Atomic Systems

simuk wrote:

bigvern wrote:Get rid of Blueprints.

Can I please make a vote on this list to "keep blueprints". I think they're an excellent idea with so much (so far un-tapped) potential.

bigvern wrote:Get rid of track rules.

Same for track rules, surely they should be kept, rather than get rid of them? What specifically do you want removing from the track rules or doing differently? What's the alternative to track rules?

Well if kept, implemented in a different manner. The last route I tried building, I'd laid 20 miles of concrete sleeper track under the Bath Main Line rule, then found I couldn't change any of the properties. All track should be available to use in all routes and properties adjusted as necessary. Try sorting out the mess if you've had to use two track "rules" in a route then can't apply a speed or sound etc. across the two. MSTS doesn't need or use them. TRS doesn't need or use them.

Both MSTS and TRS determine speed restrictions by the physical placement of the signs. MSTS had you place sound regions for the various track sounds.

Why do you think Blueprints are an excellent idea? Many people have admitted to struggling with them and the RS folder structure. Frankly if it wasn't for Mike Simpson's set of tools to assist in setting up Blueprints, I suspect even less would have been achieved than has been. Or is this something of interest to the commercial sector (which I believe you represent, Just Trains/Flight) as a means of copy protection? TRS manages to protect commercial content, but you don't need a Blueprint to set up a route - it's all menu driven from within Surveyor or a few clicks in CMP if importing a Transdem route. Likewise a 3D object. Yes you need to set up the config file but that usually is a matter of a minute or two.

Happy 4000th Bigvern

Hi Guys,

Great list going so far. I thought I would respond with a list of things people have requested that are already possible in Rail Simulator.

• I would like to be able to hear the horn from further away wich in real life you can
• I would like some new 4 caternery ohle becasue the ones we have know are completely rubbish.
• Would like a engine switched of before you start it as in real life not just have it on.
• 2 tone horn sounds on all rooling stock.Possoble by pressing the M for up and the N for down or so on.
• I wouldnt like to see smoke when the engine is switched off?
• Have rooling stock doors close a bit slower.
• better point sounds, station announcements, whistle, oh heck better sounds a la BVE!
• aws and tpws in all train cab's
• Lighting in fog behaves negatively: shadows of distant trains are visible as solid black rectangles long before the train comes out of the fog and lights on platforms throw a blinding white square onto the platform, cars headlights too.
• Lighting of Distant hills is also in reverse: the further hills are lighter (too bright) than the nearer.
• needed to switch to another loco to shunt after arriving at terminus, for example.
• Would be good if portals worked better: I can only send one AI train into a portal (and back and forth between 2 portals for ever) without a stall followed by a collision.
• id like to see is slipping, in wet conditions id like to see the loco struggling to get its feet.
• 3 differnet levels of shaddows light dark and very dark
• Hight moniter on all objecs including track.
• A auto placement of all objects at hight of ground
• A better wheel sound instead of the clunk
• Addition of Adams new weather http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 54&t=80976
• better cloud formations.
• that lovely sound effect as wheels pass over the points in BVE.
• Lens glow on signals
• scenario creation, instead of having the destinations pop up in the right hand flyout why not make it intergral with the dropdown box, so you dont have to keep going back and forth or even flying to the destination, that way you can flit about without having to come out of the necessaries like passenger and stop instructions all the time which imo makes it very tedious as is.
• Visual wheel slip and brake locking.
• A wait Instruction in the scenario editor
• Working Level Crossings
• a loft which connects the repeated items by straights, not curves would for a basis for a wide range of community solutions.
• I'd like to see some higher volume for the sound of rolling stock in speed.
• when coupling up , as well as seeing the couplings join, why not the brake pipes too?
• better track sounds, when crossing points
• Fix the train sound so you get different internal/external effects.

There are some things that I can confirm will not appear until a future version of Rail Simulator. Things such as removal of blueprints, track rules, track markers, use of the offset tool for track. Many such elements can be core to Rail Simulator and thus would require scrapping the engine and starting again.

Ive also seen a few comments that slack action would require a completely new version of Rail Simulator before being possible. I can confirm that we have prototyped such a feature so I wouldnt be so hasty to dismiss its possibility of appearing.

