BNSF 25th Anniversary locos

[lateagain]

Considering the limited photos currently available, I think you did a great job on this. Thanks for your time and effort.

Looking at the picture of 6111 you posted it doesn't look as it there's anything on the back.

I'll have a go at writing a read me and creating the files to go with the necessary SLI shape file and upload it. It'll be freeware (apart from the SLI Scenic Sub aliasing and shape file) so anyone desperate to have more numbers should just need to change those and create the necessary subsidiary files. The numbers are Arial so it couldn't be easier.

Don't hold your breath because I've some real life chores to do first.

BTW there are SOME BNSF units I like. Their (now retired I believe?) Executive F Unit train, and anything still in BN colours, patched BNSF and preferably looking like the paint and dirt have faded together along with some rust streaks. LOL! Ex-Works paahhh, you can keep em.

[frankoburns]

FB_IMG_1597807120782.jpgb

[lateagain]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]79995[/ATTACH]b

Thanks for that Frank.

Well the rivet counters will have to live with some discrepancies but I think I got it pretty close.
The BNSF Logo looks a little bigger than mine on that side but it's going to be Hobson's Choice on that

[lateagain]

Well it seems to be error free and tested in MSTS and OR.

Shots in OR. Also realised I never got round to uploading the patched GP here either. Not even sure what model it's based on as it's been on my box a while.

Still needs a Read Me and a small mug shot before I can upload it. You will Need SLI's Scenic Sub (Now Trainsimulations Scenic Route 2.0) for the shape file. I'm assuming there's no change in stock between those two versions?

Click to Enlarge

[lateagain]

Uploaded as BNSF 25th Anniversart #5828.zip

Please PM me with any issues.

[geepster775]

Not bad at all.

Nothing will go on the back since these numbers all have the low rear headlight and that would be in the way.

People can substitute a Seligman ORTS shape for the Scenic free one and regain the missing brakewheel. A shape from Mullan will work, too, and add both the brakewheel and the PTC stuff on the cab roof.

[Rick-MONON]

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[qballbandit]

Thanks Geoff! Pretty good for a days work.

Does anyone know of an FA to add chains to the front and rear walkways?

[=FI=Ghost]

Here's my take at this unit.

I have already found a handful of photos on the internet and I also found a video posted by the creator of this project on his FB page. In this video he explains how he came up with the idea and how his company went through with it. One thing interesting to see is that the logos are, actually, cut out vertically to adjust for the gaps between numerous doors on the side of the locomotive. If you look better at photos of the 6111, you can clearly see those gaps.

Neil,

I have one FA with chains on both sides, but there are some other details as well. If I find a way to get rid of them I'll let you know.

https://imgur.com/AMAoVAL

https://imgur.com/cu6iIcP

https://imgur.com/qdKxWMQ

[qballbandit]

Good stuff Borislav, thanks a lot!

[CSRX]

I used the Mullan Pass model, for these ES44AC's. Looks great, but is 5828 one of the numbers to be used? Sorry if I missed that info somewhere!
Only trouble was converting the ACE files to DDS for the shape to work properly, and not sure if anyone has discovered, but a quick google search brought up this tool, and works just fine for me, when I am only converting one or two at a time.

https://anyconv.com/tga-to-dds-converter/

[lateagain]

I used the Mullan Pass model, for these ES44AC's. Looks great, but is 5828 one of the numbers to be used? Sorry if I missed that info somewhere!
Only trouble was converting the ACE files to DDS for the shape to work properly, and not sure if anyone has discovered, but a quick google search brought up this tool, and works just fine for me, when I am only converting one or two at a time.

https://anyconv.com/tga-to-dds-converter/

I've yet to be convinced that DDS files "bring that much to the party" That isn't to say that the format might be capable of better rendition than .ace files but converting .ace to .dds seems an odd way to go?

As far as I'm aware the extra detail in the Scenic Sub Loco's was a 1st outing for the stock converted from the MSTS2 stock? Being into earlier eras than most SLI/TS stuff I was not aware that any of the models had been improved on since?

Still if it works... "fill your boots"

Number list in post #7 and 5828 is the only one photographed when the thread started.

[CSRX]

I've yet to be convinced that DDS files "bring that much to the party" That isn't to say that the format might be capable of better rendition than .ace files but converting .ace to .dds seems an odd way to go?

