Atomic Systems

jetstream wrote:It begs the question 'why?'.

Think of all the circa 25 mile'ish branch lines that are either still remaining or that were axed under Beeching that JT could construct - and instead they devote time and money to a route that has already been produced!

It might well turn out to be a better version than the original but why not set about building extensions (branches) to their existing routes; for example Exeter St Davids to Salisbury or Taunton to Westbury for their Bristol-Exeter Route?

Because JT didn't create that route - a third party developer did (Darren Porter), and it would probably require both his agreement and his active involvement to add to it in the way you describe.

Ash

The concept of adding to or linking in to existing product is fraught with danger.

As Ash states, the particular suggestion would involve agreement, permissions and likely involvement of the original third party developer.

The other suggestion of producing the WSR but linked in to Bristol Exeter is equally fraught with danger as result of the necessary track changes to the existing route breaking scenarios that would need fixing.

Another possibility is that this version of WSR will be ready to link in to Bristol Exeter with a Patch that joins the two together and provides updated / corrected scenarios. [Doubt it, that would make too much economic sense].

PeterPeddlesden wrote:The concept of adding to or linking in to existing product is fraught with danger.

I am pretty sure that if the tile on which separate routes were started are different, then you are more or less stuffed, or at best life in the editor is going to be very difficult ,

jetstream wrote:It begs the question 'why?'.
Think of all the circa 25 mile'ish branch lines that are either still remaining or that were axed under Beeching that JT could construct - and instead they devote time and money to a route that has already been produced!
It might well turn out to be a better version than the original but why not set about building extensions (branches) to their existing routes; for example Exeter St Davids to Salisbury or Taunton to Westbury for their Bristol-Exeter Route?

Merlin75 wrote:I'm just wondering did people read the part of Simon's post that states this is being made by a third party and not JT. So as to the question why it's pretty clear that someone wants to make their own version of it and JT have happy to sell it for them.

Maybe it's being done by someone at the WSR with the idea of being on sale at the railway to visitors.

749006 wrote:Maybe it's being done by someone at the WSR with the idea of being on sale at the railway to visitors.

To my knowledge its not being made by anyone at the WSR, could be wrong. I certainly haven't heard anything and there's nothing official from the WSR or association. I will ask around tomorrow and see if anyone knows anything.

Hi
At times I wonder why the comercial companies don't listen to what the customers want,I would certainaly buy it if it had been set in the late 1950's early 1960's,in summer the line was really busy with trains going to and from Minehead, with people going to Butlins,infact there were special trains.For a locomotive they could use their Manor and they have plenty of MK1 coaches.

Maybe as it is still work in progress JT might just consider back dating it a few years,they could start it from Norton Fitzwarren.
Just some thoughts.

I expect this will fall on deaf ears,or get deleted.

Mike

Mike

You seem to have missed the point stated above - JT are not making this route! JT have no control over its design or era, as they are simply publishing it on behalf of a third party individual who wants to produce their own version of the WSR. In a sense, this is not about what you want or don't want - it's all about what that person wants, and who would deny him that? The obvious alternative is for people who want something other than what is being offered, is for them to learn the necessary skills and make it themselves.

If you're not interested in this, simply don't buy it. I won't, as I'm very happy with the SSS version.

Ash

ashgray wrote:

jetstream wrote:It begs the question 'why?'.

Think of all the circa 25 mile'ish branch lines that are either still remaining or that were axed under Beeching that JT could construct - and instead they devote time and money to a route that has already been produced!

It might well turn out to be a better version than the original but why not set about building extensions (branches) to their existing routes; for example Exeter St Davids to Salisbury or Taunton to Westbury for their Bristol-Exeter Route?

Because JT didn't create that route - a third party developer did (Darren Porter), and it would probably require both his agreement and his active involvement to add to it in the way you describe.

Ash

Actually, we did create Bristol to Exeter, it's our own "in house" route, started before Rail Simulator had even been announced to the public, but was worked on by some extra external/third party development to make it possible. We can do what we want with BtoE, although I think due to limitations in TS2015 (and all versions before it) you can't "just" join up two routes together, unless they've been built off of the original route in the first place and the rest of the old route removed from the new one (assuming you were building only the new bit and not expanding on the old one to make a larger new one)


Simon
Just Trains
http://www.justtrains.net

'unless they've been built off of the original route in the first place and the rest of the old route removed from the new one (assuming you were building only the new bit and not expanding on the old one to make a larger new one)'

And what, pray, is so difficult about that? The extension shares the base-route point of origin so terrain and tiling all matches.

Thanks for setting the record straight about the original B-E. Some want to make things that aren't difficult appear to be the contrary.

It begs the question, why would you want to join the two routes?

As far as I understand, no regular services run from the mainline down the WSR and if they did, you'd only need Taunton and it's approaching lines modelling.

This incessant clamber to merge routes baffles me

jetstream wrote:

simuk wrote: unless they've been built off of the original route in the first place and the rest of the old route removed from the new one (assuming you were building only the new bit and not expanding on the old one to make a larger new one)

And what, pray, is so difficult about that? The extension shares the base-route point of origin so terrain and tiling all matches.

I take it you're the developer, as you know where the route's origin is?