Is arcing possible with electric locos ect

Ohhh couple of my ideas are in that list.... yipeeee

Would there by any word on super elevation and the cab wobble?

Cheers Adam for the list.

Wow 10 out of 10 for that reply there adem

Anychance of the list being modified again of wich can be achived by the user

The 2 tone horns are possoble as you stated that yourself in another one of my threads.
I wonder if the shaddows are possoble?

Well I've got something useful out of this thread apart from Adam's list - the vehicles and buildings on SAVV01's site at http://www.tsnz.co.nz/ will come in very useful

No floating bushes in tunnels and a complete review or the speed sign placements including more speed change warning signs (especially Bath to teplecombe as to my knowladge there is no warnings before the actual speed limit change) and maybe some of the warning signs being moved further back as some are hard to slow down in time.

what about having an AWS warning before the speed limit warning sign..

bigvern wrote:

simuk wrote:

bigvern wrote:Get rid of Blueprints.

Can I please make a vote on this list to "keep blueprints". I think they're an excellent idea with so much (so far un-tapped) potential.

bigvern wrote:Get rid of track rules.

Same for track rules, surely they should be kept, rather than get rid of them? What specifically do you want removing from the track rules or doing differently? What's the alternative to track rules?

Well if kept, implemented in a different manner. The last route I tried building, I'd laid 20 miles of concrete sleeper track under the Bath Main Line rule, then found I couldn't change any of the properties. All track should be available to use in all routes and properties adjusted as necessary. Try sorting out the mess if you've had to use two track "rules" in a route then can't apply a speed or sound etc. across the two. MSTS doesn't need or use them. TRS doesn't need or use them.

Both MSTS and TRS determine speed restrictions by the physical placement of the signs. MSTS had you place sound regions for the various track sounds.

Why do you think Blueprints are an excellent idea? Many people have admitted to struggling with them and the RS folder structure. Frankly if it wasn't for Mike Simpson's set of tools to assist in setting up Blueprints, I suspect even less would have been achieved than has been. Or is this something of interest to the commercial sector (which I believe you represent, Just Trains/Flight) as a means of copy protection? TRS manages to protect commercial content, but you don't need a Blueprint to set up a route - it's all menu driven from within Surveyor or a few clicks in CMP if importing a Transdem route. Likewise a 3D object. Yes you need to set up the config file but that usually is a matter of a minute or two.

Well if you only used one track rule, Bath Concrete, then you should be fine. The documentation does state the below:
'It is strongly recommended that only one track rule is used per track network.'
Just because other sims don't use track rules doesn't mean they're wrong or shouldn't be there. I personally though don't see the point of them.

bigvern wrote:

simuk wrote:

bigvern wrote:Get rid of Blueprints.

Can I please make a vote on this list to "keep blueprints". I think they're an excellent idea with so much (so far un-tapped) potential.

bigvern wrote:Get rid of track rules.

Same for track rules, surely they should be kept, rather than get rid of them? What specifically do you want removing from the track rules or doing differently? What's the alternative to track rules?

Why do you think Blueprints are an excellent idea? Many people have admitted to struggling with them and the RS folder structure. Frankly if it wasn't for Mike Simpson's set of tools to assist in setting up Blueprints, I suspect even less would have been achieved than has been. Or is this something of interest to the commercial sector (which I believe you represent, Just Trains/Flight) as a means of copy protection? TRS manages to protect commercial content, but you don't need a Blueprint to set up a route - it's all menu driven from within Surveyor or a few clicks in CMP if importing a Transdem route. Likewise a 3D object. Yes you need to set up the config file but that usually is a matter of a minute or two.

That's right, I work for Just Flight/Just Trains (worth noting we're the UK publisher of the Trainz series since TRS2004 too, so I'm not biased against Trainz. We've also published a number of very popular MSTS add-ons, so there'd be no reason or point in me doing-down MSTS - I'm a fan of all simulation software and very passionately support the genre of software/game. As a company Just Flight are dedicated to bringing content to Flight and Train Simulation and getting it to as many people as possible - we're all highly dedicated and care about our shared hobby).

