PDA

View Full Version : Coupler tricks, has someone managed this yet....



VinnyBarb
May 28th, 2010, 10:35 PM
As said, has someone managed for the couplers to move in a curve so they stay together as they are in reality? Like this,where the couplers are nicely aligned when on a straight track and are right in the middle of the locomotive:

http://www.vinnybarb.com/pics/a.jpg

When entering a slight curve for the couplers to move and still stay together like here but move of the center line of the locomotive:

http://www.vinnybarb.com/pics/b.jpg

and then in a very extremely tight curve of a track which is normally not made and is not real and where the coupler ends are well off the center of it:

http://www.vinnybarb.com/pics/c.jpg

and from the other side:

http://www.vinnybarb.com/pics/d.jpg

and despite all this, the couplers manage to stay together :eek:.

Well, has someone managed to do this yet in TS09/10 or in earlier versions?

Btw, in case someone is asking for the version of the locomotives used here, they are still work in progress and might soon (TM) be ready . :p

Cheers

VinnyBarb

barn700
May 29th, 2010, 05:55 AM
Hi Vinneybarb

In a word yes, I have made those way back in TRS2004

S301
May 29th, 2010, 07:35 AM
Cjlear's VR and V/Line B class did this back in UTC (albeit released after 04 was released, they are still UTC items :) ).

The main issue is that you get into difficult (from what I've been told) scripting territory for animated/functioning couplers :(

I do, one day, hope to implement working couplers on bogies to allow the couplers to swing mind :)

Zec

bnsf50
May 29th, 2010, 07:49 AM
If you mount the couplers to the truck/bogie rather than to the body they will follow the curve pretty good, and stay in line with each other. Look at my Tank_Car_ACFX_8_Axel_85Ft 2:39134:102435:2.
Here's a picture of the Tank_Car_GATX_8_Axel_95Ft 39134:102438 on a sharp curve set up this way.
As far as having them stay in the center of the car and swivel, like the real ones. I don't know how to do that in Trainz.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk269/bnsf50/GATX85Ft.jpg

whitepass
May 29th, 2010, 08:23 AM
Who drives looking down at the coupler? I do not think it is worth the effort, the brake shoes do not move ether.

VinnyBarb
May 29th, 2010, 08:26 AM
Well, I did not know this :eek:.

But it begs the question why this wasn't general knowledge to us content creators in the past to have the coupling swivel and the coupled end to stay linked together with its joined counterpart on the other coupling on joined rolling stock? I have never read or seen this feature in any of the CCGs and if I had known this, I could have saved myself quite some hours of testing and trying this out if this was possible at all to work? As I could have implemented these features on all of the coaches and locomotives I had created in the past. I even searched the forum and the DevWiki for any information re these before I started to implement this on one of my soon to be released locomotives.

Even the AURAN supplied SD40-2 in TS09 does not have this feature of a turning and swiveling coupling that stays together when rounding a bend in the tracks. Nor have I seen this feature on any rolling stock I downloaded so far. Have I missed this perhaps? (This was answered above actually).

Actually, all I did was to attach an extra a.bog2 and a.bog3 on either end of the locomotive (or coach or whatever traincar) and create a very simple extra bogey for these attachment points with just the coupler as this bogey. As long as the a.limfront and the a.limback is placed right in the center of the coupler head, the so linked couplers should stay together when rounding even a very tight bend of the track. The b.r.base of this "coupler" bogey was placed about quarter to a third in from either end of the rolling stock (needs to be experimented with) to get the right look, leverage etc. and that was that :hehe:.

Cheers

VinnyBarb

bnsf50
May 29th, 2010, 08:35 AM
I didn't find it in the CCG. I found it by experimenting years ago. I have all of my trucks, that I made up to replace the paintshed cars, that didn't come with couplers on them, made this way with the couplers attached to the trucks.

barn700
May 29th, 2010, 09:12 AM
hi VinneyBarb

You have it !!

Its not documented anywhere. But as you say if the extra bog is placed VERY close to limfront and limrear they act as true couplers, staying in contact all the time. Remember the attachment points follow the centre of the track, so many things are possible. Couplers, hoses, electrical connectors etc. No magic there - all done by mirrors LOL.

