Stuttering and other issues (and my first thoughts)

[FoggyMorning]

there is a demand for it and folks like choice.

It seems to me that this is an oft forgotten point in discussions such as this. Obviously regular DLC releases are a revenue generator, but they would not be so if Railworks users did not want the items being produced! In other words, things are more complicated than the hand-to-mouth produce DLC/pay the bills equation often presented

[johnmckenzie]

Derek, thank you very, very much for that!

[LocoPower]

Derek, thank you very, very much for that!

Seconded! It's reassuring to hear, and I hope my fears/speculation is proven wrong and that the capabilities of RW2's simulation are going to develop significantly. But you know what they say - seeing is believing, etc...

[djt01]

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.

The so-called “multi-threaded support” that came with FSX SP1 and SP2 (which was included in the Acceleration expansion pack) along with the DirectX 10 preview were all (which many consider poorly implemented) afterthoughts.

The FSX game engine was never developed from the ground up to take advantage of multi-core CPU’s or DirectX 10 and never really took advantage of DirectX 9 either.

[bigvern]

It's good news but does tend to mean for content creators not in the inner circle of trust, we are a bit wary of starting anything major if the "core" changes will cut across what we have done or could have made our work quicker, effective or to a higher finished standard. This is one of the reasons why I'm currently working on a TS2010 route (which is coming along nicely) and mothballed (note, not scrapped) the projects I was working on in RW until we know a bit more about what these changes will bring to the table and of course when.

[maxtedrw]

To a certain extent the posts about the "improvement" in FSX from Flight Sim 2004 make my point. As a developer of amatuer add ins for flight sim the move to FSx was a retrograde step. The entire change in the way that scenery and airfields was handled produced a dramatic decline in add ons with the substantial part of the add on content either coming from a limited number of amatuer developers or from chargeable content. Yet the flight models barely improved at all.
FSX was the clearest example I have seen of being careful what you wish for. Sometimes added coomplexity comes at a high price.

[crazyfrogbro]

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.

Hmm. One year ago i've read something like this from you. And did we get really noticeable core changes? Not really, mainly just tiny fixes, and the fixes of the thing that got broken by an update before

[hertsbob]

It's good news but does tend to mean for content creators not in the inner circle of trust, we are a bit wary of starting anything major if the "core" changes will cut across what we have done or could have made our work quicker, effective or to a higher finished standard. This is one of the reasons why I'm currently working on a TS2010 route (which is coming along nicely) and mothballed (note, not scrapped) the projects I was working on in RW until we know a bit more about what these changes will bring to the table and of course when.

Well personally I have every confidence that backwards compatibility will be retained. Whilst you've mothballed your planned RW routes, I have no doubt that I'll have completed at least another mile (perhaps even two miles ) in my route before the next upgrade/change/whatever.

Cheers

Bob

[imnew]

Derek,

Your post is very much appreciated, thank you for the positve read.

[gnash]

Well personally I have every confidence that backwards compatibility will be retained.

Then I'm already disappointed , yet another company that'll sacrifice real improvment for the sake fo maintaining " backwards compatibility " .. You have no idea how much I detest reading those two words .

Oh well , little timmy will be pleased , his shiny toys will look the same , and I'll still get to look at the same grudy shaders , happy days ahead .

[nobkins]

Please make your comments constructive and friendly. They may be positive or negative but please do not start making fun of each other or getting personal.

[crazyfrogbro]

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.

As a flight simmer i can say there is no real multi core usage in fsx, nor with any expansions, and upgrades. To make an application to really use multi core, it should be developed for multi core from begins. To convert a single core game to be decent multi core game, need major rewriting of the engine, and that's a huge task, and sometimes it's easier to just develop a new program from scrach than convert it.
The guy apparently mixes the multi core usage with that fact, that a new cpu probably have more power in a single core too. But the performance improvement only due to higher performance of one core. For example if you have an old athlon x2, and you replace it with a newer phenom x4 cpu you going to get much higher performance in alll things, including single core games, because one phenom core is much faster than an old athlon x2 core, and but that's all, multi core doesn't comes to picture.
The directx 10 upgrade was a real joke for fsx. There wasn't any real improvement in graphics, but with same setting and same picture quality, the dx10 mode was much slower, so no one is use it, just those who think it's nicer but didn't tested it. At dx10+ usage the same thing comes as for multi core usage. It needs a major rewrite of the game engine to use it efficiently. There is no any game that got performance improvements by dx10 patches, just new games with new engines or rewritten engines.

[nineercharlie]

On page 4 there was one comment that almost made me puke:

"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."

Hmm - I browse though the threads here on a reasonably regular basis but it all seems so moribund - eager anticipation for the next DLC and, if you ignore all those comments about biscuits, in reality not much more.

Over at train-sim it's mainly the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the lack of North American content, the poor physics, the abysmal AI, ... , or eager anticipation for the next DLC.

Meanwhile with the other competitor that is obviously not a "mainstream" train simulator this has just been released as freeware:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g76/s ... 5350fb.jpg

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g76/s ... abdc6c.jpg

This is pending:

http://josheh.com/trainz_priv/well_weather_sidea.jpg

http://www.hostthenpost.org/uploads/dd3 ... 70f694.jpg

And down on the Iberian Peninsula this is burbling away nicely:

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj21 ... u/alco.jpg

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj21 ... /picto.jpg

How good does the competition have to get before RSC realise that they are getting left behind? And this does not even begin to cover payware, nor features like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLnlFASv_8I

or locomotives with animated brake cylinders and brake squeal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs8odZi2owc

(both videos best viewed in High Definition and full screen).

[Trainguy76]

Over at train-sim it's mainly the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the lack of North American content, the poor physics, the abysmal AI,

[Rant]
Have you noticed it's the same special few each time? Those who claim to know exactly how trains run just by looking at them from at a distance seem to make up for quite a bit of them. I like how there's a criticism of not enough content, then they refuse to make any themselves because of 'not enough time', when certainly you have time to have a "discussion" on a forum. I'm not saying the Physics model is good, but it sure is annoying to read doom and gloom. Especially when you see any other site being quite a bit more positive.

Looking at how MSTS was set up, it's activities seem to have the same linear format, yet there are no complaints there. Those users have adapted and figured out how to get the program to work, yet there seems to be a refusal to try anything for RailWorks. And not because of 'Railworkz suks'. Those who make content, or contribute in some way to the program, don't feel the need to whine as much as those not doing anything, apparently.

Looking at the previous post, somehow any program is better because it plays an animation when I press a button. RailWorks can do that too. It's called scripting. [/Rant]

* "You" is not intended directly at nineercharlie.

[tads1970]

Mornin all,now I really don't venture into this territory often,Ive a few questions.Its been well over 1 and a half years ago since I had anything to do with RS/RW,
I would like to know if the sound department has improved at all?(the core engine & sounds)I can see Richard Armstrong has filled the gap with some very nice products
that I would have purchased if I still used this product.

Are we any closer to OpenBve standards yet in RW?,I'm not having a go at anybody here or trolling,it would be nice and add a little realism if you can tell the difference
from a bogie of a class 40 or a 31 just from the different thud over joints.I know the sounds are not important for many who use RW,to me it adds depth and realism
a feeling that only OpenBVE at this moment in time can produce.

I would really like to purchase Dereks 101 but Iv'e been told that there is a problem with engine screeming/funny noises when viewed from behind,is there a patch for this?
Can't fault the model takes me right back to the 80's

Would really like to get back into route building,it's just the sound department that I have a mental block with,are the sound drop outs still a prominent feature in RW or
has that problem been eradicated?

Daz