An Open Letter to RSC

[Shortliner]

Dear RSC,

My name is Sean Summer and I have been a consumer of your train "sim" (at this point, it's more of a game) since it was released in 2009. I remember what a dismal failure Rail Simulator was and how excited everyone was for RailWorks, myself included. I even sprung for the box version so that I can get all the neat manuals that came in the boxed version. I was also excited because I thought that a smaller gaming company would actually listen to it's consumer and give us a train simulator that we've been waiting for since MSTS.

Apparently my faith and the faith of my fellow train simmers were misplaced. It is now 8/15/2012, three years after the launch of RW1, and instead of hearing about how physics are improved, AI/signaling have been fixed, bugs and Donner Pass has been addressed, and how we're getting Multiplayer with an option to have a human dispatcher, we are getting an XBox Controller, improved graphics (again), and something called Relay Play, which doesn't sound like true Multiplayer at all. I listed physics, AI and Multiplayer because they are the three top things that the train sim community wants, and yet you guys have failed to deliver at this point in time.

The first point I'd like to address is AI/Signaling, which everyone and their grandmother knows is broken, it's pointless to assume that it's fine, or that it works. As it stands right now, the AI/Signaling in RW is not based on anything else but a script, and if the players deviate from that script, then the whole scenario doesn't work because AI doesn't have the capacity to work around the player's deviation from the script. Microsoft Flight Simulator X came out in 2006, and it has AI aircrafts that can work around the player's aircraft and other AI aircraft. Why have we not seen this in RW? At this point, the "thinking AI" technology is six years old.

Also, at this point, there is no reason why we shouldn't be having signaling and AI that can work in Dark Territories. I love running shortline routes, and about 99% of Shortline routes have no signaling and are based on work orders and communication with the dispatcher through the radio. Why is this not possible in RW yet? As a final point to AI/Signaling, I feel like it should be possible for me to be in the same yard with an AI locomotive/train and to have a railroad yard that is truly busy and functional, with trains coming in while switchers put together or break down trains, to this date it has not happened in RW.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on physics, because I was never a locomotive engineer, a train crewman or a conductor. So I don't know how a train is supposed to feel, but going by what former engineers (like Nick from VORA) are saying, the physics isn't up to snuff. I don't know whether or not this is a core game issues, or whether or not the values on the individual cars and locomotives need to be change, but one of the major point in a simulation is the accurate simulation of how a train would handle in real life. You can have all the pretty graphics, bells and whistles that you want, but unless the player feels like they're driving a train, the immersion isn't complete.

The next point is Multiplayer. Now I don't know whether or not Relay Play is Multiplayer, but from what I've read from this morning's press release, it doesn't sound like it. At least, not a true Multiplayer. Multiplayer takes place in an open world where everything is controlled by the players, everything from the yard switchers up to the mainline trains, and it's all dispatcher by a human dispatcher. Once again, this is considered old technology, even open source games have a Multiplayer function in the truest sense of the word. I'm just a bit perplexed why we haven't see it in RailWorks at this point, and whether or not we will see it with Relay Play, however I'm not holding my breath on Relay Play.

AI/signaling and Multiplayer were both promised in RW3, and if you do not believe me, I can drag up the appropriate conversations that I had with RSDerek and the appropriate blog post. The fact that these kinds of announcements seem to disappear off the face of the Earth is a common occurrence with the RSC team, the best example of this is Donner Pass. A route that is plagued with so many problems that I doubt y'all are letting the creators of Donner Pass create anymore routes. Donner Pass was released earlier this year (I forgot the exact date) and after the community have raised several red flags with the route that needed to be addressed, to this date we have yet to receive any kind of update on the route except for one blog post.

This is the main problem with RSC, the lack of communication, a lack of back and forth. I miss the days where RSDerek would come on here and spend an hour or two on RWA and actually talk with us and gave us some very valuable feedback. That showed that y'all actually valued our two cents worth. Whatever happened to that back and forth? Nowadays all we get is blog posts from Blogger, Videos on YouTube and blurbs and photos on Facebook. I hate to tell y'all this, but that isn't talking with your consumers, that's a sales pitch, sooner or later the people are going to get tired of the constant sales pitch.

At this point, I feel that it's pretty obvious what direction RW is heading, and it's not in the direction that I want to see it go in, people will either agree with me, or disagree with me, that's their choice. All I can say is that at this point, I'm not buying anymore DLCs until I hear something from you guys that addressed my above points. I will let RW3 update to RW4, and I will still patronize third party vendors directly, but I don't see any point in purchasing from RSC anymore.

Sean "Shortliner" Summer.

