Compromises For Long Routes

[bigvern]

Following on from the discussion in General about "Routes We Would Like To See" I thought I would break out into a separate thread a few of the logistical issues and how we can approach them.

This type of poll or wish list crops up from time to time and elicits the usual requests for long complex routes from those, well intentioned I'm sure, who sadly really don't appreciate just what is involved in creating a route for RW (or any other sim for that matter).

A 20 mile route in RW would take probably a minumum of six weeks to work up to a reasonable scenery standard on par with MSTS freeware. Longer if you want to add more detail.

So the 400 mile Euston to Glasgow (and that's before adding any diversionary routes or offshoots) that some are calling for would take a staggering 120 weeks, i.e. well over two years to put together. I seriously doubt many route builders could stay the course that length of time.

We all know that importing the DEM terrain, laying track and even putting in signals and speed limits is relatively quick. What is back breakingly tedious is the terrain painting and scenery placement, RW is no different from its predecessors in that there are little or no shortcuts. Down to the smallest shrub, everything has to be placed by hand.

Now up until they canned the project last year, one of our best hopes for longer routes was going to be MSTS2 with World of Rails. This would have offered a basic rail network through varying degrees of generic, auto-generated and detailed scenery. So the question is, can we apply this approach to Railworks and use it to provide those baying for the long routes with something to assuage the demand? Now unless RS.com have a few surprises up their sleeves, we're not going to get any form of autogen - not even Transport Tycoon or RRT3 style where the forests, fields and towns were already drawn and grew back over time after placing your rails. My idea would be to produce a minimalstic route, with the correct terrain and gradient profile and broadly the correct track layout. There would have to be compromises - Euston to Glasgow for example might have a simplified Camden, no DC line and a 5 or 6 road yard to represent Willesden. Stations would be cut down and simplified but still at the correct location geographically. Scenery would largely consist of the immediate infrastructure, bridges etc. but no fencing. Only major roads and waterways would be placed but no field pattern. Non railway scenery would largely consist of scattered trees and buildings, no attempt to authentically represent every doghouse and outhouse en route. Terrain painting would be minimal.

In comparative terms I guess we are talking Rail 3D or my personal favourite Train Driver 3. So would it be worth it, to get a 300 - 400 mile driveable route in a reasonably short space of time? Is the trade off to get a long route a desirable one?

Please feel free to discuss...

[GavNormandale]

could be an open route, all track and lofts laid, builders could claim areas to build and they could do the scenery for that area, basically a group route but would need someone to organize it so as to prevent over laps and fighting

Gav

[bigvern]

Just to avoid any confusion Gav, I'm not really talking about a "group" route per se here, though I know the concept has been discussed. I'm talking about releasing as a finished item not a beta intended for further development, so that those who want a long drive can have one.

[Acorncomputer]

Hi

I think Vern's idea is sound in that a 300-400 mile route is probably going to be driven from the cab and you only really need to spend time on near track scenery. The middle and far distant scenery can be an endless row of single forest assets and single built up area assets which would look OK from the cab and perhaps some new assets could be created fairly easily covering even larger areas and containing a standard regional mix of scenery. Keeping the terrain near to track fairly level will minimise the tedious placing of scenery on undulating ground.

Personally I would not be interested in creating such a long route but that approach is likely to be successful for anyone who does.

I still think the ultimate long route for RailWorks has to be a group effort, but it would require absolute commitment from those taking part and at least a year to build.

[eyore]

The point of such a long route is, I believe, to allow the drivers to stretch the legs on their locos and, therefore, compressing the route would defeat the point.

Consequently, I agree, the problem is creating the scenery for such a long route. I would suggest that it needs to be speed dependent. High speed areas have minimal scenery and mainly close to track, slow speed more scenery and stations should be close to prototypical.

I think scenarios could be key to the sucess of such a route, as oncoming AI traffic in high speed areas will help distract from the sparse scenery.

As Vern has mentioned before, the kit build type of scenery would go a long way to speeding up the process and we desperately need the RW equivalent to MSTS forests. More flat/panoramic scenery would help fill in distant vistas and more lofted scenery would help close to track.

However, who is going to make all these things? Everybody seems to be obsessed with locos, particularly the payware guys, hardly anyone is creating scenery. I hope that this is a short term problem due to the learning curve and will improve as more routes are released with new assets, otherwise these loco guys will have nowhere to drive them!

[Neptune50006]

I always thought Mid East was a great route for MSTS, even before it was extended to Kings Cross. It was one of the earliest routes for MSTS and largely used default scenery and a handful of custom built assets. Now a project like that would certainly be possible for RW. I think one of the differences today is the distance from the track that scenery has to be laid, it's a lot further than MSTS. As Vern has said, this is the tedious bit and can easily put any route builder off.

I think at the end of the day if you can create a route with the right atmosphere, and lots of operational potential, getting the scenery 100% accurate is not so vital.

[bigvern]

I think Mid-East also applied selective compression to some of the distances, in much the same way that a model railway uses a scenic break or tunnel to disguise the fact the running distance of 10 feet between two stations represents 20 miles in real life. As already touched on in the other thread, RW relying on real world Lat/Lon constraints makes even this difficult. I'm assuming the terrain in Mid-East was hand bashed rather than relying on DEM and precise geographic discipline. You could probably get away with this in RW to a certain extent, but probably not where you get significant hills or valleys.

It would also be interesting to hear from RS.com what upgrades they may have planned for the route builder. As Eyore rightly says, you can only drive the same route so many times regardless of how good the rolling stock is and ultimately it is lack of routes which may hold RW back or even kill it, than anything else. And I'm talking about serious changes here, not a couple of source files or paragraphs on the Wiki. Let's get forest etc. objects implemented, look if autogen or some sort of pre-generated scenery "areas" can be defined in a 2D view at the blueprint stage. To be fair, the design concept goes back to Kuju who should perhaps have had rather more foresight in designing a more radical approach rather than falling back on the old ways from the early 2000's.

