Where Have All the Free Downloads Gone?

[Sly401]

Hi Peter


Your original post

But where have all the free downloads gone?

Rail Simulator hit the shelves and got some old faces back to the forums. New content was slow, I was keen to look at the HST skin creation field, and noted RSDL took their time releasing any help documents. With hundreds of folders, strange install techniques and even stranger file types, it was a whole new world. Introducing MSTS content was simply not an option.

Yet everything for this new simulator seems to cost.
Now I am not aiming this at anyone, not at all. I mean this with the deepest respect, but where has all the free content gone? There are loads of liveries available yes, all free, but to be honest, I am slightly surprised those authors haven't got on the wagon and decided to charge people for the new liveries. A new route, I appreciate this should cost money yes as it takes time, especially if it is on a realistic scale. Freeware routes perhaps should cost money, but sometimes perhaps not. I am specifically not naming any particular content here as I don't want the authors who may or may not read this forum to be offended. They have every right to charge for creation but looking at the content available and the quality, then I can see why many users are still with MSTS. Upgrading the default MSTS to a better standard is easy and at no extra cost.

So I guess my question is, why charge for content when on MSTS, comparable files are free?
So instead of the £24.99 for Rail Simulator, to add some good sounds, a new model and even extra scenarios will bump the price of the sim to at least £50 Further to this, one addition to Rail Simulator will perhaps need another (paid) addition to work properly, forcing the user to pay out twice.

You compared the two platforms... nowhere in this thread or any other thread , will you see a post by me comparing the two platforms.

You asked the question.. where has all the freeware gone.. I am telling you where some of it has gone and why.

Seems everything should not only have excellence but should be free too.. Out of order comparing creators work BTW

Checking.. the newest download I can see from yourself is from 2004... perhaps you can answer your own question ?

No MSTS v RailSim debate

No Thread Hijack

No Apology

Sly

i can use big letters too

[paulz6]

It's also what puts me off a few items I am keeping an eye on, the Class 168/170/171, the Class 37, a few other items too. I can see them all coming in at £10 a pop which pushes the price of the sim up to the £60-£70 mark. Apart from "The Sims" I don't know any other game that has a pricing structure like this. Already, two projects I was interested in are already disclosed as being payware <-- my interest in that project has now gone.

I think RS Derek's 37 was originally planned to be freeware. He may have changed is mind though. It is going to have a custom cab view.

Is it the fact that people are willing to pay so people are out to make a quick buck? Or perhaps if they charged £1 per item then a lot more people would buy? It just suprises me how people are happy to charge for items that, let's face it, aren't that huge, especially given the current state of the financial world. I guess the bug hasn't bitten them yet

I don't think the majority of commercial providers are making a quick buck. The number of sales is not going to be high enough in comparison to the time required to produce the add-ons. Some will probably making more than others as their is quite a disparity in pricing - 8 coaches or 1 wagon for roughly the same price! I doubt most commercial providers own their own payment processing company, so £1 per item add-ons are only going to make the payment providers rich.

Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way saying all the payware stuff is trash, not at all. But again, like has been mentioned, it's an expensive hobby to be in. I am just saying that individual trains are priced around the £10 mark, so I guess that means routes should be around the £30-£40 mark, considering the amount of time it takes to spend creating each one. . .

Going by the time effort required to produce some of the commercial mini-products, you could be talking £1,000+ for a decent quality commercial route!

Give it time; there will be plenty of people who think the commercial return on an add-on is not worth the responsibilities that go with it.

[Riche]

I think one of the key differences in terms of content creation that should in fact make it easier to develop for RS (and, indeed, explains why so many initial routes produced as freeware were actually of rather good quality compared to those originally for MSTS) is that three of the four default routes are from the UK in three different time periods, providing a nice mix of scenery items and stock for content creators to use. Unfortunately, despite the attractive mix of routes (which satisfies steam fans, modern fans and 70s fans) it seems that Rail Simulator was hit by a few bad reviews straight away and people simply jumped on the bandwagon, perhaps wrongly but unfortunately in business and media it's very hard to avoid such an effect.

