DTG Class 68

[Klaabu]

have you had permission from Armstrong Powerhouse to distribute the files that you have edited and changed?

Where did I mention I'm planning to share something? I have worked on many soundsets just to make them more realistic and did it because I hate half finished train models with poor sound because developer is thinking sound is not important. So I'm calling Your attention to the fact - I did it for myself - for personal use and the only reason I released this video was to show - it is possible to make soundsets much better, more realistic and more enjoyable. Just take it as an example of improvement.

[deltic009]

First up, let's start with my apology, I got confused and thought you were the other user posting earlier about a patch they had made to address various issues. That's my mistake.

Secondly, I have no issue with anyone undertaking innovative works and projects like this, I do similar things myself mostly in terms of modelling and particles etc, so please don't think I was trying to undermine your efforts in any way. I thought you were the user discussing uploads, hence I wanted to sound a cautionary note before things had got too far - it's rare after a transgression that a Dev will give you any further permission once you've made a faux pas - I was trying to help you avoid that faux pas and make sure everything was all okay before the upload I mistakenly thought you were going to do.

I hope that explanation makes sense and I haven't caused any offence, as none was intended.

[luigi1605]

Hi guys, sorry for the delay but the file is uploading to UKTS now so provided it's accepted it should be up in the next day or two, if I get permission from reskin authors I may update it in the future to support reskins but version 1 only modifies the Scotrail livery.

Regards,
Louis

[smarty2]

I hate being that guy, but as you've not specifically mentioned it and have said about sharing the mods, have you had permission from Armstrong Powerhouse to distribute the files that you have edited and changed?

Forgive me for being stupid but I am missing something here.... If Klaabu has edited the sounds and he decided to share them wouldn't one need those packs installed for the sounds to work properly? I'm not saying he shouldn't seek permission though. (wish he would sounds awesome)!

@Klaabu if you did share couldn't you omit the AP sounds so people would have to have those packs?

[deltic009]

I hate being that guy, but as you've not specifically mentioned it and have said about sharing the mods, have you had permission from Armstrong Powerhouse to distribute the files that you have edited and changed?

Forgive me for being stupid but I am missing something here.... If Klaabu has edited the sounds and he decided to share them wouldn't one need those packs installed for the sounds to work properly? I'm not saying he shouldn't seek permission though. (wish he would sounds awesome)!

@Klaabu if you did share couldn't you omit the AP sounds so people would have to have those packs?

He has made edits of the blueprints and proxyxml files by the sounds of it, and these are a large body of original work from whomever the author is also, and I think that certainly in the case of Armstrong Powerhouse then even distributing modified files isn't permitted - but if you get in contact it can be allowed.

[gptech]

But he's edited the .proxyxml files of the DTG model, NOT those of any AP soundpacks---these only reference further files so sharing them shouldn't be an issue.

[deltic009]

But he's edited the .proxyxml files of the DTG model, NOT those of any AP soundpacks---these only reference further files so sharing them shouldn't be an issue.

The majority of point 8 suggests that configs for AP Soundpack files have been modified.

8. Inner rolling sounds from AP Class 220 Voyager Pro pack, outer rolling and bogie sounds from AP Class 67 pack. Volume and pitch curves completely changed for realism purposes.

[Klaabu]

But he's edited the .proxyxml files of the DTG model, NOT those of any AP soundpacks---these only reference further files so sharing them shouldn't be an issue.

