US Set Development Thread

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 01 Apr 2004 00:09

I would think that they don't build wimpy little locos anymore, because trains are longer and heavier nowadays. I haven't been around a railyard in a long time though, has anybody seen what they're using now? I think they just use the mainline engines, the loco does its own shunting and then hauls off with its train.

DanMacK · Post by **DanMacK** » 01 Apr 2004 00:55

Actually, switchers now are the road engines of the past. Most end-cab switchers have gone by the wayside. Rebuilt GP9's and GP38-2's perform switching duties for most railroads. EMD has a GP15D and GP20D Specs for these 2 little gems are here. We can either use the GP15D or GP20D. Your choice. mnorman is right though, we need a smaller loco for later branchline duty. Another shot of a GP15D is here Another view is here

Attached below is a heavy-duty Well style flat and a "Missabe" style ore car. I'll also do it loaded with grey to simulate taconite pellets. Taconite is a low-grade ore mixed with clay and pelletized. I'd suggest switching the normal iron ore load to it after about 1970-1975.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 01 Apr 2004 01:27

Very nice, I've added them.

Any new locos yet?

I don't want to add a late-model weak diesel, I don't think we need one, but as with most things, if someone draws it I'll put it in. Let's finish what we have first if we can....

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 01 Apr 2004 02:11

Couldn't help but notice, the proportions of the UP turbine in the pic on the last page look very similar to this:

uzurpator · Post by **uzurpator** » 01 Apr 2004 02:32

your point being?

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 01 Apr 2004 02:45

That TTD uses a toy-like scale. There's nothing wrong with that, the Big Blow looks great, and I am eager to see the rest of its views.

uzurpator · Post by **uzurpator** » 01 Apr 2004 02:52

And the minuscule fact that toys for kids above 5 years of age quite ofthen use proper (ie - not disfigured) scale escaped you huh?

Anyhoo - the inevitable in the process of reducing that some detail will be lost or overstreached - this is so called error of discretisation. And it is still not an excuse for using disfigured and bogus proportions between the locomotives (where these proportions would be possible to achieve with small amount of work).

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 01 Apr 2004 02:55

The question is, as it has always been, what will the result be like. It seems that we have achieved a compromise, let us finish the set with all speed so we can release the darn thing. I'm dying to actually play with it, not just stare at it.

alphanumeric · Post by **alphanumeric** » 01 Apr 2004 06:08

wow you guys got A LOT drawn today! great jobs, keep it up

uzurpator · Post by **uzurpator** » 01 Apr 2004 13:39

It seems that we have achieved a compromise

We didn't. Unless you consider me nobody who is jut here to draw whatever is required of him. I still cannot understand why all of you settle for medicority but it is your decision.

Frankly - i lost any motivation to drawn anything for this set, what for - whet tne landmarks of it are drawn erroreusly...

DanMacK · Post by **DanMacK** » 01 Apr 2004 14:13

uzurpator wrote:
It seems that we have achieved a compromise
We didn't. Unless you consider me nobody who is jut here to draw whatever is required of him. I still cannot understand why all of you settle for medicority but it is your decision.

Frankly - i lost any motivation to drawn anything for this set, what for - whet tne landmarks of it are drawn erroreusly...

uzurpator,

For one thing, you sure as hell ain't a nobody. For another thing, I for one agree with you that some things are out of scale. However, the fact remains that if we want to double-head anything in this set, it needs to be squashed into 32 pixels.

I'd be willing to sacrifice double-heading the GG1 for a longer one, but then that throws other things out pf proportion as you pointed out. Sometimes we need to compromise, and yes, the Big Boy and several other locos look too big, and some look too small. All we need to do at this point is get a pre-release done so people can play it, give reviews on it, and let us know how to make it better.

Being an artist in this set, it ticks me off there's some things I can't do the way I want, but a very long engine looks almost as odd going around a corner as a 2 or 3 piece engine. Since the 3-piece Big Boy and AC6 are already coded in, let's see how the set turn out. Remember, we're doing this for us, but we're also doing it for the community. 90% of the TTD community won't give a damn if the Big Boy's 24 feet too long. I know we will (I wish there was something I could do about my SD40-2 for instance)

We can always modify things later, nothing's set in stone. Hell, if we put out a pre-release and we need to redraw everything to scale because of a new development in the patch...we redraw it. Let's just get the gaps in the drawings filled in, then we can all take a break (Well, except me).