What personally appeals to me for the blueprints is how much flexibility they seem to have. As I say, I feel a lot of it hasn't been explored or tapped in to yet, maybe because people don't know (maybe because the documentation hasn't explicitly stated every last detail - which is fair enough because I think if it was explained in every last detail you'd be months or more trying to explain it all), and maybe because in some cases people don't want to know/see. One thing I really like, now that I've got the hang of it, is how the weather blueprints work - they're great, I really like them. I can't see how the weather is done "better" in MSTS or Trainz? That's not to say there aren't better ways that it could be done, but out of all three simulations I prefer the blueprint method in RS for setting the weather for a scenario. The Blueprints seem better because they don't involve manually hacking a text file, it's all drop down boxes and number/text entry boxes, it leads you through it - yes it's not very pretty (but surely that's something that could be changed if needed - but is it really needed?) and might not be as obvious as to what things do (but you've only got to ask to find out) but the blueprints do seem to work. I'm still unsure as to what it is about the Blueprint system which you don't actually like, and prefer about the system(s) in Trainz/MSTS/BVE/whatever? What's so "bad" about the RS method and so "good" about the others? What is it that puts you personally off of the Blueprint system? is it a lack of information relating to the system, or too much information, or the blueprint editor tool, or a lack of flexibility or what?

I've set up a scenery blueprint within seconds, and exported the model and textures to the correct folder in RS, all with the use of the blueprint editor. A matter of second from start to finish, with no manual hacking of files or anything.....

As for your question/point about copy protection, unfortunately that's not something I know enough about in RS, and something I'd like to learn more about and find out what is possible, and what can be made possible. It's certainly an area I'd like to explore further with ALL software, not just Rail Simulator, as having copy protection systems (and methods to lock particular content to a specific route/publisher/provider/key), is something that I feel could be very useful to having content provided with a product which is also available via other routes, but can't just be re-distributed/reworked/modified by people when that wasn't the original intention. I'm not however saying people should be prevented from making modifications to content though, and don't really want to see a closed system where hobbiests can't tinker around with files and advance a product further than someone else had done.

No, I used the Bath main-line rule, laid "Oxford" concrete track which when highlighted wouldn't let me do anything with it in the property edit screen. Another fledgling route consigned to the recycle bin...

Besides there have been mixed messages re mixing track rules - on the one hand RSDL say don't do it, on the other there were obviously two default rules used by the Kuju devs on the same route (Bath Main and Bath Goods).

It's either that or incorporate something like Sniper's "All Track Rule" officially and have that as the default rule when you start or work on a route.

I'm still unsure as to what it is about the Blueprint system which you don't actually like, and prefer about the system(s) in Trainz/MSTS/BVE/whatever? What's so "bad" about the RS method and so "good" about the others?

Where to begin... I don't really want to drag this thread down into pros/cons of the Blueprint system. Suffice to say I'm not the only one who has struggled with the concept. Maybe I'm just overall a bit thick and KRS is not meant for the likes of me, never mind I'll just continue adding to the 100's of route miles I've produced for MSTS & Trainz.

bigvern wrote:

I'm still unsure as to what it is about the Blueprint system which you don't actually like, and prefer about the system(s) in Trainz/MSTS/BVE/whatever? What's so "bad" about the RS method and so "good" about the others?

Where to begin... I don't really want to drag this thread down into pros/cons of the Blueprint system. Suffice to say I'm not the only one who has struggled with the concept. Maybe I'm just overall a bit thick and KRS is not meant for the likes of me, never mind I'll just continue adding to the 100's of route miles I've produced for MSTS & Trainz.

OK well maybe create a new topic dedicate to the blueprint system, and maybe it can be a good basis for people to ask questions, share knowledge, and learn how it works. I too "stuggled" with it to start off with, and then things (rapidly) started to click in to place. Like I say, I'm still unsure as to what it is about the Blueprint system you don't like - maybe explaining what you don't like would help put across your view better, and/or help others explain it to you. Assuming you'd like help understanding the system, of course.

I have just been having a drive around in RS and rembered a couple of other things.

1. the slowing down of the rotation of the turn tables.
2. when connecting to wagons they hop into the air... the KRS jiggle
3. also the addition of Dereks new smoke effcts http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 54&t=80657
4. the addition of last wagon red flashing lamp