MONON BOARD
Monon Scale Modeling => Microsoft Train Simulator on the MONON => Topic started by: Rick Berg on February 19, 2012, 10:10:06 pm
-
MONON (C.I.&L.)
2-6-6-6
Anyone remember this engine?
The number is not right, have no idea what the number was going to be.
And I like this tender better.
-
It was to be called the Monon type and was a proposed articulated locomotive.
-
Yes
Could not resist making one for the train simulator.
Should have made a 4-6-6-4 from a Clinchfield design because the Monon was keeping an eye on those and probably would have gotten them had they not decided to Diesel conversion early.
-
How about a short video clip when you have time. Those are so cool.
-
Cool idea, I do not have any steam clips, I'll load the fraps back in and make a steam trip.
The question is, should I make it a helper up the Knobs or by the Tree of Hope. Or out front pulling?
-
Your the pro, you never fail to impress me with this stuff. That one of you riding in the LYNNE is impressive.
-
Question
Monon fans should recognize this spot from a photo.
Yes the location is partly hidden and the fence is not there, I like fences.
Where am I ?
Will post more pictures eventually.
Tom do not answer this.
-
My lips are sealed....... 8)
-
Ok, I will give it away.
-
Rick, when I tried to use some steam on the Monon in the simulator, I found the fuel usage to be really unrealistic. For example I could make it from the North to the south with no need to stop for water or coal! Seems a bit suspect to me, although I'm not sure how many times steam power would have to stop for fuel between Chicago and Louisville.
-
Heath
Are you in explore mode?
If so, it never runs out.
-
Rick, the trees and foliage used in TrainSims look SO much better now. It used to look like Montana--now it really looks like Indiana. Have you ever tried autumn colors?
-
Hey Tim
Yes, I just like summer much much more...........
My autumn is ok, but others do it much better
-
Nope, I set up a passenger activity to test it out, a simple Chicago to Louisville one. The water/coal was going down, but at a really low rate. My guess is that the internal calculations on the engine I was using were not correct. I only tested one, just wondered if anyone else saw the same issue.