[Neptune50006]

I think Mid-East also applied selective compression to some of the distances, in much the same way that a model railway uses a scenic break or tunnel to disguise the fact the running distance of 10 feet between two stations represents 20 miles in real life

Yes, that's true. Personally driving the whole length of the ECML does not appeal to me. I'd soon get fed up with it. The sort of thing a Mid East style route would bring to RW is a feeling of the real thing. Especially the ability to run freight such as MGR trains, from their point of origin to their destination, unload and return again.

[GavNormandale]

hi, i realised the intention of the thread was not to organise a group route but i think it is the only way we will get routes of these sort of lengths

Gav

[paulz6]

Hi Vern,

Longer routes will need to have an EB rating. Fun but poor.
Group routes? We can debate this all day long, but the facts are:
When someone suggests a group route, their is interest but no action.
A group route is not a shortcut - it would still take a dedicated team!
The ability to have a lot of people working on one route is still limited. I could re-create the infrastructure of the entire UK in less time than it takes to place individual scenery. How can one effectively create scenery when only one can work on the lofts at any one time? Decent scenery requires a person to work on the lofts at the same time as object placement.
What about the Woodhead as a group route? Lots of comments and so little real hard work interest. What about the Settle & Carlisle?

[bigvern]

I think my problem with group routes is I can't even sustain interest in my own private projects for very long, let alone co-ordinate or participate in something that might drag on for months and end up falling apart after a few petty squabbles. It probably works in the commercial environment as I did for MSTS with 3DTS and BA as you know at the end you're going to get paid at least a bit of money.

Agree that a minimalistic route ain't going to be pretty but that's not the intention of that style of production.

[TransportSteve]

Unfortunately that evergreen cliche crops up again that you can only please a few people at a time, not all at once, and I'm not certain if a sparse but lengthy route would be welcomed by everyone in the community, Vern.
I'm certainly not knocking your idea, it sounds a good one, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating as the old saying goes, the only thing that I would suggest is that wherever you situate your layout it appeases as many people as possible. I personally, prefer freight train running more than passenger consists, others are vice versa, so, you'd need to endeavour to make it as operationally interesting as possible for as many end users as you can, to attain everyone's interest and alleviate the inevitable moaning and groaning.
I've just been reading a thread where a creator is already well into building Euston to Liverpool Lime Street, there's already a Crewe, Manchester area section under way by someone else, and I've already downloaded the WIP version of JWR's layout from Peterborough to York, which I think is being extended down to London Kings X in the future and already includes all the offshoot branches, Nottingham, Scunthorpe, Hull, Lincoln, Scarborough, etc, etc, etc. So, I think you'll need to have a good look round to see which area of the country isn't being worked on at the present time, maybe Hampshire, or down to Brighton, Dover, the Channel Tunnel, perhaps. I haven't seen any plans for creators working in these areas at the moment and I'm unsure if RS.com would divulge any information on future route projects for marketing and NDA purposes, there's no harm in enquiring of course, you may have to probably bribe Derek with some biscuits.

Cheerz. Transport Steve.

[johny]

Four years ago there was a group route started in MSTS, 'Goin to Knowhere', it did precisely that, seemingly disappearing for ever.

John

[Oldpufferspotter]

I think it all boils down to one simple fact - it's all a compromise.
No matter which route you decide to create it will only be prototypical to a certain extent. It will never be absolutely per reality down to every fence, tree, hedge, house, etc. Somewhere along the line you will set your own limit of what is acceptable as a compromise and what is not, and also what is actually realistically achievable.
Decide what you yourself want from a train simulation, and then do your own thing. And then, if you feel it's good enough, share it with other people.
regards Ted.

[bigvern]

Unfortunately that evergreen cliche crops up again that you can only please a few people at a time, not all at once, and I'm not certain if a sparse but lengthy route would be welcomed by everyone in the community, Vern.
I'm certainly not knocking your idea, it sounds a good one, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating as the old saying goes, the only thing that I would suggest is that wherever you situate your layout it appeases as many people as possible. I personally, prefer freight train running more than passenger consists, others are vice versa, so, you'd need to endeavour to make it as operationally interesting as possible for as many end users as you can, to attain everyone's interest and alleviate the inevitable moaning and groaning.
I've just been reading a thread where a creator is already well into building Euston to Liverpool Lime Street, there's already a Crewe, Manchester area section under way by someone else, and I've already downloaded the WIP version of JWR's layout from Peterborough to York, which I think is being extended down to London Kings X in the future and already includes all the offshoot branches, Nottingham, Scunthorpe, Hull, Lincoln, Scarborough, etc, etc, etc. So, I think you'll need to have a good look round to see which area of the country isn't being worked on at the present time, maybe Hampshire, or down to Brighton, Dover, the Channel Tunnel, perhaps. I haven't seen any plans for creators working in these areas at the moment and I'm unsure if RS.com would divulge any information on future route projects for marketing and NDA purposes, there's no harm in enquiring of course, you may have to probably bribe Derek with some biscuits.

Cheerz. Transport Steve.

Being "worked on" though is not the same as released, the topic of a thread I started a month or two ago was something along the lines of UK routes we are likely to see released. All sorts of things can interrupt even the best intentioned project, my latest is a HD crash/rather nasty adware takeover on my laptop which required an emergency reformat yesterday afternoon with the loss of most of the RW/TS2010 stuff I've been working on. Yes, yes I know backup and all that we have good intentions but forget to do it. The good thing is it means a nice clean HD and maybe a good thing that it cleared out the old doodoo allowing a fresh start from scratch.