Scenarios!

[kujuSabrina]

Hi all,

Take a look at our website update this week at www.railsimulator.com where we talk about Scenarios!

[OTTODAD]

Sounds great for those who like to operate a train simulator as prototypically as is done with real railways ! ;-)

But there many of us, especially the younger and less experienced railroaders, who just like to drive trains in attractive surroundings and do a number of un-programmed for things with them and hope that KRS will make that possible too !

MSTS EXPLORE ROUTE Mode was restricted to just driving a train, not being able to use loose consists or otherwise fill empty yards and sidings with them, or have the odd AI appear here and there.

Jim Ward (SNIPER) started the concept of FREESTYLE activities with short player paths, allowing loose consists and trains to be placed anywhere and create AI traffic, which to all intents and purposes are EXPLORE ROUTE activities.

With the hopefully new facility of being able to change from one train in a session to another and from one of it's locos cabs to the other will enormously increase the enjoyment FREESTYLERS like me will get from running trains.

What still has not been mentioned is whether KRS will provide a zoomable moving map like TRAINZ does, showing where the player train is and where other trains and loose consists are located !

Take care, O t t o.

[TrainFanAmtrak]

Looking forward to the game. Thanks for the update. I think this game is gonna be similar to Train Simulator.

[cbq311]

Why do you think since you do no one else does? Many of us like to get the train over the road, battleing opposing moves and overtakes. By far there are more posts about activities than explore route.

This is getting old that whatever you think, that is the way the rest of us think. That is not so. So please quit speaking as if you are the majority of users.

I am getting excited now that some clearing the air on the editor. Though I would prefer it to be seperate, like MSTS's. My problem with that is, what if a designer makes an inadverant change to the route. Will the it still be playable by others without the change? It still appears to give designers a more flexable approach to designing. We will be free to make it easy or hard.

[Bill Hobbs]

Sabrina,
Thanks for the update. It is beginning to sound a little more like the planning will be similiar to what I do to set up an operating session on my layout. I've already learned something from the AI traffic for making a simple session seem more complex. Perhaps this time there will be more borrowing in both directions!

[OTTODAD]

I think you have a problem reading what I say, which is MANY and does not suggest that there are not some users like you !!!

But there are many of us, especially the younger and less experienced railroaders, who just like to drive trains in attractive surroundings and do a number of un-programmed for things with them and hope that KRS will make that possible too !

Out of the 1 million copies of MSTS sold, many still being used, what do you think the % proportion of your kind of users is and how many would think of using the editors ?

A best selling simulator like the MS Flight Simulator caters of all sorts of users from professional pilots to grasshoppers and wonder what the % of the former purchased and use it regularly !

O t t o

[muskokaandtahoe]

> and how many would think of using the editors ?

I'd guess about a third and that's only because the MSTS editor was awful. Listening to you Otto one might think the answer was 3.

Give it a break will ja? Not everybody wants the exact same thing you want.

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[OTTODAD]

Not everybody wants the exact same thing you want.

Did I say that ? The same applies to what others want from a train sim. Should they shut up too ? ;-)

O t t o

[lawrencekellie]

Dear Kuju.

I would be surprised if you respond, but I certainly do hope you read this.

You don't know me, so let me give a little introduction. I started with MSTS shortly after it was released. I helped dig, a little, into the workings of MSTS, and enjoyed it for some time. If you look at my current username, you will find that it is very new, but that is explained below.

For reasons that will not be brought up here, I stopped using MSTS in 2002, and joined the Trainz community, where I not only used Trainz, but I created content and routes, and was a beta tester for about three years. After having to leave my home computer network in May 2005, I was unable to run Trainz on my modest laptop/notebook. I therefore, have come back to MSTS, as it runs extremely well on this platform.

With that being said, I would like to make the following comments to Kuju as you develop the software.

To me, the pictures and videos that I have seen remind me more of Trainz than MSTS. Now I find this exceedingly strange, because if anyone should keep the, shall I say "realism"?, look of MSTS, it should be Kuju!

Second, I find your use of the term "scenarios" as extremely interesting. This term, and I know that a term cannot be copyrighted, however, it could be trademarked, was coined by Auran during the time I was beta testing as the term denoting the equivalent to MSTS's Activities. They spent considerable time choosing the term, making sure that it expressed what they wanted. What I find even more interesting is that shortly into the first or second paragraph of your news release, you don't use the term "scenario" again, but the term "activities."

I would, therefore, like to make a suggestion. Use one term, and use it only. I don't think that "scenarios" is a good term for you to use, as if there is any contestation between Kuju and Auran over the term, Auran's use by several years would "win," if you please. I am not implying or stating that Auran would take legal action, I don't know, and I don't care, but why risk it? However, if it was a trademarked term, the legal criteria for determining infringement (in the United States) is if it would cause "confusion in the marketplace." To one just purchasing your upcoming game who knew of Trainz, it may do just that. (By the way, I *do* know the legal criteria, as I worked in the Intellectual Property legal industry for a significant number of years.)

So, I would like to continue that above suggestion to offer to you the choice of a new term/phrase. Why not "work order"? Or some other term used by the railroad industry to mean what you are trying to mean, without using a term already used by your "competition."

Anyway, just my thoughts to you, Kuju.

Lawrence

ps. Anyone taking issue with the above who is NOT Kuju, please realize that these comments are written TO Kuju, even though they are written in a public forum. Thank you. LRK

[Colin]

Lawrence,

I don't think anyone can lay claim to the word scenario. Any good dictionary will point out that it is a common noun in use and whether you can trademark it or not is irrelevant. It has been used more than just as a word for opera or theatre, too. Encarta points out its use in this case: an imagined sequence of possible events.

