New trucks, the automatic numbering system is now working. coupling works. Then there is sound, smoke, engine dynamics not to mention a 3D cab!!!
It's not as easy as scenery but we are getting there. (slowly)
Dick
Full Version: Slow but sure
New trucks, the automatic numbering system is now working. coupling works. Then there is sound, smoke, engine dynamics not to mention a 3D cab!!!
It's not as easy as scenery but we are getting there. (slowly)
Dick
Awesome Dick!! Very awesome. 
I'm having to redo a little bit myself. Coming along though!
Rich
I'm having to redo a little bit myself. Coming along though! Rich
both of you guys are making want to keep RS on my system, great goingto the both of you
Thanks CW!
Well... RS is a toughie because a lot of people have drawn conclusions based on what other people have said. It's natural, happens all the time. The thing I found is RS is a keeper and that probably in time enough will develope that others will see its advantages. But it's not a cure-all for MSTS. In fact, it's almost the route builder's revenge for MSTS. Where route builders struggled for months to create something, this time, the engine builder's are straddled with the longer process of building something. In time that will have some relief once people who have been successful making engines and rollingstock happen in RS start helping others who haven't. We're not used to developers holding out on the community and some are saying this is happening. So there's some bottlenecking taking place but it probably won't last long.
Working with activities I find RS not to be non-functional as some described but weak on features and somewhat constrained in operation. It's like some people saying "only simple activities will work." Well... that to me isn't it. It's more like is the route set up to do what you want the activities to do. If you look in the default routes you'll note destination markers inbetween crossover switches. Weird? Not really. Since RS doesn't allow you the author to make a player path, you kinda have to lead the 'path maker' with destination markers so the path goes where you want it to go in complex pathing situations. The drawback to this technique is it clutters up the screen with too many scenario markers. RSDL tells me a fix is in the work. But the underlying point is activities in RS are more integrated with the route, even more than MSTS, because these markers have to be included in the route itself. I don't know if they can 'just' be a scenario added item or not. RS allows certain scenery items to be included in a scenario but I don't know if markers are one of them.
This is what has slowed me down is I'm having to imagine all the scenarios one could make up for the route and decide how best to set up a slew of these destination markers so anybody creating a scenario won't find themselves having to go into the route editor and add their own markers.
I find RS to be an excellent companion to MSTS. There's so much you can do with it, and so easily, and so quickly. It does falter in some areas like physics (though I haven't a clue how a real engine really feels so it's no biggie to me), documentation and activity features. Supposedly there is a wealth of advanced features in RS just waiting to be tapped. My feeling is if we ever get to that level somebody at RSDL needs to explain some of it. For instance, and please, do help me out if you can, but what is an area marker?
It's gotta be important because I see them in the default routes being used all the time, but I can't find an explaination anywhere. And sometimes, even though they promise to answer emails, they don't. 
But with all things consider, RS to me is a very strong 'keeper'.
Rich
Well... RS is a toughie because a lot of people have drawn conclusions based on what other people have said. It's natural, happens all the time. The thing I found is RS is a keeper and that probably in time enough will develope that others will see its advantages. But it's not a cure-all for MSTS. In fact, it's almost the route builder's revenge for MSTS. Where route builders struggled for months to create something, this time, the engine builder's are straddled with the longer process of building something. In time that will have some relief once people who have been successful making engines and rollingstock happen in RS start helping others who haven't. We're not used to developers holding out on the community and some are saying this is happening. So there's some bottlenecking taking place but it probably won't last long.
Working with activities I find RS not to be non-functional as some described but weak on features and somewhat constrained in operation. It's like some people saying "only simple activities will work." Well... that to me isn't it. It's more like is the route set up to do what you want the activities to do. If you look in the default routes you'll note destination markers inbetween crossover switches. Weird? Not really. Since RS doesn't allow you the author to make a player path, you kinda have to lead the 'path maker' with destination markers so the path goes where you want it to go in complex pathing situations. The drawback to this technique is it clutters up the screen with too many scenario markers. RSDL tells me a fix is in the work. But the underlying point is activities in RS are more integrated with the route, even more than MSTS, because these markers have to be included in the route itself. I don't know if they can 'just' be a scenario added item or not. RS allows certain scenery items to be included in a scenario but I don't know if markers are one of them.
This is what has slowed me down is I'm having to imagine all the scenarios one could make up for the route and decide how best to set up a slew of these destination markers so anybody creating a scenario won't find themselves having to go into the route editor and add their own markers.
I find RS to be an excellent companion to MSTS. There's so much you can do with it, and so easily, and so quickly. It does falter in some areas like physics (though I haven't a clue how a real engine really feels so it's no biggie to me), documentation and activity features. Supposedly there is a wealth of advanced features in RS just waiting to be tapped. My feeling is if we ever get to that level somebody at RSDL needs to explain some of it. For instance, and please, do help me out if you can, but what is an area marker?
It's gotta be important because I see them in the default routes being used all the time, but I can't find an explaination anywhere. And sometimes, even though they promise to answer emails, they don't. But with all things consider, RS to me is a very strong 'keeper'. Rich
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.