Railworks America

Feeling that I ought to buy something from the second holiday sale (or is it the third?), I decided to pick up the PRR Alco RS-11. The first doubt surfaced when its owners' manual failed to download.

Then, I tried running the shortest of the four included scenarios: "Working in Altoona Yard" according to the manual (which I had downloaded manually from Steam), but simply "Altoona Yard" in TS2014. All went well until I was just a few feet from the final stop point and -- blam! -- an AI train wreck brought the scenario to a crashing halt.

Curious, I tried opening the scenario for editing, only to run into one of RSC's absurdly locked routes [ ]. Determined now, I went through the unlocking process and, finally, dragged the scenario into the editor. Once there, I opened the "VCR" for one of its very few useful functions: following an AI train's progress. The culprit, No. 1525, ran directly into the hinder of a rack of freight cars parked on a siding. The fix, of course, was simple: move those cars to an adjacent siding.

The point is that we users should not have to clean up RSC's messes. It's one thing when someone uploads a faulty scenario to Steam Workshop, but quite another when a scenario included in a DLC package, therefore, a paid for scenario, hasn't been tested properly.

At my standard scenario repair rate of $200 per hour (hey! why shouldn't I make as much as a plumber?), RSC owes me $172.33. A check will do just fine, folks, but credit toward future (faulty) DLC is not acceptable.

I hate the ones where you need to "drop off" some wagons and it won't complete the task because the wagon numbers are duplicates or the drop off point doesn't quite allow enough room. How does not being able to complete a task successfully get past testing?

Sounds like you ran the scenario slower than the developer/tester. Kind of hard to blame RSC for that.

gwgardner wrote:Sounds like you ran the scenario slower than the developer/tester. Kind of hard to blame RSC for that.

That's not a timing issue. The AI running into full siding that isn't part of the scenario instructions is bad AI pathing and fixed by either adjusting the AI path via waypoints or by moving the freight.

But even if it were a timing issue, that's still on the scenario developer to say 'complete scenario by X time'. This probably has less to do with RSC though - the Alco RS-11 and the scenarios would have been done by Virtual Railroads. So it got through both Virtual RR and RSC QC.

Old Prof wrote:Feeling that I ought to buy something from the second holiday sale (or is it the third?), I decided to pick up the PRR Alco RS-11. The first doubt surfaced when its owners' manual failed to download.

Then, I tried running the shortest of the four included scenarios: "Working in Altoona Yard" according to the manual (which I had downloaded manually from Steam), but simply "Altoona Yard" in TS2014. All went well until I was just a few feet from the final stop point and -- blam! -- an AI train wreck brought the scenario to a crashing halt.

Curious, I tried opening the scenario for editing, only to run into one of RSC's absurdly locked routes [ ]. Determined now, I went through the unlocking process and, finally, dragged the scenario into the editor. Once there, I opened the "VCR" for one of its very few useful functions: following an AI train's progress. The culprit, No. 1525, ran directly into the hinder of a rack of freight cars parked on a siding. The fix, of course, was simple: move those cars to an adjacent siding.

The point is that we users should not have to clean up RSC's messes. It's one thing when someone uploads a faulty scenario to Steam Workshop, but quite another when a scenario included in a DLC package, therefore, a paid for scenario, hasn't been tested properly.

At my standard scenario repair rate of $200 per hour (hey! why shouldn't I make as much as a plumber?), RSC owes me $172.33. A check will do just fine, folks, but credit toward future (faulty) DLC is not acceptable.

You are working on a grumpster award.

gwgardner wrote:Sounds like you ran the scenario slower than the developer/tester. Kind of hard to blame RSC for that.

Really?!

By the time I finished at 15:36 (taking my time and not exceeding 15 mph), train 1525F was still waiting for its cue on the main so it didn't have time to plow into anything.

I guess this problem happens only if you run this scenario slower than the testers.
They wouldn't know, because the scenario ends when you stop at the final destination.
The only way to test this would be to purposely run the scenario slower.

Other problems with this scenario:
- It is called "Altoona Switching" in the game and "Working in Altoona Yard" in the manual.
- The first popup incorrectly says that the switches are all set.
- It is quite boring. Run the engine a mile down the yard, assemble three cuts of cars, get them back. It is bearable only because it showcases the magnificent RS11.

I have to agree with Tom on this one... if the AI's have a destination and you fully test the scenario then they shouldn't be running into anything. By fully test I mean (for one thing) let the scenario run without player interaction (or the minimal necessary) to see that all AI gets to where it's supposed to go. It takes 5 to 15 minutes to do and if were selling a product for money that's the least I would do. Geeez, I do that for free scenarios.

But, I'm not that surprised... the term "quality control" is just another old-timey notion in today's world.

"By the time I finished at 15:36 (taking my time and not exceeding 15 mph), train 1525F was still waiting for its cue on the main so it didn't have time to plow into anything."
If you are correct, what is the purpose of the AI if it does not start by the time the scenario ends?

I often program an AI to run after the expected ending time of a scenario, especially one that involves switching. Slow-pokes (read: cautious drivers) deserve a little last-minute entertainment, too. However, I always check to make sure that all AI trains reach their intended destinations. No matter who initially wrote this scenario, RSC bears the final responsibility, since they are selling the product.

gwgardner wrote:Sounds like you ran the scenario slower than the developer/tester. Kind of hard to blame RSC for that.

On the contrary, bro! (Translated form the French.)

When Surfliner came out I made a post about the money I spent on that route and made a tongue-in-cheek comment on the lack of quality control with in the route [http://railworksamerica.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=9819].
I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition, but, from the replies, it seem to me that I the customer was responsible for fixing the broken items on the route and that RSC(Dovetail) could do no wrong. On that point I disagree. With freeware you get what you pay for and no one should be complaining if the item that you've downloaded is not quite right. When it comes to payware, I am the customer and I expect that when I purchase a product, especially an intangible product like software; I require that product to be flawless.

Blue Light wrote:When Surfliner came out I made a post about the money I spent on that route and made a tongue-in-cheek comment on the lack of quality control with in the route [http://railworksamerica.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=9819].
I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition, but, from the replies, it seem to me that I the customer was responsible for fixing the broken items on the route and that RSC(Dovetail) could do no wrong. On that point I disagree. With freeware you get what you pay for and no one should be complaining if the item that you've downloaded is not quite right. When it comes to payware, I am the customer and I expect that when I purchase a product, especially an intangible product like software; I require that product to be flawless.

I understand what you are saying and agree about when your a paying customer or getting something for free. But can you name me 1 piece of software that is flawless?

The NERW? LOL.

Remember "Garbage in, garbage out"? Another forgotten concept. Now we even recycle the garbage and sell it for profit.