Rolling Stock skinning ideas
-
RulerofRails
- Dispatcher
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
Nice. If it was running in game . . . it's good enough for me to use it.
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
It's a bit rough for a finished product, although I admit it would look decent enough when zoomed out.Gumbootz Lokomotivfabrik und Bierkeller
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
Just had a go at the proposed G era double boxcars, since I figure I should finish some more cargo cars. They work, but I found another RT3 bug/glitch/whatever.
These are the doubles that use two different sized cars: a 40' PS-1 and a 50' X58. Obviously both are mapped to the same skin. Anyway, although they trundle down the track like they should, the catch is that they are scrunched into the back of the tender at the front, and there's an excessive gap to the caboose at the rear.
. .
What is happening is that although I set the body origin exactly centred between the inner ends of the two boxcars, because the front one is longer than the back one the game engine tries to even the lengths out. The halfway point between the outer ends of the two boxcars is shown by the Blender cursor in the middle section of the screenshot.
What's happening is that RT3 is shunting the cars forward so that their outer ends are centred around this point. Despite this, the LengthPoint and TrackPoint files are not affected. They work normally, AFAICT, because the front of the first boxcar is protruding out past where the front length point is.
This all means the front boxcar gets shunted into the tender, and the back one will have a large gap to whatever is behind it (caboose, in this case). The way to fix it, obviously, is to reposition the boxcars so that their outer ends are centred on the Y=0 point. Which I will do shortly, then test again.
These are the doubles that use two different sized cars: a 40' PS-1 and a 50' X58. Obviously both are mapped to the same skin. Anyway, although they trundle down the track like they should, the catch is that they are scrunched into the back of the tender at the front, and there's an excessive gap to the caboose at the rear.
. .
What is happening is that although I set the body origin exactly centred between the inner ends of the two boxcars, because the front one is longer than the back one the game engine tries to even the lengths out. The halfway point between the outer ends of the two boxcars is shown by the Blender cursor in the middle section of the screenshot.
What's happening is that RT3 is shunting the cars forward so that their outer ends are centred around this point. Despite this, the LengthPoint and TrackPoint files are not affected. They work normally, AFAICT, because the front of the first boxcar is protruding out past where the front length point is.
This all means the front boxcar gets shunted into the tender, and the back one will have a large gap to whatever is behind it (caboose, in this case). The way to fix it, obviously, is to reposition the boxcars so that their outer ends are centred on the Y=0 point. Which I will do shortly, then test again.
Gumbootz Lokomotivfabrik und Bierkeller
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
Alrighty then. Shunted the model bits around, exported them to .3dp again, sorted the hex attachment/length/track points, and gave them another run in the game.
It works.
They behave perfectly now, which is gratifying since I was a tad concerned RT3 might do something even weirder this time. Fortunately, it didn't. Not this time. So, we now know how to do multiple units with unequal length cars: simply set them up so that the outer ends, or outer wheels, are centered on Y=0. Easy.
I have noticed one catch with another idea though. I also tried adding a transparent rectangle to the body file, in the hope that would give a large, easy-to-hit, non-visible target to allow seeing the cargo type just by hovering over the gap between the first and second cars. Turns out the devs very helpfully coded things so that hovering to see cargo type only works on non-transparent pixels. Transparent ones aren't visible to the cursor, so that idea is cactus.
This means the only ways of seeing the cargo type are a/ hover the cursor over the middle bogie, which works but is tricky on a moving train, or b/ look at the cargo icon if it's a cargo which has one available, or c/ use some custom skinning of various cargoes if necessary, or d/ check it out in the train list profile. Which is all workable, just not quite as convenient as I would have liked. It's RT3. You get that.
It works.
They behave perfectly now, which is gratifying since I was a tad concerned RT3 might do something even weirder this time. Fortunately, it didn't. Not this time. So, we now know how to do multiple units with unequal length cars: simply set them up so that the outer ends, or outer wheels, are centered on Y=0. Easy.I have noticed one catch with another idea though. I also tried adding a transparent rectangle to the body file, in the hope that would give a large, easy-to-hit, non-visible target to allow seeing the cargo type just by hovering over the gap between the first and second cars. Turns out the devs very helpfully coded things so that hovering to see cargo type only works on non-transparent pixels. Transparent ones aren't visible to the cursor, so that idea is cactus.
