Smokebox: Central Pacific Railroad #60 "Jupiter" 4-4-0

[trainboi1]

While I can't speak for Mike, I normally get colors for my models from the best sources available, be they an approximation, photo, Pantone or other sample sheet, or by professional color analysis (in one case). No matter how you slice it, it's a lot of work, and really, in the end you just have to decide what you think looks the best. I would guess that he does more or less the same, depending on his sources.

[mrennie]

I get an idea of the colours mostly from photos and sometimes from videos if they're clear enough. I try to look as many different photos as possible, taken with different cameras in different lighting conditions, sunny days, cloudy days, various seasons, to see what the prevalent colours are, and look at them on the same screen where I'm looking at the model in-game. I stress in-game because it's very, very important to understand that the colours you see in the texture file being edited in Photoshop won't come out the same when they're rendered in-game. In particular, the colours have to be darkened in the source files because TS renders them lighter. Also, the shaders that are used for the materials (that the texture files are part of) can have quite a big impact on the colours. The upshot of it all is that with TS, you can't just take a photo and use it directly to make the texture, without also doing a lot of tweaking of hue, saturation, brightness, contrast, alpha shine, bump mapping (it affects the shading of the colours besides simulating 3D) and comparing the results against that original photo (or photos). The same goes for Pantone references - it's rare for me to even find them in the first place but even when I do, they're of extremely limited use because you can't use them directly as the colours in the texture - the game will render them as something else. As for photos, I use them as references but I generally don't use actual photos to make the textures themselves (sometimes I do, when it gives a better result than painting by hand, but that's often not the case) - I find it's better to create the textures from scratch, using shadow-baking to give depth, painting on highlights when needed, adding more hand-painted shadows when the automatic shadow-baking hasn't done a good enough job of it, and doing more tweaking as I see fit. It takes ages to make good textures, as anyone here who does texturing can tell you.

[mrennie]

I've posted this message on Facebook:

The development of Jupiter is almost finished and now I have an important question to ask.
My intention is to develop a route representing a small portion of the Transcontinental Railroad centred on Promontory, UT, circa 1869. However, that would hold up the release of Jupiter (the loco and accompanying rolling stock) for several more months (I'm guessing it could add around six months to the overall schedule). As a potential customer, which of the following two options do you prefer?
(a) to wait for the route, in order to have somewhere prototypical and era-appropriate to operate Jupiter, or
(b) to have the opportunity to purchase Jupiter sooner, albeit without the route but with a couple of "excursion" scenarios on the modern-day Donner Pass route (of course, you would also be able to Quick Drive on any route you choose).
The more people who respond, the easier it will be for me to come to a decision, so let me thank you in advance for giving this some thought.

So far there's a roughly 50-50 split between A and B.

[evafan002]

I've posted this message on Facebook:

The development of Jupiter is almost finished and now I have an important question to ask.
My intention is to develop a route representing a small portion of the Transcontinental Railroad centred on Promontory, UT, circa 1869. However, that would hold up the release of Jupiter (the loco and accompanying rolling stock) for several more months (I'm guessing it could add around six months to the overall schedule). As a potential customer, which of the following two options do you prefer?
(a) to wait for the route, in order to have somewhere prototypical and era-appropriate to operate Jupiter, or
(b) to have the opportunity to purchase Jupiter sooner, albeit without the route but with a couple of "excursion" scenarios on the modern-day Donner Pass route (of course, you would also be able to Quick Drive on any route you choose).
The more people who respond, the easier it will be for me to come to a decision, so let me thank you in advance for giving this some thought.

So far there's a roughly 50-50 split between A and B.

Seeing as I don't use Facebook i would like to place my vote for option B if only because I am an impatient sort of person and the thought of waiting several more months is almost more than i can stand given how much i am drooling over the screenshots

[CArailroader]

My facebook wasn't letting me post my answer, but I'd like to choose option B, only because I believe there are already several nice routes on which to run these locomotives and cars such as the Cimarron & Pacific, Feather River, RWA Lakeside, Majestic Falls, and the aforementioned Donner Pass especially since the Jupiter and her sisters helped build it.

[Alpenfreight]

Release release!

As much as I would like another vintage route to run it on, I'll be fine running it on my own routes for now and it will make a great little christmas present!

[mrennie]

Thanks chaps!

B is my own preferred option, but I wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a lot of adverse comments about "why release this DLC when there's no period route for it?".

Personally, I love running it anywhere there's nice scenery I just ignore the fact that without air brakes, injectors and a modern safety valve, it wouldn't be allowed on a modern mainline.

