Anybody know why?

knight2000fs · Post by **knight2000fs** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:27 pm

Hi,
Having visited the Swanage Railway for the first time, I saw that the line coming into the Main platform had a slight bend in it, where as the sim version was straight into the platform - anybody know why?
Thanks,
Aaron

WSR2005 · Post by **WSR2005** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:38 pm

It isn't possible to have a 100% accurate representation in MSTS, and what one person might notice another might not; I doubt there was a reason for not including the bend.

Tim

knight2000fs · Post by **knight2000fs** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:41 pm

Tim,
Look at this: http://www.wordsandpictures.me.uk/imag/img52.jpg
I'm quite suprised it was not included, is there any limitations with MSTS?

ARG706 · Post by **ARG706** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:53 pm

WSR2005 wrote:It isn't possible to have a 100% accurate representation in MSTS, and what one person might notice another might not; I doubt there was a reason for not including the bend.

Tim

Well known curves and kinks should be included I think, if it is a payware route. they are to be of a higher quality than freeware aren't they?

Having said that I have identified in the prototype a minor curve I have missed inthe sim in a route I've half-built. It will be acknowledged in the final readme, but I'm sure as hell not making any rush to change it as I don't believe it is presently justified

WSR2005 · Post by **WSR2005** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:25 pm

knight2000fs wrote:Tim,
Look at this: http://www.wordsandpictures.me.uk/imag/img52.jpg
I'm quite suprised it was not included, is there any limitations with MSTS?

Actually, I must admit that is a pretty big thing to miss out - not too familiar with it myself.

Limitations of the sim may not necessarily be with the game itself, but with the person building the route - those with more skill would probably be able to create a more accurate representation. Some track layouts could be difficult to recreate, especially using default track which is what I believe 3DTS used for Swanage.

I can't give a definitive answer, you would have to ask the authors if you wanted a definite reason.

Tim

MartinH · Post by **MartinH** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:53 pm

No route can ever be more than an artistic representation of the prototype. For one thing, using standard track pieces, you are limited to 40m straight sections for all 10 deg points. Where you have a crossover between two tracks, this extends to 60m (over the length of the crossover). This causes all sorts of problems at stations and often requires compromises. Secondly, it isn't just a matter of laying the track. The approach to Swanage took several attempts to get the track, roads, terrain and buildings all in the correct positions relative to one another. Finally, we are talking about a computer game that was written to entertain its users, not an accurate piece of 3D modelling software, as might be used by an architect or engineer. Every individual item is placed by hand and manually moved to the correct position.

Looking at the photograph, the problem in this case was the points. In particular, the set of points leading to the loop.

As for the payware comment, if you were commissioning me to produce a 100% accurate model of the Swanage or any other route, the £25 charge would have several zeros on the end to cover a full survey of the line, plus the necessary software to automatically input the survey data into the model. The modelling software itself would also cost a small fortune. The route would have been built in a proper studio using professional tools and I would be earning a salary for doing it (not in the spare bedroom in the evenings and weekends). It would certainly have been outside the range of your pocket money.

I built the Swanage Route and I'm proud of it. It stands up against any other MSTS route in terms of accuracy and is better than many. Yes, there are inaccuracies. Lots of them in fact. There are also many on Cambrian 2 that I've just finished, but that's the nature of MSTS route modelling.

I take comfort in the fact that most people who know the Swanage line or have visited it say, "How did they get it so accurate?", rather than "How did they get it so wrong?". More importantly, most people see it for what it is: a simulation aimed at the computer gaming market.

I am always willing to listen to criticism, but these comments are beyond belief.

Martin

WSR2005 · Post by **WSR2005** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:08 pm

MartinH wrote:I am always willing to listen to criticism, but these comments are beyond belief.

Martin

My apologies if any of my comments caused offence, I can assure you it was unintentional. If it's any consolation, it does help to know the position the route builder is in, and I can understand that there is no way to get a 100% accurate representation.

However, some people might think that payware should be exactly like the real thing, when it isn't possible.

Just my thoughts.

Tim

knight2000fs · Post by **knight2000fs** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:08 pm

MartinH wrote:I built the Swanage Route and I'm proud of it.Martin

Martin, so you should be!
I was meerly asking as to the reason why it was not included, and I believe it was worth every penny...
I also understand that it is impossible to get everything just so, and I a better understanding now as to why...
Aaron

MartinH · Post by **MartinH** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:58 pm

No offence taken from either of you. It's been a long hard week!

Martin