It's like saying no one else must use the word "save" because Bill Gates (was it him?)was the first to use it and,therefore,we should think of another word each time we design a game, programme, system that saves something to disc. Maybe you guys can come up with some ideas? Deposit?! Any others? ;)
Colin

[sstyrnol]

Your freestyle activities have only very little to do with real railway operations. Phantasy is good, but many want more prototypical operations.

[Bill Hobbs]

Colin,
I agree with you. The term "scenario" is in common usage among folks who do simulations in the business world. One would have about as much luck claiming that "simulation" was a reserved word.

[kujuSabrina]

For Rail Simulator we had an interesting choice – this is a completely new simulation, and we didn’t want to use ‘activities’ as that is so clearly linked with MSTS. ‘Work Orders’ is fine, but didn’t capture what we are aiming to achieve with the new system. So we ended up with ‘Scenarios’ because it seemed to fit the best! We did discuss changing it to avoid any mix-up, but since in essence what both we and Trainz aim to achieve are scenarios, we decided it was ok to stick with it.



We get on well with the folks at Auran, and I don’t think they mind us sharing the word.



As for the look of Rail Simulator, well do remember that what you have seen so far is pre-Alpha and we have more work to do on the lighting and other effects – we are certainly looking for ‘realism’!

[OTTODAD]

The term "scenario" is in common usage among folks who do simulations in the business world. One would have about as much luck claiming that "simulation" was a reserved word.

So is "Windows" ! A guy calling a LINUX O/S Lindows had to stop using it because of legal action by Microsoft.

All that is needed is a lot of money and good lawyer ! ;-)

But describing a program function as being a "Scenario" is like using "Menu" and other common descriptions used in computing.

O t t o

[Colin]

>
>The term "scenario" is in common usage among
>folks who do simulations in the business world. One would
>have about as much luck claiming that "simulation" was a
>reserved word.
>
>So is "Windows" ! A guy calling a LINUX O/S Lindows had
>to stop using it because of legal action by Microsoft.
>
>All that is needed is a lot of money and good lawyer ! ;-)

Ha! Ha! of course! I should have thought of that. Will we ever have any words left to talk. Maybe we will all have to pay a tax to have a conversation. :D

But then again the product was called Windows, Otto, and I don't think the product will be called Scenarios. :)
Colin

[cbq311]

That is a thing, I don't know. Just from looking at the posts here, 3dtrains, Uktrainsim, etc, it seems to be a lot more questions about activities and how to create them than explore route or "freestyle" activities.

As far as millions sold - that is really a misnomer. It is have many used it for more than a week...month....etc. That is the question. You make blanket statements that come from your mind without any data to back them up. You have this fantasy that you speek for all of us and you don't. maybe newbies that don't know better, but for the long time users, you don't. And I wish you would quit doing it. It it is your opinion, say so. But don't call it what we all want.


Untill I get a chance to play in the AE, it remains to be seen how it will do.

[Bill Hobbs]

This is not a discussion I wanted to spend much time on. When I read the announcement from Kuju, "scenarios" appeared to be being used in a descriptive way and not as a proper noun or name. Of course I can still call the visual portal on my wall a "window", but I had better not use that term as the name of a new product.

[lawrencekellie]

Dear Kuju;

Thank you for taking the time to respond. The number of times you have responded, as I have searched this forum, is extremely minimal. So, I consider it an *high* honor that you responded to my comments.

In case there was any lack of clarity on my part, I would like to just reiterate.

No doubt, Kuju spent considerable time considering the term to use--and "scenarios" is as good as, I suppose, more others.

I would, however, like to ask you to consider a "railroad/railway" type of term instead of one that is used by many games (are you particularly interested as being classified as a game, or are you more interested in being classifed as something different than a game?) or the business world. It is my opinion (for what it is worth) that a more "rail"-oriented name will provide a more "rail"-oriented impression to your product--and, hence, maybe more credibility.

Let me give a couple of examples. First, I suspect that the term "mission" or "ops" may be a good choice, and may actually be used, by military shoot-em-type games on the market. (This is just surmising, as I don't own or play those types of games.) And that term is also used by the real-world counterpart. Hence, using that term gives an air of "authority" and "realism" to the game.

Second, if you look at Flight Simulator (and I have played it for several years, was involved in a virtual airlines, played online with virtual ATC), nearly ALL aspects of the "game" (simulation) is *extremely* real to life. If you have ever flown online, it is *extremely* real to life. Again, adding credibility, authority, and realism to the product.

So, you have decided to use a term that does not, to my knowledge, have anything to do with rail operations. That is okay with me. I, unlike some others who post in this forum, do not own stock in your company! However, unless you are dead set on using the term, I respectfully request that you reconsider. Even though you put out a "press release," that doesn't mean you can't change.

At this point, I hope that my concern as been adequately expressed, and I appreciate the time you took to respond to my concern.

Again, thank you.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Kellie

[High Iron]

>As for the look of Rail Simulator, well do remember that what
>you have seen so far is pre-Alpha and we have more work to do
>on the lighting and other effects – we are certainly looking
>for ‘realism’!

I find this statement impressive IMHO. It looks as if Kuju is aware of the visual comparisons being made to Tainz. Admittedly I too have felt it looked a little akin to Trainz, ( one of the reasons I never continued to pursue it after buying the first release ) but have avoided making any assumptions to this point of how it will look in the end because I believed it was still being worked on and not near complete. Thus, I have avoided prejudging Rail Simulator because I am keenly aware, that the end product may differ considerbly from what I,ve seen so far. Your statement further enforces my feelings that Kuju might actually get this one right,( a positive feeling ). Thank you Sabrina for making that statement clear, here on the forum. My hope meter for a quality next generation train sim, just went up "one" notch.

Cheer, High Iron