Atomic Systems

gptech wrote:.where do you draw the line between important and trivial? .

A different type of Signalbox, building Gasometer, Warehouse etc is, to me, trivial
Signals not doing what they should, track speed changes not shown on the ground or in the HUD, Electrification missing (track properties) are important, to me, in the running of the Sim.

I do not see the point in any developer spending more time creating lots of extra assets to make the route look like the real thing that they have to, it is time wasting and inappropriate, and not necessary.

I agree, but there is a point that isn't being made (sorry if it has already) but.... if you don't like something you have an editor to mould it to how you do want it; if you can't use the editor then don't complain!

smarty2 wrote:I agree, but there is a point that isn't being made (sorry if it has already) but.... if you don't like something you have an editor to mould it to how you do want it; if you can't use the editor then don't complain!

You can move and re-size assets in the editor, but you cannot make new ones.

There is of course a compromise to be made between wasting time (and money) on providing more detail than is necessary to get the job done, and not providing enough and the negative effect it has on the view and feel of the line. I think a good example of this is the ommission of any blast furnace model in the South Wales Extension at Port Talbot Steel Works. In real life these are massive distinctively shaped structures that can be seen from miles around. If the route development budget was tight I would have preferred to have seen these included and some simplification elsewere at the route edges.

I don't believe any route can be perfect either from the point of view of buildings or track. The dictionary says for 'Simulation' - A simulation is an approximate imitation of the operation of a process or system.

Note this says 'approximate'.

In the case of track layout, this changes quite often, so does scenery, I was building a steam route through the now extinct Tweedmouth station in Northumberland and asked on a local forum for pictures/track diagrams etc. This produced 6 different track layouts for a single station, so only one user out of 6 would have said it was correct

Just play the game and don't worry / nitpick about what you are presented with.

Mike

I believe it is much about avoiding the negative. Anything that spoils the fun will always be noted much more prominent than positives which form a stream that is just there.

I would say that AI collisions and signals that never clear and zombie AI that blocks the route are most disruptive and also hard to fix for the average user. Some track properties are easy to fix if you know your way, but not so many do.

Iconic scenery is important for those who know the route at least slightly. But opinions will differ on what exactly is counted with iconic. And the degree of knowing a route can range from "been there" to actually remembering many details (and being correct at that).

The general theme of the route environment is something that even those who have never been there will judge, or match with their prejudice. "Must be more grubby", "must be more lush", "can't be that empty".

Signal boxes are a good example. They are railway infrastructure and not an unimportant one (while still in use). But how many will really distinguish between the styles of different companies? Colours more likely, sash arrangements not so likely. The size is known by very few but if it does not fit the location at all, everyone will notice. Or not.

At the end of the day, it is a very long list of "nice to have"s and who misses what most will be different for everyone. What really matters is whether you have fun with the thing of not, i.e., whether the few negatives (for you) are overwhelmed by lots of positives (for you).

749006 wrote:on MML in to St Pancras was going to have a Eurostar arrive nearby but you can only use two of the 6 platforms in the shed.

Why?....was it an electrification/directionality problem or because the tracks aren't linked to any others?

749006 wrote:

gptech wrote:.where do you draw the line between important and trivial? .

A different type of Signalbox, building Gasometer, Warehouse etc is, to me, trivial
Signals not doing what they should, track speed changes not shown on the ground or in the HUD, Electrification missing (track properties) are important, to me, in the running of the Sim.

Please don't take this as an attack - but when you say that lineside objects such as signal boxes are detail that relatively doesn't matter, are you not kind of contradicting yourself with what you said about the TSW BR Blue route? You were complaining on that route that several signal boxes were missing along the line and of course a signal box missing is not the same as that a different looking box is used, but still, it's just a lineside asset that doesn't affect the driving on the route.
Some signal boxes missing can be just as annoying as a signal box not looking right to someone who knows the route very well - this is one of the reasons I don't drive Dutch routes: when I know the line, those are the kind of things that stick out like painfully sore thumbs that take away my pleasure.

However if you don't know the line then you don't really notice it and then, when you are driving the route, what becomes most important is wether it's "technically correct": electrification, directionality, signals all working, track is not wonky and jumpy, all track properly connected etc.
Even if some of the tracks are missing that should have been there, or laid incorrectly according to prototype - as long as it functions on a technical level, and gives an OK general impression of the area that will do.

So to sum up, in my opinion it is important that all the trackwork on the full route "works", all signalling works. Second priority is the correctness of lineside.
My enjoyment from a route is further enhanced when it is highly detailed and full of real-world clutter -- that is a big immersion factor to me for a route. (Just as good sounds are a big immersion factor for me for the actual driving).

Unfortunately, it's neigh on impossible to get any of these right.

I know from experience that getting the trackwork right, working, is a nearly impossible mammoth task. It takes a lot of time and effort to get this all right just along the mainline, getting all the sidings right, and working correctly, is, well, that is a REALLY big effort when you have to do that for every yard of track along an entire route.

Getting all the lineside details right - impossible. There will always be something that sticks out to someone who knows a part of the route well, that they will jump on because it's missing, or incorrectly placed. Even if it's just one building along a 100 mile route. (Personal example: on release of RS in 2006 I checked the Paddington to Reading line for known to me landmarks and was sorely disappointed with the way they bodged together the Octagon building in Slough. Plus the missing branchline to Windsor and Eton. I could never look back on that route positively anymore afterwards).
And no matter how many cabride videos of a route you watch while building or testing, there will always be something that you will miss, or something that you cannot place due to constraints of the editor, assets that can be done, or performance impact.

