Spot the difference

[Acorncomputer]

Some have seen RW/TS2012 as the successor to MSTS which might be the right way to look at it bearing in mind that they both came from Kuju originally.

One question that I do not know the answer to is exactly who owns the original rights to MSTS at the moment. Links on the Microsoft website to MSTS bring you back to where you started so it seems that Microsoft have no interest in the game any more. So who does

[lateagain]

No quarrels with that logic and indeed WHO does now own the rights?

As for Kuju's involvement? How many at Kuju who worked on RS worked on MSTS? If we look at the "Brand" I doubt many involved in MSTS2, the original one were involved with the Ace's guy's who worked on MSTS2, the last aborted attempt? Even now the guy's from Ace's who formed Cascade Games Foundry cannot have any "intellectual rights" to Train Simulator" as a title I'd have thought? If they had I guess they'd be having a "hissy fit" as we speak

Geoff

[tubemad]

It's not just Train Simulator 2012 that got me with the font, it seems most other sims use the MSTS main font, is this some kind of simulator default text?

When Ship Simulator came out I thought it was by MS, but it was just the same logo font. Then it seemed to apply to Farming Simulator, Demolishing or whatever Simulator, Fork Lift Simulator and so on


James.

[Trainguy76]

Sort of like 'Acme' when that was around.

[lateagain]

Wow! Didn't realise how many Weird and wonderful "Simulator" titles were out there now until I checked out your post on Amazon James .

Still interestingly you'll note that Ship Simulator have in fact changed away from that font to something more individual for their latest release and their web site now styles itself (in that font) as ShipSim.com.

The fact is that the issue is whether or not the use of a logo is likely to cause confusion to the consumer. OTHER simulators could hardly be claimed to be confused as a Train Simulator ....well there's always someone

Another "reality" nowadays is that many folk download software packages rather than buy a boxed copy and so may not even notice the font at all. I doubt that many who don't see my point sat through a full time Graphic Design course as I did forty years ago? I can hear the derision and criticism that would have been heaped upon me as a student by my tutors and fellow students, as if I were back there now, should I have had the nerve to present a design like this. But hey the world's changed so much for the better hasn't it.........

Geoff

[ianmacmillan]

Should cause a bit of confusion on the download page.

[Trainguy76]

Should cause a bit of confusion on the download page.

Not if UKTS decides to put it as RailWorks 3, buy I don't know what they plan.

[SDtrains]

The number of changes to the latest version of Railworks, although cosmetically enhancing, seems to me to be really quite minor. I would have expected to see new items of stock and routes, and in addition to the changes in the way the game engine works. I would also like to have seen a major expansion in the way the signalling works, so that AI can be timed to arrive more flexibly, even more control over AI activities so that remote shunting operations can be completely simulated, perhaps even a signal box view of operations. I am still waiting for RW to acheive the overall level of flexibilty that MSTS has. The way things are going, I don't think that RW will be overall as flexible as MSTS for the forseeable future.

Perhaps the new version should have been called Railworks V2.1. Boom tish.

Regards

[Acorncomputer]

Slightly off topic

perhaps even a signal box view of operations

With more people working on community content, RS.com are in danger of getting left behind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9IiFXKitUY

[lateagain]

Slightly off topic

perhaps even a signal box view of operations

With more people working on community content, RS.com are in danger of getting left behind

I suppose we have to be realistic? MSTS was released and it was left to the community to develop it, bar the one patch. Even the additional stock was courtesy of Train Artisan (not sure who did the 50 and the Mk1s?).

Trouble is it seems too difficult or expensive for freeware to have developed as quickly as it did for MSTS and the heavy reliance on payware for much of the stuff is IMO it's biggest drawback. If RS worked on the "basic functionality of operating aspects" of the Sim it may mean ticking a good few off the wish list that SDTrains and many others have presented but how do they make a living doing that? If patches were charged for many folk would grumble about that? Then of course producing models to generate income must detract from efforts in solving the problems?

MSTS's weaknesses were also in the long term it's strengths?

I know many folk are producing freeware for RW and even following many MSTS payware producers example and releasing freeware content as well but sadly the balance of freeware to payware isn't right yet. In these hard times folk have to look deep into their pockets.

Maybe a better way forward would be for RS and some commercial producers to concentrate on routes? or scenery enhancements which have been really popular with the flight sim community. If there was more free stock, easier activity creation (re fixes suggested many times already) then folk would be happier to spend on routes?

Anyway this is way off topic but as the topic was triggered by the "upgrade" it's not irrelevant.

BTW love the signal box video

Geoff

[SDtrains]

I know many folk are producing freeware for RW and even following many MSTS payware producers example and releasing freeware content as well but sadly the balance of freeware to payware isn't right yet. In these hard times folk have to look deep into their pockets.

