11/12/2022 0 Comments Msts streamlines![]() ![]() If an existing MSTS FA was already there and you wanted to keep it then changing the 0 to 1 would have enabled thatĪs a more ambitious test i have an FA of a WW2 jeep, i have had it so long i have forgotten where it came from but it was ideal for this test in adding 5 instances of it to one wagon Notice the line MSTSFreightAnimEnabled( 0 ) The code used was (please note that i am also experimenting with accessing content which is common to more than one mini route in a folder system oustside of both MSTS and OR hence the ".\\.\\Common.FA/ address, i have most of my UP engines running from the common.Trainset folder i created as they are used in the Sherman Hill, TEHII, Cajon, Siskiyou, Redding and Powder River Mini Routes, but thats another story and saved having the same engines in 6 different lococations and if they need updating only have to do it once and they are usable in all 6 routes,) anyway back to the multiple FA drift OR listens to users' suggestions.Īlthough i have not yet tried this out using an amimated FA, i did decide to try this new feature out with regard to the multiple FA capability, I used the Cat 318C scenery shape found in the Feather River Canyon Route and used the same FA twice on a flat car pic below I likely wasn't the first or only one to make the suggestion, but the idea did get implemented. I was one who suggested the idea of multiple freight animations per model. One of the greatest things about OR is that many suggestions and ideas made right here on this forum often get implemented. I am eternally grateful to the OR Development Team for what they have created. I hope that more repainters will embrace that possibility, though it necessarily would mean that their creation would be unusable in MSTS. With OR, however, the repainter can now use a model with an existing FA, and add another of his/her own. Unfortunately, a lot of those models also lacked things like in-cab details (like seats, one of my pet peeves with their earlier models), sported "Fred Flinstone" wheels, and other shortcomings. With MSTS limitations, most repainters have been forced to use a lot of the earlier Streamlines models because those lacked a freight animation, allowing the repainter to add one. Here is an example: Streamlines has a very liberal repaint policy for its models. The OR developers have solved the main shortcoming of freight animations that was present in MSTS, the inability for the sim to handle more than one freight animation per model. The technique allows a modeler to create something without having to start from scratch. Burgerbern, for example, has made many fine additions to MSTS/OR by using freight animations to modify existing models. Without it, there would be far fewer models for the simming community to enjoy. I disagree that using freight animations to modify a model is a bad idea. Also passenger trains and animated people should have their own coding of some sort. Locomotives and animated crew or coal piles should really have a special coding for their functions apart from the freight animation lines. MSTS I believe had planned to go this route but the coding was never completed and the tenders are the only thing that have something of animation with the coal piles. But that is what I picture when I think of animated freight animation tags. I hate to really use the old Lionel objects for examples because the cartoonish nature of those old toys. Working animations of loading and unloading freight from rail cars. ![]() ![]() If you ever read the email attachments from Turbosquid this wasted poly problem has been mentioned before in the professional arena as well as in this hobby.įor adding parts to locomotives for details one can't get the original mesh then the ability to handle additional lines for such use should be a consideration.Īnyway, Freight Animation tags should be ideally just for that. The Surfliner Route stations are terrible about this if you ever let the camera go through the buildings. If ORTS is better than MSTS there should not be an issue with huge poly shape files.īut, Then again I still see in rollingstock and route objects wasted polys and wasted computer power because of a rush to completion instead of a methodical going over looking for unneeded polys on a model. All of the details and junk should be part of the main shape file and not a secondary shape file. I personally still can't stand and condemn the use of freight anim tags for adding details to locomotives. Evening, I am wondering what the long term plans are for the freight animation tags? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |