Imminent Release - and Thanks

[rfranzosa]

At long last, the BLW/ZT Conn River Freight set will be released, most likely this week! I am finishing the fixes to problems reported by beta testers over the next day or so.

Chris, Max, Gaetan and I have worked to produce a set that accurately depicts the freight traffic on the Conn River as it would have appeared in 1956.

The freight cars in the Connecticut River set represent an appropriately balanced fleet for 1956. Chris made a list every freight car seen in photos, videos, waybills, switch lists and observations on the line from the era, totaling more than 500 cars. That's a large enough scientific sample size from which a statistically accurate fleet can be generated, both car types and road names. The cars chosen for this set to represent this fleet are all drawn from photos of cars found on the Conn River line.

In 1956 the national fleet was distributed in roughly the same balance across the country except for home road cars (and to a lesser extent cars of immediate connections), which means the cars in this set are suitable for many period routes. The Conn River fleet differed from the average in having notably less hopper cars (which were 1/3 of the national fleet at that time), quite a bit more Canadian cars (reflecting the line's role as a Canadian connection) and of course the home road cars wouldn't usually be from B&M.

Boxcars in this set are a mix of steel (predominantly) and wood (thanks to the inclusion of some fine models from Tim Muir), reflecting the era. Variation was considerable in 1956, and the set reflects that, including different roof heights, rebuilt boxcars, different roof and end styles and a large representation of the Canadian fleet. Refrigerator cars for both meat and produce are also a mix of steel and wood. Hopper cars, also with a variation of types, represent both anthracite and bituminous coal traffic. Boston & Maine home-road cars include include appropriate car types representing their signature XM-1 wood outside braced boxcar (very frequently used for Less than carload shipments to freight houses), steel 40' boxcars, hoppers, gondolas and a flatcar.

The set also includes several varieties of unique cabooses (vans) from B&M, CV, CP and Rutland.

Motive power includes appropriate EMD and Alco power from railroads that traversed the Conn River:

B&M - EMD FT, F2, F7, GP7, BL2, Alco RS2, RS3, S1, S4
CN - EMD F3*
CP - Alco FA1, FPA2
CV - Alco S2**
Rutland - RS3

* CN also ran FM C-Liners on the Conn River, Bill Alder has and excellent model over at trainsim.com - cnrclnrs.zip

** CV was still running 2-10-4's on the Conn River, route builder Paul Charland has an excellent OR model on trainsim.com - cv_2-10-4_t3a.zip

In total, this set contains 39 locomotives, 16 cabooses and 111 freight car shapes. With loaded/unloaded variations, 270 freight car wag files...
We hope you enjoy this set, and apologize for the time it has taken to produce it!

Special thanks to our testing crew, Stephane Benoit (a.k.a. Bennycdn), David P Carleton, Uli Ehlers, and Tim Spencer. Also thanks to www.railfonts.com for fonts used in this set.

Extra special thanks to Scott Whitney and David Hutchinson who provided significant help with specific historical information, the B&M Historical Society in general and, of course, Paul Charland for creating the exquisite route for our set to live on.

Rick, Chris, Max and Gaetan

[justlooking]

This announcement in the Open Rails forum, does it mean BLW/ZT is Open Rails only now, like Trainsimulations ?
I hope not. JL

[dcarleton]

In this case it's not "OR required", it's merely "OR recommended". If you know how to make stuff go in MSTS, you shouldn't have any trouble with this set. However, no attempt was made to reduce the hardware or software resource demands that this set will impose just to accommodate MSTS only users who have sub-optimal systems or technical ability.

[rfranzosa]

This announcement in the Open Rails forum, does it mean BLW/ZT is Open Rails only now, like Trainsimulations ?
I hope not. JL

A few comments:

1) The Conn River route (home for this set) is also consider 'OR recommended' there are areas in Bellows Falls and White River Junction that will crash MSTS on occasion, and Paul Charland's excellent Central Vermont 2-10-4 is also OR only.

2) As David Carleton said, the set can be made to work in MSTS. The five B&M RS3 models have both OR and MSTS versions. The B&M RDC's that will be a bonus to the set will have MSTS and OR only interiors.

3) There is ONE set of three freight cars that WILL crash MSTS, they are marked as OR only (~90,000 polys each). Other than that, you should have no problem running this set in MSTS. Your 1956 Fords will have to get their frames another way.

[justlooking]

A few comments:

1) The Conn River route (home for this set) is also consider 'OR recommended' there are areas in Bellows Falls and White River Junction that will crash MSTS on occasion, and Paul Charland's excellent Central Vermont 2-10-4 is also OR only.

2) As David Carleton said, the set can be made to work in MSTS. The five B&M RS3 models have both OR and MSTS versions. The B&M RDC's that will be a bonus to the set will have MSTS and OR only interiors.

3) There is ONE set of three freight cars that WILL crash MSTS, they are marked as OR only (~90,000 polys each). Other than that, you should have no problem running this set in MSTS. Your 1956 Fords will have to get their frames another way.

I feel it is a mistake to mix OR and MSTS models in the same package.
A preferable option would be to release the OR models as an OR Bonus.
Then it is a choice to download or not.

Many simmers do not use ORTS. As far as I am concerned ORTS is too buggy at this point in time.
A look through the MSTS screenshot forum and you will see the folks using MSTS.
The Conn River route which is OR recommended, runs fine in MSTS for me.
I know some are unable to install and run MSTS, they probably find ORTS is their only option.
Paul Charland's CV 2-10-4 being OR only, although I downloaded it, I have since deleted.

When Trainsimulations announced they were only making OR models, I unsubscribed from their listings.
JL

[rfranzosa]

I feel it is a mistake to mix OR and MSTS models in the same package.
A preferable option would be to release the OR models as an OR Bonus.
Then it is a choice to download or not.

Many simmers do not use ORTS. As far as I am concerned ORTS is too buggy at this point in time.
A look through the MSTS screenshot forum and you will see the folks using MSTS.
The Conn River route which is OR recommended, runs fine in MSTS for me.
I know some are unable to install and run MSTS, they probably find ORTS is their only option.
Paul Charland's CV 2-10-4 being OR only, although I downloaded it, I have since deleted.

When Trainsimulations announced they were only making OR models, I unsubscribed from their listings.
JL

It's not too late for us to separate out the OR content into a bonus. We can certainly consider going that route. Thanks for the suggestion.

Rick

[ftldave]

It's not too late for us to separate out the OR content into a bonus. We can certainly consider going that route. Thanks for the suggestion.

Good idea to think it over carefully, and not take sides like some vendors have done over in the flightsim world, i.e. FSX and Lockheed-Martin's training software. Giving customers a choice is surely the best way to go. Many thanks, Rick.

[rosssweet]

It's not too late for us to separate out the OR content into a bonus. We can certainly consider going that route. Thanks for the suggestion.
Rick

As a MSTS only user, and a devotee to BLW/ZT, why didn't I think of this first ?
Just Looking, your not just a pretty face.

Even when a perceived negative thread is posted, there is always something, that can be positive to be gained.

What I like about BLW/ZT, Gaetan, Rick and Co. They always listen to what is said.
You don't always get the answer you want, but it is considered.
Thanks for the up coming release Rick, Looking forward to it.
Cheers Ross

[rosssweet]

and, Rick, after all that suck up, don't forget, I'm hanging out for a RDC2 !
I know it's not this era, but....
Cheers Ross

[geepster775]

When Trainsimulations announced they were only making OR models, I unsubscribed from their listings.
JL

I will concede that there are people who are members here who are simply too old to ever change, and they will eventually die with outdated MSTS in their hands. Unsubscribe all you want in protest, brother. But these individuals should not be dictating the future or charting the course for the rest of the hobby.

There simply is not enough support time or money to be made to even fantasize about serving both worlds anymore. Up to now the OR users have always had the burden to "update" their MSTS content to work better in OR. Reverse that and place the modification burden on the straggling MSTS user base, and just watch all the pissing and moaning and 'sky is falling'.

Yes, Rick and gang, listen to your non-advancing customers and treat the platform with a future as a 'bonus'.

[charland]

When I made the CV 2-10-4s they were intended to run on both OR and MSTS. Ran the files through Polymaster and they did open and operate in OR but not in MSTS for some reason. Several people had a got at getting them to run in MSTS but it just didn't happen.

The route really is made for MSTS but I personally prefer running it in OR. Aside from the frame rate being much higher, it like not seeing the scenery spawn before my eyes as it does in MSTS. I have my viewing distance set to 5300 meters in OR and as you go up or down the river the scenery in the distance is already spawned.

Paul :-)

[phlyerxx]

I run mostly MSTS but OR with my less graphically intensive routes such as FBL and GTA. I simply don't get the great frame rates with other routes in OR due to my outdated graphics card which I'm loath to replace as I look forward to a new computer someday soon. I'm sure when that day comes, I'll run both MSTS and OR but I'll probably look to a different sim such as Run8 as my primary "toy" of choice. Graphically, there are much better sims out there than OR. Maybe the train physics aren't perfect, but I'm not a real railroad engineer and wouldn't know the difference anywho so I'll be just as happy. It's OK being an OR fanboy but intolerance to other's opinions/preferences shows more of an "old age" mentality than clinging to an outdated sim which isn't really all that outdated it would seem. Without MSTS coming along first, OR probably would not exist. By the by, looking forward to BLW/ZT's new release to run on Paul's route, which by the way, I also get outstanding frame rates on and looks great in the process.

Phil

[ftldave]

... and they will eventually die with outdated MSTS in their hands.

Up to now the OR users have always had the burden to "update" their MSTS content to work better in OR.

And here I thought that was the most fun in OR!

[rfranzosa]

I will concede that there are people who are members here who are simply too old to ever change, and they will eventually die with outdated MSTS in their hands. Unsubscribe all you want in protest, brother. But these individuals should not be dictating the future or charting the course for the rest of the hobby.

I am one of the "too old to ever change". Won't crack open the route editor. Haven't learned Blender. I have an unopened, sealed version of Railworks. Not interested in learning new content production, new sim, new activity approach, and this is even with the route of my favorite railroad (the New Haven "Springfield Line") available only in Railworks.

Why? I. Don't. Have. The. Time.

There are so many new features to use in Open Rails. I suppose someday I'll actually try them out, but I tend to use the few hours I have available in content creation, and, frankly, trying to insure that my models work for our entire audience.

My interest is in Eastern US Railroads in the glory days between the late 1940's and early 1960's. Our customers are in great number going to be a lot like me, 60+ years of age and grateful that there is a platform for us to enjoy railroading the way we remembered it. We ARE set in our ways for many reasons, and we don't feel the need for change unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

There simply is not enough support time or money to be made to even fantasize about serving both worlds anymore. Up to now the OR users have always had the burden to "update" their MSTS content to work better in OR. Reverse that and place the modification burden on the straggling MSTS user base, and just watch all the pissing and moaning and 'sky is falling'.

Don't expect me to give up on MSTS. I will tell you that probably 80% of my time in creating models in TSM is involved with trying to trick MSTS into accepting models > 10,000 polys in complexity. I love the challenge. Sometimes I win (the Rutland RS3 and B&M RS2 in the set are examples). Sometimes I lose (the B&M RS3 would not 'cooperate, so there are two versions in the set). AND sometimes I just create something that could never possibly run in MSTS (the auto frame load above).

I'm not in this for the money. I do this because I enjoy it and I want to keep these old railroads alive. I have made many friends on these forums, I create models with a guy my age in Eastern Quebec, a '40 something' in Massachusetts and a young whipper-snapper in Vermont . The models are tested by people all over the world. I've even had these 'circles' collide, one of our testers runs the hockey rink here in Cincinnati where my sons learned to play. Why am I saying this? It's not about money, It's not about technology. It's way more than that. It's a great community. End of rant.

[pnrailway]

Rick,


Putting aside the side issue the others are getting into. This is a set quite a few of us have been waiting what seems like forever for and we appreciate all the hard work you and all the other members of the team put into this one. Thank You very much!!!