Reviews on IOW, 66, and 158

[Trainguy76]

Hi i am debating which to buy of these three, and would like to see their pros and cons.

[g0fthick]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/24021/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/24024/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/24023/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/24022/

Each page features a selection of screen shots and a full list of what's included, beyond that I'd simply go with what interests you most.

[Trainguy76]

the class 66 is pure freight running correct?
(sorry, silly question)

[g0fthick]

Well you can set it to run with whatever you wish, but the included scenarios and stock are of a freight based nature, a reflection of the prototypical usage of the units.

[Trainguy76]

Well i guess the decision all depends on how i do the route im building.
Whats a good example of a freight yard in a city setting in the UK along with the entrances and exits?
I currently have all passenger action and would like to implement freight along the route.

[dean1986]

The yard just outside Newcastle?

[ightenhill]

th IOW is a good buy simply because a lot of route writers are using its assets in there routes... You can easily change a missing loco with RW tools but scenery can be a more long winded matter..

[Trainguy76]

Hmmm.... good advice. but is the IOW track rule only for the trains that come with it?

[bigvern]

The 158 physics are pure arcadey/DCC.

For example last night testing my GWML activity. 85% throttle (equiv to Notch 6) in "Gear 1" (fluid drive) speed stuck at around 36 MPH, woudn't go any faster. Had to put it into Notch 7 (100%) to get over 45MPH and the drive to transition. It seems each notch simply propels the unit at a set speed (one value for Gear 1 the other for Gear 2 i.e. after the transition which you can only get by going to 100%) which I've noticed on other routes doesn't even vary much with gradient, until you throttle back and coast. In Notch 5 or 6 a Class 158 should still continue to accelerate, transition to direct drive (Gear 2 as RW calls it).

A shame as a nice model otherwise, both appearance and sounds but the physics are a complete letdown.

[Trainguy76]

So the 158 is almost exactly like the 166 in physics? (except its faster)

[bigvern]

I haven't driven the 166 much but if it displays similar behaviour then yes, it looks as if the physics were "ticked up" albeit with slightly different speed parameters.

There was talk of a "pro" version of the 158 which might (possibly) have addressed this issue but ISTR reading the guy who developed it lost all his source files and that was the end of that...

[Ghostcav]

The 158 physics are pure arcadey/DCC.

Really?

I have to say I find them quite accurate, the changeover from Torque converter at the start to fluid coupling as speed increase's seems pretty spot on. (notch 1-5 @35-38mph & notch 6&7 @44-48mph). For a perkins powered unit it feels just about right, more closer to Cummins varients though as they are more rev happy where the perkins rev lazy & then just lob a shedload of power down as the wussy Cummins ones would be struggling.

[Trainguy76]

So, are there any features that "stand out" from the default trains in the 158?

[ightenhill]

[158] Nice Cab and Nice Chassis, Bogie detail.. It seems to shiny to me and flat upstairs but I think thats just a lack of good weathered skins at the moment (I dont think I have ever seena clean 158 in my life).. Im not over keen on the sound but then again I may be having my own problems here..

[Trainguy76]

Thank you, and sorry but i also have to ask the same for the 66 and IOW.