Atomic Systems

Now I have to be careful how I word this so as not to breach the CoC, but having just gone to the "Payware" thread (which was actually a very interesting discussion about AI and signalling issues in RW, no arguments, no red mist) I can't be the only one to express total surprise to find the thread locked, apparently on the grounds of having run its course.

This has got to be a first and, again without directly questioning the moderation decision, can I request clarification as to whether we now have some undocumented additions to the CoC so far as RW is concerned, specifically...

Discussion of known or ongoing issues will not be permitted.

Threads which mention payware, DLC and perceived shortcomings in the sim will not be permitted.

The first because in the MSTS forums the same old hairy chestnuts were debated over and over, often in more than one simultaneous thread. They ran their course and died naturally after a time then got revived a few months later. If we are not allowed to discuss these issues and instead send our ideas to support_@_rs.com then what's the point in having a discussion group at all?

The second is my suspicious conspiracy theory mind at work, more than coincidence in that the build up to a major DLC push starting this week with the WCML a thread that might be seen as detrimental to sales is "hurried" off the front page. This is supposedly an independently operated forum so should be free from any commercial influence - indeed if you visit the Auran official Trainz forum you frequently see all sorts of "bashing" threads over there but they are not suppressed.

Anyhow just thought I would ask as it's only fair we know if discussion of Railworks is to take place in more restrictive terms than the other sims.

I was also surprised and disappointed to see it disappear; a legitimate interesting discussion with no visible agression was locked. I certainly don't make a habit of bashing RW but like Vern I think all discussion whether positive or negative should be allowed as long as things are expressed in a non-agressive manner. There was also no warning posted that the thread would be locked.

David

Hmmm, David, Captn Scarlet ( moderator ) did say that the thread had run its course and was being locked. I've just read the whole thread and I think that despite RSDerek requesting that the thread keep momentum within the original post, it waivered onto Signalling and AI more than anything else, and may have been subject to it going off topic completely, and was probably therefore closed.
Although I agree with Vern with a lot of what he said, the original post was regarding the Gentleman's first payware purchase of the Class 101 dmu, to then slide thoughts across towards RS.com's approach to fixing things from the original game release may have wandered away from this post entirely. And to be fair, not very many threads are locked on this forum, I think that the majority of posts have a healthy dialogue and complaints and suggestions I'm sure are regarded as well intentioned and perhaps food for thought for future updates, etc.

Cheerz. Transport Steve.

I have to agree, Steve, having also read the entire thread and seen it change direction as you describe.

Rik.

But what I really want is proper AI, dispatching, routing logic, and signalling. To me this is even more important than environmental upgrades such as superelevation or graphical enhancements or bizarre point-scoring systems. I don't want to drive around effectively on my own with moveable bits of train-shaped scenery going past on completely separate tracks, I want to feel part of a railway network where I interact with other trains, where what I do affects them, and what they do affects me.

LocoPower did say this in his original posting ..

Very well put Bigvern.

I find it particularly difficult to get good reviews / feedback on payware. Most PC games go for £25 to £30 and I can get a full review from multiple sites. Railworks products (presumably due to lower sales levels) go for £10 to £20, but no reviews are really available, so I look to this forum for discussion. Railworks must be the only internet business which has no feedback system. It's all a bit sinister. When I buy anything else on the internet, feedback is encouraged. I have spent nearly £200 on railworks stuff. Perhaps we need an independent feedback site?

Meanwhile, open discussion on stutter and rubber-banding allowed me to make my sim more playable, without which I would have still been on the basic product with a loss of sales to Railworks and DLC providers.

Doesn't a well written scenario do that already? I'm thinking of scenarios where Im placed in slow lines to allow passing fast trains, passing loop scenarios etc etc.. Sure there are issues with signalling and yes they need to be fixed ideally though personally I doubt it will happen from RS.com.. It seems beter to concentrate effort on sharing those tips that allow good scenarios to be written that work around the problems ...

Looking at how third party engines have now moved eons ahead in functionality etc from the base core included models , perhaps we need to wait for some third party genius to give us a whole new signalling lua.

I love open discussion; that's when I find new ideas often present themselves. Meandering off the original topic, while still being based on similar subject matter - eg train games - is all that matters for me. I guess some people really do get wound-up by threads going off-topic and that's why the style of moderation we see here is relatively aggressive. I have expressed concerns in private about it before: I got the very real impression it's a closed shop. It's quite unlike any other forum I frequent in terms of that stepping-on-eggshells-feeling.

Still, most of the regulars here seem very nice, and knowledgeable, and that's why I continue to visit.

ightenhill wrote: Looking at how third party engines have now moved eons ahead in functionality etc from the base core included models , perhaps we need to wait for some third party genius to give us a whole new signalling lua.

