RSC Voyager in development

[rfletcher72]

Isn't that what a forum is all about? For people to speculate and guess what could be/could not be? Or is it only those who know facts allowed to post?

Absolutely agree. But as I see it, the overall theme of this speculation is that the DG 220 will be inferior to the JT version, de facto. On basis of the passenger view, I struggle to see how people can be so sure.

Now some would counter this for example, by pointing to RSC's track record on 'advance' features, and there would be some resonance in such an assertion. But the sim has 'advanced' somewhat since the JT Voyager was released, and I do feel that DG have upped their game in recent times. The JT model is in my eyes a bit tired now in any case, not everyone can handle the extra effort required to drive it so maybe there is room for a 'push 'n' go' version.

I think time will tell they have no need to worry about 'will it, won't it' sell.

Regards,

[thetrainfan]

I will re-iterate the comments I made above.

Other than the picture of the passenger view, where else have DG published any further details on the features that this DLC may contain? I ask again because assumptions are being made that it will not be 'advanced' in the same way as the JT version is. Unless those who have posted are 'in the loop', then to me it is just speculation.

But one important point made above is the Steam aspect. Given the coverage the Steam platform provides and the total number of current TS users (an assumption here of my own), then to me, at least, this may appear to be quite a shrewd commercial move on the part of DG.

Regards,

Richard

Isn't that what a forum is all about? For people to speculate and guess what could be/could not be? Or is it only those who know facts allowed to post?

Yes, but it just gets to the point of people flaming DTG for little/no reason eventually!

[Fincra5]

Well I must say... what a fairly pointless project to be working on.

There are loads of classes left to make, so why do a 220...

[gptech]

There are loads of classes left to make, so why do a 220...

Because they want to.

...or....it's already been broached that DTG have sought a licensing arrangement with Cross Country, and from that it's a reasonable assumption/speculation/wild guess that something to tie all that together is/could be/was in the pipeline.
It's already been said that a simplified (that is, if the DTG offering is a simple 'stick it in gear and go' job) version would appeal to a number of TS users, and also that not all TS users wish to buy from elsewhere (I have a good friend who will not use anything other than Steam sourced content--the only time he's had a reskin on his PC is when he kindly gave me access to do some work on the FTPE class 350 before I'd got the GEML route for the 360 PTSO)
It doesn't matter if any 10 year old can use a search engine to find what's available in that case.

...or....to sort of close the loop, because they want to; because they've identified an opening and a potential market.

If you already have the JT Voyager then you don't have to buy another, just as if you have the DT Class 40 you didn't have to buy another, nor will you when (if) the new version is released.

[Irishrailguy]

If you already have the JT Voyager then you don't have to buy another, just as if you have the DT Class 40 you didn't have to buy another, nor will you when (if) the new version is released.

It seems most people are annoyed at this one because they are doing this and 'wasting' their time doing so. It was funny to read many contradictory Facebook statements though asking why they made this 'useless' addon when they could have made a 222 instead, because a 222 is, you know, definitely more usable than a 220/221 on the current routes we have

I don't really care that they're making a Voyager. I'm not bothered by them making something that's already there, I will go on the impression that this won't beat the JT version as history has shown that their duplicate addons have been below par compared to the 3rd party equivalent (e.g. the 321, which was and still is an eye sore). But even that first shot of the interior isn't looking too great to me, there are hard edges all over the place and a generally (unnecessarily) low poly count, especially on the seats where those hard edges really shouldn't be...

Kev

[michaelhendle]

Hi,

I personally prefer the push and go model's over the complicated do this then do that pull this lever push something else and then find it still doesn't move.

I can get the class 150 to work no problems,but i'm blowed if I can get the 156 to move,seems they use 2 different methods,to get them to work.

I prefer simple control or the HUD that use just 3 levers Brake Reverser Throttle,my problem is I have problems understanding the different instructions given for locomotives,due to a stroke.

I can't fathom out the latest class 37\4 that came WHLE trying to get the REB to work is beyond me.

So hopefully this Voyager will have simple or easy to use controls.

Mike

[gptech]

I prefer simple control or the HUD that use just 3 levers Brake Reverser Throttle,my problem is I have problems understanding the different instructions given for locomotives,due to a stroke.

There can be no better reason for having a simple to drive alternative version of any stock.