[JM1261]

It's all up to you Mike. Personally, I'd be fine running the Jupiter (or one of her sisters) around as one of Dave Kloke's engines on tour.

Edit - Dave, not David Kloke.

[CArailroader]

Thanks chaps!

B is my own preferred option, but I wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a lot of adverse comments about "why release this DLC when there's no period route for it?".

Personally, I love running it anywhere there's nice scenery I just ignore the fact that without air brakes, injectors and a modern safety valve, it wouldn't be allowed on a modern mainline.

Ooh no air brakes, I love it! Stopping with a combination of the throttle and reverser is a tricky thing to get used to, especially at speed. I remember using a 19th century locomotive in another train simulator (ending with the letter z) that was set up in this way. Of course that simulator was not nor will probably ever be up to the level that TSXX is up to.

[mrennie]

Thanks chaps!

B is my own preferred option, but I wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a lot of adverse comments about "why release this DLC when there's no period route for it?".

Personally, I love running it anywhere there's nice scenery I just ignore the fact that without air brakes, injectors and a modern safety valve, it wouldn't be allowed on a modern mainline.

Ooh no air brakes, I love it! Stopping with a combination of the throttle and reverser is a tricky thing to get used to, especially at speed. I remember using a 19th century locomotive in another train simulator (ending with the letter z) that was set up in this way. Of course that simulator was not nor will probably ever be up to the level that TSXX is up to.

It is indeed tricky, especially going downhill

[mrennie]

It's all up to you Mike. Personally, I'd be fine running the Jupiter (or one of her sisters) around as one of David Kloke's engines on tour.

Yep, that's the great thing about a simulator - you can use your imagination. I run 844 anywhere I like. I don't care of she's never been to New York in real life, I still like watching her going over the Devil's Gate bridge.

[trainboi1]

I can associate with both options, but ultimately I think B is a little more apt.

Releasing with a route will probably boost initial sales because people will feel comfortable; however, there are problems with both potential sorts of route.

A "showcase" route suitable to be worked by just four locomotives would not really be satisfying for people who want a route for reasons of accuracy, and while it would serve well for tutorials, most users would probably not run the route often, especially with any other locomotives. Therefore, your time would be wasted to an extent.

A "real" route modeling the CPRR in the 1860s or 1870s would be amazing! But it would also cause some problems with accuracy and use. This time, the problem would be that you'd have a good route, yes, but you'd be trying to represent a two-hundred-strong fleet with only four engines. AI would be impossible, train interaction would be lacking and repetitive, and so the route and sessions would not be very interesting. Of course, that would make it easy for someone like me to pop in with a Stevens 4-6-0 and/or other variations, but that doesn't help you at all. And of course, doing a "real" route would take a LOT longer.

So of course, if a route would either take huge amounts of valuable time and/or be virtually useless, the simple option is not to make one at all.

[mrennie]

I can associate with both options, but ultimately I think B is a little more apt.

Releasing with a route will probably boost initial sales because people will feel comfortable; however, there are problems with both potential sorts of route.

A "showcase" route suitable to be worked by just four locomotives would not really be satisfying for people who want a route for reasons of accuracy, and while it would serve well for tutorials, most users would probably not run the route often, especially with any other locomotives. Therefore, your time would be wasted to an extent.

A "real" route modeling the CPRR in the 1860s or 1870s would be amazing! But it would also cause some problems with accuracy and use. This time, the problem would be that you'd have a good route, yes, but you'd be trying to represent a two-hundred-strong fleet with only four engines. AI would be impossible, train interaction would be lacking and repetitive, and so the route and sessions would not be very interesting. Of course, that would make it easy for someone like me to pop in with a Stevens 4-6-0 and/or other variations, but that doesn't help you at all. And of course, doing a "real" route would take a LOT longer.

So of course, if a route would either take huge amounts of valuable time and/or be virtually useless, the simple option is not to make one at all.

Thanks, that's given me plenty of food for thought. Actually, myself and Brian have had discussions about it recently and the same sort of comments have come up. There's also the problem that the showcase route through Promontory Summit could be a little bit barren, being mostly desert, and would need a lot of unusual scenic assets (wagon trains, Hell On Wheels encampments ...) to spice it up.

I do intend to continue adding more locos and rolling stock to the roster, but of course that will all take time.

[Logan20131]

It's been a while. I don't know if Mike's been working on some Passenger cars.

[BoostedFridge]

It's been a while. I don't know if Mike's been working on some Passenger cars.

He has posted some updates on the Smokebox Facebook page with assets and rolling stock he is working on.