AP Track Enhancement Pack Out Now.

[rfletcher72]

It also does not include 'new' looking track (well, the Liverpool Manchester track set does not have it). Oh and there are still areas where what's under the track comes through. I know there is a disclaimer about this but still, for £7....

For £7 and the improvements it gives, money well spent

[gptech]

I take it that it doesn't come with a custom installer/uninstaller. i.e. If I only wanted this installed on say, 2 or 3 certain routes only and if I didn't like the effects on one of those routes, I could easily revert back?

I'd say you're correct in that it doesn't have a flexible installer, but simply pointing the installer to a location outside of the game such as a foider named "AP Track" on your desktop, would allow you to just copy and paste the bits you want into your copy of the game. Make a backup copy of the folder you're pasting into, including any sub folders, before doing the copy/paste and you've a dead easy way back.

For £7 and the improvements it gives, money well spent

Really Richard?....possibly only if you're happy to lose 75%+ of your existing optional track types, for which reason many are feeling that as the word "enhancement" is defined as "an increase or improvement in quality, value, or extent" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... nhancement) this pack falls short of deserving that title.
It matters not one bit how wonderful the new texturing is, even if it's comparing the AP 'Cistine Chapel' to DTG's '3 year old's drawing of mummy and daddy' removing tracks that many will have used, will like, is tantamount to saying "we know what you really want, after all you're too stupid to decide for yourselves"

[hle19]

Let’s face it a lot of routes offer track which looks nothing like the real thing. All recent DTG routes I have are guilty of it.
In fact I’d say for a sim as advanced as TS has become, to offer a route with the grey track like DTG keep chucking out is poor. Where on the UK rail network do we see PDL track?

I’ve installed trainworks packs and despite improving the GEML to a point, the trees were awful and the track whilst being an improvement still weren’t great. I don’t like the track on the wherry lines route although it’s a lot closer to the real thing than the grey track DTG and others use (GEML, North Wales coastal etc.)

This enhancement whilst a tad expensive, has improved the driving experience. For 7 quid it’s not worth the hassle learning how to swap the track myself.

It’s a good pack in my opinion.

[gptech]

Let’s face it a lot of routes offer track which looks nothing like the real thing.

No argument there, but that isn't what the discussion is all about

to offer a route with the grey track like DTG keep chucking out is poor. Where on the UK rail network do we see PDL track?

The line from London to Portsmouth perhaps?

but, where on the network do you see track with the same ballast colour from start to finish?
The main gripe folk have, and admittedly so far it's voiced mostly by route builders, is that those nicely defined areas of freshly replaced track they've worked on are suddenly removed; those areas where they've used wooden sleepers are suddenly concrete sleepered track---in short the *enhanced* routes and any routes using the assets from those routes lose the variation in texturing/track types--all without any notification, or even hint of any 'knock on' effect.

For 7 quid it’s not worth the hassle learning how to swap the track myself.

and also, I presume, not worth the hassle of learning how to change the colours in a texture. There's a huge grumble about the lack of an editor in TSW, and the fact that all we have is what we're given, but here we have the same thing happening---install this pack, live with routes having the exact same track throughout and no way of changing it if we take your stance of it all being a hassle.

I'll applaud the idea of enhancing the track without touching Tracks.bin; that safeguards any/most edits and additions folk will have done from being removed (Conwy Valley for example) but I certainly can't condone removing choice.

[IronBidder]

This pack may not be regarded as an enhancement if you've lovingly edited the tracks in a route, but I suspect the majority of AP's customers/potential customers aren't in that position. If you know enough about the inner workings of TS to do track modifications, then you'll probably have the subject knowledge to realise that applying a pack that globally replaces the track is probably going to mess up your alterations.

I think the criticism above is disappointment from skilful users who were hoping for something extra, but now realise this pack is meant for the average user, who will benefit from it, though they will not.

[Stone75]

This pack may not be regarded as an enhancement if you've lovingly edited the tracks in a route, but I suspect the majority of AP's customers/potential customers aren't in that position. If you know enough about the inner workings of TS to do track modifications, then you'll probably have the subject knowledge to realise that applying a pack that globally replaces the track is probably going to mess up your alterations.

I think the criticism above is disappointment from skilful users who were hoping for something extra, but now realise this pack is meant for the average user, who will benefit from it, though they will not.

I'll certainly benefit as the track looks great. It will take a little effort to get it where I want it for routes as its a bit too limited for my taste as it stands. Agreed for many who run mainline modern routes and are not too fussy, it will be quite a big change to their routes. Just a bit of a negative that all routes will look the same. On Armstrongs page it does show a lighter ballast in one of the screens https://www.armstrongpowerhouse.com/ima ... 24x576.png Not seen this in route though but maybe not one of my routes.

