Atomic Systems

Things are moving quite smoothly although I should add it would be me, independent, releasing this rather than VP.

That means with my limited expertise the cab and script would be very limited, basically aliasing the RSC 86. However I have got custom blower sounds and other primary sounds to make it stand out in that regard, at least. I’m not based in the UK though, and cannot get custom cab control “clicking” sounds from Barrow Hill sadly.

On the visual front script-wise, there are user changeable headcodes but nothing else.

I did read here that a small fingerful of people would be interested in buying it even without a cab, but I’m not sure if it’s worth it considering the response to a custom-cabless, scenario-less DLC I got on other social groups with TS users. Maybe someone else can make a scenario pack and sell it on their website or something but that’s not something I can squeeze in my available time or bag of tricks.

What I can say, however, is that I’ll aim to get the exterior to AP-quality visuals and texturing. Interior, I hope TS users can forgive me and cut me some slack considering the 85 has quite possibly the *most* identical cab to the 86, moreso than the 87 (those windows ).

Spending some time in the TS community while dev’ing this loco has really shown me that for locos and rolling stock, there is quite a Hybar . Whether I make that jump successfully can only be told after I am in the finishing stages of the loco, but I can safely say I’m not going to exceed above and beyond that bar a la Armstrong Powerhouse for this first release of mine.


On another note, are there any 1960s south WCML project developing? That is what I’d call my primary, and really only, time period and region of real interest. Sky blue electrics, red Coronations, sooty 8Fs, shiny Britannias, streamlined green-striped 304s, green 40s, maybe even a Woodhead electric cameo… if any BR route had the potential to have crazily diverse scenarios without switching the era/scenery, it would certainly be this line.

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:40 am I’ll aim to get the exterior to AP-quality visuals and texturing

Just aim for DTG quality....95% of reskins use DTG textures as a base so don't make life more difficult than it has to be. All you need is to be in the same ball park as the existing default 86.

Great to hear it's progressing well!

Looking forward to seeing it at work.

As for a 60's WCML, unfortunately I don't think so. Closest I've seen is "South Lancashire & North Cheshire" which has bits of the WCML in a 70's/80's blue period.

gptech wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:05 am

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:40 am I’ll aim to get the exterior to AP-quality visuals and texturing

Just aim for DTG quality....95% of reskins use DTG textures as a base so don't make life more difficult than it has to be. All you need is to be in the same ball park as the existing default 86.

On the scripting front, I might not even be able to hit that mark. But on the visuals I already have meshwork and texturing that is above what DTG can offer. Hopefully it balances out and doesn’t bring a lot of griping people!

xguerra wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:57 am Great to hear it's progressing well!

Looking forward to seeing it at work.

As for a 60's WCML, unfortunately I don't think so. Closest I've seen is "South Lancashire & North Cheshire" which has bits of the WCML in a 70's/80's blue period.

Is it a matter of “stock doesn’t exist so there’s no point in a route” ? As in, if I make some stock for the route era would it help persuade someone to make the route? Mostly what might be needed are a couple early AC electrics, an EMU or two, and an existing Class 40/MK1s. Maybe some P3 Stanier coaches to really drill it home .

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 4:33 pm

xguerra wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:57 am Great to hear it's progressing well!

Looking forward to seeing it at work.

As for a 60's WCML, unfortunately I don't think so. Closest I've seen is "South Lancashire & North Cheshire" which has bits of the WCML in a 70's/80's blue period.

Is it a matter of “stock doesn’t exist so there’s no point in a route” ? As in, if I make some stock for the route era would it help persuade someone to make the route? Mostly what might be needed are a couple early AC electrics, an EMU or two, and an existing Class 40/MK1s. Maybe some P3 Stanier coaches to really drill it home .

I don't think it's too much a shortage of stock (as in apart from all the AL1-5s - "yet", and the AM10 / Class 310, everything else can be covered) but more the effort it would take to either backdate the existing WCML to that time or build again from scratch.
But never say never, if the stock was there, someone might be persuaded to take it on.

xguerra wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 7:57 pm

The age old paradox - no content because of no route, oe no route because no content?

Could be both. If Matt from VP didn’t issue the headcode variants of the AP 86 pack I don’t think they would have been covered yet still! Don’t forget the paramount 304 EMUs and some DMUs that I forget the classes of. If we are looking at an mid-60s to early 70s route though, the roarers are a staple and have been missing. Type 2 diesels (Sulzers mostly) are also a missing loco, at least to a modern standard of detail. I believe there is a good selection of BR Standards that would cover that portion of the late steam traction. If someone is interested I could try my hand at an MK1 OHLE pack that is far better (performance, texture wise) than the MK3 pack by ATS.

Most people in TS seem to be heavily invested in 80s operation onwards. Either that, or a steam-era niche. No inbetween!

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:47 pm to a modern standard of detail

Who defines the *standard* ?

gptech wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:36 pm

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 9:47 pm to a modern standard of detail

Who defines the *standard* ?

Not really a matter of who, but moreso a matter of “what”.

Basically whatever new rolling stock is for sale and is selling, and received, well. Payware creators (for example let’s assume, myself) should try and hit this mark as close as possible to prolong TS’ and its content’s “shelf life” so to speak. Anything that helps pushes the game and its content forward - which is why I feel like if I release my Class 85 aliasing the RSC cab, I would get no sales. It isn’t 2011 (12?) anymore, a time when (deleted user) got away with the same thing on their payware 82 I think, without facing much criticism.

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:40 am if I release my Class 85 aliasing the RSC cab, I would get no sales.

Didn't stop AP's sound packs selling.

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:40 am when (deleted user) got away with the same thing on their payware 82 I think, without facing much criticism.

Noting particularly wrong there; the cab wasn't distributed with the 82, users had to have the RSC 86 so there was no impinging on IP rights. Just like AP's sound packs that alias RSC/DTG models.

gptech wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:58 am

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:40 am if I release my Class 85 aliasing the RSC cab, I would get no sales.

Didn't stop AP's sound packs selling.

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:40 am when (deleted user) got away with the same thing on their payware 82 I think, without facing much criticism.

Noting particularly wrong there; the cab wasn't distributed with the 82, users had to have the RSC 86 so there was no impinging on IP rights. Just like AP's sound packs that alias RSC/DTG models.

The emphasis on AP’s sound packs is the meticulously recorded and accurately matched sounds, rather than the loco itself. You’re paying for the sounds there.

With a loco, seems like users have been accustomed to getting a cab with a payware DLC. Even if I price my loco at “half” of what cab-inclusive packs are sold at.

I’m not worried about the legality since, as you say, I’m not copying files; rather, pointing to them.

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:50 pm meticulously recorded and accurately matched sounds, rather than the loco itself. You’re paying for the sounds there.

Yes, but if the RSC/DTG/Whoever cab was *terrible* nobody would want to drive it, hence no sales of any sound pack. On the whole people are happy with the cabs DTG release; sure, some may crave a few more buttons to press, switches to flick etc but there are few complaints about the standard of the modelling.

Progress is being made, if slowly.

I have run into an issue where I can hear cab sounds from nearby locos when in the cab of my loco. For example the sounds from a close-by AP class 40 from the cab of my own locomotive. Or, the transformer hum of the RSC 86 from the cab of the 40, when in proximity.

Is this meant to happen?

Other than the AP 40, which other loco's can you hear? Is your 86 AP enhanced or default RSC sounds?

Have you included a "Cab Occlusion" in the blueprint?