Its a little additional feature that doesnt require any script too

VinnyBarb
May 29th, 2010, 06:13 PM
hi VinneyBarb

You have it !!

Its not documented anywhere. But as you say if the extra bog is placed VERY close to limfront and limrear they act as true couplers, staying in contact all the time. Remember the attachment points follow the centre of the track, so many things are possible. Couplers, hoses, electrical connectors etc. No magic there - all done by mirrors LOL.

Its a little additional feature that doesnt require any script too

Yeah, this has buggered me for years when the couplers were flying apart on bends on most rolling stock as I usually travel on my routes in outside view to enjoy the scenery and the trains meeting there. Thinking about this at nights lying in bed before dozing off gave me this idea of couplers staying together to try out. I just wish I had known this earlier in my Trainz days.

Also seeing (I think made by) philskene's Schnabel unit made me think this feature was possible. His units use 'bogies' on top of bogies to assemble these various units together so I thought if I use a coupler instead, using something like that in a similar fashion, this might work.

It just goes to show an old dog can still learn new tricks :hehe:.

Re the Schnabel car units, I think philskene can now adjust the slack (which would be buffer/coupler slack) between the different "bogies" units to zero in TS09/10 as this feature is now adjustable right down to nothing. This socalled "slack" between the various "bogies" units the Schnabel car uses is somewhat loose to say the least but I guess these objects were made for a lower version number where one could not adjust this. And is understandable as these were made the way they were made.

Cheers

VinnyBarb

PEV
May 30th, 2010, 08:04 AM
I have used a trick for front wheel steering on drivable road vehicles that may help here..

I suggest you make each coupler (only) as a bogey with the a.bogx attachment at the desired pivot point of the coupler. The coupler will then follow the curve of the track and move only about its pivot point.

You would need to make one coupler as a bogey asset as I have done with one front wheel of my drivable cars.

So you might have
a.bog0 for leading bogey
a.bog1 for trailing bogey
a.bog2 for leading coupler
a.bog3 for trailing coupler

Let us know if it works in this application.

VinnyBarb
May 30th, 2010, 08:22 PM
I have used a trick for front wheel steering on drivable road vehicles that may help here..

I suggest you make each coupler (only) as a bogey with the a.bogx attachment at the desired pivot point of the coupler. The coupler will then follow the curve of the track and move only about its pivot point.

You would need to make one coupler as a bogey asset as I have done with one front wheel of my drivable cars.

So you might have
a.bog0 for leading bogey
a.bog1 for trailing bogey
a.bog2 for leading coupler
a.bog3 for trailing coupler

Let us know if it works in this application.

This is exactly what I did and described further above :). But as the locomotive (in my case) has an overhang front and back, one needs to place the a.bog attachment somewhere further inwards from the end of the locomotive or whatever (experimenting will tell you where) to make this realistic looking. That means also, the b.r.base attachment point on the coupler (bogey) needs to be shifted somewhat further back too (further away from the coupler's rear end) or one gets some odd lined up looking couplers on the locomotive. But once that is worked out, it is easy to implement.

*Edit: Just to clarify the position of the a.limfront and the a.limback on the locomotive (or whatever). They should be where the coupler's head would be if the coupler had been made with the locomotive. But as the coupler now is made as a "bogey" this is the imaginary position where the center of the coupler's head would have been so the couplers stay together when rounding a bend. This position is easy to shift to make it right after testing this in game.

It also couples and uncouples without any problems if two of the same equipped (or even none equipped) rolling stock are joined.

Cheers

VinnyBarb

b9k9kiwi
May 30th, 2010, 09:23 PM
Who drives looking down at the coupler? I do not think it is worth the effort, the brake shoes do not move ether.

I think, in some ways, you are right in that it seems that some content creators (encouraged by Trainz users), and in pursuit of this thing we call 'reality', end up chasing shadows.

Preferences vary though. I, for example, am more than happy to live without working couplers, working track points complete with frogs, checkrails et. al. - but, recently, decided that running consists without end of train devices simply looked a bit sad. PEV's AttachmentMaker has provided me with the opportunity to 'fix' this although I didn't exactly lay awake at night worrying about it.

