Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: TS 2018/ North Wales Coastal Route

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    CYMRU AM BYTH
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Same here Steve, but even using the game at all annoys me sometimes.

    The lack of functionality and operational realism. Makes the game play, extremely limited buddy.

    Agree with you in regards 3rd party releases, boys like VW and DT. Produce some really excellent loco's and rolling stock, consistently to a very high standard.

    Regards,
    Mike.
    Remember always that a wise man walks with his head bowed, humble like the dust

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hastings, MN, 55033
    Posts
    3,571

    Default

    Honestly, the whole model railroad mindset that constitutes the route concept is fatally flawed to begin with. ACES had it right with the plan for MSTS2, but the community as a whole, which has always suffered from a strain of conservatism, freaked out about it. And then MSTS2 died anyway.

    So instead of a basic, auto-generated rendition of every section of track on earth, which route builders could then add detail to and expand upon as they saw fit, we're left with little isolated "routes" that end abruptly and leave us at the mercy of route developers (who, in the case of MSTS/OR, mostly left), because nobody else in the rail simulation business has realized that rail sims should not be based on model railroad logic. This is particularly frustrating to those of us who want to run trains in the US midwest. East/west coast people have it made, as far as the US goes.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    4,018

    Default

    That is perhaps a little unfair to those of us actually building routes, Eric. The limitations of the tools (and programmes) we have been given are not the fault of those who work in them! I have always tried to ensure any routes I build regardless of sim, start and finish at a logical location.

    Using the current tools, it can take anything from 4 weeks (Trainz) to 12 weeks (RW-TS20xx) with MSTS somewhere in between, to produce 25 miles of running route mileage to a reasonable freeware level.

    The likelihood of any developer bringing out a product which emulates the ambitions of MSTS2 is unlikely - we have already seen one major world based flight sim product fail and that is likely to serve as a sage warning to any other developer thinking about a product on such a grand scale. I would though not be averse to something that used the ATS or ETS2 model, i.e. a scaled down version of the real world which still gives you the illusion of travelling between and through major cities but with the miles of nothing in between suitably condensed.
    Vern.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    CYMRU AM BYTH
    Posts
    891

    Default

    No offence to you Vern. But in regards DTG, they could have at least been consistent with their route starting-finish locations.

    At least that makes them able to be merged. As per some of the workshop routes that Danny has merged.

    To me the merged version of WLOS + WCML Over Shap, is a proper route. Just a shame Keith didn't think to start the WCML North on the same long\lats for a further merge. Preston - Stranraer - Glasgow, anyone........pure bliss.

    Take it further, transpose the ideas of the Run8 team in ensuring their SoCal routes all merge. Into a game with a UK geographical setting.

    That is the one concept of Run8 that i really enjoy.

    Mike.
    Remember always that a wise man walks with his head bowed, humble like the dust

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hastings, MN, 55033
    Posts
    3,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernWarrior View Post
    That is perhaps a little unfair to those of us actually building routes, Eric.
    How so? You're stuck with the system as much as any user. The system is the problem, not the route builders. Wouldn't your job be so much easier if you had a basic world to start with?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB, Canada
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by haverfordwest View Post
    ... transpose the ideas of the Run8 team in ensuring their SoCal routes all merge. Into a game with a UK geographical setting.

    That is the one concept of Run8 that i really enjoy.

    Mike.

    I would LOVE to see this work. My frustration with much of TS20XX has been in the A-B nature/"end-of-line" almost abrupt demarcation in many of the UK/EU routes. One of my favourite routes early on was the Somerset-Dorset and would have loved to extend it on both 'ends' as a lot of scenarios I did for that one were all set pre-Beecham's Bloody Axe. A system that allowed contiguous additions (similar to Run 8) would be brilliant imho. Adding branchlines to mainlines...setting up proper long distance runs, still allowing for those folks who just love switching puzzles, short runs, but allowing for more flow as it were. I'd support that in a heartbeat.


    Kind regards,
    DaveS
    Avidly simming on the rails:
    Currently using TSW and Run 8

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    4,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erick_Cantu View Post
    How so? You're stuck with the system as much as any user. The system is the problem, not the route builders. Wouldn't your job be so much easier if you had a basic world to start with?
    Possibly, but it depends how much of the world is provided in the first place. I appreciate you may be looking at this from a flight sim POV where hi res DEM and photo scenery can be grafted on top of the default world. However certainly where MSTS2 was concerned, the consensus seems to be it would only ever have been a basic single track vector on top of the terrain, somewhat similar to the RGE in MSTS(1), not really useful for driving on. Also not much use for historical, long abandoned routes which is what many people like to build.
    Vern.

