How Much Payware In A Freeware Route? (Poll)

[hertsbob]

Hi

Good question and an interesting range of views on the subject.

I'd agree with several other posters and say IoW only, mainly because I'd almost forgotten that it's an addon! Equally I couldn't have built my route without it so from my point of view it has to go in.

Yes, you could make your own 3rd rail track, but that is rather hardcore for the casual gamer!

I'll look forward to watching this discussion unfold.

Cheers

Bob

[ashgray]

Yes, you could make your own 3rd rail track, but that is rather hardcore for the casual gamer!

I take your point Bob, but I've always thought of route-making as being equally 'hard-core for the casual gamer'!

Ash

[transadelaide]

I do find it rather odd that so far in payware we have a few "modern" routes, but little stock..

Apart from the Class 60, 66, 158, 220, 380, 390, Tornado, HST Buffers, IGA, IWB, JJA, MJA, TEA and YGB.

I don't need any more trains any time soon, just the time to actually run all of them!

[AndiS]

I must say I rather concur with the "very interesting poll/question" point, although my vote is for no payware, and in the long run, it will be that. But for the coming year, things are not as easy, given the small number of payware items (in terms of routes) available and their popularity.

However, I must also observe that we bugged RSC/RSDL long and hard for not giving us the US sand textures in the EU version, and not that they are merged, a European route builder builds on US payware assets. Just an observation, not meant to be harsh critique. Just considering how we win and loose again, or not, depending on how many people do own these addons; ergo very interesting poll/discussion.

I'd just like to add that it is not exactly the same for routes & scenery as with scenarios & rolling stock, as swapping stock and making your own scenarios is really something advanced users will have to be doing all the time, looking at the large offering we are about to get. And it is easier and less tiresome than swapping scenery items. But then again, you could do that, too, using RW_Tools. So in the end, really hard to say.

The other hard and related issue is the question of shipping the scenery with the route. While most freeware routes send you for a hunt on the web to fetch dozens if not hundreds of individual downloads, installing a route remains hard work. Under such circumstances, it is less unattractive if your route contains some payware and there is some workaround for those who don't own it. You are not much worse off than with a "all free" freeware route which comes without required scenery.

So, for me, the short-term perspective could be piece work, including payware and freeware, and the long-term hope simple to install all-free routes.

[pjt1974]

excellent poll question, being a route builder I want my route to look as right as I can possibly make it, however I want anyone who downloads it to see it as I do, otherwise why spend all the hours on it in the first place, however, I believe in route building there are certain areas that are critical that the downloader must have that asset and other areas where having that scenery item is an optional extra.
Having the right track and signals is obviously critical to the route as are bridges and viaducts, however with payware track, an alternative default tracks.bin file can be easily supplied with the zip file so the downloader can atleast run the route. In terms of signals, the only alternative you would ever really want to the default signals are on UKTS download.
In terms of scenery I would, and have done, used the scenery item in my library that looks right, regardless of payware or freeware. If it's not critical to the route where is the problem, it just won't be there, just the same as if someone with a less powerful PC, lowers the graphical detail so thier pc can run RW more smoothly.

[Darpor]

IMHO, there is no point releasing a freeware route that contains payware assets as it means that people have to spend money to run something that is freeware.

So someone like Ally, for instance, creating South West Wales shouldn't bother releasing it then? What about those of us who have the relevant items for the route, should we do without because you disagree? I think that is pretty damning assesment of the time he has spent creating it and probably shows the huge lack of appreciation which seems to be brewing in the community. Whether it requires payware assets or not, the creation that he releases at the end is freeware whether you think so or not.

[styckx]

I don't mind payware in routes. If it makes it look better, and allows the atmosphere of the route to shine through in a way the creator imagined, then so be it. Most route builders I know don't build routes for a majority. They first build them for themselves to fill their own void of what they want to drive and if they are nice enough to share their creations you shouldn't complain about what and how many of anything is required to run them.

As Railworks matures and I look back on some of the vanilla original stock routes, as compared to what some of these fine creators are pumping out today. The old stock method looks dated already and if a creator needs to harness the assets in a pay route to continue pumping out some of works of art I've been seeing lately. Then so be it. No artist should be limited to the tools he wants to use even if at risk of lessing the audience of people who can correctly view it.

[bigvern]

So what is the point of having a poll to find peoples opinions when the AR's start crying about it.????

I'd like to know what an AR is, too?

I started the poll out of genuine interest and concern as a route builder, to find what the breaking point is when it comes to using a freeware route using payware assets. The answer is quite important as there's no point in creating a route that draws on items from several payware projects if no-one is prepared to download it.

Can I respectfully ask that this thread and poll be allowed to run it's purpose as an objective survey, don't give the mods an excuse to lock it up.

[Easilyconfused]

It is an important question and not likely to get locked - anyone taking it wildly off course is likely to see their posts pruned or moved to other threads.

