Atomic Systems

I'm currently thinking about buying AP Station Light. Packs but not sure... How do you think - will RSC update their default routes like Oxford-Pad. and NC-York? Or maybe they will preder to leave them this way just because there are so many third party scenarios made for these route already and most of them may be hurt? And if they update them to TS2012 standard in the nearest future - how AP station light. packs will work with them in that case???

Personal opinion only so don't hold me to this but all evidence so far points to probably nothing being upgraded at all. TS2012 came out in September 2011, it's now Jan 2012 and not a sausage has been updated so draw your own conclusions. RSC appear to be solely focused on releasing new DLC only and what's gone is gone. There are still issues and bugs with some DLC that have stood for years and never been addressed and some features that were promised to be following but never have. It's obvious that churning out DLC is what keeps RSC in business and that they only look ahead, never back. Fair enough and logical etc, but that approach is what is also leading to the general shift towards greater caution in purchasing DLC. If you know that bugs are never going to be fixed or new features never added then you better make sure it's all singing all dancing before you buy it in the first place. That seems to be the big lesson at the moment.

That is the glass half empty way of looking at it but a valid viewpoint. Some of the inferences may be wrong but since it is a personal opinion and clearly labelled as such it is perfectly acceptable to express that opinion. It is not however "fact" hence Jimmy clearly labelling it as personal opinion.

The converse view is what Derek and other RSC staff have already pointed out that applying "TS2012" to default routes i.e. superelevation in particular would wreck every single scenario not written for the new track rule. That would produce some interesting reaction on the forums here and elsewhere so I suspect their observations will hold true - that is it not going to happen. Whether any of the other new features get retrospectively applied to default routes is a question best directed at RSC support.

RSC have said repeatedly that they aren't going to touch the default Kuju routes - too much currently depends on them. SE in itself isn't a problem ( you can toggle SE on and off with a train sat on the track you're messing with! ), it's the lack of easements which means pulling all the track up.

Jivebunny and ... well I do a bit, we're rebuilding Ox-Padd. Right now I'm having to clone all the default lighting assets so the AP pack doesn't overwrite them, because the route has/will have RW3 lighting by default, and we don't want two lots. The AP pack also becomes a similar pain if someone else's route uses default assets and extra RW3 lighting too, which obviously is going to happen more and more...

Kariban wrote:RSC have said repeatedly that they aren't going to touch the default Kuju routes - too much currently depends on them. SE in itself isn't a problem ( you can toggle SE on and off with a train sat on the track you're messing with! ), it's the lack of easements which means pulling all the track up.

They've said they're not going to touch the track but I imagine sooner or later the routes will either get lighting upgrades or be replaced by other routes as the default content. It doesn't make commercial sense to be selling a "new" product each year when the route content is using 3-4 year old technology in my view

I can see where the OP and Jimmy are coming from but, equally, as a route builder myself there is little mileage going back over previous work when the time could be spent on new projects. As Easily... points out, retrofitting superelevation effectively destroys the existing track database along with any and all scenarios (including third party payware) ever created. So it starts a huge cascade rolling of further updates required. Releasing a new version alongside the old would make the RW filebase/download on reinstall even more bloated than it is now and not sure if that sits easily within the Steam paradigm or not.

However, what I would like to see is more commitment to fixing individual items, for example the "polo mint" bridge lofts which have been an issue since the change to RW3. Is it really too much to ask Paul Jackson to roster one of his artists to this task a couple of afternoons a week, until these and similar items are put right? I can't see that making a huge dent in the DLC output (given most seems to be outsourced or bought in) but it would go some way to addressing the "fire and forget" mindset many of us now regard RSC as working to.

All I want to know is will all the existing DLC locomotives from RSC be upgraded to have the TS2012 effects for example the class 37 and the class 67?

With routes there is a valid reason not to be actively updating, however my disappointment is centred around the lack of updates to the hundreds of pounds worth of locomotive DLC I have purchased under the former versions of the (same) game. There is no excuse for that other than it's clearly not something that RSC (and others) see as particularly important. That alone has seriously affected my whole outlook to purchasing DLC and bearing in mind that TS2012 will probably be upgraded again at some point with more new features then backwards compatibility is a huge factor. I now only buy DLC that I have a direct interest in, DLC I know will see use regardless of how up to date it is. Casual spending on DLC I have only a passing interest in has now ceased completely. A game like Railworks is a leisure investment with often hundreds if not thousands of pounds being spent on enhancing the core product. Keeping everything current and updated is of huge importance otherwise you're potentially throwing money away when the core moves on but the costly enhancements don't.

The DLC is being updated, but in Miss World order so it may take a while. The 37s can be updated ourselves using the default as a starting point.

Back at the OP, I wouldn't expect the default routes to be lit any time soon. You could do this yourself, but personally I'd pay a fiver not to do it and Richard has done a great job.

B

bdy26 wrote:The DLC is being updated, but in Miss World order so it may take a while. The 37s can be updated ourselves using the default as a starting point.

B

Well it's been nearly 5 months with virtually zero progress on updating the DLC catalogue and I've not seen any officially announced intention to ever do so? Well, whatever the truth behind the situation there is cause and effect at play here. Lack of progress in updating and bug fixing = lack of purchasing new DLC by me.

I think that sooner or later the earlier DLC and freeware will have to be left behind. RW is a constantly (if slowly) developing program that, as time goes by, will inevitably become more complex and demanding hard-ware wise. As the amount of DLC and freeware increases alongside RW, then more and more time and resources would have to be spent in just keeping them up to date. This would not be a viable choice for those people providing DLC for a living, and the freeware provider will probably prefer to be creating something new rather than going over old ground again and again at every major RW upgrade.
I think that we have to accept that what we have now will eventually become out of date and unuseable no matter how much we have spent on it.
It is a pity that RW2 in its latest and most stable state could not have been 'tied off' as a stand alone to run independently of TS2012. Some of us are still using, and enjoying, RS without it interfering with RW/TS2012, and without RW/TS2012 interfering with RS. The ideal situation?
regards Ted.

To be honest, I fail to see the issue.

In a work environment, new versions of Office come out every couple of years. You have to upgrade (pay) to use the new functionality. You can continue to use the old version if you wish.

The old DLC still works in the main. Why the need for it to be upgraded? I for one would be happy for another developer to take on the challenge of developing newer versions.

Ted I understand your point but it's not as if the older DLC is ancient, defunct and outdated is it? There is no difference between the 31, 66, 67, 156 etc and current releases other than the fact they haven't been updated to include the new ts2012 features. When the time comes that the core game becomes something entirely new then of course the old stuff will be written off and we start over again but TS2012 is not an entirely new game, it's the same original Railsimulator but just refined and with a bolt-on package. UK users of the game are also in serious danger of dipping out big time because vast swathes of our favourite locos were produced in the early days and if they're not updated then we will not be able to enjoy them with all the latest features.

jimmyshand wrote:Ted I understand your point but it's not as if the older DLC is ancient, defunct and outdated is it?

Precisely. It still works as advertised.

If you want TS2012 functionality either workout how to do it yourself or be prepared to pay when someone else does it.

As I view it, RW is a base. The other DLC is a product that when released is complete. Dev work then stops. You are simply lucky that RSC decided to maintain backwards compatibility with those products.

I would like to see RSC make a firm commitment to updating their remaining DLC locos by the end of 2012.

One of my favourite locos (not an RSC product I hasten to add, 'tis 3rd party) was recently updated to 2012 but when it rains you can't see the track ahead because the wipers wipe the wrong bit! Can't see how that got past testing... a damn shame.