What is standard these days?

[Jacko]

For sounds I had in mind what AP is doing with their pro series. Perhaps that's an ask too far. Then again, when a bar gets raised it's up to everyone to try and hurdle it.

There isn't actually a need to go and record internal & external sounds though, since the audio engine got changed; looking at the internal sounds and going "hey you short-changed me here!" because they reference external ones is just silly. There is a different issue with internal sounds from *other* stock - that is more to do with the other stock's sound config I think. All that excess running noise you get in a cab when you'd never hear any of it, because the stock has internal running noise set up...

I'm in danger of getting swamped by your inside knowledge here, Kariban - I'll confess I don't know much - nay, anything - about the way that sounds are constructed and attenuated in-cab, and what is 'right', versus 'more right' in terms of developmental approach. (That's a compliment, btw ). But I do still think it's right that audio is a factor in any 'standard' (or reviewing yardstick). In the case of the asset I indirectly referred to as being able to hear other assets' sounds in-cab... it was the same asset's internals you could hear externally (whilst inside)! i.e. if an AI version of the DLC asset was elsewhere in the station, you'd hear its right-away bells as clear as the one you were driving. Definitely something is 'wrong' there, with the specific asset itself (which wasn't made clear at the point-of-sale) - and I think the intention of having an 'audio' factor - as the OP put it, a "Separate internal/external sound sets" yardstick is worthwhile. Some measurement of the in-cab audio experience in Asset A versus the experience in Asset B is useful when thinking what to spend your money on.

End-user reviews are firmly in the hands of end-users, it's not the developer's responsibility to publish reviews ( would you really want that anyway! ). Given the choice would you rather have a developer miss a few features because that's all they can budget for, or can the entire project? a lot of more advanced features people are starting to take for granted need devs to actually fight the dev platform which is crazily time-consuming.

I agree, of course I would never sanction developers or publishers writing their own reviews (god forbid). I mentioned their sales-blurb only from the p.o.v. that there is nothing much else for a customer to use to learn about the product, pre-purchase. Sadly, ours is not a world that the 'conventional' software review sources tend to look into much, and when they do, it tends to be rather snidy or superficial. I don't think I've ever seen a decent DLC review on a 'proper' games website or magazine that isn't just reworded press-release material. End user reviews (i.e. written by previous paying customers) can tend to be a bit scatalogical and random sometimes or range from the 'zealot fanboy' to the 'scorned revenger', depending on their intention for writing the review in the first place. Having a set of 'reviewing criteria' (i.e. the OP's 'standards' list) would at least mean we could skip to the bullet-list panel and dodge the puffery or vitriol, and still get a reasonable idea of what the DLC actually contained.

And finally, "hardcore" enthusiasts won't want to hear this, but; *most people don't care*. Any quality issues aren't down to lack of reviews, they're down to lack of competition.

I was thinking initially of disagreeing with that, but you're right. Certainly lack of reviews enables it to persist, but lack of competition is a big deal. If a developer can sell a turd, and there's no-one selling a better turd, he'll make some money. There are people who will buy that turd and play with it, because it's the only version of their beloved 'thing-that-inspired-a-turd' that they can buy with their money. I think I *will* actually disagree with you and say that they *do* care - but they've spent their money and it's too late. Some of them will whine about it, some may even vow never to buy from that developer again, but mostly, nothing really changes and nobody really takes much notice. Some customers will (usually under duress) turn a blind eye to the turdiness of their purchase, and just 'deal with it', focusing instead on its good points (if it has any) - but that doesn't mean they don't care about it, if asked. All these things mean the developer can go on selling that turd for a fair while to come.

Of course I must rebalance my stance here - there are plenty of developers who produce *amazing* assets, and not turds at all. For them, having a 'standard' (whether it be a production standard or a reviewing standard is actually immaterial), is a good thing. They can use it to show that *their* asset ticks all these boxes - the boxes that informed customers are *actually* interested in, rather than the historical horsedump information about how "the Class 71s had dual pantograph and third rail pickups so they could work in 750v overhead-electrified yards" which tells you precisely *nothing* about the quality of the in-game asset you're about to purchase, but fills a lot of 'sales pamphlet space' neatly without actually being criminally misrepresentative. In short, the good guys can use a 'standard' to show what good guys they really are - this in turn should give them a marketing edge which helps them compete more effectively with the bad guys. The side effect may also be that the presence of the standard turns more 'non-hardcore' customers, into at the very least informed customers. Anyone - even the terminally vaccuous - can see that Product X with 10 items ticked versus Product Y with 4 items ticked, is probably a better purchase, if they're the same price. Eventually, Product Y's developer may get the message (through falling sales) and up his game in order to legitimately tick more boxes (and display such in his sales-blurb)?

