An interesting question. It will probably work like the rest of the IT industry. Backwards compatibility allows the software to move forwards without rendering existing developments defunct. Expecting forwards compatibility does not allow technology to evolve.mpeffers wrote:I can recall being told things from RS1 would work on RS2 and that existing RS1 users wouldn't have to pay the full price, but will it work the other way too - will freeware stock made for RS2 (but without features built in that'll prevent it from working with RS1) work on RS1, or am I going to forced to fork out extra money for a new version every 3 years.
The MSTS pre-painted tile squares would be very limiting IMHO - not something I would like to see a return to. I do agree better control of the terrain texturing would help.bigvern wrote:Terrain texturing is particularly slow as every tile has to be hand painted, there's no ready painted tile squares as per MSTS and no copy/paste function as per TRS, not to mention it is virtually impossible to get a smooth blend between the different texture types.
Lofts are a great idea but I agree the control of them is a bit clumbsy making loft placement more time consuming then if could be. Being able to layout a straight loft that automatically fits the terrain by simply clicking on the start point and the end point is an idea I have mooted in the past.bigvern wrote:However the ability to run out parallel "lofts" has made the process of doing lineside fencing etc. a bit quicker. However once you start laying lofts to follow the terrain it's still a bit hitty/missy whether you suddenly end up with a section sticking up at an angle, making field hedge/wall placement more time consuming than it should be.
It's a good model, as it doesn't exclusively lock out all users, allowing them to slowly improve their experience according to their pocket. That DT class 25 looks good for a low-poly freeware model!smarty2 wrote:Interesting thread, i think there are valid points been made by all the contributors so far, i must say though i am liking 3d trains approach by including a low res versions for free, and definitely think all the commercial developers should introduce this strategy as it would be key to the success of RS imo. It is something DT appear to be leaning towards partially.
The point here is that if you buy all these 3GBP/5GBP sounds sets just for the default stock out there from the various commercial providers, the cost adds up to quite a bit. Are we going to get class 66/158 individual sounds packs too? Perhaps 5GBP for replacement sound sets that covers all the default stock may seem reasonable.smarty2 wrote:i am concerned about the price of some addons however as has been well stated by Paul, i see some stuff in the pipeline for single assets costing £11! I think it is too much and i wont be paying through the nose for stuff i do not think is good value no matter what the credentials, as an opposite i think Richard Armstrongs stuff is very reasonably priced in comparison £3 for a sound set has given a lot of ooomph to my experience with the sim and has made it more an involving experience.
The commercial pricing dilemma is that the existing user base is so small to be able to make a reasonable income from it. Pricing commercial products to high is not going to increase that user base. Lower pricing is more likely to increase the existing user base leading to higher long term sales.
Also high pricing for mini-products with short development times is not going to induce the best of feelings in those developing the products with the longer development times. People want more routes!
