RW2 What should really be in it.

[exshunter]

I have to agree with Vern, it seems to me that all the important stuff has been ignored, again........

[bigvern]

Re some of the earlier comments I don't see this as being the "negative" thread. Just a place where those of us who feel Version 2 of something should amount to a little more than a front end makeover. If some wish to ignore such views, that is of course their perogative.

[Wikkus]

I still cannot believe we haven't got a {insert some obscure locomotive of which there's only one prototype at the bottom of a mine shaft in Ulan Bator} in the game! This must be the first time I've mentioned it and yet no-one at RSC even thought to read my mind let alone consult me about it!

Tsk.

[Retro]

My view.
Sort out the distant White Hills.
Cab darkening and Instrument Lights coming on in Tunnels.
Snow or Rain not coming through Major Station Canopies.
A Dispatcher that does not throw a wobbler if you ask it to do something complex with Player Train or AI.
Improvements to Signals and the logic they work by.
Distance Semaphore Signals that do not register a SPAD if they are not keeping up with the Home Signals in front of them.
Kind regards James.

[darkdj]

I too would have actually liked to have seen more types of interactive object, such as working water troughs, some different mineral loaders for stone, sand etc, maybe a loader for filling tankers, beamed headlights for night running, a few more default scenery models (a town hall or, anyone?) and maybe more default textures for painting terrain etc etc etc etc etc. But obviously, I know it seems that iv'e asked for a lot, but this is only my personal opinion. Maybe RS.com should have considered doing a big survey to see what features users wanted to see from this alleged "Next Gen" simulator.

Not dissing RS for what they have achieved, but some new features simmilar to the level crossing really would have put RW2 out there as next generation.

Dark.

[FoggyMorning]

What are the issues you refer to with shunting signals please? The only thing I have noticed is that the UK semaphore signals don't show in the F3 display until the path is set to them, yet the model defaults to the "off" position. A little alarming if you start a scenario in a siding with the points set against you! Or was there something else?

The modern UK ground signals don't work and never have done.

Can you expand on "don't work"? I've never had any problems with them. Shunt signal entries don't appear on any next signal display, but that is because they aren't "stop" signals

[vlado960]

Seeing this looks like yet another "What I want" thread by the usual protagonists (hard to tell when so many are on ignore), I'll throw in my 2 pence...

Throw out all the diesels, throw out all the electrics and stop wasting time and hard drive space with them.
Retro-fit all modern routes pre-1960.
More steam era routes, more big four.
Remove the "animated" crossings - seeing them open/close is really not very realistic other than when stopped at stations.
Free 3D Max licences for all modellers.
A free cake sent through the post whenever I start Steam.

I'm sorry but you aren't right. Imagine how it would be to expel the airplane simulators tilting when turning. It would certainly be less work for developers. Isn't that right? It is not about one's desires but the laws of physics. Train in a curve that does not tilt DOESN'T LOOK NATURAL.

Regards

[Darpor]

What are the issues you refer to with shunting signals please? The only thing I have noticed is that the UK semaphore signals don't show in the F3 display until the path is set to them, yet the model defaults to the "off" position. A little alarming if you start a scenario in a siding with the points set against you! Or was there something else?

The modern UK ground signals don't work and never have done.

Welcome to the forums with your bold and untrue statement! I'll not explain anything, as Foggy has already asked you above.

However, even I know things have to improve on certain aspects of RW2 but we also have a problem. A lot of failures are most likely attributed to the user not having enough knowledge of what they are doing rather than the aspect of the sim being broken.

[CosmicDebris]

Vlado, I'm sorry to tell you're wrong. Who could ever notice the slightest bit of tilt in the following videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJm98BNg_WY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFfGfPPTakE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMVdYrMvePw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-DQmwkb0pQ

/sarcasm

PS: I don't blame RSC for not implementing superelevation as it must be a tough task. But to say it's unnoticeable is laughable at best.

[pdeee]

Re some of the earlier comments I don't see this as being the "negative" thread. Just a place where those of us who feel Version 2 of something should amount to a little more than a front end makeover. If some wish to ignore such views, that is of course their perogative.

I have to agree with Vern on this one, I think it is a bit of a liberty calling it an upgrade, and as for boasting about it being a free one, well I could not imagine anyone wanting to pay for what we have received.
I would have thought at the very least that there would be some re-skinned stock included, especially Black 5 and 8F's in LMS livery and more Big Four rolling stock.

The best thing about it as far as I can see, is the function of the F4 key.

[rivimey]

To those talking about "is this an upgrade". I have worked in software engineering for many years now and know something about this:

The main purpose of a change to version number in software is to bring in revenue.... in many cases the work required by an update is not apparent to the user. For example, a "new feature" might be added which, to the programmer is 1 week's work but to the user is a major deal, and so is released as a major version change, or a bugfix is implemented that requires a major rewrite to the core but "just" fixes an annoying crash and so is a "point release".

In RW2, the update from 1 to 2 could be "just" the new UI (which, BTW, is really hard to get right and can be a lot of work, especially when you include all the manuals, videos and Q&A) and some marketing issues (e.g. need to update sales collateral, need to be seen to be doing new things on the shelves, not just via steam), or it could also signal significant changes to infrastructure under the hood that is not now used but will be enabled over time, as development effort and marketing requirements permit...

I wouln't expect we'll ever know. I just hope we do get some of the other things people have talked of!

My 2p,
Ruth

[vlado960]

Vlado, I'm sorry to tell you're wrong. Who could ever notice the slightest bit of tilt in the following videos?
/sarcasm

PS: I don't blame RSC for not implementing superelevation as it must be a tough task. But to say it's unnoticeable is laughable at best.

I believe in RSC team and I have not doubt that they will implement the superelevation. The picture gives me to believe it:

[karma99]

It is not about one's desires but the laws of physics. Train in a curve that does not tilt DOESN'T LOOK NATURAL.

So it IS about desires.
To YOU (and others) it DOESN'T LOOK NATURAL.
To many, they would prefer lots of other things that concern THEM and no tilting is not an issue.

You can take the DOESN'T LOOK NATURAL to almost anything in the game. The driver not blinking is totally unacceptable, who doesn't blink?

£30 PC simulations are full of compromises I'm afraid. In this case, one of the compromises is something that YOU want.

If you want to argue laws of physics, I want laws of nature. RSC should drop everything else and concentrate on correct and accurate weather patterns, the current ones totally spoil the immersion of being on planet Earth.
Once we know we're in the real world, then we can get to the little details of the man made things placed on it.

[markpullinger]

Talking of unnatural - still trying to stop the sun glare on my monitor - I will have to shut the curtains so it looks more natural

[sanyix]

Vlado, I'm sorry to tell you're wrong. Who could ever notice the slightest bit of tilt in the following videos?
/sarcasm

PS: I don't blame RSC for not implementing superelevation as it must be a tough task. But to say it's unnoticeable is laughable at best.

I believe in RSC team and I have not doubt that they will implement the superelevation. The picture gives me to believe it:

This picture is from beta rail simulator... that was 3-4 years ago. So it looks they dropped this thing...