Dekosoft BNSF Mainline Power

[lateagain]

A license to use BNSF trademarks may be purchased for $1.

http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,119459,119507

Zak Andersen, Vice President, Corporate Relations
http://www.bnsf.com/media/contact-us/

.....So DTG and Dekosoft are deliberately losing customers for the sake of a BUCK???? I don't think so!

[lateagain]

Hard to say greed if the trademark agreement is only $1......

A buck is a pointless charge as it wouldn't even cover the man hours in responding to the request. In PR terms every model, real or virtual, of their stock is free advertising/promotion for their brand. Why hack folk off with such pettiness?

No, it's not bullying, either. It's their brand. They get to decide who can and can't use it.

The only reason companies register logo's, trademarks and brands is to protect them within the field in which they operate. This was reinforced when UP lost a case against a Calendar Publisher. Their Brand is freely viewable within the public arena. Reproducing it in other media can never be considered a threat to their business unless it is done so in a derogatory manner? You are of course correct that they CAN decide who uses it but to specify that folk they've licensed it to can only use it where they have registered it has no legal basis. One can only construe such a condition as bullying?

It's no different than what the IOC has done on the Olympics trademarks and the UP train set people wanted,

Personally I regard the IOC as beneath contempt as they have turned what was sport into a corporate bun fight between sponsors and others .....but whilst I would go to lengths to REMOVE the Olympic symbol from any model ....I can appreciate that those who do want it might feel aggrieved.

[geepster775]

I need to commission someone to write a computer virus that does nothing but delete the arial font from everyone's computer. Then accuracy might reign once again.

[eric]

Dekosoft BNSF Mainline Power

Let's get back to the real topic now, which is the models. Any more discussion of trademarks in this thread gets the entire post whacked... There are other threads which deal with IP and trademarks. Feel free to add to those.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wwhall]

While I applaud Dekosoft for producing 3D cabs, the latest generation of models contain a fair number of inaccurate details. As an example, the whole lot of the ES44 models do not have the stack area modeled to match the prototypes. While other things might be characterized as nit-picks, that particular inaccurate detail is pretty glaringly obvious. Other payware vendors (DW, Streamlines, Ed's) have gotten that and a lot other details modeled much more accurately.

[crstagg]

While I applaud Dekosoft for producing 3D cabs, the latest generation of models contain a fair number of inaccurate details. As an example, the whole lot of the ES44 models do not have the stack area modeled to match the prototypes. While other things might be characterized as nit-picks, that particular inaccurate detail is pretty glaringly obvious. Other payware vendors (DW, Streamlines, Ed's) have gotten that and a lot other details modeled much more accurately.

Google for "es44ac cab interior Stack area" gets no hits. What do you refer to as "Stack area"?


Is it this? If so what is wrong? Looks the same as this: http://www.railpictures.net/photo/311439/ to me.
BNSF6581cab-o.jpg

And did I miss something; when did DW, Streamlines and Ed come out with 3dCabs?

[baldwin]

I do believe the stack area is where the clag comes out.

[wwhall]

The exhaust stack area is what I was referring to. Overall, the exteriors of the Dekosoft locos are just not up to the same standard as the current offerings from DW, Streamlines, Ed's, etc., in my opinion.

[crstagg]

The exhaust stack area is what I was referring to. Overall, the exteriors of the Dekosoft locos are just not up to the same standard as the current offerings from DW, Streamlines, Ed's, etc., in my opinion.

Oh! So you were talking about the Exterior, but started talking about the cab.

Here are two screenshots of the Exhaust area of 2 ES44DCs. What is right or wrong with them?

Capturex.JPG Capturey.JPG

[wwhall]

Here are two screenshots to compare--a Deskosoft ES44 (left photo), and a DW ES44 (right photo). DW has the details correct.
dekosoft es44.jpg dw csx es44.jpg

[CSRX]

Any screens of the V3.0 rolling stock?

Also, this is $16.00, for the locomotive power, plus additional rolling stock and common files.

Engines alone from DW are $15.99. One penny less. Now of course there is much more detail than that of Dekosoft.

I guess what I am trying to say is. The price shows the work. Kind of like Bachmann products and Pacific West models..


I don't have the Dekosoft set. I'm broke, but I would like to get it. I've always enjoyed Dekosoft's work. To be honest, it appears they are still the only ones to have a proper RDMT unit, that is set up properly (not including the RDMT's I did off the SLI model). DW, MLT, SLI, Ed's Trains, still don't offer that!

[crstagg]

Any screens of the V3.0 rolling stock?

..........!

See all the rotating pictures (not the one at the top of the page) at http://www.dekosoft.com/trains/bnsf-mainline-power/

[crstagg]

[QUOTE=agebhard;1895625]..............
.........................
In Shape Viewer image AC4400_I.ace is shown as missing though it is there. When I rename a copy of CABINT.ACE to AC4400_I.ace then the image is shown.

Creating a consist in Consist Editor does not shown thumbnail images and later caused a crash.
.............................
[QUOTE]

Yes, when viewing an AC4400 shape or ENG file in Shape Viewer you get the AC4400_i.ace file as missing. However, when running the ENG in ORTS, the cab shows correctly and there is no error about the AC4400_i.ace file in the OR Log file.
BUT I found another AC4400_i.ace in the \Trains\Trainset\dekosoft_bnsf_6axle2\Cabview3D folder and when I replace the one in the \Trains\Trainset\dekosoft_bnsf_6axle2 folder with the one from the Cabview3D folder then Shape Viewer does NOT report it missing.
Chip is investigating this.

As stated on the Dekosoft web site "PRO EDITION SETS FOR OPEN RAILS". These models are for ORTS not MSTS. The shapes contain more Kujus than MSTS can process. Yes the MSTS AE Consist Editor cannot be used to create/edit consist with these engines, but all the other consist editors can use them to create/edit consists.

[kknobl]

The exhaust stack area is what I was referring to. Overall, the exteriors of the Dekosoft locos are just not up to the same standard as the current offerings from DW, Streamlines, Ed's, etc., in my opinion.

I agree - the Dekosoft models would have been top notch circa 2004-2005, but don't come close to today's current offerings from other payware vendors.

[lateagain]

I agree - the Dekosoft models would have been top notch circa 2004-2005, but don't come close to today's current offerings from other payware vendors.

Those of us around since the start of MSTS will remember Dekosoft from that era. Can't remember when now but they seemed to lose interest in the Sim and eventually stopped producing anything. I believe the site closed down too? After some considerable break they're back but progress amongst other developers, freeware and payware, has progressed steadily in their absence with improvements like BIN, better hardware etc. making more and more sophisticated models usable in MSTS ....and even more so in OR. Even 3D cabs were done first by BLW (in MSTS) and of course to those dabbling in RW/TS20XX they're used to better graphics in many of these too? Even the added rolling stock, judging from shots on the site, looks rather "model railwayish" and REAL Model Railway stock comes weathered nowadays? ....as does the stock from most MSTS/OR payware producers. Given the many talented freeware Re-Skinners and Modellers for MSTS it's hard to see who the customer base will be? Here in the UK MSTS/OR Payware is almost (if not completely) dead so I hate to see anyone producing stuff not succeed but going head to head with longstanding producers with the same models seems an odd choice?