What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Fire up your 3D modelling tool and start building some rolling stock, or find out what others are previewing here. If you have questions about how to make the blueprints work or what names mean what in models, here's the place to find out your answers.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
sdark2
Established Forum Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by sdark2 »

Kariban wrote:I did actually work out how to do a bi-mode 73, but it's a monumental hack - best wait to see if we get game support for that. The 87 is well in progress. A 92 would be an interesting project indeed.

Waterloo I can't see happening, or actually Clapham appears to be not possible :P Weymouth to somewhere would be fun though ( and we need a TC if we're getting a 33 ). Mk4 + DVT are in progress too and I'm gonna badger Tankski until he finishes the Mk3 one :p
Interesting note on the 73 hack... I might reconsider this as an additional project if no-one else is working on it by the time I finish APT-P. Hopefully the multiple power option will be added as a feature at some point (wouldn't the 373 require this too, being dual voltage supply from 3rd rail and overhead? (Another feature I just thought of is pantograph height adjustment, which I'm guessing could already be handled via script, and proper simulation of neutral sections).

If we can't have Waterloo or Clapham (is there a reason behind this?), then it would make sense to have Weymouth to Woking - as a kind of extension to the Portsmouth Direct Line.

Oooh, Ruth has just reminded me, add to my list all 44 Mk1 Pullman coaches.

Kr, Steve
Kariban
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 4478
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:10 am

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Kariban »

Nah, there's no difference between a 3rd-rail and an overhead; go put some of your 3rd-rail stock on wcml. Lacking a big 3rd-rail route atm I tend to use that for testing!

I've thought of panto height too, and you could just attach the panto to your own control & script the animation. The problem comes with detecting the wire height, which you can't do. Real neutral sections are a no-no, they confuse the AI; I guess you could put a signal down to add them as a new type of signal block so the AI just ignores them.

I don't know why Clapham doesn't work, I just trust the routebuilder who tried it & told me :P
My posts are my opinion, and should be read as such.
User avatar
crumplezone
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 2276
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:53 pm

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by crumplezone »

I believe Clapham is due sheer to the amount of cross overs and points and the daunting task of getting that all correct has left many route builders rocking in the corner hugging there knees to the chest and I believe the dispatcher wouldn't be able to handle it, so prototypical operations would be out the window. I also would consider the possiblity of performance drop being another factor, so maybe Clapham will have to be done after the code overhaul due sometime this year, but here is hoping in the long run.

I second the DVT set, we really could do with one being made by now, with the addition of the class 90 now available for railworks use it feels sorely missed at the end of the train and its been somewhat overdue as a item of stock for UK mainline in my opinion.
User avatar
Tankski
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:08 pm
Location: Ipswich, Suffolk
Contact:

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Tankski »

crumplezone wrote: I second the DVT set, we really could do with one being made by now, with the addition of the class 90 now available for railworks use it feels sorely missed at the end of the train and its been somewhat overdue as a item of stock for UK mainline in my opinion.
Cuh, fine! I guess I'll finish mine at some point :lol:. It really was giving me a migrane with some of the shapes involved. :(
Image
User avatar
crumplezone
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 2276
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:53 pm

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by crumplezone »

Tankski wrote:
crumplezone wrote: I second the DVT set, we really could do with one being made by now, with the addition of the class 90 now available for railworks use it feels sorely missed at the end of the train and its been somewhat overdue as a item of stock for UK mainline in my opinion.
Cuh, fine! I guess I'll finish mine at some point :lol:. It really was giving me a migrane with some of the shapes involved. :(
Ah but the weird angles and shapes are all the fun! Plus your working on the 87 so it shouldn't be to much harder ;) I kid, I know the shapes are akward with the nose and rounded edges, possible could have a look at railnation's 90 since he included the model files, not saying you need help mind, more to see if he's done anything special with the 90s nose and stuff, since its similar shaping. But of course it could be down to just the DVTs shape being a swine to do anyway.

I can't recall though, were you just working on the DVT or a full set with powered unit at the front to? I mean, you could always do just the DVT, I know I'm gonna have people screaming bloody murder at me for suggesting, but we do have locomotive units now which can pull a consist with a DVT on the end which are prototypical to there operation stomping grounds, but I also know a 91 is wanted with the DVT.
Kariban
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 4478
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:10 am

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Kariban »

There is a full IC225 set in progress in at least three forums here, he just started at the DVT end. There isn't really such a thing as a Mk3 DVT "set". It's a Mk3 DVT, some coaches, and some sort of power unit :p
My posts are my opinion, and should be read as such.
User avatar
sdark2
Established Forum Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by sdark2 »

Kariban wrote:Nah, there's no difference between a 3rd-rail and an overhead; go put some of your 3rd-rail stock on wcml. Lacking a big 3rd-rail route atm I tend to use that for testing!

I've thought of panto height too, and you could just attach the panto to your own control & script the animation. The problem comes with detecting the wire height, which you can't do. Real neutral sections are a no-no, they confuse the AI; I guess you could put a signal down to add them as a new type of signal block so the AI just ignores them.