[FoggyMorning]

What I like to see are routes built to as high a standard as the route builder can achieve. If that means using payware assets then so be it. I think that if the person building a route feels they have to compromise on what assets they can incorporate then it can have a knock on effect on their level of enjoyment and involvement in the route building process

[Kitform]

@BigVern, I have no intention of getting embroiled in a slanging match with other forum members that do not agree with my opinion.

The question was asked for peoples view/opinion on payware in freeware routes...I gave my opinion and that was that. Others now think that I'm objecting to authors of freeware routes including payware assets...How they work that out is beyond me as I never said that, but like so many threads on this forum, it seems some come on here for the argument.

If I downloaded a freeware route and then found I needed to spend money in order to run the freeware route, I would be disappointed as I'd never get to run the route.
I would never get to see the hours put in by the route author and I believe it would not just be my loss, but also the authors loss as well after all their hard work.

Authors of freeware routes have the choice if they want to use payware assets, that's their choice and no-one else's, if they believe payware will enhance their route then it's up to them if they use it...Not me, the only choice I have is whether or not I'm prepared to spend money to be able to use the route.

I expressed my opinion about payware assets in a freeware route, I chose the last option in the available choices of not including payware assets.

[Darpor]

@BigVern, I have no intention of getting embroiled in a slanging match with other forum members that do not agree with my opinion.

So is "AR" an insult then? Please enlighten.

From the rest of your post, I fully value your opinion. Once again, I will bring my Cresston route up. Whether some people like it or not, that is irrelevant but it probably sits in your street of a non payware requirement. That was a brief I set on that route, I wanted there to be a route of decent length available for people to use "out of the box". Community response has been pretty fair for the route so that ticks the box on that format.

Move to the other side of the coin and I have another project in the works which has been going on for a while, Darlington to Saltburn including the Boulby line. This is a route I think you know very well (at least by looking at your location ) but this has a requirement of IOW assets and latterly GARL.

Now, I can fully appreciate you not wanting to have to purchase anything in order to run any route but my understanding from your post was that your opinion was that nobody should bother releasing anything that uses payware stock, something that you have consequently clarified your stance on, it is up to the author. As mentioned above and includes me, is that many people recreate their local line initially for themselves, if it gets released, is any good and is appreciated by those who are able to run it, then so be it. Please don't knock the fact that people are trying although I know that was not your intention, it just seemed that way to me.

[Easilyconfused]

This thread will be looked at in the morning and posts not relevant to the poll will be moved to either a new thread or the great post dump for posterity.

If the abbreviation means what is being implied then it is outside section 3 of the forum code of conduct and will be addressed as such.

[hertsbob]

...I've always thought of route-making as being equally 'hard-core for the casual gamer'!
Ash

Hi

I suppose you're right. There are so very many different levels of 'ability' in so many different aspects of PC railway simulators it makes my head spin just thinking about them all.

Is it just me or are the results of the poll so far totally inconclusive?

Cheers

Bob

[Acorncomputer]

I do not think there is a single answer to this.

It is possible to create routes using default assets only as was proved in the Route Building Challenge and despite the limited resources available, eight or so routes were created that could be used by anyone who had just the default version of RailWorks installed. Given more than a week to produce a route, then it is perfectly possible to build a substantial route that is usable by anyone with RailWorks. It cannot be denied that the route may look very much like the default routes but as there is now a growing library of default assets that come with RailWorks, it is easier to add an individual feel to a route.

Anyone wanting to create a route that can be used by the largest number of people will therefore use the default asset formula.

I think I fit into the category that is happy to create a route that uses mainly default assets but will include the Isle of Wight route as required payware. The Isle of Wight route was a milestone in the journey of Rail Simulator as it introduced animated characters, graphics friendly foliage, scenario specific assets and Invincible. Things have moved on, however, and there are now animated characters, foliage and scenario specific scenery as default items so I think it would be possible to use default assets where I might once have used IOW assets and thus the IOW route would not be needed at all. I can diffuse the default route look by creating my own assets (about 170 in The Spa Valley Railway) and include a few third party freeware items which works quite well, so we are still in the category where a route can be created and not require any payware to run.

When it comes to payware requirements in a route, we first have to assume that the route creator has not just included a few scenery items from a payware route and that the items included really are essential to make the route work properly both from the operational and aesthetic point of view. A freeware route using payware items will state what is required in the download panel so no one is likely to download a route and then discover payware is required. If you have the necessary assets then no problem but it is your own personal decision as to whether you want to obtain the necessary payware in order to run the freeware route or move on to something else.

Freeware routes are generally created primarily for the enjoyment of the creator and if others also get enjoyment from the route then so much the better. If a creator uses a range of payware items then this is because the route has been created to please the creator, and it pleased him to use these assets. We can join in this pleasure if we wish but it is our choice.

Generally I like to see routes that can be used by the majority of people but in practice, we end up with a range of routes using default items at one end of the scale to routes that use several payware items at the other end. I don't see a problem with this and I think we get a more interesting library of freeware routes as a result.

Whatever the result of this poll suggests, I do not think it will provide a definite answer to the question but it is still good debate.