RWA Community Route - How to Start, What to Do?

[GreatNortherner]

Hi,

The discussion in the RWA Community Route thread in the Route Design forum left open some questions, so I thought a quick poll might be helpful.
If you're thinking about joining the "guild of RWA route builders", why not click on the poll questions in this thread to help us get started.

The forum settings seem to allow only one poll question, so I added 10 poll options and everybody can chose three. Please select only one of each group, terrain, assets, and tracks. These seem to have been the most debated points in the original thread. (This one: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3304 )

BTW, ScaleRoad is not on the list, I think this one is pretty much a must-have for US routes anyway.

Thanks!

Michael

[gwgardner]

Please define the difference between the GN Track (Kuju repaints) and GN track 3D?

[GreatNortherner]

Hi,

"GN Tracks" are the ones I repainted of the default tracks a long time ago, the pack of a dozen or so different track textures from clean, heavy mainline to rusty, overgrown abandoned rail line.

"GN Tracks 3D" are using the same textures, but have a custom-built 3D railhead and 3D ties. You can find one of version of these on the latest build of the MCSA route.

Cheers,
Michael

[TDHenderson]

"GN Tracks 3D" are using the same textures, but have a custom-built 3D railhead and 3D ties. You can find one of version of these on the latest build of the MCSA route.

Michael,

Sorry to slighly derail the topic, but will you be making these available to us at some point? I know the older ones are available elsewhere, but I am interested in your newer 3D versions.

Regards,
Trevor

[Machinist]

"GN Tracks 3D" are using the same textures, but have a custom-built 3D railhead and 3D ties. You can find one of version of these on the latest build of the MCSA route.

Could you post some pics of diferent tracks? (ScaleRail and GN 3D)

[thecanadianrail]

i feel that in my opinion that starting on a level new world would benifit the bulders in a way. here is what i mean: lets say that the first person wants to buld a harbour/port/city scene, then the next wishes to buld a line that is mountanis, and then the third person wants to add a HUGE yard! the third person would have one heck of a time trying to lay out a large yard on uneven terrain, especaly if they wanted staging, hump, and incoming tracks along with an engine servicing facility.

you see my point in my opinion?

also it would let people be able to change from a flat prarrie scene to a mountain scene in an instant without troubble unlike using dem. (this is more targeted at the first choice of dem which is situated in the eastern mountains than the west.)

although if i were to choose a dem area i personaly would choose the area around Rapid City, ND due to the fact the mountans start on one side and go big fast, and the other side is nice flat prarrie on the other with a nice winding river going to the southeast......oh wait i guess that this would be included in the second dem option......

well i voiced my opinion before people decide on what to vote for, so now vote!

[harryadkins]

If operation and volume of trains is a consideration, look at the Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac. It's double track mainline hosted tons of named passenger trains and lots of freight too. It is a managable length with sizeable yards at both ends. It was (and still is) a racetrack.

[GreatNortherner]

Hi,

The flat vs. mountaineous terrain point makes a lot of sense to me too.

However, you should keep in mind that along the Ohio river there are also some fairly level and wide places, where you could put in huge yard and cities without any major problems with terrain alignment. And who is to say that there needs to be a huge river in that valley anyway? So there could be even more buildling space then. This is a fictional route, so the Ohio doesn't have to be there anyway.

Also, even on a terraformed route you could still use the Level Terrain tool and flatten a large area if you need more building space.
The hills around the three rivers in Pittsburgh are steep, but not very high. So the terraforming work to create new plateaus or valleys wouldn't be so bad.

Could that be a compromise? Use the demed Alleghenies terrain, but leave it to each route builder's imagination how to develop or completely change it?

Cheers,
Michael

[jpetersjr]

I feel that a freeware route builder should almost always only use freeware assets to be fair on the community. Also, if a freeware route builder used payware scenery items it would be the payware developer getting a profit and not the freeware route builder. I myself would consider that a problem, and why a freeware route builder should always use just freeware items.

Of course, it's just my opinion.

I am currently building freeware scenery for the game and more then happy to do requests if you have photo's of what you would like to see in the game.

As well, I am currently building vintage city buildings and vintage city towers for the game. For the next few weeks I'll be working on mostly big city buildings, since finishing building houses for the time being.

I am sure with using just freeware assets and the new availability of freeware assets the community route will be a great route.

Also, I would like to see as well a great city scene in it, a point where you and your train enters the big city with towering buildings.