[Kariban]

Well I'll put it another way - they might care if there was an alternative, but they don't care enough that it will stop future purchases. What are being called "advanced" features I'm not sure are really cost-effective ( but I'm not a marketing type so I don't really know - I do know how long some of this stuff takes to implement ), I think they're mostly there because the dev wanted them. Obviously I can't answer for most devs!

Sounds - obviously there's things you hear in a cab that you won't hear outside and vice-versa, I'd never suggest just chucking a cab occlusion file in and leaving it ( anyone who's sent me something to test might imagine how I'd respond to that... ) but having a completely new set is a bit pointless and more to the point a waste of audio channels. I'm not really terribly up on audio though, I'll leave that to people with a bit more patience.

And finally especially for RSC themselves, costs really matter, more than some 3rd parties who can maybe afford to slip their schedules a bit - they are funding the platform as well as DLC development.

[gypbrc]

this can't be presently done for single locomotives or one-car trains,

It couldnt be done in the Kuju dark-ages. No reason why, with a bit of work, it cant be acheived now. The Taurus manages it and so does the 76/77. Again, this is about a bar having been raised.

1S81

The 76/77 is made up of two pieces though is it not? I don't know about the Taurus.

I don't think "we as purchasers" have a right to expect anything other than what has been advertised. If we don't like what is advertised then we won't be purchasers

[220389]

this can't be presently done for single locomotives or one-car trains,

It couldnt be done in the Kuju dark-ages. No reason why, with a bit of work, it cant be acheived now. The Taurus manages it and so does the 76/77. Again, this is about a bar having been raised.

1S81

The 76/77 is made up of two pieces though is it not? I don't know about the Taurus.

I don't think "we as purchasers" have a right to expect anything other than what has been advertised. If we don't like what is advertised then we won't be purchasers

76/77 are made up of three bits isn't it? Both bogies then the main frame.

The Taurus is a single item that does do multiple light settings. Including doubling headlights on both ends on all manors of light/ dim, half beam, full. And has the ablitily of tail lights on or off even if towing stock.

Chris

[stevee630]

Some of the above posts have gone into great detail. This will be a lot shorter Getting back to the suggestion of the OP, i think many newcomers will certainly be disappointed with some purchases and more will continue to be, by missing obvious features that are lacking from some DLC. I myself have fallen into the trap at least twice my missing the (not so) obvious fact that the loco/dmu is not even TSX ready ! No rain on windscreen!
Then having to wait while the devs remedy this..
Stephen.

[michaeldono]

The 77 is in one model as well.

[Kariban]

Just to clear it all up: it's definitely possible to do individual lights on a single piece model, it's just a bit convoluted.

Perhaps there is a need for a little more marketing - some more use of Youtube to show off features would give prospective customers a better idea of what's there than just a list of features without any way of knowing exactly what these features "mean". And if devs can't spare time to do that themselves, then it's not hard for 3rd parties to knock up a quick video of a scenario.

[smarty2]

I think the suggestion of a peer revue is a good one, in fact obviously there are individuals on these very forums imo who appear to be qualified for such tasks using the op's original proviso? Perhaps a new sub forum dedicated to such?
Indeed it would be more fortuitous to have a Which style magazine that was perhaps on a separate site and more available to all simply because one cannot review "all" 3rd party addon creators on UKTS, but then again it is so niche would it be worth it? Matt used to do unbiased critical review, but he has gone over to the dark side!
All in all an excellent suggestion Jacko!

[1S811985]

I don't think "we as purchasers" have a right to expect anything other than what has been advertised. If we don't like what is advertised then we won't be purchasers

Thats fine and dandy only so long as the advertising is accurate. It also ignores the fact that the only way to test the advertising is to buy the product, at which point you are already a purchaser.

Lets take a recent example. The "advertising" for the new 66 states that it features accurate horn sounds. Apparently not.

Now of course, it's unlikely that the horn sound alone would be deal breaker for that many people but it does illustrate the principle that the consumer cant rely solely upon the opinion of a vendor and really needs an independant, fair minded and objective review that measures any given product against a recognised set of criteria.

1S81

[shanyiqua]

It's possible to make every light settings in game, however it needs scripting. The default light light control in engine can only handle one light setting for forward, one for backwards.

[gypbrc]

I agree that a good decent review site would be useful. I don't think UKTS is the place for it though to be honest.

The horn sound... is it inaccurate or just disliked? Perhaps RSC got stuck with a lemon at the recording session. I hear lots of 66's go past everyday and the horn sounds vary a lot whereas the engine sounds are always recognizable.

