MSTS 1959 Tube Stock V3 Update

It would be nice if somone could make a BVE4 59ts train out of that cab view for the Northern Line to go whith the 95ts, any takers?

Why do the T/ops from the outside view of MSTS always look like Tony Blair after 10 beers?

Another quick update - some details tweaked after getting feedback from some gentlemen who drove 'em...

"ON" BUTTONS SHOLD BE RED, INCLUDING THE ANIMATED WIPER BUTTON


VIEWPOINT TWEAKS, BUTTONS AND DOOR HANDLES FIXED


HERE'S THE NEARSIDE VIEW FROM A 'SMALL' TRAIN - NICE GLASS FX FROM DARREN


Given how very few pics of the '59TS cabs seem to exist (and almost none in color) this came out good, I feel. Our thanks to those who shared their photos and expert knowledge.
Final physics tests done -- about to write the Motorman's Guide...

More soon, Jimi

Hi

If Jimi and Darren are willing I have sounds and physics semi-created. Unfortunately lack of photos has prevented me from doing anything in BVE.

Tom

Ah, thank you for the clarification As I haven't seen Mr Blair in an inebriated state, you can conclude the resemblance was unintentional
The reason for the lack of fidelity on the T/Op representations is a matter of 3D 'budget'. There's a reasonable (even finite) limit as to how many 3D polygons we can expend to create a train and its individual units, cab view and passenger view. Above that limit performance would be badly impacted on most people's PCs -- the CPU/Graphics card simply couldn't render the polygons fast enough. More detail = more polygons. We thus use them where they will likely have best visual effect, and/or where detail is more critical. The user will spend the bulk of their time looking out of the cab front window, thus their usual view of the front of a train will be of a train approaching. See the first screenshot in my original post. We need enough exterior detail, for example, so the train resembles a 59TS (or whatever) and not just a box on wheels. Tube stock is a little more costly as they tend to have complex curved surfaces. The inclusion of a simple Operator figure is because a viewer would expect one to be in the front cab. Lack of any figure would immediately trash the 'suspension of disbelief' that simulations rely on.
A very simple human figure is not adequate to map/wrap such things as facial texture adequately under close scrutiny, as you observe. The tools we use (e.g. 3D Canvas Pro) can however produce lifelike figures with true skeletal bodies, inverse kinematic joints and highly detailed features -- at a huge cost. Such a model would use more polys than the cabview and passenger view combined. Thus, we compromise.
For anyone curious as to detail that can be achieved with 3D Canvas, take a look at the shots on their web site (www.amabilis.com) in the picture gallery. The Roman legionnaire is a fine example.

Best, Jimi

Did you read the above? Maybe in among all the technical reasoning, the point was lost - so I'll repeat it:

The user will spend the bulk of their time looking out of the cab front window, thus their usual view of the front of a train will be of a train approaching. ... The inclusion of a simple Operator figure is because a viewer would expect one to be in the front cab. Lack of any figure would immediately trash the 'suspension of disbelief' that simulations rely on.

If you're suggesting a driver-less cab would look more realistic, then you have an inalienable right to your opinion, and we'll agree to differ. I'm done defending it.

The 1959 Tube Stock V3 kit has been uploaded to both UKTS and TrainSim, so with luck it should be available somewhere this weekend. File ID on UKTS is 14602.

We will in the future be uploading a small update reflecting different cab paint schemes once we have completed the required research and implemented it. As the 59TS worked several Underground lines in its time, we felt we'd like to capture the right paint schemes for each.

Meanwhile, enjoy the train. Don't forget to look at the 59TS Motorman's Guide, which will be found in the train's folder (1959 TUBE STOCK) after kit installation.



Thanks, Jimi
(on behalf of the Virtual Acton Works crew)