Trains don't go off track when derailed.

[chris2001trainz2010]

Perhaps for the derailments we should go the MSTS way? Sure,the trains did not tip over,but I you derailed a train in MSTS and say,100mph on a sharp turn,the train would go though every bit of scenery and yet nothing would be damaged,not even the train. But I think MSTS derailment with tipping over but yet nothing gets damaged (Like cars,houses,trees,etc.) would be fine. Even just Trainz 1.3 derailment would be nice. Sure,derailments are disasters for railroads,but at the same time it would add realism. And isn't N3V targeting for a realistic simulator? Or are they just targeting a game with nice graphics but cheesy physics and and a hole lot of frustrating and confusing errors?

I mean, derailments were fine in Trainz '06. Can't say much for '09 and '10 because i haven't put much time into them recently, but i believe TS12 was where the downgrade started. It's so simple...just have the train leave the tracks and that's it. In '06, buildings and whatnot didn't have collision, so the trains just went through them, and even that was fine. It's not even about Trainz being realistic, it's about it being fun.

I don't care if it makes me a sociopath according to martinvk, but i like derailments in my train simulators. They don't have to be 100% realistic, but at the very least, just having them is enjoyable. Derailments in Trainz never had or have to be realistic cause they're fun.

 

[Enzo1]

LOL really, saying that people who like derailments in train simulators should "stay away from any real trains" is just ridiculous. Obviously since i like derailments in my Train Simulators, i should never get a job in the railroad industry. I might kill hundreds of people or waste a ton of resources for fun, right? Man, the slippery slope argument sure is great.

I'm not quite sure where you got off on reading this that way. This certainly not the same post I read.

And to deliberately cause multi-car derailments just for fun - please stay away from any real trains.

I've been watching trains for a long time, and playing multiple sims for almost equally as much time, and explain to me exactly how many train crews do you see in real life going out and messing something up to intentionally cause a crash? It's not fun stuff. I've seen real life collision between a car and a train, and a real life derailment with real life impacts. It's not a pretty sight. When cars get hit, it's ugly. In the one that I seen, a man was killed instantly by a train going track speed (50MPH) when it hit the driver side of his van, almost splitting it in half, and then dragging it where it finally caught something and was thrown off the tracks. There was a derailment in the small town of Notus, where a train picked the swtich for the siding there, and they were doing about 35, about 25 cars went on the ground, scoured the highway, caused a small fire, and even almost went into the small gas station in town. It looked like a bomb went off, with mangled steel everywhere. A farmers field was trenched into when the railcars dug into the ground, damaging the irrigation system he had in place there. There are other derailments where people lose their jobs because they weren't paying attention. Nothing about a train-wreck is fun, whether hitting a car, seeing some cars multi-track drift, or 30 or 40 cars mangling up, or a head on collision like the one down in Texas where crew memebers were killed!

Here's the deal, I'm not against derailments being in the game, they are a part of real life, and they do happen, and if in a realistic sim, there should at least be some sort of when you pick a switch cars go on the ground, but it doesn't need to be any more real than that. Just you tip over, and cars pile up a little bit or something like that, there doesn't need to be collisions or anything, just bring it in something that let's you know you made a real life mistake with real life consequences, like the termination of your job.

 

[dandyz]

I mean, derailments were fine in Trainz '06. Can't say much for '09 and '10 because i haven't put much time into them recently, but i believe TS12 was where the downgrade started. It's so simple...just have the train leave the tracks and that's it. In '06, buildings and whatnot didn't have collision, so the trains just went through them, and even that was fine. It's not even about Trainz being realistic, it's about it being fun.

I don't care if it makes me a sociopath according to martinvk, but i like derailments in my train simulators. They don't have to be 100% realistic, but at the very least, just having them is enjoyable. Derailments in Trainz never had or have to be realistic cause they're fun.

Agreeing here. I can imagine (as a guy who tried to make a game several times) how collisions with scenery would be so complex thing that might make huge changes to the core engine, but I mean at least that terrain collision would be nicer than anything. Just the little physics tweaks - the train instastop suggests there's something implementable.

