And just to put the record straight. Like Geoff Mayo, I'm in the credits as well, having given them information on signalling practice. While yes, they did choose to ignore it to the overall detriment of the product in my view, I do think people are focussing on the negatives rather than the positives.
The negatives are simply this:
- The manual is only around 20 pages and is poor. There are PDF documents in the files, but they are don't really improve on much.
- The signalling and activities are limited and poor. But who knows what the activity editor does? Perhaps RSD would like to enlighten us. However, and this is the most important point, looking at the scripts an awful lot can be sorted out.
- There are some minor bugs and a couple of major ones - namely the passengers not always appearing and things like coal always flowing at loading points.
- There are a couple of of annoying things, like switching the acceleration and deceleration' keys about, and poor information on timetables and train start info.
- Perhaps some of the interface can be improved with a track monitor, and MSTS style timetables.
Almost all of that can be sorted out in time I would suspect. It's extremely short sighted writing things off at this stage based on the above.
On the subject of Paddington signalling, yes it is completely wrong. In fact the person that installed it, clearly doesn't fully understand the subject, or, as I suspect it is installed in such a way to limit the problems they had with it.
How many people here know, that when the signalling system was commissioned in the 1990s outside Paddington, there were huge problems with the Automatic route setting routing trains towards each other? So it doesn't surprise me there are problems with this, as BR got it wrong themselves.
Some of the other stuff is subjective. Take the 166 turbo sounds. How many people have been in a 166 cab? I'll tell you now, you can hardly hear the engines.
Other stuff is a misunderstanding of the technology. The cabs are made in 3ds max, and textured with part photo part drawn texture - as per standard nearly all 3d games. MSTS 2, if it appears, will be the same. It is not possible with current technology to produce a completely photo realistic cab in real time. Normal and specular maps are used, but real time caustics, ray tracing, and many other things that go to make computer generated images more realistic are only just filtering through the real time. And most people don't have the computers to run them. Train simulators are extremely demanding on graphics and processing. So what is a developer to do? Have everything very detailed, which requires a computer only a few can run, and hence a lot lower sales? Or drop the demands very slightly?
Y'see it's all very well getting nasty and sounding off at people, but we all need to sit back and take stock and remember what MSTS and Trainz were like on release.
Actually, KRS is miles above MSTS and Trainz graphically, whatever anyone else says. It's not going to suit everyone, but MSTS used 256 colour dithered mapping, which is one of the reasons it looks quite simplistic. KRS is not miles above trainz technically, but certainly it's actually a nice experience, the trains do feel solid and real. I would recommend the game to people, and if they sit tight, and learn a few tricks, in time some very nice stuff will come along I'm sure.
It does not benefit anyone ranting about things, it's really not going to create an atmosphere that is conducive to mutual improvement, and that's what we all want, right? And please, forget the idea of routes with everything modelled, because it's just not going to happen. Maybe in a couple of decades on modern routes with satellite technology, but never on historical routes.
