Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Fictional routes?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chilliwack, B C, Canada.
    Posts
    993

    Default Fictional routes?

    Hi! Why are so many routes in RW being made or called fictional routes? In MSTS fictional routes were the vast minority. Has anyone got a view as to why the difference? Cheers; Chuck F.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBF View Post
    Why are so many routes in RW being made or called fictional routes? In MSTS fictional routes were the vast minority. Has anyone got a view as to why the difference?
    Many ? Such as.

    Probably because creating prototypical routes in RW is hampered by the lack of prototypical objects and scenery for them, as well as DEMs for other than US routes, creators of these "fictional" routes sidestepping any adverse comments about what they should contain ?

    I would not know whether a route is prototypical, not living where their real counterparts are and only care about enjoying trouble-free driving in them !

    O t t o

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA.
    Posts
    874

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by CBF View Post
    Hi! Why are so many routes in RW being made or called fictional routes? In MSTS fictional routes were the vast minority. Has anyone got a view as to why the difference? Cheers; Chuck F.

    I only pay attention to what I see in the US, and with that in mind, seems to me that "the vast majority" of new routes have been mostly "realistic". Realistic is a relative term when it comes to rail simulation. It can mean the route trackwork is fairly true to reality at a certain point in time (like when Google Earth took their pictures). Such a route may not have absolutely accurate scenery or buildings or textures, so it is a "representation of reality". No choice, since the sim is still too young to have generated all the huge library of objects and scenery that are available for MSTS, so we use what we have, and it is limited to mostly European objects, so our "realistic US Route runs through towns that sometimes look a bit European. That will change.

    The best reason for building a fictional route is that you can try out all the tools and learn the features and the limitations of the sim without having to get stressed out over making it look exactly like a real place. RW is still young, and we are all still learning a lot about the sim, so fictional routes may be the favored approach for some route builders till they learn the ropes. I might point out that some of the fictional routes, like the Port Ogden route by Sniper, for example, are just fun to run, and a great learning exercise. When I think of my MSTS days, the fictional routes were the most memorable and most fun.

    Wouldn't it be great if we had something in RW like Bill Burnett's Seaview Route? Flying saucers, amusement parks, underwater cities, volcano islands with running lava, secret NASA locations, etc. etc.? I remember that we couldn't wait for his next upgrade to see what amazing new things he had dreamed up. Sheesh, I miss that.

    Doug

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chilliwack, B C, Canada.
    Posts
    993

    Default

    Hi! I guess it depends on the interpretation of the word "route". I think of that as being the track layout portion, not the eye candy. Routes such as the Port Ogden & Chicago and Coulton & Northern are fictional routes, while Eagle Ridge, Feather River and some others are supposed to be in their right geographical area, but are not even close to being realistic. Tennessee Pass, CSX Mainline and P&LE are quite realistic, at least I can follow them on a good road map. A new Swedish route is being proposed, but again it is listed as being fictional.

    I'm trying to do the Reno/Sparks area with realistic track and elevations, but other that that, I guess it would be fictional as the assets are not available. Maybe we need a new definition as to whether the layout is fictional.

    I'm certainly not complaining. It has just struck me odd that there seems to be more fictional route in RS/RW than in MSTS. I sure hope I've not trod on someone,s toes, its just a point for discussion. Cheers; Chuck F.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United States of America.
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Proto For Me

    I'm building a prototype route, and I can definitely see the advantages of building a fictional one. I have already seen that i'm going to have to build a large cache of custom made structures in order to give the route the feel of the real thing. I had to do this in MSTS also, so it's not a big deal. However, it will slow down the route build quite a bit.

    As one previous poster said, the majority of the people who are not from the area that you model will not know whether or not the scenery on the route is prototypical. But, as I found out with my previous route, there will always be three or four people who are local to the route who will want to know why you didn't model their grandma's house that is located somewhere by the tracks!

    As far as just how "real" to make the look of a proto-route, of course it varies by opinion. I like to try to make all of the rail served industries and trackside structures as real as possible. Everything else can be "represented" by default structures at first, the replaced later as suitable scenery objects become available.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Gardner, Massachusetts, United States.
    Posts
    4,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBF View Post
    Hi! Why are so many routes in RW being made or called fictional routes? In MSTS fictional routes were the vast minority. Has anyone got a view as to why the difference? Cheers; Chuck F.
    Prior to the release of the RS/RW sim. I had plans to bring a second installment of the Rattlesnake series over to RS/RW called Rattlesnake Pass (which would have been a 250 to 300 mile mountain pass route), But after seeing how things went with this sim. I decided not to.

    But I think others have hit the nail in the head with their comments. When, It comes to realistic routes. There are some route builders that would like to make it as real as the route is. I know I would if I was building a realistic route for MSTS, RS/RW, or any other sim.

    Of course, Building fictional routes gives route builders more options to play with the route and make it the way they like it without that many restrictions.
    Last edited by eaglefan9727; 02-27-2010 at 05:24 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Al
    Posts
    393

    Default

    What I have started is a Dem of a real route and then place towns, rivers, sidings, commerce, etc. to make it interesting to me. This way if it gets boring driving the route I can put something of interest in.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    662

    Default

    i am not sure if i would ever build a "acurate" route. the routes i build are "representative" of the subject routes. the reason for this is because at the moment, i am not good with making elevations. however, i do enjoy creating on my little level.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United States of America.
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Representative

    Agree on the "representation" definition. Even the best route builders cant be r
    100% accurate in modeling. Doing one city true-to-life would take a life-time!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    4,477

    Default

    Personally I am tending to go down the "protolanced" approach, i.e. taking a real world location but adapting as necessary. My latest route project in RW is a Japanese tramway, but heavily adapted and anglicised. Next up on the drawing board is another tram route and beyond that is the Joestsu Border line with it's long tunnels and spirals. However as there's not a sniff of Japanese 3D models or rolling stock for RW, we have to make to with what we've got. (I'm hoping Marc Nelson's Urban Landscapes will be released in the near future which will add some more generic town and city buildings suitable for a Far East route).

    I'm also far more partial to creating short routes, the long routes I did for MSTS and TRS frankly left me burned out. That also avoids the severe dangers of distraction, inertia or switching projects because something else looks appealing. I can turn out a 15 - 20 mile route for RW in 6 to 8 weeks which is about the limit of my attention span.

    And yes, there is somewhat more nit picking than used to be the case in the early days of MSTS. Then we were grateful to get something with default stations with the location names being about the only resemblance to the prototype. Now we have all moved on since then and obviously strive to be as accurate as possible, but the best way to avoid sometimes frankly disingenuous criticism is not to leave yourself open to it, particularly when doing freeware so hence the fictionalisation or freelancing which hopefully avoids some of the negativity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •