Atomic Systems

hello, just to let you know, DVTs are now perfectly possible as i've just tested.
just set them up as a locomotive without any power, any other locomotive in the consist will work as it should.

Almost; you can get problems if you switch ends, making a DT was about the first thing I tried in RW3. I made one out of an EMU & drove a diesel with it, and couldn't drive the diesel away if I switched to it.

did the brakes not release? there seems to be a problem with some engines conflicting each others brakes when working in multiple.

Nope, throttle worked, brakes worked, reverser worked ( all checked on F5 ) it just didn't move. I detached the DT, swapped to the DT and back to the train ( that's rather nice, the way individual engines get their own despatcher ID when you split a train ) and finally the diesel was driveable. Of course now the DT wasn't after I recoupled it...

For a 225 set it might be ok given a DVT will only ever get driven by a 91, but this is a bit awkward for other types as it stands. I also don't know how the control states are being passed down the train yet.

I had a 47 and 37 together and as you said, when swapping from the 37 to the 47 you couldn't drive the 47. Everything worked but it wouldn't put down amps. However, after swapping a couple more times with no success I decided to push the 47 from the 37 cab on the inside (facing the 47) which worked fine. Then when swapping to the 47 it also worked fine. So might it be something to do with direction or simply swapping cabs for a while? I do seem to remember having the problem of swapping locos and one not putting down amps in RW2 but after swapping a few times the problem seemed to rectify itself...

Ta,

Rob

Anyone tried testing a previously-working DVT recently? the one I tried - made from an EMU - at RW3 launch doesn't work at all now.

That's not good news!

I would have thought that with Ben (RSBen) going under RSC's wing, that they would be addressing the DVT functionality (or lack of!) issue, as judging by Ben's avatar his '225' set is still going ahead and surely he, nor RSC will release something that doesn't work correctly? Plus, push-pull capability opens up a whole world off possibility's.

Just a thought.

Cheers,
Terrone.

Well, I got it working again, but I've discovered that it's effectively a mobile Raildriver controller - which means it just ignores any scripting on the propelling engine. This will of course be the same for multiple head-end units also; I felt strongly enough to mail RSC about it. This is going to affect future RSC products - the 33 perhaps if there's a TC unit with it, it would already affect the 86 if there were any more electrics to multiple with it and I have no idea about an autocoach ( I think there's other issues with multiple workings with steam engines atm ). Mind you the latter wasn't RSC as such iirc.

As long as your engine doesn't do anything flashy it's fine though.

I feel quite strongly about this too Kariban to be honest, and i would be quite interested to hear RSC's response to your e-mail if that is ok? I really did think that this was one of the issue's that RSC would and should have addressed for the update to TS2012. Don't get me wrong, i am not for a second suggesting that it would be an easy issue to resolve because truth be told, i really have no idea! .

I suppose that i can only hope that RSC sort it officially so that eventually we can have proper push-pull workings if and when some DVT's arrive!

Cheers,
Terrone.

I can see why they did what they did tbh, it was the path of least resistance. What puzzles me is that they already *have* an interface to deal with this for the F4 HUD - and while there's no official docs about programming with the hud ( there's no official docs about it at all ) we know how to work with it. Alas, you can't set the value of certain core controls in trailing engines in script - you can set DynamicBrakes and it works, because they forgot that one - the engine doesn't release Regulator for use by the script if VirtualThrottle is defined and it doesn't pass VirtualThrottle by default anyway, although you can just do that in consist messaging.

The tricky issue comes when the lead engine is a bog standard one, and the trailing one is a fancy scripted one - does the trailing engine use the leading engine's Regulator value, or does it put that value in VirtualThrottle - which might not be in the same units ( I suspect we ought to stop doing that! ). Personally I would have said "as long as VirtualThrottle is defined I'm going to pretend it's a player and always pass Regulator values to that", and if it's a crazy script like the 86 then it'll have to be modified for multiple working like a real one would.

We're missing out on all sorts of tricks with the current state, especially for the US market with the possibility of remote controlling different parts of the train.