Clutter, the more detail and clutter you add, the worse the performance... So you have to go light on this. Also, a degree of clutter should be left to scenario makers since otherwise there will be no variety - always the same cars in the parking lot, day and night, etc.

So, route making is a very challenging balancing act and as consumers, buyers, we should always gently prod developers to do better but also accept and learn to live with the fact that there are going to be tradeoffs.

Cheers,

--Tim

danny3 wrote: (edit - I think it would be for the best if I removed myself from this forum, I don't think it would be wise to post in this forum any more, I think I'll ask for my forum account to be removed or ask that my account can be prevented from posting on the forum. If things that I post are just going to be twisted there is no point in me posting on uktrainsim any more. )

Danny - I don't know who is twisting your words, or which posts make you feel that your words are being twisted.

I always highly respect the routes you have done, and whenever I see you post something I always read it eagerly. To get a glimpse from how things are "from the inside", to hear about some of your experience with the development side of things, etc.

If you leave this forum, or if you leave behind the building / publishing of routes, I will miss your contributions.

With many things that are going on in the simulator world, I get an impression you take things more personally than they are meant, and that there are things that others do because they are inspired by you that then end up discouraging you...

I also tend to take things more personal than they are meant, I know how taxing this can be.

Ultimately however, you should do what is best for you and not what some members of the community (including me) want you to.

Chin up man and don't take it all too heavily / seriously!

Cheers,

--Tim

tnleeuw01 wrote:

749006 wrote:

gptech wrote:.where do you draw the line between important and trivial? .

A different type of Signalbox, building Gasometer, Warehouse etc is, to me, trivial
Signals not doing what they should, track speed changes not shown on the ground or in the HUD, Electrification missing (track properties) are important, to me, in the running of the Sim.

Please don't take this as an attack - but when you say that lineside objects such as signal boxes are detail that relatively doesn't matter, are you not kind of contradicting yourself with what you said about the TSW BR Blue route? You were complaining on that route that several signal boxes were missing along the line and of course a signal box missing is not the same as that a different looking box is used, but still, it's just a lineside asset that doesn't affect the driving on the route.
Some signal boxes missing can be just as annoying as a signal box not looking right to someone who knows the route very well - this is one of the reasons I don't drive Dutch routes: when I know the line, those are the kind of things that stick out like painfully sore thumbs that take away my pleasure.--Tim

My complaint about the TSW route was not so much an incorrect Signalbox but the lack of them.
Batley Signalbox is there but not the correct type - the 6 missing Signalboxes between Miles Platting and Ashton stand out because of all the Semaphores they should be controlling.
And when I said "A different type of Signalbox, building Gasometer, Warehouse etc is, to me, trivial" I would rather the Signals worked and the track was correct enough to run trains.

To be honest I would not want to have to choose, both should be done, I would like a detailed routed, but a bit pointless if it does not have correct signalling, thats like asking you prefer realistic sounds and physics at the expense of poor graphics of a locomotive. Luckily we have very talented people on here and third parties that can pick up the slack, back dating routes not only takes the route back to when we had real trains, but also adds extra detail and without sound and enhancement packs TS would not be as good as it is.

Amazing how the OP asks for people’s opinions. People give them and then they are rubbished by the op. So it looks like you are only allowed to comment you opinion if it coincides with the OP views other than that your point is invalid.

rosschris10 wrote:Amazing how the OP asks for people’s opinions. People give them and then they are rubbished by the op. So it looks like you are only allowed to comment you opinion if it coincides with the OP views other than that your point is invalid.

Where Have I rubbished peoples opinions?

gptech wrote:

749006 wrote:on MML in to St Pancras was going to have a Eurostar arrive nearby but you can only use two of the 6 platforms in the shed.

Why?....was it an electrification/directionality problem or because the tracks aren't linked to any others?

I have not tried to fix it but RW Info only shows the tracks going to the outer roof
For one scenario to use an AI train I thought it was not worth bothering Cloning the route and scenarios just so I could edit it.

749006 wrote:

gptech wrote:

749006 wrote:on MML in to St Pancras was going to have a Eurostar arrive nearby but you can only use two of the 6 platforms in the shed.

Why?....was it an electrification/directionality problem or because the tracks aren't linked to any others?

I have not tried to fix it but RW Info only shows the tracks going to the outer roof
For one scenario to use an AI train I thought it was not worth bothering Cloning the route and scenarios just so I could edit it.

If memory serves, the "track" under the original trainshed at St Pancras is a purely cosmetic loft item that doesn't actually function as track in the sense that you can place and run trains on it (a similar method has been used at Darlington on the Weardale and Teesdale route and for the underground lines at Stratford on GEML). I believe in the case of St Pancras it is because the program gets "confused" when it comes to scenario creation if there are markers sharing the same geographical coordinates at different heights (the Thameslink platforms which form the main focus of the route are immediately beneath the original station)

749006 wrote:Where Have I rubbished peoples opinions?

Your second post (3rd in the conversation) could be seen as somewhat mockingly dismissing my opinion that scenery fidelity is more important than track and signal fidelity.

Life doesn't exist as extreme dichotomies: perfect track, rubbish scenery, vs rubbish track and perfect scenery, but its a continum between them and people's preference can be anywhere on it. I thought scenery is more important than track then, and I still think so now. Other opinions are available and I don't mind if people hold them.