As far as I'm aware the extra detail in the Scenic Sub Loco's was a 1st outing for the stock converted from the MSTS2 stock? Being into earlier eras than most SLI/TS stuff I was not aware that any of the models had been improved on since?

Still if it works... "fill your boots"

Number list in post #7 and 5828 is the only one photographed when the thread started.

DDS has been shown to better texture quality when in Open Rails, I don't use DDS for every single thing however. A lot of my stock is Ace. However, it may be odd, to convert ace to dds, but it was easier doing that, then trying to edit the shape file for use of ace files rather than dds.

I went with the Mullan Pass locomotive, as it has the same texture set up, however as to what Geepster stated, it provides more shape wise than the Scenic Sub and the other model.

Guess I should have read more to the thread, for the additional numbers.

[lateagain]

As I said in my Read Me feel free to modify, renumber my efforts to your hearts content

However

DDS has been shown to better texture quality when in Open Rails

As I said I've yet to see this! If anyone can post pictures of a model with both .ace and .dds files and point out where the latter is better I might be convinced.

There's been a sort of "pseudo intellectual" snobbery about image file formats in ALL areas of computing for decades now. Whilst various file formats have specific advantages for specific applications that hasn't usually been apparent to the viewer of the image? Even in Photography the advantages of the RAW file format are obvious to anyone competent in image manipulation but the latest DSLR's do such a fantastic job of capturing the image IN CAMERA that quiet often when you compare the camera's .jpg output with the .raw capture the only difference is that the RAW file is three times as big I'm reminded of the drivel that used to be printed in Hi Fi reviews in the 60's when certain pieces of kit were tested on instruments that proved that model A had a better response to frequencies than model B ....only trouble being that in any case these frequencies were well above the range of the human ear!!!!!!

I went with the Mullan Pass locomotive, as it has the same texture set up, however as to what Geepster stated, it provides more shape wise than the Scenic Sub and the other model.

As I own both I see no difference in detail whatsoever. The Scenic Sub Loco's have a Freight Animation that adds a lot of detail that their older models couldn't handle. The Mullans pass Loco seems to have identical detail but is pitched at Open Rails only, thus avoiding the need for a FA?

As I said feel free to do what you like with them but the Scenic Sub runs fine in MSTS too

[ossie]

If anyone can post pictures of a model with both .ace and .dds files and point out where the latter is better I might be convinced.

Geoff, I don't do a lot with the hobby these days but as this topic has long been of interest to me a mate was kind enough to give me a heads up that it was under discussion again so I thought I'd stick my oar in for what it's worth. It seems a lot of people are getting bogged down in the "which is better" debate, which from my experience isn't actually the point. What dds does for us is deliver twice the texture size, therefore twice the detail for no extra "cost" in terms of PC grunt.

https://

Hopefully I can remember how to post a large image and if so, I doubt anyone will need a pointer as to which pic is the 2048 dds file and which is the 1024 ace file.

I just downloaded your BNSF locos and noticed you'd used 1024 for your main texture which has been the gold standard for a long time for the obvious reason but since I became aware of dds I have used 2048 ACE exclusively for my main texture files and then once I'm satisfied with the skin, I convert it to DDS DXT3 for use in the sim. (NB: You can work directly on dds in your editor of choice but I'm not convinced that it doesn't lose some quality after a number of edits unlike ace).

Just to hammer home the advantages of dds as I see them, for my boxcar, the 2048 ace file weighs in at 9,386kb while the 1024 ace is 5,641kb. The 2048 ace converted to DDS DXT3 is 5,462kb with no apparent detail loss from the 2048 ace image, so therein lies the advantage, same small file size as 1024 but with more fine detail!

Some caveats.... maybe people can get better 1024 ace results with PSP than I get with Photoshop or maybe newer versions of Photoshop will produce better results than my rusty old version does but I very much doubt anyone is going to get better detail producing 1024 ace textures with any editor than what they will with 2048.

That said, don't wait for others to convince you. Get a 2048 loco texture file, redo your fallen flag logos onto it then convert it to dds and see what you think. I doubt you'll need more convincing from that point and I'd go further and say I'd be surprised if anyone that understands dds would still be messing around with 1024 ace files for their main textures. The results speak for themselves in my opinion.