Stuttering and other issues (and my first thoughts)

[AndyM77]

What do you think (you who have experience with the GPU) will this increase or decrease the number of fps and will the stuttering go to history? I hope we wont have to buy more powered VGA cards. I'm not sure that my GF8800GT is fully used.

Regards
Vlado

Depends on a lot of factors really, we won't really know what the performance increase / decrease will be until it's on our systems. Basically the CPU will have less 'rendering' work to do, but will still have to send information to the GPU in regards to displaying things on the screen (as it always needs to even when a game is CPU bound). It's things like the Vertex buffers / Texture Fill Rates / Pixel Shaders which could bring the performance down if it's coded badly and we get lots of high poly locos, rolling stock, etc on screen at the same time 'potentially' causing the same slow downs that we currently see but without the SBHH errors.

If it's done correctly i.e not just tacked on top of the current game engine I think many will be pleasantly surprised - if it's done badly... I don't want to think about it.

[Acorncomputer]

MSTS2 hmm I wonder what Microsoft will make next once they have made that new flight sim with the new game engine. So maybe MSTS2 may not be asfar away as we think.

Perhaps not, but my money is on RS.com to be working on something new as well. It just seems logical for a Company that is so dedicated to Train Simulation to look to the future. Perhaps still a long way off but definitely a possibility.

[LocoPower]

...that there is little competition probably also keep life in the old girl for a little longer but the uptake of new users can't be that high and sooner or later the veteran users are going to get bored especially when there are dry spells with months and months of no new UK content like there has been since Christmas. To be honest I'm surprised that no software company or budding innovator has jumped on the wagon to give RS.com a run for their money. The market for train sims is globally massive and the marketing is all here on these forums to show what the next gen sim has to do. Without a serious competitor there is no pressure on RS.com to rush to improve anything, they have the whole market feeding out of their hands so to speak, eagerly waiting the next dlc. I think to advance this genre a serious competitor is needed, then we will see a surge of improvements and innovation

I think this hits the nail on the head. Quite simply, RSC aren't under any pressure to invest in improving the core because there's no competition. It's the only mainstream train simulator being commercially produced.

I doubt it was always this way. Back at the dawn of RS & RW, there were probably limited hopes for the product. Witness RSC.com's pictures of champagne (and biccies, of course) on their two year anniversary. It sounded to me as though they never really expected to last that long. But they did, and the reason is probably the last time the champagne corks popped at RSC Towers: the day Microsoft cancelled MSTS2 (again).

Imagine a world where MSTS2 had been finished. A whole world of rails, with specific areas more accurately sceniced and detailed in the same way we have standalone routes now. Having the Aces team working on it rather than Kuju, the difference in approach (and talent, and resources) was obvious. From what I saw of MSTS2, I thought it was very promising, and was likely to wipe out the market for any other train sim, RS/RW included. But instead, we have nothing to push the boundaries other than RSC's willingness to invest in the core rather than endlessly churn out DLC.

I'm not too bothered about the recent lack of DLC because to be honest I wasn't going to buy any of it anyway. What's the point? Some shiny new trains don't change the fact that I can't throw a scenario together and have things happen dynamically or trains re-routed or suchlike, or have any sensation of actually being part of a working railway. Or the fact that it takes longer to make a scenario than it does to play it. Or the fact that the physics are so up the creek that the wheelspin logic can only be described as bizarre, and that HSTs can apparently glide around at 100+mph on only 20% throttle (someone really should tell FGW this - they'd save a fortune in fuel!). I agree totally with Vern's comments about default aircraft in FSX and their relation to add-on quality. Yes, the default FSX aircraft are basic, as are RW's default stock, but the difference is that the underlying principles are present and correct. The relationship between power, throttle, acceleration and essential physics is all roughly correct. The AI actually works - if you take too long on approach, someone else will get to the runway first and you'll be instructed to go around. If you set a new land speed record on the way to the runway, you're allowed to take off first if you get there first, not in the order that the tower gave taxi clearances, or the order that FSX decided it would happen while the program was loading. Now compare this to RW where you are held at red lights because another train several miles away has the "path" even though you're faster. Where passing loops are pointless because freight trains still have the path exiting the loop causing the express train to grind to a halt on the mainline having never been allowed past. Where signals are nothing more than coloured bits of scenery to AI trains, for whom the principles of physics are even further removed from reality than they already are for the player train. Nearly a decade ago, I used to play MSTS with the re-worked .eng files (Bob Plainsman, if my memory serves me correctly) and the performance and physics felt more logical and realistic than we have today with most RW stock. Is this progress?

