class 86 and class 87

[749006]

but if they choose not to rectify it, the class 87 will have been the last RSC product that I buy!

If it transpires that the issue with the bogies stems from the work done by DT, will you also be boycotting DT products too?

Yes, it's flawed, there's a problem, but is "stomping of feet and scweaming and scweaming until you're thick" the way to bring it to the attention of those in a position to fix it?
The photo of the DRS liveried class 47 shows the error quite nicely, and also shows what seems to be an error in that particular reskin---if we're going to be fussy the white numerals/text/whatever on the front needs fixing.

The trouble is that RSC never seem to fix anything at all? No matter how many emails they get? Why, I have no idea why because most problems are fixed on here by members or elsewhere and all they have to do is forward the patches to Steam.

Before anyone gets too uptight about the above it was not meant to be a rant against RSC. I simply do not understand why they do not quickly post fixes for mistakes?

John A

I totally agree John. Why when they know there is a problem do they not fix it.
At current RSC Standards I expect they will fix it about the same time as the WCML Buffers and the Class 86 max speed - ie Never

Peter

[gptech]

I simply do not understand why they do not quickly post fixes for mistakes?

When the community as a whole accepts that 'mistakes' happen and reports such 'mistakes' without histrionics and apparant glee possibly.

[749006]

I simply do not understand why they do not quickly post fixes for mistakes?

When the community as a whole accepts that 'mistakes' happen and reports such 'mistakes' without histrionics and apparant glee possibly.

So presumably RSC does not think there is a problem with the WCML buffers and the max speed of the Class 86?
Presumably there has been a few reports of these 'mistakes' - without histrionics and apparent glee?

[Carinthia]

So presumably RSC does not think there is a problem with the WCML buffers and the max speed of the Class 86?
Presumably there has been a few reports of these 'mistakes' - without histrionics and apparent glee?

Maybe they aren't Railsimulator.com products.

John

[AndyM77]

So presumably RSC does not think there is a problem with the WCML buffers and the max speed of the Class 86?
Presumably there has been a few reports of these 'mistakes' - without histrionics and apparent glee?

Maybe they aren't Railsimulator.com products.

John

As far as I (we) are aware, Keith sent RSC a final version of the WCML that had ZERO issues with the buffers but Railsimulator did some alterations that broke the buffers. The Class 86 was made by RSC even though it was included in Keiths' route, so in both cases it's RSC's responsibility to get things fixed. Don't hold your breath, even the simplest of fixes tend to get ignored, e.g one of the (original) Class 66 scenarios in Oxford to Paddington has broken consists and a small pathing issue, all of which can be fixed in around 5 mins which has been broken since the release of TS2012!

[TElsmore]

but if they choose not to rectify it, the class 87 will have been the last RSC product that I buy!

If it transpires that the issue with the bogies stems from the work done by DT, will you also be boycotting DT products too?

Yes, it's flawed, there's a problem, but is "stomping of feet and scweaming and scweaming until you're thick" the way to bring it to the attention of those in a position to fix it?
The photo of the DRS liveried class 47 shows the error quite nicely, and also shows what seems to be an error in that particular reskin---if we're going to be fussy the white numerals/text/whatever on the front needs fixing.

I wouldn't go as far as to say I was stomping my feet and 'scweaming and scweaming', far from it . Ok, lets suppose that it is a problem that was present when DT had the model, is it not something that RSC should have picked up on after DT had handed it over? Did they not check the model before sticking a cab view in it and releasing it? (clearly not). Also, if it was a DT problem, no i would not be boycotting their products because i know that DT would have fixed it a lot quicker than RSC will, but having said that DT would have probably spotted it and sorted it before they even released it.

As for the DRS liveried '47' in the screen shot, it is of very little comparison as that was done by a community member and they haven't charged for it at all, let-alone £11.99.

To be perfectly honest, if you can look at the screen shots that both Dave and styckx have posted of the '87' bogie and then suggest that i am being 'fussy', i find that a little bit insulting.

I am not an RSC basher by any stretch of the imagination, they have had a lot of money out of me, but as far as i am concerned the '87' bogie is simply a case of them not beta-testing it fully, or them knowing about it and just deciding to fix it at some point.



It's all a little bit shoddy really.

