What is it about the IoW route?

[buckbeak]

I think even if you don't like the route the extra assets you get are worth the money, and you may even grow to like the route eventually
Danny

[LocoPower]

I guess it's all about the assets then. Some more shops, clutter, etc would certainly come in handy when route building but I can't justify shelling out twenty quid just for that. It's available cheaper from Just Trains - is this exactly the same as the Steam version? Maybe I can find a cheap boxed copy in the bargain bin of an online store or on ebay somewhere.

I also keep meaning to look into which assets are available with the Port Road, but always forget! I'll go do that now... *fires up RW*

[Darpor]

No assets with the Port Road, definetely not for the Steam version anyway. Port Road was built as part of the first Route Building Challenge here on UKTS and was selected as the winner. One of the rules of the challenge was to use default assets only.

[Acorncomputer]

Wherever you obtain the IOW route, as a download or boxed, even the Rail Simulator version will load into RailWorks2 and whilst I think there might be some small differences between the versions, they are unlikely to be significant.

One thing to watch out for is that if you are not buying from Steam, then there may be licence restrictions on how many copies you can run at the same time. Some boxed versions only allow installation on one computer at a time so if this might be a problem to you, then check it out with the distributor.

[streamline]

Hello Geoff,
thank you for bringing some light in the secrets (at least for me) of RW. So, if I understand it right, the activation of developers in route building works the same way as in adding or replacing rolling stock in a scenario? Would it be possible to let RW_tools let check the route, and try to replace the missing items? (I did this once with SAD's fine route when a wagon from a pack no longer available was used as a scenery item.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking these questions just to save money for payware addons. I'd also like to learn how to change things in RW as I did in nine years of MSTS. You see, lots of things to learn and to do (if me missus lets me ) when I'm going to retire in some months.

Keep on steamin'!
Dietmar

[bigvern]

The difference being, it might not fit (e.g. a bridge) or difference in heights/width might mean a house floating above the ground or a tree fouling the line. Unless you have the addon for reference you won't know what to replace it with and, if you do, then the issue is non-existent anyway!

[streamline]

Yes, I thought that would be the case. I considered replacing the items was a first step to make the route work before working through it to correct the mistakes with the editor - maybe as a practice towards building a route myself.

Keep on steamin'!
Dietmar

[Acorncomputer]

As Vern says.

This is not an easy 'problem' to sort out and the situation gets more difficult on a daily basis as more payware becomes available. I am struggling a bit myself to keep up with all the new assets appearing for RailWorks at the moment, each one of which could potentially be used in new routes or scenarios,

Assuming there is a good list of the payware items required to run a route or scenario, then the user will still have the choice of whether to obtain these items or not. If not then there will be other routes and scenarios that are more attractive.

I have to come to the conclusion that the situation is not going to change and unless the unlikely happens, (IOW made default for example) payware will be required to run some routes and scenarios and there will be no way around it. Once this situation is accepted then we can look at things a different way and work our requirements around what is possible rather than what we would like to be possible.

From our own personal points of view, we can create fantastic routes of our own using any of the assets that are loaded onto our computers from default, payware or freeware sources, as long as we do not want to distribute the route to others.

[USRailFan]

I think it has one asset which the default railworks doesn't have (that really should be default in my opinion! - the 3rd rail - although now the WCML North route has this as well) but also it does have a fair few other assets as well which are fairly useful for most routes

There's 3rd rail on WCML North? Where?

[Darpor]

In the assets provided, honestly, there really is. I think it was used for the checkrails over viaducts etc.

[danny3]

I think it has one asset which the default railworks doesn't have (that really should be default in my opinion! - the 3rd rail - although now the WCML North route has this as well) but also it does have a fair few other assets as well which are fairly useful for most routes

There's 3rd rail on WCML North? Where?

Its called "WCML Third Rail" under lofts

[USRailFan]

In the assets provided, honestly, there really is. I think it was used for the checkrails over viaducts etc.

Ah, OK. I haven't by far explored the entire WCML North route yet, and not knowing off hand which of the Scottish cities have a Metro I thought it might include parts of a Metro.

[transadelaide]

From our own personal points of view, we can create fantastic routes of our own using any of the assets that are loaded onto our computers from default, payware or freeware sources, as long as we do not want to distribute the route to others.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind for both freeware creators and freeware consumers is that as a general rule the creator makes it primarily for themselves. If a person makes a freeware route using certain payware items and is then generous enough to share it with others, from where do the others get the right to complain about the gift they were freely given without any obligation to accept?

[choccy]

My personal preference is for uploaded routes to include payware items rather than freeware. At least then you know whether you have the required assets or not. Though it's not a happy situation and, when there may be dozens of payware routes available for RW, the problem will be compounded. I had hoped that RS.com would see it as a matter of urgency to increase the number of default assets (both scenery/lofts etc. and rolling stock items). I would rather have paid for RW2 than it be free if it had included such items (even though I most probably have them already) as it would have vastly increased the usability of RW2. It would greatly improve default and subsequent scenarios (no more Green Mk1's on the Port Road) while at the same time allowing freeware routes and scenarios to be more interesting or less hassle free.

If the assets are freeware there remains the enormous problem of locating them since there is a wide selection of sites which may host them. Then there is the chore of downloading and installing them, almost inevitably to find that some are still missing. I know commendable attempts were made to get providers' permission to upload assets with the route, but this received a very fragmented reception.

Another serious disadvantage with freeware assets is that they can be here today gone tomorrow since some items are regularly removed form all site libraries by their authors; others change sites. I notice that jetgriff (creator of South Devon Banks) has declared he is using default assets on his S&C. I can understand this approach and have lots of sympathy with it.

Sadly, there is no easy solution to this problem and it seems destined to remain with us.

Mark

[RSderek]

The IOW route is the only route for RWs/RS that does not use core. It is all stand alone with new assets.
It runs better than any other route, loads quicker and looks great.

regards

Derek