The only thing I'm likely to purchase is Oovee's 57/3 and sleepers, whenever it arrives, and that's only because the 57/0 is really the only loco that moves the bar forward. Maybe their 156 will show similar improvement, although since it will presumably follow the diesel-hydraulic simulation in RW (another major failing of RW that should've been corrected years ago), it'll be a pleasant surprise if I deem it worth purchasing.

My interpretation of RSC's strategy is they they are making hay while the sun shines. While there is no competition, they are spending the bulk of their time on DLC. I admit that as a small company this is probably essential to provide more cashflow, but to me it appears to come at the expense of any/all investment in the core. The change from RW to RW2 was laughable - so hyped up but nothing actually changed. A new hud does not constitute a core improvement, not when there are still so many shortcomings with lighting, physics, AI, etc. RSC keep dangling carrots under our noses every so often to say that they are working hard on the core, honest (and by the way, did you know the world is flat?), but months go by, months turn into years, and years later we still don't have any significant extra functionality, features or capability other than a bit of spit and polish on what Kuju unceremoniously shuffled onto the marketplace several years ago.

I want RW2 to do well, but I fear that the lack of progress with core development means that one day, when a credible rival does turn up, RW2 won't stand a chance against it. :-/

[AndyM77]

Excellent post, and I agree 100%

[Retro]

Excellent post, and I agree 100%

Likewise. You certainly have made some good points and observations. A very interesting read.

[karma99]

I do love hearing how awesome MSTS2 was going to be. Just the same way RS was perfect before it got released, the Silent Hunter games have been perfect before they got released, FSX was perfect before it got released and MS Flight is still currently perfect... until it's released
World of Rails was always going to be a nightmare, because the track was inevitably going to be close but not exact. The scenery would be highly generic and with non-exact placement. I bet my house you'd have spent most of the time route building tearing up existing track to lay it down "right" and deleting default scenery. And what about modelling different eras? Was that ever thought about.. maybe I missed how that was going to work.
But all utterly irrelevant anyway.

MSTS 2 will forever be the dream sim, perfect in every way.. because it's all in your mind and you'll never get to play it. It's as useful to a discussion as the fictional holo-suite in my head where I'm working a prairie in 1930's Wales, with all the sights, sounds and smells of the real thing - it doesn't exist!

still don't have any significant extra functionality

Of course we don't
Revisionist history is always good for arguements. Go back and play RS, then play RW2 and pop back with some facts.
The functionality might not be what YOU want, but it's there none the less.

So I bring out my age old question..
If you think RW is a lost cause, cannot (or will not) be improved and offers nothing you're happy with.. what are you doing here??

I might be considered a fan boy because I'd rather get on and work with what we have than just post constantly about how much everything sucks, but surely you guys who never have a single good word to say have to reach a point where you just move on? For your own sanity, surely?
Or is moaning to an audiance your therapy because you just can't accept that a piece of £30 computer software isn't what you want?

[bigvern]

If you think RW is a lost cause, cannot (or will not) be improved and offers nothing you're happy with.. what are you doing here??

I guess the answer to that is in the vain hope that one day it will get better, or that enough feedback may bring about some of the desired changes.

Because MSTS, for all its superiority in many areas, looks and feels 10 years old.

Because Trainz, for all the superior route building capability still pretty much lacks an accessible means of running to a player timetable and various other issues such as the appearance of points and laying of tunnels which Auran/N3V put in their too difficult basket.

The two forthcoming World of Subways look as if they will be wonderful in just about all respects but are not designed to cater for user created content.

I do happen to think that MSTS2 would have wiped the floor with RW, but as Karma says we will never know and even if MS were to announce a third attempt to renew the franchise, they pretty much lost all credibility.

[karma99]

That's a good reply Vern, although I wasn't really aiming it at you
You definately have a good old moan about things but I think you do still hold out a hope that it will happen somehow by someone.

