Anyone else have issues with the TS Coil Car repaints

[CNW 5099]

I followed the instructions and copied the .s file from the GTW freight set and opened the .s file with archibald to change the image name to match the renamed .s files. However, the cars do not display any textures. The textures on the original car are .dds and the repaints use .ace files but I didn't figure this to be an issue. Is there something I'm missing here? Anyone else have trouble getting these cars to work?

[frliss]

Hi,

If the textures you are using are .ace files, when you decompress the .s file you have to change the .dds extension of the image file to .ace. In other words the texture files that you are using must have the same extension as the image files in the decompressed shape file.

Fred

[geepster775]

Recent testing versions have eliminated the checkbox under experiential tab to "prefer DDS over ACE". This is likely to cause problems where the shape file is 'sloppy' and calls on ACE files where only DDS is present and vice versa. The problem is the experimental checkbox became a crutch to cover for that lack of consistency. Now that the coded crutch is being taken away in an effort to sorta 'enforce' DDS as the texture of the future, don't be surprised if "sloppy S errors" from the past like this now emerge.

Also hampered going forward will be any repainters who took a DDS original texture and did repaints in ACE format for no greater reason than the repainter is not versed in a competent paint program like Photoshop that allows direct DDS editing via plugin, so they revert to their "MSTS ways" of using ACE files because the painting tools they have were not sophisticated enough to deal with DDS directly and so they fell back on ACE for that set of repaints. Even the NAVS stuff really is designed to be modified or "repainted" only by those who have upper end paint programs that can take in a .PSD original and spit out DDS end textures.

Hell, even some of the transition era payware sets (GTW SD40, KCS AC4400, etc) put out by SLI where they included both ACE and DDS textures came out with "sloppy S files" that were calling for a mixture of ACE and DDS textures in the same shape. I discovered this while building a DDS-only installation. These dual texture packages were added to this installation after I deleted the ACE files, only to find out how many of those ACE files were still being called by the shape file. The shape may have called for the DDS version for the main texture, but the trucks etc were still calling the ACE version. Oversights like that which had to be fixed at the shape file level. Again all of this was not a problem when the OR code blanket covered for the sloppiness. But it does not anymore.

[slipperman]

Oh dear, geepster775!! You are really anti-MSTS aren't you?

The use of .dds and .ace textures in the same shape file shouldn't be called 'sloppy' - more likely, it's flexibility. Why use a higher quality texture like .dds when it's not necessary or readily appreciated when looking at the model?

Don't forget that without MSTS there'd be no Open Rails! The whole purpose of OR is to run MSTS routes and stock using more modern hardware and I hope that NEVER changes. I'm not against improvements, and there have been plenty that OR has made over MSTS, but please don't forget its roots. There is a phenomenal amount of routes and stock around which only uses .ace textures but displays perfectly well under Open Rails.

Cheers,
Ged

[CNW 5099]

Fortunately after some tinkering I was able to get them working. I also copied over the .dds files for the wheels/trucks from the original SLI folder so I only had to rename the main texture.

[R. Steele]

The whole purpose of OR is to run MSTS routes and stock using more modern hardware
Cheers,
Ged

Oh dear, slipperman !! Not even close, Yes..it's one of the agreed upon mandates of OR development...to maintain the ability to run legacy MSTS content...Definitely NOT the WHOLE purpose....little hyperbolic, my friend.

Reading some of the early threads about this, there was thought among some of the folks involved to dump MSTS right at the beginning. Currently some of the thought is that perhaps the legacy to MSTS content has been carried far enough.

Geepster is certainly one of those folks, and I do lean in his direction.

[slipperman]

Hi Gerry,
My memory must be going because I don't remember writing that!! What I intended to write was ".. the main purpose ..." or, even, ".. the initial purpose ..." so I apologise for my faux pas.

Cheers,
Ged

[csantucci]

Geepster, do you think it would be better if the option were reintroduced?