physics model

ortegus · 05-02-2012, 02:48 PM

I hear alot of people say RW doesn't model train physics very well. Is this due to the core simulator code or is it to do with the .bin files (properties) of a particular loco or consist?

I think RW uses the physX engine? Not sure but from a coding standpoint I would assume it would be a major rewrite to use a different (better) physics engine.

Or is decent physics the result of the interaction of the core sim code AND the engine that comes with the graphics drivers?

Just wondering what it would take for RSC to improve or replace the physics engine.

I also hear that MSTS had a better physics engine... I suppose the age of the sim has nothing to do with the physics engine because physics is physics. A loco in MSTS should behave the same (regarding physics) as in RW if its modelled true to the real thing. Or does it?

arizonachris · 05-02-2012, 07:15 PM

Big discussion about this over at Railworks America. Consensus is it's not the graphics or PhysX engines, it's in the coding. How a rail car behaves loaded or unloaded isn't modeled correctly, nor are braking or acceleration of some locomotives.

One member at RWA, "Kali", did a lot of rewriting bin files and/ or LUA files, and did get physics to work a lot more realistic. But I think it has to be done to each individual model. And verifying the game files will wipe all that out, back to default.

So unless the core is rewritten by RSC, can't really do anything permanent about the physics.

ortegus · 05-02-2012, 08:22 PM

That would make sense. So then its up to the 3rd party developers to ensure the physics coding in their rolling stock .bin files is as true to life as they can get it.

Unless you have driven the real thing or work around the real thing I can't see how one would otherwise get the physics right (unless the precise technical info is available). Just like sound. If you want decent sound you need audio from the real thing (or as good as the poor audio in RW will allow).

physics is just one aspect of simulation but a major one.

05-02-2012, 02:48 PM	#1
ortegus Join Date: Apr 2010 Reputation: 28 Posts: 163	physics model I hear alot of people say RW doesn't model train physics very well. Is this due to the core simulator code or is it to do with the .bin files (properties) of a particular loco or consist? I think RW uses the physX engine? Not sure but from a coding standpoint I would assume it would be a major rewrite to use a different (better) physics engine. Or is decent physics the result of the interaction of the core sim code AND the engine that comes with the graphics drivers? Just wondering what it would take for RSC to improve or replace the physics engine. I also hear that MSTS had a better physics engine... I suppose the age of the sim has nothing to do with the physics engine because physics is physics. A loco in MSTS should behave the same (regarding physics) as in RW if its modelled true to the real thing. Or does it?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-02-2012, 07:15 PM	#2
arizonachris Join Date: Aug 2009 Reputation: 620 Posts: 6,438	Big discussion about this over at Railworks America. Consensus is it's not the graphics or PhysX engines, it's in the coding. How a rail car behaves loaded or unloaded isn't modeled correctly, nor are braking or acceleration of some locomotives. One member at RWA, "Kali", did a lot of rewriting bin files and/ or LUA files, and did get physics to work a lot more realistic. But I think it has to be done to each individual model. And verifying the game files will wipe all that out, back to default. So unless the core is rewritten by RSC, can't really do anything permanent about the physics.

05-02-2012, 08:22 PM	#3
ortegus Join Date: Apr 2010 Reputation: 28 Posts: 163	That would make sense. So then its up to the 3rd party developers to ensure the physics coding in their rolling stock .bin files is as true to life as they can get it. Unless you have driven the real thing or work around the real thing I can't see how one would otherwise get the physics right (unless the precise technical info is available). Just like sound. If you want decent sound you need audio from the real thing (or as good as the poor audio in RW will allow). physics is just one aspect of simulation but a major one.