[Trev123]

I have both JTs and DTGs A4 Pacific Class.

[theorganist]

I take it there rolling stock departmemt are bored, and have decided to make a Voyager that most people already own. Well good for some people that just want a simple non advanced version, can not see DTG making much money out of this one, will know doubt come free with RS2016 next year

What makes you think "most people" will have the JT one?! I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of TS2015 users never venture away from the steam store, a lot of people will just like the ease of use of steam never having to separately re-install add-ons and self updating etc!

So many people on the forums come up with statements like "no one will buy this" nearly everytime (or so it seems) DTG bring a new model out, yet they are still going and still doing it, so who is correct I wonder?

Peter

[Fincra5]

There are loads of classes left to make, so why do a 220...

Because they want to.

...or....it's already been broached that DTG have sought a licensing arrangement with Cross Country, and from that it's a reasonable assumption/speculation/wild guess that something to tie all that together is/could be/was in the pipeline.
It's already been said that a simplified (that is, if the DTG offering is a simple 'stick it in gear and go' job) version would appeal to a number of TS users, and also that not all TS users wish to buy from elsewhere (I have a good friend who will not use anything other than Steam sourced content--the only time he's had a reskin on his PC is when he kindly gave me access to do some work on the FTPE class 350 before I'd got the GEML route for the 360 PTSO)
It doesn't matter if any 10 year old can use a search engine to find what's available in that case.

...or....to sort of close the loop, because they want to; because they've identified an opening and a potential market.

If you already have the JT Voyager then you don't have to buy another, just as if you have the DT Class 40 you didn't have to buy another, nor will you when (if) the new version is released.

Well that is fair enough. I just personally see it is a waste but I can see what you are saying.

[gptech]

I just personally see it is a waste

In truth, I think many UKTS members who've been around the game since 'Ye Olden Dayes' will agree with that, but we do tend to think of ourselves as the 'mainstream' TS users/players/simmers.
Still, things like this do make for *interesting* discussions, it's just a shame that some immediately trash a DTG release based on a single WIP photograph. Of course anything from DTG is unlikely to reach the giddy heights of realism offered by the more advanced, highly scripted stock 3rd parties have released but that's not always a bad thing---as evidenced by Michael's post above.

We always read calls that instead of producing this, that and the other they should concentrate on fixing core issues--it has merit, but do the modellers/artists at DTG have the necessary programming skills to do that? Probably not, so let them carry on with the modelling and leave the code tinkering to those with very pale complexions and bags under their eyes

[Dave4468]

I don't really mind DTG duplication as I find they serve a fairly useful purpose. I own the AP 321 and I don't think I've ever even driven the DTG one, however all my ECML scenarios use the DTG 321 as AI traffic, far easier on the system. If there was a GA version of the DTG 321 I would do the same.

I'm sure we would all prefer to see no-one duplicating anything but there only seems to be the complaints when DTG do it. I don't remember any uproar when 3 different Standard 4s came along in quick succession. (DT, JT, unmentionable) but I suppose there was no DTG bashing to be had then!

[ashgray]

The answer, as ever, is that you do not have to buy it!

Ash

[220389]

Have to say though. The passenger view does look a lot nicer then the JT one.

Saying that, i will not get it. As happy with the JT Advance version. Although will wait and see what features etc are added to the DTG version.

[growler37]

I just personally see it is a waste

In truth, I think many UKTS members who've been around the game since 'Ye Olden Dayes' will agree with that, but we do tend to think of ourselves as the 'mainstream' TS users/players/simmers.
Still, things like this do make for *interesting* discussions, it's just a shame that some immediately trash a DTG release based on a single WIP photograph. Of course anything from DTG is unlikely to reach the giddy heights of realism offered by the more advanced, highly scripted stock 3rd parties have released but that's not always a bad thing---as evidenced by Michael's post above.

We always read calls that instead of producing this, that and the other they should concentrate on fixing core issues--it has merit, but do the modellers/artists at DTG have the necessary programming skills to do that? Probably not, so let them carry on with the modelling and leave the code tinkering to those with very pale complexions and bags under their eyes

Hi, to be fair,the usual posters immediately jump to DTG,s defence based on the same WIP photograph,so it works both ways,Like or loathe DTG both points of view are equally valid.
Regards Kev