Train Simulator 2014 - 26th September

[deltic009]

Would be nice of them to fix L2B so that it doesnt have an SBHH all the time!!!! Its need proper portals too... etc etc!

This is a problem down to system resources and individual system specs are affected differently - I've never had an SBHH on L2B, so it isn't really as clear cut a problem as something that affects every user.

[jimmyshand]

I agree with the comments regarding the sim being pretty much good as it is. RSC attention just need to focus on quality of DLC in my opinion. When it comes to route building, they are the undisputed masters and are top of the tree. In-house RSC rolling stock DLC however is usually way below par when compared to what 3rd parties are capable of releasing. The class 87 is the epitome of this point, a huge let down for me and that's for a loco that is in my direct field of interest too. Offers nothing in terms of features or texture improvements over the now 3 yr old class 86.

TS2013 runs like a dream for me on my mediocre rig and my only fear with TS2014 is that it might jeopardise that smooth running. Other than that I have no requirements or expectations now from the sim, it's as good as I need it to be, just need the DLC to keep up with the latest benchmarks.

[theokus]

I agree with the comments regarding the sim being pretty much good as it is. RSC attention just need to focus on quality of DLC in my opinion. When it comes to route building, they are the undisputed masters and are top of the tree. In-house RSC rolling stock DLC however is usually way below par when compared to what 3rd parties are capable of releasing. The class 87 is the epitome of this point, a huge let down for me and that's for a loco that is in my direct field of interest too. Offers nothing in terms of features or texture improvements over the now 3 yr old class 86.

TS2013 runs like a dream for me on my mediocre rig and my only fear with TS2014 is that it might jeopardise that smooth running. Other than that I have no requirements or expectations now from the sim, it's as good as I need it to be, just need the DLC to keep up with the latest benchmarks.

One of the things that I wanted to see is that the route builders get more comfort.
Building things is my fun.
I can very well understand that many people are excited about the sim.
It is also the best sim in its genre.
But imho the builders are forgotten.

[theokus]

Looking forward to it. Lets hope that there are some extra features in this release!
Thanks
Ross

Trees in bloom in due season?

[styckx]

I'd pay good money to have a sense of community again where the developer actually works with their users instead of working against them and where us end users co-mingle again instead of a battle of internet personalities. Just like the old days and just like most of the 3rd party developers. Sure I, and many others get passionate about products but unfortunately RSC have a pretty predictable history and it gets really long in the tooth sometimes and we have to "vent". Perfect example of a great exchange with a developer I had recently. I was VERY VERY annoyed with a way a third party developer updated one of their existing packs I purchased some time back.. I had to re-download it and reinstall it for "spring cleaning" reasons. The update to it made it require purchasing another pack that wasn't originally required with the pack when I bought it... Emailed them.. Kindly expressed my displeasure.. 16hrs later a reply, and heartfelt explanation and apology.. Issue resolved.. I'm out $8.00 but after hearing from the developer about why the decision was made.. I understood and they still have a paying customer. This is the part RSC is missing.. They have ZERO connection with their userbase anymore.. I miss that.. They used to be good with it..

[jimmyshand]

RSC seem to completely avoid anything negative. You see it on FB where tons of comments or criticisms will be made and they never respond. They'll respond to something positive or some of the daft comments but they never reply to criticism even if its polite and reasonable.

Lack of acknowledgement or response to issues tends to drive the customer base wild with frustration because it paints the picture that they're not listening and they don't care. Take the recent class 87 release. RSC were bombarded with comments about the milky window problem. Not once did they acknowledge it as an issue or let us know they were going to look into the problem. This put me off buying it and it wasn't until someone in the community issued a fix that I even considered it. All RSC had to do was issue a quick message "we are aware of an issue with the windscreen texture and will send out a fix ASAP'".

In this particular case, a month later they issued a fix out of the blue but it could have been dealt with so much better. This fix actually took me completely by surprise because RSC are not renowned for going back and fixing issues, they have a history of fire and forget or at least that's the way it seems with lack of communication regarding issues.

[pjt1974]

My hope is that should RSC decide to try take the technology of Railworks to another level, they remember the loyal customers who don't have the capacity to upgrade.