[gptech]

If you know enough about the inner workings of TS to do track modifications, then you'll probably have the subject knowledge to realise that applying a pack that globally replaces the track is probably going to mess up your alterations.

The key word being globally. How many will realise that globally in this case really does mean globally, as in all routes built using track from route 'X' rather than just the track in route 'X', and in addition to *improving* the look of the concrete sleepered track that is how the wooden sleepered track will appear?
You don't need to know much about TS to realise that changing something will/could lead to changes elsewhere, as evidenced by Martins question about losing Conwy from NWC---no offence to Martin, but by his own admission he ain't the type to dive into wholesale track changes because of the dangers of 'messing it all up'. The argument of the average AP customer not having lovingly edited routes falls over, and they're the ones who'd suffer most by suddenly finding all their lovingly collected freeware routes now look a bit 'samey'. Would that then lead to a slew of freeware routes being upgraded to use alternate tracks because the AP track had become the new *default* rather than the official default---an enhancement shouldn't replace, but augment. If DTG had released upgrades to 11 routes in this manner would you be defending the action in the way you're defending AP?...surely the majority of DTG's customers/potential customers aren't in that position of lovingly edited routes also. I doubt it, you'd be shouting as loud as anybody that removing the options was *wrong*; and rightly so, I'd be complaining as loudly as I am now.

I'll certainly benefit as the track looks great. It will take a little effort to get it where I want it for routes as its a bit too limited for my taste as it stands.

Absolutely no argument that the upgraded track looks good, but are you willing to put in the effort to stretch those limitations in such a way as to be able to release your work as a pack without un-enhancing track that others like? Another key word is 'options'; as of now they've gone.

[smarty2]

Glad I held off then!

[rfletcher72]

Really Richard?....

Er, well Gary, at the risk of repeating myself - Yes .

is tantamount to saying "we know what you really want, after all you're too stupid to decide for yourselves"

So to help all us stupid people in making up our minds, we should be counting our lucky stars that we have comprehensive, informative, non-partisan threads such as this one - to provide detail and impart knowledge minus the hyperbole (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /hyperbole), to enable said people to arrive at a purchasing decision.

We don't know we're born.

[Stone75]

I'll certainly benefit as the track looks great. It will take a little effort to get it where I want it for routes as its a bit too limited for my taste as it stands.

Absolutely no argument that the upgraded track looks good, but are you willing to put in the effort to stretch those limitations in such a way as to be able to release your work as a pack without un-enhancing track that others like? Another key word is 'options'; as of now they've gone.

I believe if you alter something existing in TS then it should be an improvement of what is there yet remain essentially the same. As soon as one user sees something different to an other, it gets messy. For my own route I need more options, so standalone track types essential. The best outcome would be if more options of track were available in the pack so route builders could use them keeping it simple for the end user to obtain them. I love realism in a route and this pack offers the best track yet IMO. Its just missing some of what I need. Coal loading area track, older unused and oil soaked for platforms/depots being the main ones missing for me. First though, let the dust settle and see if any updates from AP arrive first.

[gptech]

There are claims that the enhancement pack alters sounds, which have been refuted based probably on the fact that the pack does not include any audio files.
However, the track sounds are called for by the track's .bin file, so whilst that isn't proof that different sounds have been used (the single track type I've had access to actually didn't reference any different sounds to the original file) the potential is there for an audio change.
If anybody feels they've now got different audio, could they post in here so somebody could check the files ---or even have a check themselves, comparing the enhanced .bin with the default (yes, that does mean either having a backup or looking inside the .ap archive)

[gptech]

The best outcome would be if more options of track were available in the pack

I agree; my opinion is that dealing with a 1/3 of the routes, but comprehensively so to include clean, rusty, wooden sleepered etc versions, would have completely done away with the complaints we've read.
Yes, that's more work and could result in an increase in the price but as the enhanced track does undeniably look better (disregarding any objections to the actual ballast textures, there are valid reasons why many parts of the UK have different coloured ballast to what we see in our own localities---not all stone is the same colour, there are quite pronounced differences between the same kind of stone in the South to that in the North) so lets not lose sight of the fact that even as it stands 7 quid won't buy you and your partner a drink each in the pub, nor 20 cigs, so the price of the enhancement isn't an issue, or at least not the major issue many have.

[rfletcher72]

as it stands 7 quid won't buy you and your partner a drink each in the pub

Then you're supping in the wrong pub

Richard

[gptech]

More like supping with the wrong woman....she has expensive vices

[dingerb]

More like supping with the wrong woman....she has expensive vices

mine, went on lager a very long time ago.