MSTS, meanwhile, I doubt had more than a dozen reviews on it, if that, and probably most were in computer magazines given the internet's lack of progress at the time. As a result, this would've given it some breathing room.

[buffy500]

I think one of the key differences in terms of content creation that should in fact make it easier to develop for RS

Really ?

Seems unlikely.

Route building might be easier (but I have no idea), but 3D modeling of stock involves a lot more detail than MSTS ever reached if we're honest.
I can't see how that is easier.

People are not starting from a standing start like most were 7 years ago.
If RS add on models are better quality than MSTS early ones were I doubt very strongly that its because its easy.

[Riche]

I think one of the key differences in terms of content creation that should in fact make it easier to develop for RS

Really ?

Seems unlikely.

Route building might be easier (but I have no idea), but 3D modeling of stock involves a lot more detail than MSTS ever reached if we're honest.
I can't see how that is easier.

People are not starting from a standing start like most were 7 years ago.
If RS add on models are better quality than MSTS early ones were I doubt very strongly that its because its easy.

I was referring more to route building, a situation far better than the limited S&C scenery that came with MSTS. There is scenery from all over the show in the UK, meaning that less generic and repeatedly used stuff has to be made to fill in the gaps.

[ianmacmillan]

I was referring more to route building, a situation far better than the limited S&C scenery that came with MSTS. There is scenery from all over the show in the UK, meaning that less generic and repeatedly used stuff has to be made to fill in the gaps.

You are refering to route assembling.

Good route building requires the making of appropriate structures.
You cannot make an authentic Welsh or Scottish route by taking items from the default routes.

[mendes]

I was referring more to route building, a situation far better than the limited S&C scenery that came with MSTS. There is scenery from all over the show in the UK, meaning that less generic and repeatedly used stuff has to be made to fill in the gaps.

You are refering to route assembling.

Good route building requires the making of appropriate structures.
You cannot make an authentic Welsh or Scottish route by taking items from the default routes.

I would assume as amply demonstrated by the excellent Cambrian 2 Route.

[CaptainBazza]

A lot of train simmers migrated over to sims from the model railway genre. In that hobby wagons, etc, were bought and willingly paid for. The sim hobby has room for freeware and payware, it's a concept I have no problem with. It's up to the individual whether he, or she, buys a product.

Frankly, the last half decade TS1 users, as well as TRS users, have been spoiled for freeware choice.

Cheers Bazza

[davidhossack]

A lot of train simmers migrated over to sims from the model railway genre. In that hobby wagons, etc, were bought and willingly paid for. The sim hobby has room for freeware and payware, it's a concept I have no problem with. It's up to the individual whether he, or she, buys a product.

Frankly, the last half decade TS1 users, as well as TRS users, have been spoiled for freeware choice.

Cheers Bazza

I come from the 00 gauge model railway side of things. Has anyone though how much it would cost to emulate what is possible in the sims in model form. London-Oxford is significantly longer than most (all?) model railways and as realistic as is possible.

I shudder how much it costs.

Here is an example: (I have the 66 but stopped before buying wagons)
EWS Class 66068 (Bachmann) = £70 approx
DCC Chip = £10 approx

So basic loco cost Approx £80

Then decide to add a Sound Decoder = £100 approx

So loco costs £170

HTA wagons (Bachmann from Hattons) 15x£20 = £300 (or pack of 6=£99 making train of 12 £200)

Total cost of train (before finding somewhere to put it) =£370

The sizes of these things are pretty amazing too. My own small tram layout is 7 feet long and barely manages to have one station and some landscaping on it. The above example will be slightly shorter than 13 (for 12) or 16 (for 15) feet

Rail simulator costs are miniscule in terms of this. Where else could I have 40 class 47s at the ready in my small flat. I certainly don't mind paying a wee bit for each of the models if needed.

[bigvern]

Re cost of railway modelling vs train simming. Well, firstly you are getting a working 3D solid model that you can hold and touch (if that floats your boat!) whereas any computer programme ultimately is just a bunch of 1's and 0's moving the pixels about on your monitor. No substance to it, really.

