Atomic Systems

I don't normally post polls but this is quite an important issue, with the price of GARL jumping to £24.99 at Steam plus the various other routes (IOW, Rich Garber etc.) I want to get a handle on how many payware assets an end user will accept having to purchase to run a freeware route, before saying, "No thank you."

At the end of the day as route builder I can go on pileing payware assets into a project but just because I own them all, doesn't mean to say other users do.

Morning Sir,

I'm just wondering what items you might require from Rich Garber's Rascal & Cottonwood, and his other routes, that can be obtained freely elsewhere, Vern ? The 3DTrains foliage and roads spring to mind as well as some freeware tracks from America on the trainsim.com website, they're reskins of the default US track, which look pretty damn good.
There are loads of buildings and other scenery items within the packages from OTTO's website of the various freebie routes already made, CSX Mainline, P&LE and Bay of Quinte, which can be extracted and put into a fresh package for ease of installation for everybody.
I'm sure peeps would appreciate being able to use available assets although, obviously, Payware stuff is of a slightly higher quality.

Cheerz. Transport Steve.

To add a little more to the potential discussion, although I've voted IOW only, that's a personal choice based on my era/areas of interest.

To expand: I think the best approach is to use "era/location appropriate" payware add ons. That way you maximise the chances that the people who want to use the route will have the appropriate payware already if that is their area of interest.
For example, if you're building a 1950's UK route, using a couple of bushes that come with GARL is maybe not the best idea as those era fans may well not have that route. Building the 2010 WCML, including a couple of trackside items from the 1940's South Coast route (hey I can dream we might get some historic routes one day!) has the same issues.
IOW is the exception to this, as being the only route addon for the first X years/months of RS/RW it has rather become "standard".

I do not create route, only scenarios. I try to avoid using more than 2 payware add-ons and 2 or 3 free ware add-ons in a scenario. The point is, that I like as many people as possible to use my scenarios. As the amount of payware increases, and it increases dramatically fast, the chance that people will have all required stuff decreases rapidly. I have a good income, and I have quite a lot of payware, but all together its less than half the available payware at this moment. I think this will hold for most people in the RW community.So you cannot expect people to have much payware.

Al alternative strategy might be to include a default stock version as well, to reduce payware amount further. For routes this is more difficult. I really think RW should provide better support for exchanging items for other ones.

In my opinion the number of payware items required dictates the extent of your audiance. A free route with asset packs (rather than hundreds of individual items to download) using no payware hs the largest audiance.

This is the reason why I am only using freeware items that I have been given permission to package into asset packs by the authors. Limits my asset choice (but more are being produced all the time thanks to the asset developers out there) but largest audiance.

Jim

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 with that reasoning...there was no point in me releasing my scenarios because I used payware stock?

Ive held off releasing my route until I had the GARL signalling in place. I wanted the route to be as accurate as possible in relation to signalling, track infrastucture and speeds. Im privileged enough to know the exact signalling layout from the real route and I wanted to be able to provide a realistic signalling experience rather than placing signals by guesswork.
If a payware route contains items that are necessary for my route, then it goes in....

I have been very lucky with the Bacup Branch Line lots of buildings and all of the stations have been built by the man who started the route. And all the others I have used people have let me do so and have let me package them with the route.

With GARL now £24.99 I think is far to much. I have IOW and 3D Trains Foliage. And if I had the skills of the model makers I would build my own.




Regards



John

What a very good poll question and one that illustrates nicely the the debate that I have been having with myself about how I believe Railworks will develop. Vern mentions GARL but I am also "interested" in the JT CL20 pack and its pricing as well as the recent switch of Northern Lights to Payware. I do wonder if the current "dash for cash" will have some unintended consequences "down the line"....pardon the pun.

I think the other way of looking at this could be to try and think about where the line between community and industry is. For instance if you build a route that is entirely freeware then, obviously, you can call it a "community" route. Should you still have that right to use that name if you produce a route with 3/4 lots of payware items in it and which large chunks of the community at large cannot use without purchasing other items? Personally I don't believe that you should however others will disagree. (Obviously it is not just route building that has exactly the same issues, as Pacerpilot has said, but maybe these thoughts are for another thread).

Sticking to Vern's question then I have to vote for IOW as I purchased this (albeit at reduced price) to have a bash at route building. Mind you I also finding myself agreeing with practically everything that the previous posters have said too.

Kitform wrote: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.

Essentially, I agree with this statement, although I do accept the IOW assets have become almost a default item.

I also agree with one of Vern's posts elsewhere, that a released route should come with rolling stock and scenarios. The problem is the proliferation of micro payware and hardly any freeware rolling stock. Look at the download library and delete the re-skins and see what's left, not a lot.

I think a time is coming when everyone will have £100s worth of locos in every possible livery, but only default routes to run them on.

Interesting responses so far and rather surprisingly, GARL does not seem to have fared very well in the choices for just one route. Maybe that's because not many have purchased it yet, or the price hike but as I contemplate adding a Notts Coalfield route to my list of projects (nice home for the Class 56) it's food for thought as this could use assets from both IOW and GARL. The Rascal I kind of threw in there, probably best avoided for a UK route though it does contain a few useful industrial and commercial structures.

Kitform wrote: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.

which also means with that reasoning there would be no third rail routes, well ever (since they come with the IOW), then again I don't think anyone is interested in anything from the south though! So with that reasoning I might as well not even bother making my own route because it uses third rail and there for won't be completely free (then again its not very good anyway)

Another point is that if you want a modern uk route you have the choice of 2 Multiple units and a hst! (for passenger stock), one being the 166 that came with the game and the other being the 317 (and the 86 of course!)

danny3 wrote:

Kitform wrote: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.

which also means with that reasoning there would be no third rail routes, well ever (since they come with the IOW), then again I don't think anyone is interested in anything from the south though! So with that reasoning I might as well not even bother making my own route because it uses third rail and there for won't be completely free (then again its not very good anyway)

There's nothing to stop route makers making their own third rail track - in fact, this is already happening....

Ash

Hi Vern.
The poll is done. The figures are in. Have a scan over the download section at the various scenarios, they all have a download count on them. In other forums they actually list freeware and payware scenarios seperately. Hope you can use these figures to advantage. Personally the more payware the better because it gives me someware to show of my expensive little assets. Theres my 2c worth
Phill

danny3 wrote:

Kitform wrote:Another point is that if you want a modern uk route you have the choice of 2 Multiple units and a hst! (for passenger stock), one being the 166 that came with the game and the other being the 317 (and the 86 of course!)

I do find it rather odd that so far in payware we have a few "modern" routes, but little stock.. whereas we seem to be pretty well off for payware steam locos and have 1 steam era route which is default.
Are we to assume that steam locos are sexy, but 1950's housing is not getting people excited?