Coming back to the original subject.
I experimented with setting momentum values on different locos and found these values are effectively "remembered" by each of the decoders and are still there even after a shutdown.
Now I will try if that also works with consists.
Martin 4
Martin,
Thanks for confirming my earlier experiment with your own findings. It should also work with consisting. However, it may be a little trickier getting all the locomotives to have the same momentum simultaneously. There could be some noticeable pushing & pulling until the consist comes up (or down) to speed.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I just tried with a trio of identical Atlas GP40-2Ws. The momentum applies the same way to all 3 of them.
Grateful to Tom for puting me on the correct way !
Martin4 Grateful to Tom for puting me on the correct way !
Rich
Alton Junction
So changing the momentum to the lead locomotive also changes CVs 3 & 4 to the other two locomotives in the consist? Good to know. I thought maybe you were altering each locomotive's momentum individually before placing them together in a consist. And having all three locomotives being the exact same model from the same manufacturer should help ensure smooth momentum between locomotives.
Glad I could help, Martin. This has helped me gain a better understanding.
Speaking of consists, I have two Kato N Scale locomotives that have different decoders. Before I put them into a consist, I had to speed match them on two parallel tracks.
Then it took a while, but I matched their acceleration and deceleration.
There was quite a bit of difference between the two decoders when both decoders were set to the same acceleration setting.
I know that some don't like the momentum function, but I love it. I enjoy setting the speed I want and letting the locos accelerate slowly to that speed.
York1 John
I made sure that each loco had a momentum set to 0 before creating the consist. After that any change in value applied the same to every loco in the consist.
Now I will try if Drive Hold behaves the same.
richhotrain Martin4 Grateful to Tom for puting me on the correct way ! Tom, you are the man! Thanks for helping Martin as much as you have, and for carrying through in spite of all the obstacles presented in this thread. Rich
Tom, you are the man! Thanks for helping Martin as much as you have, and for carrying through in spite of all the obstacles presented in this thread.
Lastspikemike gregc Lastspikemike Pointing out that someone is wrong is not a personal attack. there's a difference between saying "you're wrong" and"i think you're wrong" There isn't...
gregc Lastspikemike Pointing out that someone is wrong is not a personal attack. there's a difference between saying "you're wrong" and"i think you're wrong"
Lastspikemike Pointing out that someone is wrong is not a personal attack.
there's a difference between saying "you're wrong" and"i think you're wrong"
There isn't...
There is a significant difference. The first one is stating an objective fact. The second one can be used two ways, to state a subjective opinion or to state an objective fact that you believe to be true but are not cetain of.
Examples:
"1 + 2 = 5." - "You are wrong, 1 + 2 = 3." - An objective fact.
"Florida has the nicest weather." - "I think you are wrong, Tennessee has the nicest weather." - A subjective opinion.
"That product has 'such and such' feature" - "I think you are wrong, because I have read about that product online, but I don't actually have any hands on experience with it so I could be mistaken." - An objective fact though not certain of its truthfulness.
seems there's a big difference between lawyering and engineering
in lawyering, it seems the fact that your case is right or wrong is irrelevant, the lawyer is trying to convince people that his side is in the right and the other side is in the wrong.
in engineering, finding a bug or a problem is cause for celebration because it's one less thing that can go wrong.
engineers often argue the other side to insure flaws aren't overlooked. and during those discussions, someone might point out a perceived flaw only to retract the comment when reminded of some other piece of information
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
LastspikemikeAnd yet in every case involving an engineering issue each side finds an engineer to testify for them.
but those engineers are asked by lawyers to support a case in courtroom environment
this is not how engineering is discussed/performed in the lab.
these forums are more like the later. sharing information and discussing pros & cons without judgement
LastspikemikeMaybe it's wrong isn't a statement if fact. You are wrong is.
Exactly. All too often, someone says "You are wrong" when he really should have said "Maybe it's wrong."
"randomly not falling off a bike":
https://youtu.be/WB3qTVg3hhs?t=153
Martin4 I made sure that each loco had a momentum set to 0 before creating the consist. After that any change in value applied the same to every loco in the consist. Now I will try if Drive Hold behaves the same. Martin 4
Gentlemen,
The above is where the OP last left off the conversation. Out of respect for him and since further discussion of symantics will likely prove fruitless because one side, in particular, isn't going to change their approach to posting - even after numerous attempts to persuade them otherwise in this and other threads, any further discussion of the aforementioned will be subsequently deleted from the thread.
Thank you for your cooperation.
All right, that's enough bickering. Thanks for trying to keep things on track, Tom, but I have less patience than you.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com