Cheers
Terrone

[SuperTux]

but if they choose not to rectify it, the class 87 will have been the last RSC product that I buy!

If it transpires that the issue with the bogies stems from the work done by DT, will you also be boycotting DT products too?

Yes, it's flawed, there's a problem, but is "stomping of feet and scweaming and scweaming until you're thick" the way to bring it to the attention of those in a position to fix it?
The photo of the DRS liveried class 47 shows the error quite nicely, and also shows what seems to be an error in that particular reskin---if we're going to be fussy the white numerals/text/whatever on the front needs fixing.

Whether the issues stem from DT is irrelevant, RSC took over ownership of the product so it is now fully their responsibility to fix it. DT even publically said that they have no more control over and to take anything related to the product to RSC, this argument is really illogical and invalid. Ever be given someone else's project to finish at work? How often can you use the excuse about the previous owner being at fault? Now, if you release the project with faults, who do you blame?

Having worked within IT and in some software related companies I know how things can get prioritized, they may not see this as being a big deal and as a customer I do think we should be asking for a higher standard of support from RSC in a constructive manner. The people who don't care about Trainsimulator are the ones who simply leave, or worse they take to the Steam forums and bad mouth everything about the company and anything related to it at the first opportunity.

I'm going to send the follow-up in the morning or later in the week, and shall do so constructively.

[jarmstro]

So presumably RSC does not think there is a problem with the WCML buffers and the max speed of the Class 86?
Presumably there has been a few reports of these 'mistakes' - without histrionics and apparent glee?

I'll upload a physics fix for the Class 86 this evening.

The problem with all these non steam patches is that they have to be re-applied after any Steam file verification. Does any one know whether making the patched files read only stops Steam overwriting them?

John A

[gptech]

Terrone, I must apologise for seeming to single you out with my comment, but I meant to 'attack' the mind set adopted by many in this thread.
A photo posted with little explanation, a post which smacks of "look at what I've found, now lets all pour scorn and derision on RSC" helps nobody. Compare this thread to the (very) old one when a similar issue was discovered with Just Train's class 20 and you'll find a world of difference.

[jarmstro]

Terrone, I must apologise for seeming to single you out with my comment, but I meant to 'attack' the mind set adopted by many in this thread.
A photo posted with little explanation, a post which smacks of "look at what I've found, now lets all pour scorn and derision on RSC" helps nobody. Compare this thread to the (very) old one when a similar issue was discovered with Just Train's class 20 and you'll find a world of difference.

Have you any evidence that your preferred method of sycophancy, with regard to actually getting RSC to correct errors, is any more effective than most peoples natural urge to complain? I would use whatever language is necessary as long as it resulted in a quick fix uploaded to Steam.

I am going to be spending most of today re-doing the physics of the Class 86 for which no fix has yet been forthcoming and I would rather be out in the sunshine.

John A

[gptech]

Absolutely no evidence at all; in fact there is probably more to suggest that fixes don't happen regardless of language used.
I am however old enough to have been taught that the first steps in situations like this should be polite and factual.
Normally I'd be unable to enjoy the sunshine myself but as I'm on holiday I intend to make the most of it---something I'm sure you could do and you're only working on the class 86 through choice.

[jarmstro]

Absolutely no evidence at all; in fact there is probably more to suggest that fixes don't happen regardless of language used.
I am however old enough to have been taught that the first steps in situations like this should be polite and factual.
Normally I'd be unable to enjoy the sunshine myself but as I'm on holiday I intend to make the most of it---something I'm sure you could do and you're only working on the class 86 through choice.

Quite right!! To hell with the Class 86 I'm off out.

Cheers
John A

[749006]

There is a fix for the 86 speed problems on this site.
http://www.uktrainsim.com/filelib-info. ... leid=28415

This patch was released by a UKTS member on the 1st March 2012 - we still await the RSC version.

Peter

[Fodda]

Really glad I didn't waste a fiver on this in the end. I can live with my Class 82 and Class 86. Don't need the 87 really.

[749006]

Really glad I didn't waste a fiver on this in the end. I can live with my Class 82 and Class 86. Don't need the 87 really.

i did not think it was a waste - not for a fiver - and with the Window and Speed patches applied it's quite good.
It only looks strange if you go round extremly tight curves.

Peter