If the update comes in and I can still run the same routes on the same level as I can now, I'll be happy. Any forced update that lifts the minimum required pc specs is, as far as I'm concerned, selfish. Hopefully, the lesson was learnt from the dabacle that happened when TSX on or off turned up.

I have to admit, since then, I've been able to upgrade to a new pc and all the new features with TSX on took the sim to another level but I'm still of the personal opinion that they alienated a large number of thier customers by not allowing folks to stay at the level they were. RSC had to be applauded for thinking of the lower end pc users by providing a 'legacy' mode, however, pc resource wise, this still took things a stage further than most of us could go at the time.

Maybe they should concentrate on better communication with thier customers and have a serious rethink on thier greedy DLC upgrade policy.

[smarty2]

My hope is that should RSC decide to try take the technology of Railworks to another level, they remember the loyal customers who don't have the capacity to upgrade.

If the update comes in and I can still run the same routes on the same level as I can now, I'll be happy. Any forced update that lifts the minimum required pc specs is, as far as I'm concerned, selfish. Hopefully, the lesson was learnt from the dabacle that happened when TSX on or off turned up.

I have to admit, since then, I've been able to upgrade to a new pc and all the new features with TSX on took the sim to another level but I'm still of the personal opinion that they alienated a large number of thier customers by not allowing folks to stay at the level they were. RSC had to be applauded for thinking of the lower end pc users by providing a 'legacy' mode, however, pc resource wise, this still took things a stage further than most of us could go at the time.

Maybe they should concentrate on better communication with thier customers and have a serious rethink on thier greedy DLC upgrade policy.

Well, there is always the "do not keep this game updated" option, I think it extremely unreasonable to expect a company to be held back because some people have old outdated equipment! All in all I think it is good RSC are improving the sim going forward, I wish they would make it an 64 bit application and upgrade from DX9c to 11. Its silly that one keeps getting SBHH when one has enough ram on the machine but is limited by a 32 bit architecture, barmy, its 2013!

[markpullinger]

Hi, I would like to see the option of choosing a 64 bit update, so if you have 32bit it still works but you can `upgrade` to 64 bit if you want to and that gets added to your steam account so next time you install it uses 64 bit installation only rather than 32 bit & reupgrade - same for DX10/11. Although if it was standard, it might be wise to wait for official XP support to go next year to stop the uproar from XP users not being supported. I can see problems for scenarios and routes written with a 64 bit system not working on 32 bit systems though!

[malcolmfhill]

Hi, I would like to see the option of choosing a 64 bit update, so if you have 32bit it still works but you can `upgrade` to 64 bit if you want to and that gets added to your steam account so next time you install it uses 64 bit installation only rather than 32 bit & reupgrade - same for DX10/11. Although if it was standard, it might be wise to wait for official XP support to go next year to stop the uproar from XP users not being supported. I can see problems for scenarios and routes written with a 64 bit system not working on 32 bit systems though!

I agree, Mark. A 64 bit upgrade option with DX11 etc would be a good idea. Other game developers use up to date technology so why not.

[jimmyshand]

My hope is that should RSC decide to try take the technology of Railworks to another level, they remember the loyal customers who don't have the capacity to upgrade.

If the update comes in and I can still run the same routes on the same level as I can now, I'll be happy. Any forced update that lifts the minimum required pc specs is, as far as I'm concerned, selfish. Hopefully, the lesson was learnt from the dabacle that happened when TSX on or off turned up.

I have to admit, since then, I've been able to upgrade to a new pc and all the new features with TSX on took the sim to another level but I'm still of the personal opinion that they alienated a large number of thier customers by not allowing folks to stay at the level they were. RSC had to be applauded for thinking of the lower end pc users by providing a 'legacy' mode, however, pc resource wise, this still took things a stage further than most of us could go at the time.

Maybe they should concentrate on better communication with thier customers and have a serious rethink on thier greedy DLC upgrade policy.

You are quite right in what you say and I think some of the others have missed the point. When you buy a game you do so knowing the spec required and you research if your PC is capable of running it. You then spend hundreds of pounds on dlc etc. What shouldn't happen is that the game is then changed without your control to such a degree that now it won't run on your spec of machine. Remember the key point here is that it is still the same game, you've not bought a new version only to find your PC isn't good enough, you've had a change forced upon you that has rendered the original game you bought and were happy with useless. That shouldn't happen.