This means the only ways of seeing the cargo type are a/ hover the cursor over the middle bogie, which works but is tricky on a moving train, or b/ look at the cargo icon if it's a cargo which has one available, or c/ use some custom skinning of various cargoes if necessary, or d/ check it out in the train list profile. Which is all workable, just not quite as convenient as I would have liked. It's RT3. You get that.
Gumbootz Lokomotivfabrik und Bierkeller
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
Hey just on a whim, because I've been using Camelbacks as shunters* the last day or so, I got to thinking about a quick and easy revamp. The Camelback is one of the default models that is just a bit too rough IMO. The octagonal smokebox and candy cane paint job are a bit more than I can stomach for normal use.
Fixing the paint job isn't a big deal. Fixing the basics of the mesh, without going crazy pedantic everywhere, is also pretty easy. I had a quick go at the mesh just for fun, and it looks a lot better.
. .
This could easily be combined with a revamp of the stats. The default stats are:
Available: 1896-1926
Purchase price: $80,000
Annual maintenance: $7,000
Fuel economy: Very Good
Acceleration: Poor
Reliability: Average
Pax appeal: Ugly
Top speed: 60 mph
Free weight: 30
Pulling power: 5
For re-purposing as a good shunter, these could be changed to:
Available: 1896-1956
Purchase price: $80,000
Annual maintenance: $7,000
Fuel economy: Very Good
Acceleration: Above average
Reliability: Good
Pax appeal: Gruesome
Top speed: 23 mph
Free weight: 120
Pulling power: 6
This would be perfectly usable for short hops between stations, but too slow for trips of any distance. It would be reliable enough to haul freight of the era without a caboose (caboose on shunters seems stupid) and would be strong enough to haul it at top speed on flat terrain, while being about the same as the default stats up hard grades (ie: pretty crap). It would also be cheap to run, which is important for a shunter as any cargo price differentials are going to be minimal.
If it's done like this, suddenly the Camelback has a valid use in the game, and one that fits with how similar locomotives were used IRL.
*The game's beastie is a Reading B7a, very roughly done, and they really were shunters. They were useless for anything else. Some were in service until the early 1950's.
Fixing the paint job isn't a big deal. Fixing the basics of the mesh, without going crazy pedantic everywhere, is also pretty easy. I had a quick go at the mesh just for fun, and it looks a lot better.
. .
This could easily be combined with a revamp of the stats. The default stats are:
Available: 1896-1926
Purchase price: $80,000
Annual maintenance: $7,000
Fuel economy: Very Good
Acceleration: Poor
Reliability: Average
Pax appeal: Ugly
Top speed: 60 mph
Free weight: 30
Pulling power: 5
For re-purposing as a good shunter, these could be changed to:
Available: 1896-1956
Purchase price: $80,000
Annual maintenance: $7,000
Fuel economy: Very Good
Acceleration: Above average
Reliability: Good
Pax appeal: Gruesome
Top speed: 23 mph
Free weight: 120
Pulling power: 6
This would be perfectly usable for short hops between stations, but too slow for trips of any distance. It would be reliable enough to haul freight of the era without a caboose (caboose on shunters seems stupid) and would be strong enough to haul it at top speed on flat terrain, while being about the same as the default stats up hard grades (ie: pretty crap). It would also be cheap to run, which is important for a shunter as any cargo price differentials are going to be minimal.
If it's done like this, suddenly the Camelback has a valid use in the game, and one that fits with how similar locomotives were used IRL.
*The game's beastie is a Reading B7a, very roughly done, and they really were shunters. They were useless for anything else. Some were in service until the early 1950's.
Gumbootz Lokomotivfabrik und Bierkeller
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
Got it running. I like it. 
They make an excellent shunter with these stats. Would also be an acceptable little unit for freight on short branch lines. Too slow for long distances though, which is what was intended, and not so good on heavy grades. They're best suited for grades of 3% or less.
Since this is probably the first time I've used Camelbacks since Noah was a lad, on account of the default one being so ugly, I just noticed that it has a few minor bugs. Wheels are a bit oval, RHS connecting rod hex needs tweaking, and there a couple of other very minor niggles. I'll whip something up to fix all of that. Since the default files are hidden in some of RT3's massive PK4's, I'll just do the reskin and debug kit as loose files for dropping into UserExtraContent. They have to be loose to override the contents of a default PK4, so that's the sensible option and will save having to repack half the game.