I did contemplate starting afresh with railway modelling but apart from the usual constraints of time and space, it was the astronomical cost now being asked for the locos and rolling stock. I baulked at paying more than £6 for a Lima Mark One coach, back in the day.

The field of computer gaming has always tended to bring out the generous, community spirit in people. For example all those free maps for Transport Tycoon and Railroad Tycoon, the various mods for X3 - no one is charding for them - and of course the existing MSTS and TRS sims. Perhaps there was (is) some ambiguity in the licensing for the older programmes which led to the rise of freeware over payware - who knows.

With regard to route building - it is an unfortunate fact that indeed not all route "assemblers" (as so delicately phrased above) are competent 3D modellers. There's no shame in that. However I for one would rather see someone have a go at creating a route even if it doesn't have all the unique structures correctly modelled. If the track layout and general landscape are more or less right then who gives a stuff if some of the stations and lineside buildings are from the default collection!? It's that sort of viewpoint which is probably giving potential RS route builders the willies as they decide not to bother starting projects. Exactly the same evil spin as we had from some MSTS quarters when they started referring to "2005 standards" etc. Well good luck guys, if you insist on that approach you might get one, short, uber detailed route every two years but the rest of us want something to thrash the trains on now...

And to close things off, in model railway terms the use of default sim objects is no difference to the regurgitated Superquick, Peco, Ratio and Faller etc. items every modeller uses over and over again!

[CaptainBazza]

ultimately is just a bunch of 1's and 0's moving the pixels about on your monitor. No substance to it, really.

Much like my bank balance, Vern.

I take your point about route builders and model builder cooperation.....we need more of that if the concept of freeware is to survive.

I have cooperated on about four routes as a modeler....with the right people involved, teamwork is successful.

I wonder if we need more mini-routes to fill in between longer routes, with their longer lead times?

Cheers Bazza

[bigvern]

I wonder if we need more mini-routes to fill in between longer routes, with their longer lead times?

One of the reasons why I'm looking at doing a small tram route to run Richard's models on, once we thrash out the parameters for the track rule which RS Adam has kindly agreed to draw up. At the same time I've got my Far North (or at least part thereof) under development but with scenery placement averaging a 1km strip a day (less if I'm working certain shifts, busy with other things or just plain knackered) it's taking an age just to get from Wick to Thurso, let alone any further south. I suspect it will end up getting released as that, then maybe resumed at a later stage.

So the mini-route is a good idea - 10 to 15 miles, not too daunting a prospect timewise. Unfortunately that can lead to the jibes about "pointless routes from nowhere to nowhere", usually from the same brigade who harp on about "2005/2006 standards" with regard to MSTS.

[paulz6]

ultimately is just a bunch of 1's and 0's moving the pixels about on your monitor. No substance to it, really.

Much like my bank balance, Vern.

The first binary digit of my bank balance is definitely a 1.

[BadWhippet]

So the mini-route is a good idea - 10 to 15 miles, not too daunting a prospect timewise. Unfortunately that can lead to the jibes about "pointless routes from nowhere to nowhere", usually from the same brigade who harp on about "2005/2006 standards" with regard to MSTS.

Speaking as an average rail-sim player rather than a knowledegable enthusiast, I think the idea of mini-routes is fabulous. To me, the length of route is far less important than the atmosphere of the route. Vern: your incredible Blackpool tram route is a perfect example in MSTS - a fantastic experience for the player, full of originality too. A short route would be far from pointless to me, and probably to many more general players like me. Ultimately, a route creator would also be able, at leisure, to add more to their route if they wished, which benefits the end player even more.

I imagine that placing an unstated expectation on route builders that a route absolutely must cover a significant distance to have any purpose might mean few new routes ever make it to the final game, which benefits no-one.

[CaptainBazza]

"Unfortunately that can lead to the jibes about "pointless routes from nowhere to nowhere........."

Fortunately, we (to echo Rett Butler's infamous words) don't give a damn about such jibers, we move and shake for ourselves.

Cheers Bazza