Absolutely right. If You're editing so called reference files only (.proxyxml) there's nothing against EULA - You can share those files for FREE without problems (Yes, Thomson do not allow sharing even reference files now what is not understandable and has been criticised). What You can't share without special permission from developer even for free is .dav files - no matter are they edited or original. In my case some of the original .dav files were edited in sound editor. That's because they just needed editing for different reasons. Some sounds were too silent, some waveform endings require fade out effects to avoid distortion (RW sound module is not the best) and so on. This way I unfortunately excluded chanse to share this edited soundset. In the beginning I just didn't know is it possible to get everything done without touching waveforms. The soundset looked promising and I was even surprised it's done by DTG. There were signs of revolution - at least attempts to get sounds right but the final mixture is unfortunately still letdown. What waveforms needed editing? Entire group of engine exhaust sounds. As You know it's not possible to record exhaust system sounds when engine is shut down so the only way is to filter exhaust sounds out of engine running sounds. DTG soundguy has tried it and the result is not bad at all but volume level seemed not high enough. Wihout raising the volume level it's impossible to get it right so I amplified waveforms. If You open waveform in soundeditor You can see from the first look is it loud enough. The latest soundsets by AP (Enhanced) have the same problems - some sound volume levels are very low and this will affect the final result. For example Class 175 inner cab rolling sounds were left out at all (and outer rolling sounds set to BOTH state) because I think Richard found that recording level was not high enough. For that reason in cab motion sound seems way too silent. DTG's 68 pack lacks in-cab rolling sounds. To use outer bogie rolling sounds is not possible in case of modern stuff like 68. Those modern cabs are so well isolated that inner and outer rolling sounds are totally different. So I had to choose something else and AP Class 220 Pro inner bogie rolling sound was the closest to ideal. Also the original DTG's outer bogie rollling sound was not acceptable so I replaced it with AP Class 67 Pro approapriate sound and made some changes in proxyxml. Maybe in the future I can found better solution to rolling sounds which allow the soundset been' shared but in the current state it's impossible. Exhaust sounds need new solution anyway and there were some cab controller sounds which ones were amplified. So - to make a version of this soundset freely distributable I need good replasements for edited waveforms. Not sure this will happen too soon but You never know. That was my explanation to what and why.

[749006]

Hi guys, sorry for the delay but the file is uploading to UKTS now so provided it's accepted it should be up in the next day or two, if I get permission from reskin authors I may update it in the future to support reskins but version 1 only modifies the Scotrail livery.

Regards,
Louis

Thanks Louis

Peter

[chrisonline]

Re: the braking patch, which I just downloaded and installed. I'm sorry, but I really can't see any difference!

I have always found that releasing the main brake has been difficult - it is slow to react and needs several presses to get any reaction from it. This seems no different. And the power/brake lever seems to behave in exactly the same way, with the same amount of sensitivity

What am I missing? Or should I expect no difference using the HUD?

[luigi1605]

Re: the braking patch, which I just downloaded and installed. I'm sorry, but I really can't see any difference!

I have always found that releasing the main brake has been difficult - it is slow to react and needs several presses to get any reaction from it. This seems no different. And the power/brake lever seems to behave in exactly the same way, with the same amount of sensitivity

What am I missing? Or should I expect no difference using the HUD?

The braking patch isn't intended to be a major overhaul but simply removing the emergency notch from the brake handle and making the operation of it similar to a class 66. Whereby you push the handle to apply the brakes and when you let go it will hold that brake pressure, and you pull the handle to release the brakes again when you let go it will hold that pressure.
The default brake handle rests in the apply notch meaning you have to manually place it back into hold and I personally found the presence of the emergency notch rather infuriating as I always seemed to accidentally apply the emergency brakes unintentionally.

Hope this explains what the patch does

[chrisonline]

Re: the braking patch, which I just downloaded and installed. I'm sorry, but I really can't see any difference!

I have always found that releasing the main brake has been difficult - it is slow to react and needs several presses to get any reaction from it. This seems no different. And the power/brake lever seems to behave in exactly the same way, with the same amount of sensitivity

What am I missing? Or should I expect no difference using the HUD?

The braking patch isn't intended to be a major overhaul but simply removing the emergency notch from the brake handle and making the operation of it similar to a class 66. Whereby you push the handle to apply the brakes and when you let go it will hold that brake pressure, and you pull the handle to release the brakes again when you let go it will hold that pressure.
The default brake handle rests in the apply notch meaning you have to manually place it back into hold and I personally found the presence of the emergency notch rather infuriating as I always seemed to accidentally apply the emergency brakes unintentionally.

Hope this explains what the patch does

Got it! Thanks, my fault for not reading it properly