Anyway, with a bit of tweaking the Camelback actually becomes fun to use, so I'm going to be using it.
. . . .
They make an excellent shunter with these stats. Would also be an acceptable little unit for freight on short branch lines. Too slow for long distances though, which is what was intended, and not so good on heavy grades. They're best suited for grades of 3% or less.
Since this is probably the first time I've used Camelbacks since Noah was a lad, on account of the default one being so ugly, I just noticed that it has a few minor bugs. Wheels are a bit oval, RHS connecting rod hex needs tweaking, and there a couple of other very minor niggles. I'll whip something up to fix all of that. Since the default files are hidden in some of RT3's massive PK4's, I'll just do the reskin and debug kit as loose files for dropping into UserExtraContent. They have to be loose to override the contents of a default PK4, so that's the sensible option and will save having to repack half the game.
Anyway, with a bit of tweaking the Camelback actually becomes fun to use, so I'm going to be using it.
. . . .
Gumbootz Lokomotivfabrik und Bierkeller
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
I was just looking at the Camelback, cabin not painted in red, and I remember when I was a preteen, there was a loco that moved cotton to and fabric from the textile mill. It’s track was about 90 yards from my house. It looked very much like the camelback. It made a daily run to and from. It also served the farm implement manufacture and fertilizer plant that was within a half mile from my house.
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
these were local yard tracks. The main lines here then were NC&St L, Southern, and L&N railroads. Oh BTW, this was in Huntsville, Alabama in the late mid to late 40s.
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
Cool.
Apart from the Wootton firebox it's just a basic 0-6-0 switcher, and there were stacks of those things running around yards and docks in the late days of steam. Offhand I don't know what the railroads in your area used, but it probably wouldn't be hard to find out if you wanted to.
Apart from the Wootton firebox it's just a basic 0-6-0 switcher, and there were stacks of those things running around yards and docks in the late days of steam. Offhand I don't know what the railroads in your area used, but it probably wouldn't be hard to find out if you wanted to.
Gumbootz Lokomotivfabrik und Bierkeller
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
LMR Samson 0-4-0 - Pennsy H3 Consolidation - Custom double tank cars set
-
RulerofRails
- Dispatcher
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:26 am
Re: Rolling Stock skinning ideas
It looks much nicer now.
Using shunters is a concept that I haven't experimented with mainly because I don't often do multiple stations. I have always viewed short-haul count/revenue to be more of a "cheat" although probably better classified as an exploit. In saying this, there are some exploits I do think are ok to use, like buying/selling shares will game is paused when I get a bonus/buy territory access, cargo stacking. Just have trouble with the notion of hauling a few cells and getting paid for it in a process that can loop endlessly.
With overlapping stations there is the practical risk that this movement may upset industrial production (not really a concern on Riga map), since the station further from the industry can rob its stack of resources repeatedly. This is not really in-line with a low-impact plan to manage resource flows for maximizing industrial production. One could argue that it's good for rail profits, but you may not haul as much of the finished goods. Of course, for high haulage tasks this doesn't matter.
Anyway, IMO your tune ticks the boxes, except that if you really want to limit it to short-hauls you should increase fuel costs which are based on mileage. Should be higher than a freighters. You set the H3 at level 6, so I would suggest using level 7.
Using shunters is a concept that I haven't experimented with mainly because I don't often do multiple stations. I have always viewed short-haul count/revenue to be more of a "cheat" although probably better classified as an exploit. In saying this, there are some exploits I do think are ok to use, like buying/selling shares will game is paused when I get a bonus/buy territory access, cargo stacking. Just have trouble with the notion of hauling a few cells and getting paid for it in a process that can loop endlessly.
With overlapping stations there is the practical risk that this movement may upset industrial production (not really a concern on Riga map), since the station further from the industry can rob its stack of resources repeatedly. This is not really in-line with a low-impact plan to manage resource flows for maximizing industrial production. One could argue that it's good for rail profits, but you may not haul as much of the finished goods. Of course, for high haulage tasks this doesn't matter.
Anyway, IMO your tune ticks the boxes, except that if you really want to limit it to short-hauls you should increase fuel costs which are based on mileage. Should be higher than a freighters. You set the H3 at level 6, so I would suggest using level 7.