[phat2003uk]

For sounds I had in mind what AP is doing with their pro series. Perhaps that's an ask too far. Then again, when a bar gets raised it's up to everyone to try and hurdle it.

There isn't actually a need to go and record internal & external sounds though, since the audio engine got changed; looking at the internal sounds and going "hey you short-changed me here!" because they reference external ones is just silly

For the most part the occlusion is good enough, but personally I prefer separate soundsets as internal sounds can be totally different.

Agreed, muffling external sounds is nowhere near accurate enough for most internal sounds. For example, with most locomotives, you can't even hear the exhaust note whilst in the cab though that's the sound you'll be muffling if you rely on EAX.

On a more general point though, market forces will ultimately dictate which features are included in products. No solely business-minded operation is going to spend time on something which doesn't result in proportionally more sales. As a rule of thumb too, you're more likely to see more 'Advanced' models where there is competition in the marketplace as the developer has to go the extra mile to make their product more attractive.

[Jacko]

On a more general point though, market forces will ultimately dictate which features are included in products. No solely business-minded operation is going to spend time on something which doesn't result in proportionally more sales.

Whilst I agree with this in principle, it'll be very hard for any business (in this particular field) to equate sales of a particular bit of their DLC with its quality and time spent on its production. Some simplistic calculations could be done, but they'll most likely be wrong - there aren't enough real data-points available to be fully sure what contributed most to the sales figures. There are many other factors for even the 'solely business-minded operation' to consider. For example, shipping out a particularly ropey piece of DLC at full whack with a great bit of marketing BS that skated neatly over all the omissions that the DLC had, might still result in healthy sales. That same developer might find themselves struggling to sell much of their next bit of DLC, though - if the previous customers of their earlier, ropey offering, had made enough of a bad smell in the marketplace and/or vowed never to darken that developers door again!

IMHO, developers should be striving to offer for sale the very best quality that they can afford to make a realistic proposition for customers, bearing in mind the average DLC costs, and the time taken. Somewhere in that equation is the result "decent quality DLC for a fair price", and (all other things being equal) should result in increasing sales for future DLC on the strength of a reputation for quality. (And although I am not yet an Armstrong Powerhouse customer, Richard, I understand that your particular brand is already well-known for precisely that reputational reason, and on the strength of it, fully intend to purchase some items off you in due course).

Developers/Publishers that cut corners, ship mundane product and dress it up in the shop window as the latest thing since sliced bread, or who gloss over the shortcomings and whine about their costs of development, will find customers crossing the street to avoid them. Conversely those who take a bit of extra time, and invest in their own reputation as much as the quality of their offerings, will generally stand head and shoulders above the rest and find it much easier to maintain market share and hold on to customer loyalty. This will become especially more important if there ever is any decent developer-competition in this marketplace - which genuinely might happen if RSC ever weed out the remaining bugs from the system and it becomes ever more popular. I never thought it would last this long, as it happens, and am happy to have been proved wrong on that front!

As a rule of thumb too, you're more likely to see more 'Advanced' models where there is competition in the marketplace as the developer has to go the extra mile to make their product more attractive.

Absolutely true. And I think the OP's idea of a 'standard' is something that will always evolve, based partly upon customer expectation, developer innovation, the quality of the production tools and scope for economies of scale or re-use of parts. I think the real crux of the matter is being able to evaluate something against some kind of yardstick before you buy - and currently, the Steam method does not make that honestly possible.

Your own method, in contrast, is about as open and straightforward as one could possibly ask for - clear and detailed write-ups, excellent demonstration videos, scenarios included that show the product off, installers that work with current versions of the game - the lot, almost; in fact I think about the only single item I could possibly wish for is a full-on 'side-by-side' comparison of 'standard in-game' versus 'armstrong-powerhouse' sounds, in the same video - but there are probably copyright (and relationship) reasons that would prevent such an obvious drubbing of your competition! So I can live with that! But you get my point, I hope. Your company does well because it sells correctly - not because it is 'economical with the actualité'. You already go the extra mile, and as far as I know, there is nobody competing in the field of 'sounds-replacement', is there? It would behove a few other developers (especially those who sell via RSC and Steam) to follow your lead - but then, maybe they're not, precisely because their offerings are not up to 'current snuff', and Steam's a good way to play down the deficiencies and buy them time to bring them up to spec. Can't be sure, and maybe I'm being a teensy bit cynical. All I know is, I definitely got suckered into wasting some cash in that last Steam sale, and I wish I could get a refund on a couple of dogs I purchased, but it ain't gonna happen. Net result is, I will be a lot more wary of those developers/publishers in future, and they might think they've won this time, but next time, the money stays in my wallet!