Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Both ATSF and the BNSF versions of Seligman 2 are awesome

  1. #1

    Default Both ATSF and the BNSF versions of Seligman 2 are awesome

    Not a review but my impressions: I love Seligman 2! It is probably one of my two favorite MSTS routes along with 3D Trainís Feather River. Its graphics rival those of Railworks 2 but like other MSTS routes its physicsí are far superior. Iím a native Arizonian and am a retired Southern Pacific/Union Pacific Locomotive Engineer so I not only know how to run trains but I know the northern Arizona route that Seligman2 depicts and Streamlines did a fantastic job with it. So if you havenít bought Seligman2 - I must ask - why not? Also, the new BNSF stand alone add-on is well worth the money and adds a whole new dimension to Seligman 2. My only wish is that many more detailed and complex activities; either (freeware or payware) will be released for the route. Seligman 2 is a real step forward for MSTS.

    Hope this helps, Rich
    Tucson, AZ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    North Port, Florida.
    Posts
    2,412

    Default

    Rich,
    Streamlines has a habit of not including all of the tracks that pertain to their routes. For example, when Seligman first came out it was only one half of the Seligman Sub. I still have not seen anything that indicates the Seligman 2 ATSF route contains the track to Ash Fork from both east and west. That to me was the ATSF original route. It makes an easy shortcut for Streamlines to run the track as the cutoff which eliminates tracks to Ash Fork. That way they can make just a few minor changes using just the cutoff and they can call that section both the ATSF and BNSF. At least Bob Wirth's Seligman Sub contains all of the tracks--both the cutoff and the original tracks through Ash Fork. By using Bob Wirth's Seligman Sub at least you can make connecting activities coming from either the east or west which then go down the Peavine on the Phoenix Sub. I am more concerned with the correct tracks that are included with a route than with the correct scenery, trees and shrubs. As for the rolling stock that comes with a route, most of us already have access to more rolling stock than we will ever use in making our own activities. I will continue to use Bob Wirth's Seligman Sub. Maybe Streamlines will one day learn to put in all of the tracks that will allow for both steam and diesel historically accurate activities.

    Bob Edwards

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoghead View Post
    My only wish is that many more detailed and complex activities; either (freeware or payware) will be released for the route. Seligman 2 is a real step forward for MSTS.

    Hope this helps, Rich
    Tucson, AZ
    I agree. I was appalled to find only three totally "unique" activities came with ATSF Seligman 2.0. I don't count the Flagstaff turn as being three activites, but simply one split into three parts.

    Of course, you post your discontent and SLI and their fanboys make excuses. "It's 300 miles, blah blah blah." Sorry, but three unique activities is ridiculous for an almost $40 route. To add insult to injury, there was apparently a problem with my download in that there were syntax errors in a bunch of .wag files for the included TOFC cars. So I basically had to rebuild a consist for the TOFC westbound activity (used all DW equipment to do it too, as a slap at SLI) even after deleting, re-downloading, and re-installing the route in a vain effort to fix the problem.

    Of course, there's no effort at customer service on the part of SLI, as they took the attitude of "we don't know what's wrong, so tough. Send us the consist file (sent original and modified one) and if we feel like responding, we will. Oh yeah, your disappointment over the lack of activities, it's noted, but we won't do anything. Buyer beware." Having been in customer service, would I have offered a refund? No, but "hey, Mr. Customer, here's a 10% off voucher on your next purchase" or something along those lines might have been something I would have done.

    The routes (both BNSF and ATSF version) are in and of themselves, well done. I'm also fairly impressed with the new high-detail locomotives they're offering (not DW quality, but close), and the rolling stock is very well done too.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    184

    Default

    I bought the ATSF Seligman 2.0. I can't judge about the accuracy of the route itself, but it looks good and the rolling stock is detailed too. My problem is that I have 26 incorrect consists (checked with conBuilder and RouteRiter). I reinstalled it, but of course, that was not the problem. Not a satisfactory answer so far from SLI, but let's see if their next answer is better. I was planning to buy Scenic Sub too, but not before this problem is solved.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristian View Post
    I bought the ATSF Seligman 2.0. I can't judge about the accuracy of the route itself, but it looks good and the rolling stock is detailed too. My problem is that I have 26 incorrect consists (checked with conBuilder and RouteRiter). I reinstalled it, but of course, that was not the problem. Not a satisfactory answer so far from SLI, but let's see if their next answer is better. I was planning to buy Scenic Sub too, but not before this problem is solved.
    What kind of consist errors? Syntax errors can usually be corrected by opening the consist in the ConBuilder consist editor then saving w/o changing anything.
    Charles

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Syntax errors I could indeed have corrected myself with conBuilder, but the problem is, as forwarded to SLI, that in those consists there is reference to a SLI.FREIGHT directory. However no such directory do I have, nor do the names of the freight cars in these consists correspond to the names of the items installed. Very weird.
    I find it hard to imagine that they didn't check this upon release, and it looks, just speculating, as if these names refer to the 1.0 version of the Seligman route. Something for SLI to verify what went wrong. I bought the stand alone version (I would think) and not an upgrade for Seligman 1.0 (if there is one, I don't have it).
    Since the freight cars are renamed it is a bit of a puzzle too. For $40 I am not willing to go through every consist and replace the freight cars myself.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristian View Post
    Syntax errors I could indeed have corrected myself with conBuilder, but the problem is, as forwarded to SLI, that in those consists there is reference to a SLI.FREIGHT directory. However no such directory do I have, nor do the names of the freight cars in these consists correspond to the names of the items installed. Very weird.
    I find it hard to imagine that they didn't check this upon release, and it looks, just speculating, as if these names refer to the 1.0 version of the Seligman route. Something for SLI to verify what went wrong. I bought the stand alone version (I would think) and not an upgrade for Seligman 1.0 (if there is one, I don't have it).
    Since the freight cars are renamed it is a bit of a puzzle too. For $40 I am not willing to go through every consist and replace the freight cars myself.
    I have Seligman 1.0 and have not upgeraded. Just checked my Trainset folder and I have a SLI.FREIGHT folder and the files there are dated August 2005 as are the files in the Seligman 1.0 route folder. So I expect your suspicion is correct.

    BTW don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from SLI.
    Charles

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristian View Post
    I bought the stand alone version (I would think) and not an upgrade for Seligman 1.0 (if there is one, I don't have it).
    Since the freight cars are renamed it is a bit of a puzzle too. For $40 I am not willing to go through every consist and replace the freight cars myself.
    Seligman 2.0 was in essence and entirely new route, since it included the entire subdivision as opposed to Seligman 1.0 which did not.

    I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one having issues with syntax problems. I'm also glad I am not the only one who feels that for $40 the route should be free of such errors.

    I posted my complain to the SLI forums and got nothing but grief, as if I must have screwed something up, and if it wasn't me, this was an isolated problem. Obviously it is not. I would encourage you to sound off on the SLI boards. You'll get flak from the fanboys on there, but that way they can't tell someone else that this problem is an isolated one.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oakpalms View Post
    I still have not seen anything that indicates the Seligman 2 ATSF route contains the track to Ash Fork from both east and west. That to me was the ATSF original route. It makes an easy shortcut for Streamlines to run the track as the cutoff which eliminates tracks to Ash Fork. That way they can make just a few minor changes using just the cutoff and they can call that section both the ATSF and BNSF. At least Bob Wirth's Seligman Sub contains all of the tracks--both the cutoff and the original tracks through Ash Fork...

    I am more concerned with the correct tracks that are included with a route than with the correct scenery, trees and shrubs...

    Maybe Streamlines will one day learn to put in all of the tracks that will allow for both steam and diesel historically accurate activities.

    Bob Edwards
    Bob I have the highest regard for Bob Wirth's routes and your connection to him but I really don't understand your slam on SLI's version of Seligman.

    You're slamming SLI because they don't have the tracks that were in use prior to December 1960 (pre Crookton Cutoff) and their version of the BNSF Seligman 2 route is set modern day and their ATSF Seligman 2 route is set in the early 1990's? And the only section of the old route that still exists is the eastern portion from Ash Fork to Williams Jct. which is part of the Phoenix Sub.

    I don't get it.
    Last edited by P834C; 10-24-2012 at 02:19 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Thanks Charles,
    I had already noticed that those consist names dated from 2005 and so have not been edited since! That is what I wrote to SLI as well.
    As I said, I find it hard to imagine that this route is released without proper testing and even consists are recycled from an old product dating from 2005, but appearantly that is the case; says something about quality control at SLI, the number of people that have bought ATFS Seligman2 or are complaining about it.
    I do have to say that the rolling stock from SLI is of high quality, almost of similar quality as what MSTS-2 would have promissed us (the autoracks in Seligman2.0 look almost the same).
    http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php...orm_report=983
    (However, you can't put graffitti on them without losing the transparancy of the metal plates, if you know what I mean. But that's another problem.)

    I was planning to buy Scenic Sub, but I have to consider that route building (like PRR, Surfliner2 and what you have) is better left to the "amateurs", considering the amount of dedication and beta testing they put into it.

    Do the folks at SLI besides their own fansite also read other forums? I posted here in reply to someone elses post, this forum reaches more people anyway.
    If the helpdesk of SLI is of not much help they will not be long in business. Making a living of trainsim stuff is not that easy.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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