  8. #18

    Default

    Yes, I would support the idea and would buy any train driving game (simulator or not) if it would feature flight sim like full scale whole world. I am also willing to pay slightly higher price than the standard full game price. With today's technology any game company with a moderate amount of money can do it. A train sim could feature railway lines from openstreet maps and not pay anything for license fee. It's so sad that there are currently 3 flight sims featuring whole world scenery.. X-plane, Fsx and Flight gear where there is no train sim with whole world scenery. I excluded P3D because it's a derivative product. MSTS had rough data of rail lines across the world. It just didn't have tech to do autogen.

    I honestly think it's fear and pressure from 3rd party route makers that prevent this from happening. Maybe they fear if a train sim features whole world scenery less people would buy those small routes.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by advut View Post
    Yes, I would support the idea and would buy any train driving game (simulator or not) if it would feature flight sim like full scale whole world. A train sim could feature railway lines from openstreet maps and not pay anything for license fee. It's so sad that there are currently 3 flight sims featuring whole world scenery.. X-plane, Fsx and Flight gear where there is no train sim with whole world scenery. I excluded P3D because it's a derivative product. MSTS had rough data of rail lines across the world. It just didn't have tech to do autogen.
    I honestly think it's fear and pressure from 3rd party route makers that prevent this from happening. Maybe they fear if a train sim features whole world scenery less people would buy those small routes.
    A nice idea, however, don't forget that the Openstreet maps are from today, many of us old fuddie duddies aren't interested in today's railways, certainly, in Britain, as the vast majority of sidings, yards, industrial and commercial areas have been closed down, culling whatever variety we had back in the 1950s-1990s, for example, if someone wants to make a sim of today's lines, fine, but, I'm sure many of us oldies wouldn't be interested in buying it, so, the developer has created a home-made restriction on unit sales straightaway, not very good from a commercial viewpoint.

    And I think that to create a Railway type Sim of the whole world would be a gargantuan task, today's flight sims offer the whole world from thousands of feet up, you can't do that on a railway you're on the ground, do ya think we want all those fuzzy ground textures in the base game, I don't? And what about all the trees, houses, factories, roads and buildings for the whole country who is going to put those in and would our computers be able to run the game smoothly, too many obstacles in the way, me thinks, but, a nice dream, nonetheless.

    Cheerz. Steve.
    i5 4690 3.5 GHz Quad Core CPU, Gigabyte Z97-HD3, 16GB RAM, nVidia GTX1060 6GB, WIN 7 PRO 64-bit.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Hastings, MN, 55033
    Posts
    3,571

    Default

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



    P3D looks just fine at ground level, although a rail simulator would require higher-resolution road and track splines (no sectional pieces in MSFS, they got it right the first time), and some bumping up of the terrain texture resolution. The terrain textures would have to change from something that strikes a balance between low and high altitude to something that looks best at low altitude (i.e. no streets and whatnot in the details, just pure terrain textures), and the tiling of the textures on the terrain mesh would need to be changed to effect an increase in resolution. The thing is, I guarantee the MSTS2 team already took care of that.

    By the way - that scenery - trees, houses, signs, restaurants, barns, water towers, and all - is automatically generated by landclass. And it has been since FS2002. That's how you take care of generic scenery in a world-wide sim. And then you can put in whatever custom objects you like in areas that you want to build up. The autogen just forms the baseline scenery.

    And it's not technically impossible by any stretch of the imagination to do this in a rail sim. The aforementioned autogen in FS2002 looked about the same as stock MSTS scenery, roads and rails aside (actually, it looked better, because FS2002 had water). The technology was always there, and always manageable as a rail simulator would require, but MSTS was developed by an outside company who thought that a rail sim should work like a model railroad (not an unreasonable path for a team building their first simulator, when you consider that this is how most video game environments are built), and rail simmers have been convinced that there's a technical reason ever since, because inertia has kept things the way they were when MSTS1 was made. Remember that TS was ultimately developed by the same people who made MSTS (and who were still stuck in their original mindset). It makes sense that Trainz would follow model railroad rules, as it's a model railroad simulator, but inertia is what has otherwise kept rail simulators the way they are more than any other reason. That Run8 otherwise follows the zeitgeist but has added some ability to link routes together means that they have come the closest to realizing that train simmers think inside of a box that has no technical reason to exist.

    As to generating alternate scenery - that's just an exclude command and some custom scenery away. Easily done. In fact, the technique has been used in MSFS to backdate areas and create fictional airports. You can even use a flatten command to decimate everything and build terrain from flat earth, as you might in a rail sim. You could even turn the custom scenery on and off if you wished to revert to the default at any point.

    For what it's worth, this is where ground scenery in P3D is going:


Posting Permissions

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