That is something I've been looking into recently, although not in a commercial 3rd party sense. I'm beginning to think there is more to it than just lua scripting. I can't help thinking I want to tell the core engine to lock the route down on advance signal preparation. I'm not convinced that the AI and dispatcher will follow my scripting logic. I've still got a lot to learn (and that includes in-depth prototypical signal operations too).

In theory, the thing to do is simply split such threads. However, the thread in question is a bad example, because the original poster did point to signalling and AI, so discussing that was not exactly off topic.

The question is, whose responsibility it would a split be. We are asked to keep on topic and answer new threads for new topics. But clearly, there is always a strong force pulling us to all sides/side topics/related issues. I am afraid they don't keep books of fame for off-topic posts, else I would be on their special Global Leader Board. Anyway, if people would request a split of thread, then some locking could be prevented. Now you could demand that moderators always split instead of locking. But what if they get tired of the work. I understand that they do nothing (or next to nothing) without some internal consensus. So while we rant along freely, their actions are a bit tiresome.

Also, I guess I can hear Matt scratching his head all across the Channel. For MSTS, there was (is?) this "no payware" policy. For KRS & RW, the idea seemed to be that the scene is so weak that you need any and all positive impulse. Now with a flurry of releases ahead, there will be a lot of people just wanting to post about it, while there are others still left who want to talk about simulation and core functionality.

The logical consequence would be to have a payware forum and move all threads which are started in the general forum there. But Matt will feel he goes a full circle, because UKTS was there 2004 or so.

I for one would lean to the experiment. I don't feel the need for myself to taint consumer happiness with my concerns, but I have no time to skim through their praises either. Of course, each item suffers from the same limitation, so if you start to discuss general functionality in a thread on engine X, redundancy is a must.

Another advantage of clearly labelling payware-related discussions would be to save some time for the non-buyers. The thread about the recent free career scenario with realistic steam physics made me consider giving my Steam client another chance, but then I found out that it was for a payware engine which I will not buy. Sure it is a great model, no doubt about that, but I am not into US steam at all. Likewise, I cannot talk about GARL signals because I don't own them, and I never will.

A third reason for a separation would be that on the general forum, freeware would get more exposure. Between all the praise of payware, it is only natural that people repeat this connotation that RW would require payware to be enjoyable. At the same time, payware fans would see where they are left without the freeware folks ranting about simulation. First, they must ask in a different forum (part), where critique is permitted and thus commonly seen. Then, they must explain their problem in terms of something that many people own.

In the route building forum, such a separation does not seem necessary or reasonable to me. Many freeware route builders use some assets from payware routes. And by the route name, it is easy to see what people are talking about. But some "payware" prefix could be good if many payware routes get discussed there. But then again, that could go to the payware forum as well, because the route building forum is about building them, not buying them.

I actually think part of the problem is too many sub-boards. Obviously the proper place to discuss AI is in the signalling section, but then we also have a scenario forum and you cannot (maybe) discuss one without the other. Then, judging by the lack of participation in those sub boards most people don't go there and the issues get aired in the general forum. You can't easily pigeonhole one from the other and indeed someone buying payware is going to want to know how well it will work in the sim.

The TS approach is perhaps better where there are 3 or 4 sub sections and you don't fragment the debate so much.

Many on here are no doubt planning to buy the WCML on Friday knowing full well there will be limitations. However the discussion of issues/bugs doesn't stop people buying the add-ons and indeed as argued by the devs in the past, users who post on forums make up a tiny proportion of the customer base anyway the majority sales cming about through Steam awareness and campaigns.

I like the conspiracy theory better, run with that and see where you end up.


UKTS are masters of this land, and as far as I see it they do what they think is best for the running of their site.
To my knowledge I have never requested a thread be locked, and even if I had, the mods would make their own mind up.

I and RS.com are more than happy with healthy debate about pros and cons of RWs. Some threads along with the support mails all help us plan for the future.

For now it is sunny in Guildford, Elvis has almost left the building and the boss has turned up with coffee and biscuits.

happy times indeed.

best regards

Derek

Curiouser and curiouser then...

Again as we cannot really directly discuss the thread in question I do know that Derek had indeed posted and been received in a positive manner.

All of which brings me back to the original postulation - what is and what isn't reasonable to discuss with regard to Railworks? Do we need a list of items, but even the official Wiki doesn't cover all the issues that have been aired or suggested, bugfixes etc. And at what point might it be reasonable to request such a topic be opened up again for discussion, if someone has made a discovery or important revelation that may solve the issue.

You are going to get pragmatic discussion - even Railworks America with its all happy smiley policy has relented of late and the debate - while still positive - is all the better for it.

At what point might it be reasonable? Maybe once dressed properly...

Derek said

I like the conspiracy theory better, run with that and see where you end up.

Conspiracy theories are so much more fun than humdrum debate but in this instance I am sure that there is nothing as exciting as that involved.

Given a little time, however, I am sure we can come up with a real cracker of a suspected conspiracy that will keep us busy for months