Beiträge von LynX

Discord Einladung
Trete unserem Discord-Server bei (klicke hier zum Beitreten).

    @ES64F4 It's basically the same what I said in one of my previous posts.


    Would it be even possible to change the ammeter according to the selected voltage in the train simulator? I think (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that those values are hard coded per model and it would only be a visual fix.
    Second question is: is the 600 kN really reached with a single engine, or is that a visual issue only? So is there a difference in performance between single and double engine? If there is not, than that is obviously a bug.


    I'm afraid that the handling of the +/const/- is a train simulator limit. In reality, the handle will return to the const position automatically. From what I understand, creating that in train simulator is possible, but only with one 'resting' position. The Traxx has 4 of those in a single handle: EB const, 0, T const and T max.


    The 300 kN AFB limit is a bit of an issue. As you said, it is a regulatory issue, not a technical one. @ChrisTrains has obviously chosen to implement it hard coded. Maybe he could remove it in a future update?


    A bit more in depth detail about that 300 kN and the AFB:
    the 7J software that has been in use for the Intercity Direct trains was never built for a 'sandwich' consist (engine - coaches - engine). The traction distribution on both engines is simply 50/50, which would be right for a double headed train.
    With that sandwich consist, it is a bit of a problem, as the rear engine could push the coaches from the tracks, with a quite higher risk when the front engine would suddenly stop working (for whatever reason).
    For that reason, the maximum allowed tractive effort is 150 kN for the rear engine, which automatically limits the front engine to 150 kN too. And there you have the 300 kN power limit.
    This is fixed in the new 9.4 software, that is currently being rolled-out on the NS Traxx engines. They have a special Sandwich mode, which distributes the traction as 66/33 when accelerating and the other way around (33/66) when using the EB brake. That way, it is no longer an issue and the 150 kN limit on the rear engine is also automatically enforced.

    @Zacharias
    So it's only the sounds. I believe that Chris already stated a few times earlier in several topics that the sounds are simply not his strongest point.
    The solution is simple: You should create your own sound pack for it when it's not to your liking :)


    But truth to be told: the sounds of this model, while not perfect, are quite realistic. Yes, the handle notches are a bit louder than they are in real life (probably done to give the users feedback of their actions, as the real sound is almost non-existent) and the pneumatic braking sound could be a bit better. But the other sounds are quite realistic.
    Those "weird beeps" are exactly as they should be, including the beeps of the ETCS system and the sound of the doors closing. The Dutch Traxx doesn't say 'Sifa' or something like that.
    You are right that the NS Traxx is basically a DABNL version of the 186, but the software differs from the German version. PZB/LZB is switched to passive mode by software and can't be changed to active without a different software version. So while Chris has not included PZB/LZB because of the limitations of the train simulator, it's exactly as it is in real life :D

    According to Bombardier datasheet (or any other source), the max tractive effort of the BR 186 is 300 kN. Can anyone tell me why the traction gauge have a 600 kN maximum ? It seems to me that maximum breaking effort is 150 kN, so same question : why 300 kN on the gauge ?


    There are two things that are different/missing when comparing to the real engine:
    The Current-bar doesn't change when a different voltage is selected. Second thing is that, while the voltage bar changes depending on the number of engines, the tractive effort bar should change too between 300 kN (single engine) and 600 kN (two engines).
    The bar displaying the braking effort is actually entirely correct and doesn't change. I suppose this has to do with the braking effort being max 240 kN in Austria, even though the software version used in the Netherlands doesn't let you select that option.


    Maybe Chris could change those things in a future version. For the tractive effort bar, it's just a cosmetic change. The Current bar would require quite some scripts I assume, as it has to be converted depending on the voltage.

    Ich habe sie mir gestern zugelegt und seitdem recht ausführlich getestet. Meine Empfehlung: Finger weg! Keines der Systeme (vielleicht abgesehen von ATB, was ich nicht getestet habe) funktioniert wie es soll.

    Its behaviour is actually pretty close to the real thing, including ETCS, even though some things seems to be a bit simplified for the ease of use.

    Mich stört am meisten, dass ich beim Ausfall des ETCS-Rechners nicht auf die PZB zurückgreifen kann weil die kaskadiert unter dem ETCS läuft. ETCS gestört = PZB gestört = Vmax 50 km/h. Betriebsbehindernd. Besser wäre es, bei gestörtem ETCS wenigstens mit PZB weiterfahren zu können.

    I apologize for replying in English, but my written German is not nearly good enough to be understandable (I'm from the Netherlands) ;)


    When the PZB/LZB is integrated as a STM module to ETCS, it is basically ETCS/EVC doing the job all the time, while the STM module translates the PZB/LZB commands to understandable ETCS equivalents.
    It depends on what is actually technically happening.
    If the EVC fails, it will not be possible to continue with PZB, as the main computer has failed. But that should only happen in exceptional circumstances and hasn't happened to me for a very long time.
    If it happens frequently, that is simply a software bug and it should be resolved.
    We had a bug on the 186 that caused the EVC to crash, but that one is resolved with the current software version 9.
    When it is just a problem with ERTMS/ETCS itself, like a RBC connection error or a balise read error, there shouldn't be any problem to continue with PZB/LZB or any other safety system, as it is only the ERTMS/ETCS component that has an issue.
    When that happens frequently, there is usually a problem with the tracks and the placement of eurobalises, or with the GSM-R connection strenght, and that should be solved accordingly.


    I drive almost on a daily basis on ERTMS tracks in the Netherlands, and I can say that I have no issues with ERTMS itself. It is a clear and easy to understand safety system and when it is implemented correctly on both the train as on the track's side, it's a great system to work with.