As someone with a mediocre PC and no prospect of significant upgrade, I share your valid concern.

[DaveDewhurst]

Although if anything I would say that the change from 2012 to 2013 actually lowered the strain on PC hardware.
I can definitely remember not being able to run L-B and WCML-N in full detail before 2013 but that the performance improved a lot after the upgrade.
On the downside you could argue though, that the graphics quality actually decreased to achieve this performance increase.
(Im certain the distance that shadows came in to focus and the distance the ground became un-blurry was further away than it currently is).

Dave

[jimmyshand]

Although if anything I would say that the change from 2012 to 2013 actually lowered the strain on PC hardware.
I can definitely remember not being able to run L-B and WCML-N in full detail before 2013 but that the performance improved a lot after the upgrade.
On the downside you could argue though, that the graphics quality actually decreased to achieve this performance increase.
(Im certain the distance that shadows came in to focus and the distance the ground became un-blurry was further away than it currently is).

Dave

That's very true, TS2013 did enable me to reach graphical levels I could not before. However, the issue is that it could easily go the other way if RSC continue to meddle with the base game. The lack of communication as to their intentions keeps me on my guard. If they were to release a statement that put everyones mind at ease like "due to the fact we are continually developing the base game, rest assured we will ensure that all future upgrades will not affect the minimum spec."

If they want to ramp things up such in a big way that it would adversely affect current minimum spec users, then they need to release a new game.

[pjt1974]

Well, there is always the "do not keep this game updated" option

Unfortunately Martin, in my experience, this option is not always the case.

Why shouldn't I expect, after spending a load of money on a new PC a year ago, that my Railworks experience be the same after the upgrade as it was before? I don't think I'm being selfish. I think the ones being selfish are the ones who demand more, more, more. If RSC do move the sim a whole big step forward like they have before. I hope they release it as a whole new base sim and those who have the rigs to run it to a decent level can buy it and leave those of us who can't justify spending £500 to upgade thier PC's to enjoy our experience as it is.

[jarmstro]

My hope is that should RSC decide to try take the technology of Railworks to another level, they remember the loyal customers who don't have the capacity to upgrade.

If the update comes in and I can still run the same routes on the same level as I can now, I'll be happy. Any forced update that lifts the minimum required pc specs is, as far as I'm concerned, selfish. Hopefully, the lesson was learnt from the dabacle that happened when TSX on or off turned up.

I have to admit, since then, I've been able to upgrade to a new pc and all the new features with TSX on took the sim to another level but I'm still of the personal opinion that they alienated a large number of thier customers by not allowing folks to stay at the level they were. RSC had to be applauded for thinking of the lower end pc users by providing a 'legacy' mode, however, pc resource wise, this still took things a stage further than most of us could go at the time.

Maybe they should concentrate on better communication with thier customers and have a serious rethink on thier greedy DLC upgrade policy.

You are quite right in what you say and I think some of the others have missed the point. When you buy a game you do so knowing the spec required and you research if your PC is capable of running it. You then spend hundreds of pounds on dlc etc. What shouldn't happen is that the game is then changed without your control to such a degree that now it won't run on your spec of machine. Remember the key point here is that it is still the same game, you've not bought a new version only to find your PC isn't good enough, you've had a change forced upon you that has rendered the original game you bought and were happy with useless. That shouldn't happen.

As someone with a mediocre PC and no prospect of significant upgrade, I share your valid concern.

I wouldn't worry too much. Without the sim moving to DX11/PhysX etc there isn't much RSC can do with the graphics without a huge performance hit. And moving to DX11 would be a very brave move indeed!! Unfortunately, by modern standards, the graphics are very crude indeed.

As has been said RW2013 was better optimised than 2012 and because another year has gone by in which a lot have people will have upgraded they can probably now afford to up the graphics quality a bit at the expense of lower performance with users having the option to enable higher quality or not. Alternatively new routes could simply be made more detailed which would preclude users with low end PC's from buying them so my guess is that they will do the former.

(I would like to see better animation of passengers and pedestrians and at least some animation of cows and sheep etc etc.)

John A