I don't know why Clapham doesn't work, I just trust the routebuilder who tried it & told me :P
I see, well I'm guessing that should need looking at, just not prototypical enough for me... 3rd rail stock shouldn't run on a line that doesn't actually have a 3rd rail :P

Re the panto height, I wasn't thinking along the lines of having the train detect the height, more a case of being able to set it in the cab of the 373 (it needs to be done a couple of times on the run from Paris, on entry to the LGV Nord and either side of the chunnel). Scenario creators could then, possibly, use a trigger to throw an error if the panto isn't at the right height. I'm guessing the power can be cut via script?

Shame about the neutral sections, I was kinda hoping these would come in when the WCML was released.
crumplezone wrote:I believe Clapham is due sheer to the amount of cross overs and points and the daunting task of getting that all correct has left many route builders rocking in the corner hugging there knees to the chest and I believe the dispatcher wouldn't be able to handle it, so prototypical operations would be out the window. I also would consider the possiblity of performance drop being another factor, so maybe Clapham will have to be done after the code overhaul due sometime this year, but here is hoping in the long run.

I second the DVT set, we really could do with one being made by now, with the addition of the class 90 now available for railworks use it feels sorely missed at the end of the train and its been somewhat overdue as a item of stock for UK mainline in my opinion.
I'm thinking the Clapham problem may also be down to path control logic (removing the human element from the equation for the moment) - I'm assuming RW uses some form of point-to-point co-ordinates system which the ai uses to plot a route. If that is the case, wouldn't it require that junctions need some form of configurable logic applying to them in the same way that signals have? Points control the flow of traffic in pretty much the same way, albeit in a non-stop and go kind of way. Bringing back the human element, I can see why it would be a difficult junction to create prototypically but for those that have the determination and the will power to create it, then I really do hope the software evolves to a point where it is possible. After all, it is probably one of the most famous junctions in the country (and possibly further afield too).

As for the issue on performance, this has often been a really big bone of contention with me. I have a Quad-SLi PC and Solid State HDDs (at least the drive I have steam and Railworks installed is). Despite all that horse power, I still get noticeable performance issues, such as 100% GPU Load when just sitting at the menu screen (go figure... I'm guessing that the graphics engine is purely 3D based and there's yet to be an implementation of a proper 2D engine - which, if one was implemented, could ease the load when handling things like the UI and make things run so much smoother). If I can drive a route at 100FPS without the machine breaking so much as a sweat, then the menu screen shouldn't cause it a problem (one thing that does annoy the hell out of me though, if I may digress for a moment, is the repeated damned graphic driver crashes, sometimes every 60 seconds - nothing to do with my hardware, or RW for that matter, but more a case of a fight between nVidia and Microsoft and their implementation of 64bit drivers in windows... never have this problem with any other game but for some reason RW just brings it out). I also get that annoying (but endurable) caching judder as the software loads in the next section of the route... having solid state drives has eased it somewhat over SATAII but still it's there. And there's so many other issues I have with performance that I could sit here and go on all night about!

However, with all that said, I know all too well how difficult it can be to optimise code to run smoother and more efficiently on a diverse array of configurations without the danger of adding yet more bulk to the application and greater overhead. I'm confident that one day, if the software hasn't improved, the hardware will have to a point where things run just like they should (course, by then, we'll all have a holodeck and be able to drive for real! :D I'm betting the number of SPADs will drop considerably hehe)

Re the DVT, I think this was well missed when they brought out the 86 (they did have them on those didn't they?). As ingenious as the 86 is, in terms of its control and simulation (which I'm betting took some effort), I was kinda hoping there'd be a DVT as a new add-on soon thereafter. Much to my dismay, it didn't happen. I'm sure these will need some ingenious scripting to have them operate as they should with being a kind of a hybrid between a coach and a loco without an engine. Just as I've written that, I had a thought... (uh oh) I'll have to implement a similar script for the APT-P (wonder if the 390 handles it the same way), with both driving units being controllable but not powered... hmmm
Tankski wrote:Cuh, fine! I guess I'll finish mine at some point :lol:. It really was giving me a migrane with some of the shapes involved. :(
Lol I hear you, imagine how I feel with APT-P's nose and those damned cab windows! Really difficult to get it right, I must have re-constructed the nose some 50 times by now. No matter how many times I do it and I'm happy with it, when I go back to it, something never seems right. I keep saying "Right, that's it, you're staying as you are. If anyone objects, just blame someone else or say it's artistic expression - similar to picasso".

I have to say though, I was quite well versed with 3DSM to start with but after the repeated processes, I'm at the stage now where I can complete a nose in around 30 mins. Now if I can manage to leave the nose as is and not touch it anymore, I'll have the whole thing finished by tea time tomorrow (yeah right :P) If you ever need a hand with anything David, just gimme a shout via pm. I'm far from an expert but I know my way around Max well enough to do pretty much anything I need to.