To all of you who says derailment is not fun - we are playing games, we can mess around if it won't hurt anyone in real life. We don't have that need to do these bad things in real life, because of the AWFUL cause it can do. But in games, there's nothing wrong that can happen, you just derail just as you kill someone in a shooting game.

Why don't I feel bad doing this? Because I sometimes do, but only if I imagine the thing happening in real life. The "game act <-> real life act" difference is an important thing here. Anyone who has a healthy or enough developed brain wouldn't merge those.

 

[chris2001trainz2010]

I'm not quite sure where you got off on reading this that way. This certainly not the same post I read.

I dunno, it sounded to me like martinvk was saying that people who like derailments shouldn't go near a real train. That implies that people who like derailments in simulators like causing derailments in real life as well, which isn't (necessarily) true.

 

[tbird8923]

I dunno, it sounded to me like martinvk was saying that people who like derailments shouldn't go near a real train. That implies that people who like derailments in simulators like causing derailments in real life as well, which isn't (necessarily) true.

It reminds me of an incident where a Nickelodeon president rejected an action show for said network because her reason is, and I quote: "Action shows turn children into terrorists" And also like how some people think the driving age should be raised to 18 because some people think the reason why many young drivers have accidents is because of their age on not their experience

 

[Davie_UCF]

I don't understand why anyone would want derailments to be realistic, it's not something I go onto trainz wanting or expecting to do. It's an inconvenience and requires me to restart the session.

Hardly a priority, trains actually driving and operating well is more priority.

 

[tbird8923]

Heh, here's a joke, what if somebody redid the E-spec of a Dash 9 and reskinned it into the MSTS Evergreen Dash 9?

 

[TimLee_TW]

Why can't we have a online voting about this feature to be add back, either by N3V or community.
If N3V doesn't go for this, our decision will be the future people's answer.

Actually this is not the first time people ask about this.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/315660/discussions/0/351660338692306751/

Perhaps for the derailments we should go the MSTS way?

Yeah, MSTS come with additional Bounding Box for physics.

 

[RailFan500CA]

I mean, derailments were fine in Trainz '06. Can't say much for '09 and '10 because i haven't put much time into them recently, but i believe TS12 was where the downgrade started. It's so simple...just have the train leave the tracks and that's it. In '06, buildings and whatnot didn't have collision, so the trains just went through them, and even that was fine. It's not even about Trainz being realistic, it's about it being fun.

I don't care if it makes me a sociopath according to martinvk, but i like derailments in my train simulators. They don't have to be 100% realistic, but at the very least, just having them is enjoyable. Derailments in Trainz never had or have to be realistic cause they're fun.

I have to agree there,even just TS2010 or TRS2006 derailments would be fine. Trainz was not intended to be a derailment simulator,but yet sometimes goofing around with games can be fun.

 

[Vern]

Another issue is that the real railway companies probably don't want to see images or YT vids of virtual trains showing their livery and logo sprawled over the landscape. Union Pacific are well known opponents of the leisure simulation scene and BNSF are also fairly strict with their licensing. Unlike the other major sim developer N3V seem to have dodged the bullet (or put their heads in the sand) regarding licensing, but probably best not to rock the boat and awaken the beast!

 

[srschacher]

Tbird,

Thanks for posting that video. It does help me to put this thread in context.

For me, I'd like to know if I take a curve too fast. If Trainz doesn't give me this feedback because the track has invisible guardrails or something and the train just barrels along without incident, then how do I know I did something wrong?

I also had MSTS, and there was pretty immediate feedback when I did something wrong. I didn't set out to cause a derailment, but I was new to train sims and that's how one learns -- by sometimes crashing the train.

I also have Ship Simulator (2008) and Ship Simulator Extreme. In that sim, if you ram a ship it SINKS.

I'd be okay with message that the train derailed, and stop the sim -- I don't need the fancy animations of destruction. I just want to know that it happened because I exceeded a physical limit.

Steve S

 

[tbird8923]

Tbird,

Thanks for posting that video. It does help me to put this thread in context.

For me, I'd like to know if I take a curve too fast. If Trainz doesn't give me this feedback because the track has invisible guardrails or something and the train just barrels along without incident, then how do I know I did something wrong?

I also had MSTS, and there was pretty immediate feedback when I did something wrong. I didn't set out to cause a derailment, but I was new to train sims and that's how one learns -- by sometimes crashing the train.

