What would you like to see in a Rail Simulator upgrade?

[nicknackpaddywack]

I want to hear the rear power car power up too!!!! or is this something which is selected in-game? because i get no sounds with the mk1 from the rear power car, just idle. even in all the scenarios!!


edit: in 18 wheels of steel the rain actually lands on the screen and the window wiper removes it.... can we see this too????

[scorpion71]

I think most things have been mentioned, but I'll add a couple of things.

* Lights within the carriages at night
* Being able to turn the Engine cab light on/off
* No ambient sounds in the cab (can still hear those birds singing whilst doing 125mph)

Re: TimeTable Scenarios
It would be good if in the above scenarios it could be randomized where AI traffic can be delayed, TSR's randomized, so whenever you play a scenario it's not the same old, same old - it would be good to expect the unexpected kind of thing - even your own train held up now 'n again

I did have a few more, but can't remember at the minute....

[ashgray]

What would I like to see? A little patience whilst waiting for upgrades.

Ash

[simuk]

What would I like to see? A little patience whilst waiting for upgrades.

Ash

I dunno... some people, they just ask for far too much...

[TheTazman]

I'd like to say that i am also very patient. I also work with software developers at work and tryiung to rush things only messes things up.

Tazman

[mforeman04]

What's everyone's view of: removal of the birds totally?

[overmarze]

Nope pointless if you can just remove them manually.

[nnppaa]

I don't even notice the birds? Well i did once! in the undocked (8) view.... but thats all! All I'd like is more of a wobbling/tilting feel going round corners a la bve. Rather than the msts feel as of now.

[fgrsimon]

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?

Where to begin... I don't really want to drag this thread down into pros/cons of the Blueprint system. Suffice to say I'm not the only one who has struggled with the concept. Maybe I'm just overall a bit thick and KRS is not meant for the likes of me, never mind I'll just continue adding to the 100's of route miles I've produced for MSTS & Trainz.

One thing about Blueprints that virtually no-one seems to have picked up on, is that Blueprints are written in XML which is a widely used standard 'language' in the IT world. This means that it should be pretty easy to write software applications which use, create or update the Blueprints and this could be written in a wide variety of programming languages. Hell, even good old COBOL can these days cope with XML files!

[bigvern]

Yes but we are not all programmers. Writing a startup file for a boot disc in the days of MS-DOS computers was about my limit!

My point about Blueprints is, the other programmes do it seamlessly - TSM creates the s and sd file for MSTS shapes. Trainz does require you to write a config file but it's not difficult. For routes, MSTS had the RGE whih I guess was the graphical equivalent of a Blueprint but relatively easy to use. Trainz you either just start a "new" route in Surveyor or, if working with Transdem - another GUI application - simply export the required files with CMP and your route is set to go. The documentation regarding Blueprints was not particularly helpful (maybe it has been changed now) including information about directory and file paths/names. To me the whole thing still seems to have been aimed at the hordes of commercial developers Kuju thought they were going to get but haven't yet materialised. In response to Mr. Simuk I did eventually navigate the Blueprint hurdle at least for route creation and simple 3D object import (though the latter not without Asset Editor freezing, so ended up running BP Ed on its own). However that does not mean that I have to like the system or that when/if a future version of RS is considered more user friendly options can be explored.

[CaptScarlet]

Yes but we are not all programmers. Writing a startup file for a boot disc in the days of MS-DOS computers was about my limit!

My point about Blueprints is, the other programmes do it seamlessly - TSM creates the s and sd file for MSTS shapes. Trainz does require you to write a config file but it's not difficult. For routes, MSTS had the RGE whih I guess was the graphical equivalent of a Blueprint but relatively easy to use. Trainz you either just start a "new" route in Surveyor or, if working with Transdem - another GUI application - simply export the required files with CMP and your route is set to go. The documentation regarding Blueprints was not particularly helpful (maybe it has been changed now) including information about directory and file paths/names. To me the whole thing still seems to have been aimed at the hordes of commercial developers Kuju thought they were going to get but haven't yet materialised. In response to Mr. Simuk I did eventually navigate the Blueprint hurdle at least for route creation and simple 3D object import (though the latter not without Asset Editor freezing, so ended up running BP Ed on its own). However that does not mean that I have to like the system or that when/if a future version of RS is considered more user friendly options can be explored.

I disagree with Vern on this, the blueprint editor etc are meant to be there so the user doesnt have to learn XML and therefore hopefully make error free config files for user content. A lot ( if not most ) games these days that allow modding use xml files to achieve that, most likely because it has common standards in structure etc. I believe the reason why blueprints etc were used instead of what happens with MSTS1 or Trainz was mainly to avoid the pitfalls of not following a standard, not necessarily because it was aimed at commercial enities.

Now Vern brings up TRS as model of user freedom, and to a certain extent that is true. But even there Auran realised there was a problem with user generated content which is why they added a content creation program to write the config files and while one might debate its usability ( it sounds very similar to the blueprints editor really ) it's purpose was to try and stop the amount of errors in user created content by forcing compliance to the TRS Content Creation Guide. Unfortunately not many people used it and either just copied other peoples ( or their own ) configs and propagated any errors caused by manually creating the files. This is why there are literally thousands of items in TRS that contain errors of varying magnitude which can affect the performance of the game.

Now the use of blueprints etc may have a higher learning curve ( which is probably the real problem here ), it is still better than having the user delve into the in's and outs of xml and creating there own config files.

John

[bigvern]

Not prolonging this debate but here is an example of the confusion the Blueprint/Dev Folder/Source issue is still causing:

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 15&t=84786

I haven't got the Dev Docs installed at the moment so can't check the exact wording, but it appears the confusion arises because Kuju were expecting users to set up their own source files in their own Dev folders, not use the Kuju ones. Fortunately Mike's tools have offset that a little but maybe the docs need a bit more clarification in particular for the amateur/freeware user who only needs to use the Kuju sources.

[stuartrayner]

As a programmer myself, I dont have any problem with XML, but where I do struggle a bit with blueprints is the planning required to get the best from them. Im more of a tinkerer (I have enough of planning at work), and like to change things as I go along. I have found myself creating a lot of stuff from Blueprints that cannot be changed further into the future.

Or maybe Im just doing it wrong!

[Acorncomputer]

Hi all

I think Vern is right, and he did say this a long time ago, that Kuju probably set up the simulation originally expecting a greater interest from third party developers - commercial, payware and freeware - who would create their own route template, based on a default template or more likely create one of their own with new textures and other unique attributes. The route and accompanying assets (if any) were then built up in the developer folder.

This developer folder system is probably more obvious if you are developing assets such as locos and scenery but, not so obvious if you are building a route you want to export - not so obvious to beginners like myself anyway.

I guess it comes back to the lack of basic documentation at the very start explaining the set up of routes for export in simple terms, a situation which I believe RSDL inherited and did not sort out in time for the launch.

Still bearing in mind that it is only a relatively short period of time since the launch of RS, and the shaky start that RSDL were forced to go with, we have seen many improvements already and Mk2 upgrade is sure to provide many more. As the knowledge base increases daily, things can only get much better.

[RSderek]

Hi,

I agree with you that RS is geared more towards people creating their own content.
I do not know the full history of who what why or when it was decided that it would be done in such away.
It does seem that many just want to tinker with what’s there as apposed to creating new.
It is what it is. I can not change the past, though I have tried.

RSDL do read and take note of all interesting posts and PM’s (with good ideas), people’s moans and gripes are read and discussed in the team, but rants are mostly ignored unless they are funny.
Much of the what people want we want too, as we have stated many times, we are here for the long haul and not just for the shunting...