I'm more asking those who have categorically stated that they consider it unacceptably broken and that it will never be fixed - surely they want to use the generic forum to dream up their super sim rather than going on about how RW will never be it?
Then the RW forum can be used by those who enjoy RW, those who suffer RW as the best that's available and those who just keep watch that it might one day be what they want - although if the latter group can refrain from banging on about that all day every day it would help promote a better atmosphere around here and together we might start getting somewhere - with or without (depending on how you see their input) RSC's help.

[Retro]

Peter,
I think most of us hold out a hope that things will improve. Me included. I also run both RS and RW2 and considerable improvements have been made when a direct comparison is made.
I have just finished a very large Route which is now out for Testing and I am starting a new one. I would not consider this if I thought that Railworks had no future. Sometimes however my hopes get crushed but I always seem to rise back up again. I think we all want so many things out of this Program because it is IMHO the best Rail Simulator around at the moment. Maybe we are expecting too much at times but this is Human Nature. Because we care this is why things sometimes get heated. I don't really see this Topic as people banging on. It has in fact been an interesting Topic to read. Probably we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Kind regards James.

[Merlin75]

This is only my view. But I think Microsoft were right to stop MSTS2 last time as they were building it with the game engine from FSX and that from what i've read was a single core engine so it may well of had all the same problems that RW has now. But I have heard that the new game engine for Flight supports muticore computers and I would of thought a train sim built with a game engine that supports muticore is going to work alot better than a single core one. I'm sure those that know about computers will correct me there. It is going to be intresting to see what happens if Microsoft do go ahead with MSTS once Flight is done.

[johnmckenzie]

I do happen to think that MSTS2 would have wiped the floor with RW, but as Karma says we will never know and even if MS were to announce a third attempt to renew the franchise, they pretty much lost all credibility.

Frankly, the lack of support they gave the original MSTS meant that, in my mind at least, MSTS2 was always wishful thinking at best.

Some people seem very happy to complain about RW2 but to be honest I think we are losing sight of a few things about it
1) It works
2) It looks right
3) It will never be real because it isn't real; it's only software allowing us anoraks to play trains. As such it feels far more realistic than, say, a model railway which is where I have always considered a rail simulator's real competition lies - and if you're comparing it with a model railway then you have to say the physics etc. albeit a touch flawed are far more realistic than 57000bhp, 300mph capable (electric sounding) class 08 shunters in N gauge!!
That's not to say it couldn't be improved - most things in life are highly flawed - but I reckon the benefits outweigh the problems.

Just my £0.02!

[LocoPower]

I do love hearing how awesome MSTS2 was going to be. Just the same way RS was perfect before it got released, the Silent Hunter games have been perfect before they got released, FSX was perfect before it got released and MS Flight is still currently perfect... until it's released
World of Rails was always going to be a nightmare, because the track was inevitably going to be close but not exact. The scenery would be highly generic and with non-exact placement. I bet my house you'd have spent most of the time route building tearing up existing track to lay it down "right" and deleting default scenery. And what about modelling different eras? Was that ever thought about.. maybe I missed how that was going to work.

I do love hearing people put words into other people's mouths, unless of course you were referring to someone else who referenced MSTS2 and described it as awesomely perfect and beyond reproach. I presume you must have been, because what words did I use? "I thought it was very promising." Slight difference there.

But all utterly irrelevant anyway.
MSTS 2 will forever be the dream sim, perfect in every way.. because it's all in your mind and you'll never get to play it. It's as useful to a discussion as the fictional holo-suite in my head where I'm working a prairie in 1930's Wales, with all the sights, sounds and smells of the real thing - it doesn't exist!

Of course we will never know what MSTS2 would really have been like - you appear to have missed my point. My point was that MSTS2 (or rather, it's absence) fundamentally shifted the landscape of the train simming marketplace and gave RSC domination of said market which now affords them the luxury of selling DLC whilst core improvements are rare and minor. How that can be considered insignificant to the discussion of RW's development and position in the marketplace is baffling to me.

Revisionist history is always good for arguements. Go back and play RS, then play RW2 and pop back with some facts.
The functionality might not be what YOU want, but it's there none the less.

So I bring out my age old question..
If you think RW is a lost cause, cannot (or will not) be improved and offers nothing you're happy with.. what are you doing here??