As for the disjuncture between couplings on bends - I only became aware of this recently even though I have been playing Trainz since very early on. It can't be fixed, of course, on those many, many assets with 'built-in' couplings. Now I am aware of it, though, I do 'notice' it more and more.

It's a 'feature' that content creators may well look upon as something of a challenge. So, whether it's worth the effort or not may well be a moot point.

Ben1337
June 25th, 2010, 05:15 AM
I have used a trick for front wheel steering on drivable road vehicles that may help here..

I suggest you make each coupler (only) as a bogey with the a.bogx attachment at the desired pivot point of the coupler. The coupler will then follow the curve of the track and move only about its pivot point.

You would need to make one coupler as a bogey asset as I have done with one front wheel of my drivable cars.

So you might have
a.bog0 for leading bogey
a.bog1 for trailing bogey
a.bog2 for leading coupler
a.bog3 for trailing coupler

Let us know if it works in this application.Yeah, would this work with UK chain-link couplings and possibly the air pipes as well?

The reason I ask this is because in the first post, it talks about Australian turning couplings. But UK couplings pivot in a different way, they pivot more at where they're joined onto the buffer beam.

VinnyBarb
June 25th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Yeah, would this work with UK chain-link couplings and possibly the air pipes as well?

The reason I ask this is because in the first post, it talks about Australian turning couplings. But UK couplings pivot in a different way, they pivot more at where they're joined onto the buffer beam.

I can't think why these should not be turning where these should be turning if made as a bogey each. Others attached these "couplers" to bogies but Chris (Windwalkr) says this is a no no to attach them there. The attachment point of this extra bogey (a.bog2 or a.bog3) should be at their turning point. Only thing is, the chain is a limited length and might look queer (shorter or longer and possibly differently angled as well as the case might be). Experiment will tell you I guess.

I am not into UK rolling stock, if I were I might have given it a go to test this.

Cheers

VinnyBarb

Ben1337
June 25th, 2010, 04:45 PM
I can't think why these should not be turning where these should be turning if made as a bogey each. Others attached these "couplers" to bogies but Chris (Windwalkr) says this is a no no to attach them there. The attachment point of this extra bogey (a.bog2 or a.bog3) should be at their turning point. Only thing is, the chain is a limited length and might look queer (shorter or longer and possibly differently angled as well as the case might be). Experiment will tell you I guess.

I am not into UK rolling stock, if I were I might have given it a go to test this.

Cheers

VinnyBarbI thought a.bog2 and a.bog3 didn't actually rotate at their points... but I will have a shot at it on my first piece of UK content that I'm currently figuring out where to put the coupling attachment points on.

VinnyBarb
June 25th, 2010, 05:01 PM
I thought a.bog2 and a.bog3 didn't actually rotate at their points... but I will have a shot at it on my first piece of UK content that I'm currently figuring out where to put the coupling attachment points on.

Yeah, actually this is also governed by where your bogey's b.r.base attachment point is located. This is where your bogey (made as a coupler or chain in your case) is swiveling at the location of the a.bogX attachment point on the rolling stock's body. If you place the b.r.base attachment point on the end of your chain (build as a bogey) and the a.bogX close to the end beam of the traincar, there this chain end should rotate/swivel. The other end of the chain needs the a.limfront or a.limback to attach to another chain set up in a similar manner of the to be coupled on rolling stock. It might look a bit angled in top view but experimenting will tell you if this looks good.

Cheers and have fun :hehe:.

VinnyBarb

Ben1337
June 25th, 2010, 05:10 PM
Yeah, actually this is also governed by where your bogey's b.r.base attachment point is located. This is where your bogey (made as a coupler or chain in your case) is swiveling at the location of the a.bogX attachment point on the rolling stock's body. If you place the b.r.base attachment point on the end of your chain (build as a bogey) and the a.bogX close to the end beam of the traincar, there this chain end should rotate/swivel. The other end of the chain needs the a.limfront or a.limback to attach to another chain set up in a similar manner of the to be coupled on rolling stock. It might look a bit angled in top view but experimenting will tell you if this looks good.

Cheers and have fun :hehe:.

VinnyBarbYou bet I wont.:hehe: If i have to figure another job related to the couplings out like I think I will have to figure out, I will have a hard time figuring out before this job comes around.:o