other train simulator physics we should always be talking about CAB mode. Trying to be polite here, anyone who thinks that railworks physics is more realistic than Trainz in CAB mode is making an error in judgment. Is that non offensive enough for everyone?

I went directly from MSTS to Railsim when it first came out in October 2007, and many of my MSTS friends wanted to know before buying - how realistic are the physics compared to Plainman's MSTS tweaks? For those who never heard of him, Plainsman AKA Bob Boudoin, is a real life physicist who made MSTS "as real as it gets" by applying real world Newtonian physics to all default MSTS engines and cars, and was always consulted by the model makers to get their creations as realistic as possible.

So the first thing I did was extensive testing, built some test routes with assorted grades according to Bob's specifications, and ran trains. A 30 car train of empty 27 ton hoppers is 810 tons, SD-40 continuous tractive effort 82,000lbs, on dry level track should be able to pull 2342 tons. 1% grade possible, 2% grade doubtful. In railsim that SD40 from a standing start would accelerate up a 2% or even 4% grade in notch 1 towing 30 empty hopper cars. Load the cars with coal, now the train weighs 3810 tons, too much for a single SD40 to even get moving on level track - but it still runs up the 4% grade in notch 1.

Last time I tried Railworks was before I got TS2010 and discovered how versatile Trainz AI traffic was, in comparison to railworks completely hopeless useless AI traffic, so even if the physics had been equal I would have moved anyway. But it wasn't equal, and from what I've read it still isn't, railworks core physics are so unrealistic the loco makers can only fudge it the best they can. And many don't bother, dynamic brakes that stop the loco dead in the first notch derailing the entire train behind, a payware SD-45 with dynamic brakes that don't work at all, physics numbers applied to the player train when the session starts don't change depending on number of cars coupled on or uncoupled or loaded or emptied during the session, I'm trying to find anything they did RIGHT and coming up completely empty.

If someone likes railworks physics better than Trainz physics that's fine, different strokes for different folks. But if you're under the impression that railworks physics are even close to realistic, your impression is in error.

 

[djt]

Simple reason for that is Trainz is good enough to stand up to the comparison.

Dunno about wind resistance, but in CAB mode Trainz does simulate more slip in wet weather, more drag for weight, grades, and curves. Main problem is the myth perpetuated by MSTS users (and I was guilty of this) who tried it in DCC mode, unaware that there was a more realistic option, and assumed MSTS had better physics. It doesn't. Anyone who drives Trainz in DCC mode and talks about physics should get their head examined.

This was my response back in 2009 in the RailWorks general forum at Trainsim.com when this same discussion came up -

As far as realistic train handling physics are concerned TRS2009 is the closest I’ve seen a consumer train game get, even slack action is modeled. Making reductions with the automatic, bailing off the independent and dynamic braking are all simulated. As a simple example I set up a consist with three six axle units and around 50-60 cars, brought the train up to about 10-15 mph and with the train stretched I applied full independent brake, a no-no in the real world. The head end rapidly reduced speed for a split second and then lunged ahead as the rest of train ran into it, a good example of excessive buff forces. The physics are not perfect but better than anything else I’ve see for the game/consumer market.

That was back in 2009 though when I thought that Trainz might actually have some potential if they could get the rendering/game engine into the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, it never happened. In the real world we are also taught to know which way a switch is lined (on other than main track) by looking at the points, something that is obviously impossible to do in Trainz.

I've always run Trainz on high end hardware and haven't experienced this issue but here's another show stopper, this was taken from another discussion about the physics in Trainz which I have heard a lot of complaints about over the years -

“I really can't figure out why people scrutinize Trainz physics so heavily; physics in MSTS are flawed too.”

“Mainly because of the "rubber band" effect produced by the software caching against the CPU clock. When a stutter occurs, or when you experience low frame rates, the internal clock in Trainz also slows down, and when fps goes up, so does the clock, making it impossible to replicate real world physics. Any tweaks are system-dependent and may not work the same from PC to PC. This is the biggest problem with Auran's Jet.”

Getting off of the physics discussion, the tread that was taken from has some interesting comments coming from some actual train-game addon developers -


http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?283805-Are-we-skipping-Trainz-because-of-looks/page2

 

[Robert2d6]

Robert, that's why I mentioned the GUNSHIP! versus Comanche "simulator" comparison, a real helicopter you pull up on the collective to lift to a hover, push forward on the cyclic to start moving forward while increasing collective to stop settling. When the airspeed gets up to 30 or 40 you get translational lift and start climbing. Once flying you adjust collective and cyclic for speed, when you want to dive or climb moving the cyclic fore and aft it flies just like a fixed wing aircraft. Comanche didn't do that, fore and aft on the cyclic would speed up or slow down while staying at the same altitude, moving the collective up and down changed altitude with no effect on forward speed, they didn't even attempt realistic physics or aerodynamics even in turns and it just ruined the whole thing for me. I spent days searching the docs and the internet to see if there was a way to toggle realism ON for the blasted thing because it was so PRETTY, but there was none - it was an arcade game that merely looked like a simulator. And that's my opinion of railworks, it's a train driving game, not a simulator.

I used to teach RC Helicopter aerobatics at my local RC flying Club, about 10 years ago. I bought a PC sim for RC helicopters that worked pretty well for getting students started, you could do fairly realistic auto rotations, it was great for nose in hovering practice, and rolls and loops. Still got the controller for the sim, but I think I may have lost the program. Of course the graphics were horrible, bu that wasn't important, it flew like an RC helicopter.

 

[Signalman65]

Hi, I am wondering if any of you have the new version of windows 8, and does Trainz work alright with it, and what versions? I am thinking of upgrading, and the windows 8 Upgrade Assistant report on Compatible items on my computer doesn't list any of the three Trainz versions I have installed. I don't want to have to reinstall them. Microsoft is running a sale till end of January which is quite a saving only $40. I paid $139 when I upgraded to 7 Pro, and I bought 8 Pro but have not installed it yet.

 

[djt]

Hi, I am wondering if any of you have the new version of windows 8, and does Trainz work alright with it, and what versions?

TS2012 runs just as good if not slightly better on Windows 8 Pro 64 then it does on Windows 7/SP1 64. The same can be said with about 15 other games/sims I’ve been running on Windows 8 Pro 64.

 

[Signalman65]

Thanks for the reply, I don't have Ts2012, I have 2009 and 2010 and hope for 2009 to work since that's the one I really like.

 

[djt]

Thanks for the reply, I don't have Ts2012, I have 2009 and 2010 and hope for 2009 to work since that's the one I really like.

Nothing really significant has changed with Trainz going back a decade ago as far as the rendering/game engine is concerned so I don’t think you’ll have any problem running 2009 if TS2012 runs without any issues. In addition I’ve run other 6-10 year old sims/games on Windows 8 Pro without any issues also and what I’ve found so far is if it runs on Windows 7 it’ll run on Windows 8. I never had any problems with Trainz 2009 running on Windows 7.

If I get a chance I’ll install 2009 on Windows 8 and let you know if I have any problems.