Exactly what functionality or core improvements have been brought about now that we are in the era of RW2? I'm genuinely curious. I guess we have different perceptions of what is significant. When I look back to RS, the DNA and design logic is still quite clearly all intact in RW2. AI pathing, signalling and despatching? Physics, field diverts and hydraulic transmissions that bear some relation to reality? Rubber banding, stuttering, and shaking cabs? CPU-bound game engine architecture and graphics rendering that only uses one core and was pretty much obsolete when RS was released?

If it sounds like I'm knocking on RW for fun or argument then that's not the case. I'm here because, as I alluded to in my previous post, RW is dominant in the market currently due to a lack of competition, and there's not much else to turn to. I'm not a die-hard train-simmer/spotter/foamer or whatever label is applied to it these days, but I do enjoy and continue to enjoy mucking about with trains, or planes, or cars on the computer (and cars in real life, since they're a little more afforable than trains and planes! ). However there are so many times when I play RW2 that I just think... this could be so much more if the underlying core was developed with the same drive & enthusiasm as the DLC is produced.

So sometimes I post about it in the hope that it comes ot the attention of the wider community and RSC, which makes it more likely something, someday, might be done about it.

Because we care this is why things sometimes get heated. I don't really see this Topic as people banging on. It has in fact been an interesting Topic to read.

My sentiments also.

they were building it with the game engine from FSX and that from what i've read was a single core engine so it may well of had all the same problems that RW has now.

I'm not 100% confident on this but I was always under the impression that FSX made very good use of multi-core. I'm sure I remember reading that changing from a dual-core to a quad-core processor yielded significant performance improvements in FSX. Maybe it was one of the expansion packs that introduced the multi-core code. You've got me intrigued now, I'll have to go and check!

Some people seem very happy to complain about RW2 but to be honest I think we are losing sight of a few things about it
1) It works
2) It looks right
3) It will never be real because it isn't real; it's only software allowing us anoraks to play trains. As such it feels far more realistic than, say, a model railway which is where I have always considered a rail simulator's real competition lies - and if you're comparing it with a model railway then you have to say the physics etc. albeit a touch flawed are far more realistic than 57000bhp, 300mph capable (electric sounding) class 08 shunters in N gauge!!

Hmm, I think you've just described a very valid point regarding expectations of RW2. Yourself, and no doubt others, are looking at it as an alternative to model railways, compared to which RW2 is obviously infinitely more realistic, versatile, and cheaper too. Yet others (and I include myself in this group) are not model railroaders or even train-heads, and are assessing RW2 in the context of a simulation title compared to the other simulation titles available in other genres. To the former group, RW2 is probably a godsend and by far the best option for indulging in their passion for trains. To the latter group, RW2 is expected to perform at the same standard as other modern titles, and it's shortcomings are more apparent.

Just all my speculation/opinion, of course.

[AndyM77]

they were building it with the game engine from FSX and that from what i've read was a single core engine so it may well of had all the same problems that RW has now.

I'm not 100% confident on this but I was always under the impression that FSX made very good use of multi-core. I'm sure I remember reading that changing from a dual-core to a quad-core processor yielded significant performance improvements in FSX. Maybe it was one of the expansion packs that introduced the multi-core code. You've got me intrigued now, I'll have to go and check!

.

I'm not a flight simmer, but do often bump into gaming forums on the www and seem to recall seeing posts that a service pack was released for FSX which had the Direct X 10 upgrade to the code along with MultiThreading support. So whilst MultiThreading wasn't in the original release (or at least utilised) the upgrade made it possible.

[RSderek]

Hi,
For those folks that don't think core is evolving, you are in for a treat later in the year! (and that is no vegetable)
If anyone thinks we are sitting back taking it easy, then you could not be further from the truth. Believe me or don't.
Yes we make lots of DLC, no excuses for that, We like making it, there is a demand for it and folks like choice.

RSDL were 7 men and a goat. We did well for the period we supported RS.
RS.com are now 20+ and still growing.
Now we know there is a lot of hard work ahead to make the sim what we (and you guys) want it to be, but we are all up for the challenge.
Get yourself to the buffet car for a cuppa and a biscuit, it's going to be a super journey.

regards

Derek

[nobkins]

Can't wait Derek. Sounds like we have an exciting year ahead of us.