I could not agree more, but with the caveat that things really do look different from a modeller's perspective. I have often thought that if many of the people who run sims would make just one piece of rolling stock per year, we would be spoiled if not swamped with freeware. I feel somewhat cynical about the motives of payware producers for RW, who , painfully obviously regard RW as a cash cow (I refer to a certain box set - you know the one), and this situation must really spoil it for people who are dedicated freeware RW modellers. Which ever your choice of simulator, the modelling challenge is perpetual, and the feeling of acheivement from making a 'new' model and then uploading it for others to share is perhaps more rewarding than feeling economically repressed by overpriced 'products'. Even though I have personally contributed to payware, there is stuff out there I would not want to part with cash for. As the saying goes, 'you pays your money and takes your choice'. The market may be free, but you have to watch out for what you pay for!

regards

[lateagain]

There is no doubt modelling is a skill with a steep learning curve and some 3D-programmes are beyond many folks pocket. However the reason that MSTS has done so well with freeware is (apart from a 10 year head start ) that folk have learnt various skills and contributed their efforts that way. Not ALL modellers are great skinners/painters so reskins are an obvious way of incresing stock, activities/scenarios are a skill in themselves and there have been many who've taken a lot of time creating those. The trouble is that any Cash Cow can drink the well dry and before I mothballed RW my expenditure had to be limited to one small area of interest. To widen that meant spending more than I could or would spend on it. Those who're devoted to it will say "your choice!" and of course they are right ....BUT if more folk take my course of action the market shrinks and everyone losses?

It'll take more than a logo to shift those basic facts?

geoff

[rickloader]

Geoff, I quite agree RS.com are seeking to position their product as the successor to MSTS, and the automatic choice of train simulator. But what company wouldn`t? Like when you say "Hoover" instead of vacuum cleaner. Does it matter?
There have been 3 marketing ploys. MSTS - sell high and then ignore the product. Trainz - a new full price release every year. RW sell cheap, and clean up on the DLC. Of the 3, I think RW`s is pretty fair. I bought RW at knockdown price, and have no obligation to pay for DLC.if I want specific items I should get on and make them! I don`t because of RW`s core issues. But there are people trying hard to increase RW s freeware base.
It is unfortunate that the scarcity of modelers for RW seems to have lead to some aggressive attitudes, and perhaps payware vs freeware distorts relationships. I remember an un-named payware modeler boasting he could make a loco in a weekend. How then is a routebuilder expected to offer months/years of work free?
One of MSTS strengths is the friendly and helpful exchange I have enjoyed, including from contributors to this thread. I`m sure that this can continue through Open Rails. Rather than looking over at RW, we should look to ORTS. A new release out now, and evidence the Open Rails team is steadily fulfilling their promises.
Best wishes , Rick

[FoggyMorning]

Geoff, I quite agree RS.com are seeking to position their product as the successor to MSTS, and the automatic choice of train simulator. But what company wouldn`t? Like when you say "Hoover" instead of vacuum cleaner. Does it matter?
There have been 3 marketing ploys. MSTS - sell high and then ignore the product. Trainz - a new full price release every year. RW sell cheap, and clean up on the DLC. Of the 3, I think RW`s is pretty fair. I bought RW at knockdown price, and have no obligation to pay for DLC.if I want specific items I should get on and make them! I don`t because of RW`s core issues. But there are people trying hard to increase RW s freeware base.
It is unfortunate that the scarcity of modelers for RW seems to have lead to some aggressive attitudes, and perhaps payware vs freeware distorts relationships. I remember an un-named payware modeler boasting he could make a loco in a weekend. How then is a routebuilder expected to offer months/years of work free?
One of MSTS strengths is the friendly and helpful exchange I have enjoyed, including from contributors to this thread. I`m sure that this can continue through Open Rails. Rather than looking over at RW, we should look to ORTS. A new release out now, and evidence the Open Rails team is steadily fulfilling their promises.
Best wishes , Rick

I wasn't aware that there was a scarcity of modellers for Railworks.
Everything you say is a strength of the MSTS userbase here is in my experience also present amongst the Railworks userbase.
As for the business model, I feel you have left out the important factor of offering periodic, free upgrades to the base product.

All that said, I do share some of the disquiet expressed here about the "cash cow" syndrome. Over the last several months I have the impression that an awful lot of developers have appeared seemingly from nowhere offering commercial addons. The most established and respected commercial developers built a large part of their good reputation by producing freeware for the community here and elsewhere, in some cases going back to the days when MSTS was the train sim of choice for the majority

Kind regards

Steve

[rickloader]

Well Steve, a scarcity was my attempt at explaining some RW modelers` aggressive attitudes, because they feel they are in a commanding position . Perhaps I`m wrong. Anyway, I`m glad you can detect the same generous spirit in RW as exists in MSTS, because it contributes so much to enjoyment.
Steve, you seem to have missed that I was paying tribute to RS.com`s business model. I didn`t mention the free upgrades, because I was trying to be concise. Equally, I can see that to update core aspects of RW that are important to me, would upset the main user base who have paid for their DLC and scenarios. (although the planned versioning should enable this). This thread seems critical of RS.com`s stategy, but I think they are steering a sound commercial course.
For those who don`t like the direction of RW there are 2 options. Pitch into RW freeware and change RW, or follow the MSTS / ORTS developments.
There is some fine work being done in developing OR, and yet many on both RW and MSTS forums see it as a misguided attempt to hang on to MSTS.
It is a pity this notion persists because ORTS will offer a great deal more than MSTS compatibility.
In my view ORTS is the natural successor to MSTS, because it is taking the MSTS format forward, and that is also why on the MSTS forum there is no need to look sideways at RW. But maybe RS.com claim support by clever marketing ? Or a sort of critical mass where everyone joins despite shortcomings?
Of course there is enjoyment in both sims (and Trainz too!)
Rick