[artimrj]

Good luck, love to hear the reply you get from them.

[Shortliner]

Well if anyone knows Paul Jackson's e-mail address, I'd love to e-mail this letter to him.

[Bananarama]

I would drop the several references to "y'all", as I doubt it would translate well into the UK lexicon.

[Shortliner]

I would drop the several references to "y'all", as I doubt it would translate well into the UK lexicon.

Sorry, born and raised in North Carolina.

[Shortliner]

Sent the letter to RSAdam and RSDerek (via through RWA E-mail system) and to Paul Jackson on Facebook. Here's hoping I hear something back from them.

[dejoh]

You might be happy with a new sim coming out called Run 8. It claims to be a realistic train simulator.
I'll be waiting to see how you pick this one apart.

[Shortliner]

You might be happy with a new sim coming out called Run 8. It claims to be a realistic train simulator.
I'll be waiting to see how you pick this one apart.

Actually, Run8 won't be gracing my system after they banned some very important people in the train sim community from their forum over frivolous reasons (one of them being Hack). There's also the fact that they won't allow third party developing right out of the gate, which is another turn off IMHO. At this point, I'll be giving Open Rails a try.

[hunter]

Run 8 does not look that great to me. If they were to address the issues and suggestions given in that email then im sure Railworks would be even more of a better game until they start making these thomas models that is. Anyways if they were to make a multiplayer im not sure that it could hold many people im thinking 5 max. Which is fine but if you want someone to be a dispatcher, a guy that throws the switch, guys working in the yards, AND engineers and conductors..your gonna need more people. I have spent many hours on Railworks and if the physics are addressed im sure I will spent a great deal more. And if they update to Railworks 4, will it be like a Railworks 2 free update to Railworks 3?

[kin3]

You might be happy with a new sim coming out called Run 8. It claims to be a realistic train simulator.
I'll be waiting to see how you pick this one apart.

Actually, Run8 won't be gracing my system after they banned some very important people in the train sim community from their forum over frivolous reasons (one of them being Hack). There's also the fact that they won't allow third party developing right out of the gate, which is another turn off IMHO. At this point, I'll be giving Open Rails a try.

Yea, I asked a question about graphics and received a rude reply and then they locked the thread. Seem you get one route with only their equipment and can only drive on it and no third party at all.

[MattW]

I'm willing to give RSC a chance. As much as we all want 100% accurate physics, they do have bills to pay, and new "gimmicks" and upgrades and such that appeal to a broader base are where the money actually is. It costs them to go back and fix the physics with little return on investment. I'm looking forward to see what they've done in the graphics department as they really can't get much better without ditching DirectX9 (and all XP users) other than to improve performance (fps, antialiasing).

[Machinist]

The event with some users (especially with Marc, who didn't deserved that treatment, for sure) was disastrous indeed, but they have already changed their behaviour, something they learned with the episode. However I'm waiting for a better train "simulator" since 12 years long now, and I won't mix "personal" and "technical" (professional) things. My prime interest is the simulation features, which is pretty promising for what I'm expecting: not the diversity of routes/vehicles and eyes-candy thingy (this I already have with TS2012 and will be improved with TS2013), that's not the prime goal of "that" simulator and this explains why won't be initially open to 3rd party developers, I can understand that. About Open Rails it looks interesting, but I won't give a try until it becomes MSTS's independent.

[eyein12]

technically RW3 could go back and improve scripts for AI and supply it as a "MOD" and charge a small fee for it to cover said cost of doing such a project. Same goes for physics engine "enhancement." an ammendment to the game code if you will. I'm surprised they havent thought of that already. I would GLADLY pay them for such MODS. I'm sure a ton of people would pay just to have it. it ends up being another DLC package which is easy to install.

Ian

[Shortliner]

technically RW3 could go back and improve scripts for AI and supply it as a "MOD" and charge a small fee for it to cover said cost of doing such a project. Same goes for physics engine "enhancement." an ammendment to the game code if you will. I'm surprised they havent thought of that already. I would GLADLY pay them for such MODS. I'm sure a ton of people would pay just to have it. it ends up being another DLC package which is easy to install.

Ian

I agree with this 100%.

[Kali]

No, you can't just improve AI with a "script". I suspect the reason we don't have better AI already is because it needs some severe reworking of the game - why can't we have the AI run around a train? because after the scenario start it doesn't know where anything else is until it hits it, and sadly coupling to something that's moved - say you wanted to attach a car to a passing AI train yourself - seems to count as "hit".

Other than signal link0s which are set to "stop", anyway. That's not something you can just throw a quick patch at, unfortunately.