I say long suffering, but really it is a very short time since RS became available across the Pond, but in that time there has been plenty for Bob and other Mods to do, just trying to cut back on some of the more extreme attitude that the sim seems to have generated in the States.
Why such an extreme reaction? Well Bob's mail gives a good view of why the initial negatives might have come out, and I think his concern about RW is that it doesn't go the same way. I copy the principal points below, but just to add my final bit.
I am pleased to see that some of the issues from across the Pond have been, or are going to be, addressed, with more than a strong hint of simulation of "slack motion" for example - but the "trolls" are already coming out into the sunlight in a number of scattered forum, often bemoaning the fact that MSTS2 didn't materialise, lambasting the developers of RW for putting profit before art & science (conveniently, at the same time ignoring that Microsoft did exactly the same when they pulled the plug on MSTS2) and generally lining up to throw rocks. Sadly, I think a lot of folks from the other side took it badly that the US came a poor second to the rest of the world when RS came out - and they are expecting, nay almost revelling in the possibility that this time will be no different.
Anyway, enough of my ramblings - I am frankly pleased that the sim (even in its ReWorked form) hasn't been abandoned, and look forward to the East/West relationship improving with time
Bob said
I should say that Bob has gone from being one of the MSTS gurus through to being a staunch supporter of RS. His current incarnation as one of the Mods on Trainsim RS/RW boards can't be the easiest thing he has done, but I know that last about extending a new welcome is heartfelt.I noted Sniper's link here to the uktrainsim.com thread. After reading through the posts, I think a very very important point as to why RS has been slow to catch on over in North America has been missed. I am also not sure the underlying premise is understood in British rail practice.
First, one of the major problems RS ran into over here, was totally missed by the RS reps. 7 or 8 professional railroad employees or retired employees tried the program and reported scathing critiques in the forums (these were mainly pro engineers, but also a few conductors). Now the RSDL reps did not recognize these guys to be pro railroaders, but the NA community surely did. In a number of cases, the RSDL reps became a bit arguementative with the pro railroaders, which diminished the RSDL rep's credibility with the NA community. The RSDL reps never knew that they were argueing with pro railroaders.
Now to the underlying premise. One of the real obstacles RS faced, was understanding from a North American point of view, that the operational objectives in North America are different. Over here, rather than getting a passenger train from station to station on a schedule, the two prime objectives are as follows:
1) For local freights, to dispatch and switch a train that will have to distribute various loads to multiple sites along its route. This is handled reasonably well, but the trains in the original content did not lend themelves to this concept (the GP38-2 addon came too late for many of those that were disappointed in this regard
2) For transcontinental freights, the major interest is in modeling the operational limitations that North American trains encounter on a regular basis. This means, getting a heavy (15-16,000 metric tons) train across a given grade, without putting too much pulling force on the front such that it would pull the train apart. In NA railroading, the trains always work against dispatch limitations. You can't just put 6 or 7 4,400 HP AC units on the front of a train and pull it up the grade.
Most of what the pro engineers found so unmatched to their real world expectations, was not a function of the inability of the program to properly utilize the data, it was that data was entered into the performance definition files without understanding what was called for and how that data related to individual locomotive units. Things like incorrect weights and misusing starting tractive effort and continuous tractive effort, resulted in some very unprototypical performance. The difficult thing, is that the RSDL reps were not really expert in train performance, and really avoided dealing with train performance issues. They were very helpful as to graphical arts and route construction issues!
This has resulted in the vast majority of those in the community involved in RS has been from route developers. That is great, but it has completely left out the train performance needs of the community, and for all of us, it is really about operating trains, not looking at nice scenery. It has been very slow and difficult to create methods that let the community properly configure equipment to create prototypical performance. Now in Europe, trains rarely operate at their performance limitations. Thus this has been dismissed as a concern in the UK forums. but in reality, the critiques of the pro railroaders has been the hugely detrimental factor over here.
I hope this comes across as a helpful analysis. I do happen to interact with a lot of the pro railroaders in these (Trainsim.com) forums, so I know who they are. My desire is to not be negative, but rather to accurately explain something that has been totally missed in the UK discussion thus far.
BTW, I do think the civility of the T-S forums has improved lately, and I would hope RSDL might consider reengaging over here. I would certainly offer my assistance as moderator to see that they were treated with appropriate consideration and respect.
I hope that the new team are up to pushing the frontier again - there is, after all, a huge market waiting across the Pond, with no new competition.
Rod