I also have Ship Simulator (2008) and Ship Simulator Extreme. In that sim, if you ram a ship it SINKS.

I'd be okay with message that the train derailed, and stop the sim -- I don't need the fancy animations of destruction. I just want to know that it happened because I exceeded a physical limit.

Steve S

From what I've seen, another way to derail a train other than switches and flying off of tracks is if you ram another train at a super high speed, as I did that with an FEF-3 once

 

[martinvk]

Isn't that what realistic mode is for? No super glue to keep you on the rails.

 

[martinvk]

Another issue is that the real railway companies probably don't want to see images or YT vids of virtual trains showing their livery and logo sprawled over the landscape....!

I think Vern may be on to something here. Being in a niche market, we probably fly under the radar more often than not. Start showing trains with real logos crashing and burning and next thing you know, there will be a bunch of lawyers on your case.

 

[cascaderailroad]

Maybe they have Lionel MagnaTraction® ?

Saw a model RR where they had a permanent train wreck/crane re-railing scene, on a side track

 

[Vern]

Trains tended to derail in MSTS because of the bugs, rather than your handling (or lack of) ability! Most famous was on my West Highland route where there was a long steep climb from Tulloch to Corrour. If you didn't modify the coupler strength on all vehicles in the consist, if you ran for more than about 6 miles without crossing a point/switch the train would derail or, in the case noted above, would catapult to about 200 feet in the air!

 

[JCitron]

Trains tended to derail in MSTS because of the bugs, rather than your handling (or lack of) ability! Most famous was on my West Highland route where there was a long steep climb from Tulloch to Corrour. If you didn't modify the coupler strength on all vehicles in the consist, if you ran for more than about 6 miles without crossing a point/switch the train would derail or, in the case noted above, would catapult to about 200 feet in the air!

I remember that coupler bug now that you mentioned it!

I setup a custom activity, if I remember that's what they were called, for the Marias Pass route. I had some opposing traffic coming from the Shelby area. One drive, I made it almost to Shelby to only have an AI-controlled train catapult through the air at me after picking the switch and end the session due to a train derailed! There were some other dramatic crashes as well including AI-train standing on end on this and other routes.

TRS2004 wasn't immune from this either. I had an incident where I had a string of DMUs (Budd RDCs) sitting up in the clouds. The train had derailed for some reason and ended floating above the track. I remember writing up a fake newspaper front page and posting it in the older forums. "All he felt was a bump!" was the quote done from the conductor in charge. That one was by far the funniest incident I ever witnessed or dealt with and haven't seen anything like that since.

 

[epa]

Something I loved doing back in my TS06 days was running a train full speed, uncoupling the power from the consist, then stopping the power. The cars would barrel into the locomotives and make quite the mess. This only worked in Realistic mode, AFAIK. What can I say? I was young and dumb.

Of course, I've grown up, now I actually try to run the train properly, following speed limits, stopping at signals, etc., but as others have said, derailments, as gruesome and unpleasant as they can be, are still part of railroading, and I'm disappointed that they were not implemented in TANE, just from a realism standpoint. In real life, if a train goes around a curve too fast, it's not going to stop on a dime. It's going to fly off the tracks. ... and even in TS12, I was still building the ol' pit in the ground every once in a while.

But on the other hand, I understand why real-life railroad companies don't want to see virtual representations of their trains wrecked, especially since they are already hesitant to allow content creators to use their likenesses. I would also understand if someone who may have been affected by a train derailment (injured, had a loved one killed, or lived in that Canadian town that was totally wiped out by that oil train wreck) would be a little sensitive to the subject, and likely wouldn't appreciate seeing videos on YouTube of people deliberately causing massive wrecks.

TL;DR: I understand why N3V may have chosen not to include them, but I do think derailments should be present in the game.

Matt

 

[stevelerro]

Do you know how many hundreds of copies of Trainz 2004 and 2006 i've sold in the past based squarely off making huge hills with tracks that ended and the train would go flying into the air and bounce around? Hundreds of copies of this game sold........because of just that alone! I even found myself laughing half the time at what the trains would do when they bounced around!

 

[MRLK]

removed due to abuse received from zec