Atomic Systems

gptech wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 8:36 pm

IronBidder wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:50 pm The effect is made worse be the tinting of the wheel which has no shadow to bring out the flange

Why not see if you could improve the texturing?

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... height=677

Nobody said anything about distributing the files. Look at the bit two sections below the one you highlighted.

But yes demanding people dont release repaints is a bit silly and this guy really doesnt help himself sometimes.

Almost forgot...

- she’s a thirsty beast... although Lanvihangel was dispatched without difficulty, steam and water consumption were considerable. You need to watch the boiler water level like a hawk

locomotiveman1994 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:07 pm

marcusboon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:24 pm

locomotiveman1994 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 6:20 pm

STOP RIGHT THERE! THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AND IT WAS A MESS!

I cannot remember the modelling (flanges or otherwise) of the GWR 28xx being discussed previously...

Marcus

No, but there was about the flanges on CW products in general. You may refresh your memory here:
viewtopic.php?f=361&t=149417&hilit=cale ... &start=525

Your summary (IT WAS A MESS) hardly does justice to the discussion you refer to. From the thread I gather opinion was clearly divided.

Marcus

marcusboon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:52 pm Your summary (IT WAS A MESS) hardly does justice to the discussion you refer to. From the thread I gather opinion was clearly divided.

Marcus

Ah, yes, sorry. Didn't know that it's absolutely normal for the creator of the content to completely loose temper. I shall consider this in the future...

locomotiveman1994 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:33 pm absolutely normal for the creator of the content to completely loose temper

..and the other content creator too then?

Very pleased with this loco after regularly checking on its progress from first announcement by DT in 2012 and seeing that others had use of it for some time (i.e. appearing in shots of the 4200 2-8-0T pre release photos - but more importantly hopefully a sim developer will tackle the 2884 windowed cab version. It is amazing how Victorian Lad/Caledonian works can rattle these locos out in little over a fortnight at times. What I would really hope to see though is a 4700 GWR 2-8-0 (I know that 'Theforgesimulation' has one in the pipeworks but I imagine that this will take years before it surfaces. There has been competition between other Railworks/TrainSimulator sim producers in the past for loco classes (DT and Just Trains BR standard classes come to mind) - pity Victory works couldn't have go but they have gone very quiet. - I hope all is well with them. I also wish a speedy recovery now for Kris (Caledonia Works) who seems to be shaking off the worst of the affects of the dreaded Covid19.

Ron

gptech wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:12 am

locomotiveman1994 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:33 pm absolutely normal for the creator of the content to completely loose temper

..and the other content creator too then?

That was a different argument. Not that it's any better, but it had nothing to do with flanges at all.

A different argument?? ...more one born out of the flak over the flanges.

Back to the 2800...

... anyone having trouble with version 1b?

Can’t get it above 0.3mph before it starts to slip. 80% cut-off, 30-40% regulator, sanders on, brakes released (25” on the gauge)

Is there a tender handbrake???

gptech wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:08 pm A different argument?? ...more one born out of the flak over the flanges.

It was a different argument where Peter was involved in. I know it, because I was the one who, although unwillingly, started it!

No, same argument revisited by you, purposefully...

To get back to the topic earlier:
IronBidder, although I don't agree with your tone, I do agree with what you're saying. It's no way of treating (potential) customers like this.

Brings up an interesting topic; is rivet counting justified when you are paying money? Obviously the vast majority of people will be happy with something roughly the shape and sound of a 28xx but at what price point is demanding higher accuracy justified? Surely, if I was (theoretically) paying $30 or $40 for a locomotive pack I would expect things to have undergone scrutiny.

There is nothing set in stone when it comes to payware - no core standard. Pre-armstrong powerhouse, there were probably prices all over the map for quality of vastly differing standards. There are probably instances where you have purchased a payware locomotive, and someone ends up releasing a freeware version of the same content to a better standard and detail/accuracy.

But I'll leave that discussion for someone else some other day.

ronhessar40 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:43 pm Surely, if I was (theoretically) paying $30 or $40 for a locomotive pack I would expect things to have undergone scrutiny.

Who scrutinises the scrutineers?

Age old argument, and if you look close enough you'll find a fault with EVERY asset available for this game.

gptech wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:35 pm No, same argument revisited by you, purposefully...

To get back to the topic earlier:
IronBidder, although I don't agree with your tone, I do agree with what you're saying. It's no way of treating (potential) customers like this.

Gary, you quote me here on what I said in July. The 'flange argument' was in March. That's thee months in between! The second argument started, because I asked why Kris closed its Discord Server, an it turned into an argument about how he treats his, well, followers. He then somehow joined in himself and then started a word fight with Pete. The flanges where not even mentioned once there!