SD75 Released

[NDORFN]

Looking foward to the verdict. I haven't bought anything off RSC in ages. Sounds promising.

[imnew]

I like it ! But hey, Im always glad when RSC releases US content....its rare these days. To echo b737lvr comments from the other thread, the sounds should have been "new" and not from the older sd70 pack.

[BNSF650]

Any NEW HORN video?

[Machinist]

Great engine and I liked the new lighting controls. At my side I'm already tweaking many things: crew (complete and repositioned), steplihgts (softer and glow), Cab light (softer and glow, not more impacting fps), headlights/rearlights (brighter and whiter, not yellowish, and repositioned), adding taillight and marker lights etc... Mod cab (holding more of instruments and gauges) and headout views...

Just in case (missing in the Manual):
Cab light = on (N) off (Shift+N) (same of Blower on Steams)
Instruments light = on (F) off (Shift+F) (same of Firebox on Steams)

[nosloptrianman]

Just as I suspected.
Another release that is "sort of kind of, almost a prototypical reproduction" of the real thing.
FIRST THING I will do is CORRECT the paint.
Makes me wonder why it is so hard to get the painting and lettering even CLOSE to authentic.
I guess it is just to much to EXPECT it to be painted AND lettered like it really is in the REAL world.
Check the photos, I have, and sorry RSC, only sort of kind of close to correct.
Thanks for a good place to START as I will be sending this one back to the PAINT SHED for a DO OVER!!
I am really looking forward to making MY COPY, much, much MORE authentic and true to the real BNSF paint.
Take care everyone!

[Machinist]

... Cab light (softer and glow, not more impacting fps)...

I'm looking forward to this. Especially the cab light being toned down a bit, it kills my FPS

That's a big mistake RSC are doing: casting shadows in cab lights, where there are few possible shadows (from levers? what else?), so isn't worth such sacrifice of the performance due to very few casted shadows in cab. In my machine fps drops 40%, and also this happens, for example, with the firebox of 8F, cablight of Class 76, Class 77, Class 08 and so on. I'm making the cablight softer (toned down, yes) but not only: my cablight won't cast shadows so the fps won't drop! Some pics coming soon...

[thecanadianrail]

It rly sucks that they never included the cn sd75i with the pack. And where r they getting their info from, they said bnsf was the biggest purchaser of the loco? Cn owns most of the 75i's produced.....

[raptorengineer]

i think they will add the CN later.

[g_nash]

It rly sucks that they never included the cn sd75i with the pack. And where r they getting their info from, they said bnsf was the biggest purchaser of the loco? Cn owns most of the 75i's produced.....

It's a history rewrite for facebook

Not to worry , if you do repaints for CN (and the soon to be Fallen Flag) ONT , at least you'll have the correct cab.

.

[thecanadianrail]

True

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Have the springy couplers and bad dynamic braking curves been corrected by now? This is a very powerful loco and these "features" of RSC are seriously detracting from any emulated prototypical usage.

In order to operate any lashup with a substantial train over steep grades like Cajon or Donner passes I still swap Kali's hacked couplers in by copying by hand from the Kuju to the RSC folders. And since each of RSCs locos comes in its own folder -complete with couplers- this has to be done many times instead of RSC using one common US folder.

[thecanadianrail]

Have the bad dynamic braking curves been corrected by now?

i need 100% dynamic to slow down going down hill so i would say yes.

[MikeK]

Have the springy couplers and bad dynamic braking curves been corrected by now? This is a very powerful loco and these "features" of RSC are seriously detracting from any emulated prototypical usage.

In order to operate any lashup with a substantial train over steep grades like Cajon or Donner passes I still swap Kali's hacked couplers in by copying by hand from the Kuju to the RSC folders. And since each of RSCs locos comes in its own folder -complete with couplers- this has to be done many times instead of RSC using one common US folder.

All aboard the fail express!

2012-05-11_00003.jpg

3 weeks ago I stood at the top of Cajon pass and watched a train with 6 ES44s at the head end and 140 cars climbing the pass. This train has 6 SD75Ms and 140 cars.

I am pretty sure an ES44 can pull harder than an SD75, and I don't recall seeing any couplers that had stretched 10 yards.

[eyein12]

All aboard the fail express!

2012-05-11_00003.jpg

3 weeks ago I stood at the top of Cajon pass and watched a train with 6 ES44s at the head end and 140 cars climbing the pass. This train has 6 SD75Ms and 140 cars.

I am pretty sure an ES44 can pull harder than an SD75, and I don't recall seeing any couplers that had stretched 10 yards.

haha thats great! coupler distances can be fixed simply by editing the xpivot and ypivot values in the engine.bin file. you only need to edit the xpivot value to a smaller number probably by 3 it looks like there. I know you probably dont want to do that, and you shouldnt have to, but it happend on my locos the very first time. the guy who did this loco must have been his first time or something.

[_o_OOOO_oo-Kanawha]

Editing the engine bins is of no use. Especially not the pivot points as these lead to derailments.
The actual coupler's bin needs to be hacked.

According to Kali, RSC re-modelled the couplers as springs in TS2012 in their attempt to improve physics and realism. I don't think they exactly took US railroad practice into account.
So one needs to reduce the springyness and limit the maximum length of the spring.

This is what my coupler's bin file looks like when de-serialized:

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<cBlueprintLoader xmlns:d="http://www.kuju.com/TnT/2003/Delta" d:version="1.0">
   <Blueprint>
      <cCouplingTypeBlueprint>
         <UncoupledGeometry d:type="cDeltaString">Kuju\RailSimulatorUS\RailVehicles\Couplings\Buckeye\Type-E\[00]buckeye_type-e_uncoupled</UncoupledGeometry>
         <Bogey d:type="cDeltaString"></Bogey>
         <Strength d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000C06240" d:precision="string">150</Strength>
         <CouplingConnection>
            <cCouplingConnectionBlueprint d:id="77527696">
               <Type d:type="cDeltaString">buckeye</Type>
               <CoupledGeometry d:type="cDeltaString">Kuju\RailSimulatorUS\RailVehicles\Couplings\Buckeye\Type-E\[00]buckeye_type-e_coupled</CoupledGeometry>
               <ReceivingGeometry d:type="cDeltaString"></ReceivingGeometry>
               <PivotType d:type="cDeltaString">eMidPoint</PivotType>
               <MinDistance d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000000000" d:precision="string">0.00</MinDistance>
               <MaxDistance d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="000000A09999B93F" d:precision="string">0.05</MaxDistance>
               <TargetDistance d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="000000A09999A93F" d:precision="string">0.025</TargetDistance>
               <SpringCoefficient d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000708740" d:precision="string">1e+006</SpringCoefficient>
               <Damping d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000C08240" d:precision="string">60000</Damping>
               <MaxForce d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="00000000280F4641" d:precision="string">2.89134e+006</MaxForce>
               <ManualCoupling d:type="bool">0</ManualCoupling>
            </cCouplingConnectionBlueprint>
         </CouplingConnection>
      </cCouplingTypeBlueprint>
   </Blueprint>
</cBlueprintLoader>


These distance values, apparently in centimeters, still allow for some slack and still result in quite pronounced slack action in long trains.
The spring coefficient and damping make the springs much stronger and stiffer, essentially solid. Buckeye couplers are solid compared to the screw link couplings used in the UK.

Here is Kali's original thread: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4040&start=30#p38048