Anyhoo, sorry for the war and peace but, when two or three lines just won't do the job, what else can one do... as my gran used to say "don't keep it to yourself, make sure everyone's sick of hearing it" :P

Before I sign off (yes I can hear your cheers from here :P) I have to ask, is there anyone out there that actually thinks the new Class 70 looks good?! If there is, they definitely need to go to a very well known shop that sells eyesight improving devices... lol

Oh and one final (I think) addition to my list... where's the 59!

Kr, Steve
User avatar
sdark2
Established Forum Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by sdark2 »

Kariban wrote:There is a full IC225 set in progress in at least three forums here, he just started at the DVT end. There isn't really such a thing as a Mk3 DVT "set". It's a Mk3 DVT, some coaches, and some sort of power unit :p
I'm definitely looking forward to that, hopefully someone will do the ECML if it's not "too complicated" for RW and the ai.

Re the 90, someone should get in touch with the chaps at Railwaves.co.uk, I bought their 90 for Trainz a while back... it's nowhere near Oovee's standard, probably not even RW basic standard, but it's quite a head start. I'll still hold out for Oovee's version though (if they're continuing with it), they are IMHO the clear leaders by far in RW Content Creation. That 156 of theirs is absolutely outstanding! If only they created all the content for RW lol... ooooh!

Kr, Steve
Kariban
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 4478
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:10 am

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Kariban »

Hm, ok, I'm not quoting all that :P. Re: 59, well it uses the 66 bodyshell ( or the 66 uses the 59 technically ), not sure if there's any noticeable detail differences. If there aren't then it's just a case of tweaking the physics for lower speed & more TE, and stealing someone's SD40 soundset. One day I might have time...

DVT Physics; RSPaul mentioned ( indurectly ) multiple simulation models running in the big update ( that almost needs an acronym by now ) which in one stroke clears up any problems with DVTs ( and yes APT powercars ). Can't comment on performance ( also in the TBI ) or the dispatcher ( pass ). The 390 is ALL engines which - I think I said this before once - won't work for your APT because you have variable length sets. The way to do your APT at present would be to power the driving cars; they don't have to sound like it, you can throw the sound from the powercars still. DVTs didn't arrive with the 86 or even the 87, I don't think it was until the E-G shuttle trains started using one that anyone thought it was a good idea. Making one work with random engines with current physics is a real... issue. Doable with a set of intelligent power units which also need rescripting themselves - I worked out a solution involving the engine passing a cubic equation to the DVT, fun fun - but really not a small job. 67s are very different things to drive than 87s!
My posts are my opinion, and should be read as such.
User avatar
absufc2
Getting the hang of things now
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by absufc2 »

I'd love to see a Class 185 appear in Railworks, the 1st DMU desiro. It looks good, sounds excellent and would fit in well on Railworks.
Regards, Ash
Dreaming of a Class 185 and Sheffield in Railworks
Image
User avatar
Jimmerz
Well Established Forum Member
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 12:53 pm
Location: South West England
Contact:

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Jimmerz »

Kariban wrote:Hm, ok, I'm not quoting all that :P. Re: 59, well it uses the 66 bodyshell ( or the 66 uses the 59 technically ), not sure if there's any noticeable detail differences. If there aren't then it's just a case of tweaking the physics for lower speed & more TE, and stealing someone's SD40 soundset. One day I might have time...
There are a few if you look closely, firstly the bogies are completely different, no toplight on the 59 with the 59/1 having a different light again, see here, http://www.flickr.com/photos/southweste ... hotostream

59's also have shorter fuel tanks and a differnt underframe from a 66. The cab is also a different shape and also without the Electro-Motive Computer system that a class 66 has.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/southweste ... 829959053/


HTH,

James :turn-l:
If you have time, please visit my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/southwesternrailways/
Kariban
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 4478
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:10 am

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Kariban »

Yeah, the cab was a UK design for familiarity iirc. Well, bogies are an issue I guess.
My posts are my opinion, and should be read as such.
User avatar
Jimmerz
Well Established Forum Member
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 12:53 pm
Location: South West England
Contact:

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Jimmerz »

Could the lights and bells be made as child objects though?

All The Best,
James :turn-l:
If you have time, please visit my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/southwesternrailways/
Kariban
Very Active Forum Member
Posts: 4478
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:10 am

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by Kariban »

Sure, but the problem would be removing the 66-type light clusters; not so much of a problem for a 59/1, but it kinda scuppers the originals. There's a light above the windscreens in the way too.

Mebbe if someone would like to do a new 66 they could do the 59 also, could probably stand having a new higher detail model.
My posts are my opinion, and should be read as such.
citytrader
Getting the hang of things now
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: What UK rolling stock would you prefer to see in RailWorks?

Post by citytrader »

hi guys,i want a railgrinder and a tamper for my scenarios,if someone knows something could you help me please.does anybody biuld these for railworks?
Locked

Return to “[RW] Building Rolling Stock”