Why Route Projects Fail?

[Acorncomputer]

Now on the darker side of why projects fail and how to protect against it.

The first thing is no matter what the provocation, try not to get angry and if you do never delete or uninstall anything. In particular, if your source files are gone (as I found when I originally went to extend my Norway route) it makes it very hard to clone or restart a project. It pays not to get involved with arguments or controversial threads on forums as these can often be the catalyst that leads to the downing of tools.

As an example there is a thread currently running over at Flame-sim/Otto.com about a new RW route coming out and the sentiment from some posters seems to be, if your work can't match these standards then don't bother publishing it. The sheer arrogance and pomposity of this beggars belief, I resisted the temptation to post a response in line with the mantra above. And this is for freeware too, not some expensive payware route. Not saying route builders shouldn't be the best we can be but to start denigrating freely shared work on the basis of perceived quality is nonsense. Sometimes I think certain people are losing track of why we do this, it is to drive a train from the cab over a favourite route. It's not a hosing contest as to who can get the most blades of grass in a tile.

The same situation arose to a certain extent in MSTS where certain opinionated individuals started espousing "2006 standards", "must use UKFS" etc. and IMHO that just puts off willing people who might otherwise produce a route the community want to see. I'm sure if I sat down and churned out a 150 mile route with just the infrastructure, a few generic houses and trees on the default green terrain it would still be popular! My own standards wouldn't let me do that but the same people who castigate the best efforts of others are then the same ones who moan about lack of new routes to run the motive power and rolling stock on!

In some respects the above thoughts also belong in the "Future of Freeware" thread as with sentiments like those expressed on Train-sim.com there could very well be no future, if you drive away future contributors.

I agree entirely.

[paulz6]

I think that the majority of route projects vapourise because the originators very quickly come to realise what a commitment building a detailed route will be.
Building a highly detailed personal route can be an ongoing lifetime progressional goal.
Personally, after learning route building in MSTS, I was in the time waiting for TMTS, RS and MSTS2. Two of those retail projects vapourised, leaving the last simulation standing. I still have reservations about how the last simulation standing will fair in the long term, especially when some comments from sources close say be happy with what you have got.
Despite some comments about open standards, route building is still heavily tied into a specific platform.
I don't want to spend years developing on a platform which has a limited future, only to have to start from scratch on a future platform that is better positioned for the long term.
Some would say it is about confidence in what you invest your time working on.
Ok, there is also the issue that I am happier with the results then the work required in order to achieve it!

[hertsbob]

Only time will tell...

Surely, if you're happy developing for MSTS then that's fine, but if you derive pleasure for creating whatever it is for RailWorks then that's all good as well?

Confidence in the future of the platform you invest your time in perhaps, but if you're building a highly detailed personal route I am of the opinion that you're best off actually building it rather than waiting for what may be the next 'long term' simulator on the market to be developed and released.

My personal stance is: (and it may sound selfish and unjustifiably arrogant)
I'm going to create routes in RailWorks for me, because I enjoy doing it. I will share whatever I am doing when I think it's of a good enough standard to share. If nobody likes it or is interested in it, then that's fine. Of course, it's delightful to receive feedback of any kind and it provides superb motivation, but ultimately the real motivation comes from within.

Once I've built my dream route, I shall have it just as long as I have a PC capable of running it. Which is going to be for a very long time!

Just my thoughts at the moment.

Cheers

Bob

[paulz6]

I prefer the idea that a route is in an open document format that can be opened by any rail simulator engine, much in the way there are open word processing documents that can be opened in any word processor.
Their would be custom objects referenced, and a generic library of open standard objects that may be referenced by the route. Custom objects can be exported into any format (or better still just one open standard which can be read by all), and the generic library of open objects would be designed to look good in any rail simulator engine.
The open route format could define super elevation etc.., and it would be up to the rail simulator engine as to whether it has the ability to implement it.
Such open standards would probably be better defined by a community rather than a profit making company though.
Route building takes time and requires an evolutionary path.

[theokus]

I prefer the idea that a route is in an open document format that can be opened by any rail simulator engine, much in the way there are open word processing documents that can be opened in any word processor.
Their would be custom objects referenced, and a generic library of open standard objects that may be referenced by the route. Custom objects can be exported into any format (or better still just one open standard which can be read by all), and the generic library of open objects would be designed to look good in any rail simulator engine.
The open route format could define super elevation etc.., and it would be up to the rail simulator engine as to whether it has the ability to implement it.
Such open standards would probably be better defined by a community rather than a profit making company though.
Route building takes time and requires an evolutionary path.

paulz6, I understand what you are saying.
But I can not believe this will work out.
I compare it with Linux: a lot off people involved in different but even so the same projects.
And open format has to much "would, probably, should or could".
I had the experience, more then 2 years.
These are not lost but I ended up with "a profit making company" as Windows is.

A profit making company has to have results... to stay alive.
But you are right :"Route building takes time and requires an evolutionary path".
It's the same with the program or RailWorks.
And on this day, RW has the best cards.
Plus I am a bit of a "egoist"
I take what is available now and Railworks has enough to keep everybody going.
There is on other matter too: I do believe in the RW-people.
They are involved with us and they have the spirit, the skill and the talent.

[paulz6]

Some interesting points there Theokus.
Whether standards are community defined or industry defined is probably not as important as the need to have defined standards.
The software industry relies on standards.
The hardware industry relies on standards.
The model railway industry relies on standards.
I would like to see very high quality to routes to run the high quality stock we have for railworks. The amount of effort/time involved in developing these routes means some sort of virtual railway standard needs to be in place. There is no point developing in a proprietary product if the development takes longer than the lifespan of the product itself!
I'd agree that RW is probably the best product on the market at the moment, and the community involvement from its staff is superb. There also seems to be an encouraging wave of new take up of the product.
I'm not entirely convinced RW will become the de-facto standard. I'm watching to see how the core product develops and how quickly. The dispatcher/AI element and the smoothness of the graphic engine is what lets the product down for me, and if these issues could be improved/rectified then I would be a lot more confident of its potential world dominance!

[theokus]

Paul I do like your words
I guess Railworks takes it step by step.
It's not a live saver but it's important enough for me to know now, that I am "busy" with RailWorks&Rail Simulator from day one.
imho the chance to accomplish (get a result) is for me a high one because of the concept.
Let's say: it' s easy enough for me to go on.