bigvern wrote:simuk wrote:bigvern wrote:Get rid of Blueprints.
Can I please make a vote on this list to "keep blueprints". I think they're an excellent idea with so much (so far un-tapped) potential.
bigvern wrote:Get rid of track rules.
Same for track rules, surely they should be kept, rather than get rid of them? What specifically do you want removing from the track rules or doing differently? What's the alternative to track rules?
Why do you think Blueprints are an excellent idea? Many people have admitted to struggling with them and the RS folder structure. Frankly if it wasn't for Mike Simpson's set of tools to assist in setting up Blueprints, I suspect even less would have been achieved than has been. Or is this something of interest to the commercial sector (which I believe you represent, Just Trains/Flight) as a means of copy protection? TRS manages to protect commercial content, but you don't need a Blueprint to set up a route - it's all menu driven from within Surveyor or a few clicks in CMP if importing a Transdem route. Likewise a 3D object. Yes you need to set up the config file but that usually is a matter of a minute or two.
That's right, I work for Just Flight/Just Trains (worth noting we're the UK publisher of the Trainz series since TRS2004 too, so I'm not biased against Trainz. We've also published a number of very popular MSTS add-ons, so there'd be no reason or point in me doing-down MSTS - I'm a fan of all simulation software and very passionately support the genre of software/game. As a company Just Flight are dedicated to bringing content to Flight and Train Simulation and getting it to as many people as possible - we're all highly dedicated and care about our shared hobby).
What personally appeals to me for the blueprints is how much flexibility they seem to have. As I say, I feel a lot of it hasn't been explored or tapped in to yet, maybe because people don't know (maybe because the documentation hasn't explicitly stated every last detail - which is fair enough because I think if it was explained in every last detail you'd be months or more trying to explain it all), and maybe because in some cases people don't want to know/see. One thing I really like, now that I've got the hang of it, is how the weather blueprints work - they're great, I really like them. I can't see how the weather is done "better" in MSTS or Trainz? That's not to say there aren't better ways that it could be done, but out of all three simulations I prefer the blueprint method in RS for setting the weather for a scenario. The Blueprints seem better because they don't involve manually hacking a text file, it's all drop down boxes and number/text entry boxes, it leads you through it - yes it's not very pretty (but surely that's something that could be changed if needed - but is it really needed?) and might not be as obvious as to what things do (but you've only got to ask to find out) but the blueprints do seem to work. I'm still unsure as to what it is about the Blueprint system which you don't actually like, and prefer about the system(s) in Trainz/MSTS/BVE/whatever? What's so "bad" about the RS method and so "good" about the others? What is it that puts you personally off of the Blueprint system? is it a lack of information relating to the system, or too much information, or the blueprint editor tool, or a lack of flexibility or what?
I've set up a scenery blueprint within seconds, and exported the model and textures to the correct folder in RS, all with the use of the blueprint editor. A matter of second from start to finish, with no manual hacking of files or anything.....
As for your question/point about copy protection, unfortunately that's not something I know enough about in RS, and something I'd like to learn more about and find out what is possible, and what can be made possible. It's certainly an area I'd like to explore further with ALL software, not just Rail Simulator, as having copy protection systems (and methods to lock particular content to a specific route/publisher/provider/key), is something that I feel could be very useful to having content provided with a product which is also available via other routes, but can't just be re-distributed/reworked/modified by people when that wasn't the original intention. I'm not however saying people should be prevented from making modifications to content though, and don't really want to see a closed system where hobbiests can't tinker around with files and advance a product further than someone else had done.