I want to play this set myself, look at it as a railroad buff and see what needs improving. I'll say right now some of what's going to be in the pre-release will definitely be modified, that's a given. The other thing is, we're trying to add trains the original TTD wasn't designed for. In TTD, a Pannier Tank 0-6-0 is the same length as an A4 Pacific. We're adding locos that, scalewise, are over twice that long. Some comprimises need to be made, whether it's squashing a loco into 32 pixels or lengthening it a bit to bend around a corner. No other country has had locomotives as large as the USA. No other country has had the variety of locomotives that have been in the USA. Thing is, we need to work somewhat within the game's boundaries =>for the moment.

You've contributed some excellent stuff to this set, and I'm looking forward to the rest. That Turbine alone is a gorgeous drawing in itself. Let's stop arguing about scale for the moment, it's relavant, yes, but there are lots of people that want to get a version of this out.

Make sense?<<Back to drawing>>

Oracle · Post by **Oracle** » 01 Apr 2004 15:41

uzurpator wrote:
It seems that we have achieved a compromise
We didn't. Unless you consider me nobody who is jut here to draw whatever is required of him. I still cannot understand why all of you settle for medicority but it is your decision.

Frankly - i lost any motivation to drawn anything for this set, what for - whet tne landmarks of it are drawn erroreusly...

Uzurpator, you have a fair and valid point with what you've been saying. To be honest, I'm not too bothered, although I do have some opinion on the subject.
I will let you respond to DanMack first and then I will say what I have in mind if it is appropriate, but I will code whatever I get and I am perfectly happy to implement a shorter AC6 or longer GG1 or whatever. It just might take a little longer.
I hope you're not losing interest in this set: it will be great and you are one of the first people I would/will turn to ask for several things seeing as you've made the Tropicset yourself.
DanMack has said some very wise words so I'll let you respond to those first...

DanMacK · Post by **DanMacK** » 01 Apr 2004 15:46

Oracle =>Question, for double-heading diagonally, will the below edit be too long? (sorry uzurpator =>I lengthened your AC4400

)

Oracle · Post by **Oracle** » 01 Apr 2004 15:47

DanMacK wrote:Oracle =>Question, for double-heading diagonally, will the below edit be too long? (sorry uzurpator =>I lengthened your AC4400 )

AFAIK, the current AC4400 is the maximum length, so it will be too long, yes.

DanMacK · Post by **DanMacK** » 01 Apr 2004 15:49

Here's my latest contributions =>The Doodlebug and the SW1500. The switcher is in basic grey with a company colour stripe. A LOT of railroads had a generic "switcher black scheme", so I think that's acceptable. The Doodlebug can just pull uzurpator's Heavyweights if peeps want a trailer.

DanMacK · Post by **DanMacK** » 01 Apr 2004 15:51

Oracle wrote:
DanMacK wrote:Oracle =>Question, for double-heading diagonally, will the below edit be too long? (sorry uzurpator =>I lengthened your AC4400 )
AFAIK, the current AC4400 is the maximum length, so it will be too long, yes.

OK...hmmmmm. We need longer sprites...lol!

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 01 Apr 2004 16:35

Table updated. There's a completely new trains stats table, which doesn't include all the detail; Oracle, you'll need the Excel file for encoding, either grab the most recent posted one above or PM me for the most recent version when you need it. Anyone else that wants to look-over the stats, feel free to make comments on it.

DanMacK · Post by **DanMacK** » 01 Apr 2004 17:45

Uzurpator's comments got me thinking. Looking at my Challenger I noticed that my CHallenger looked too big. I've shunk it a bit so it's still a 2-part loco, but not as huge. Also, it uses the same tender as the previous Challenger.

mnorman =>the E's and F's look sweet, so does the BB, but I'm afraid it may be TOO big. If you can go with that look, but with the previous size (I'd suggest as long as I previously had my Challenger) Also, as I said, feel free to use my Tender if you'd like.

We need to keep the locos somewhat in proportion to each other if we can.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 01 Apr 2004 17:58

Table updated, including this latest short Challenger, but keeping the old tender.

Born Acorn · Post by **Born Acorn** » 02 Apr 2004 15:35

Im halfway through drawing things. I want to post em all at the same time!

Transport Tycoon Forums

US Set Development Thread

Who is online