I seem to have lost the track somewhere back there. Do we want development to stop so that all those who are comfortable with the old ways can stay in their comfort zone. Or should development continue to bring the newest capabilities supported by advances in hardware to Trainz. It would seem that Trainz has been able to thread the needle here by allowing previous versions to co-exist in the same computer with the latest and greatest thereby giving everyone the choice to stay at the version they are comfortable with. The DLS still has objects made for the older versions for those who haven't downloaded them yet.
As for object creation, so what if the state of the art has gone beyond the capabilities of some. I still make things whenever I need something and can't find the exact object elsewhere. So I don't use PBR and other fancy techniques. I fill-in with my imagination any missing details, having fun while I'm at it.
I don't think the majority of users want development to stop, we just want it dovetail as smoothly as possible with what is already out there , so older routes can keep working or be updated without huge hassles for route makers . Its is also quite legitimate to question whether specific new developments are the best way to move forward or not, for the future prospects of the sim, such as, if HD terrain creates routes that are half a gb in size, then how many users will actually take advantage of the new features , and might it have been better to make other improvements that would be of more use to wider range of users?
As for asset updates and using older assets , as has been pointed out here, there are many assets that still look good that have been broken by changes in the game that render their interactive abilities nonfunctional , the content repair group is a mere handful of users and they have been faced by a extremely large task to fix them, they are doing this for the benefit of EVERYONE but they could be doing other things such as making new content or making their own routes.
I don't think we can assume that there will always be a pool of people who will step up and fill in the gaps that nv3 wont or can't fill, a sim with fantastic looking engines , track and rolling stock will look a bit silly if it has other items that are inferior looking , the more that the graphics improve the worse some items look, these WILL need replacing over time and if the bar is set too high for users to make new items than there will come a time that NV3 will have to do something about this , or their future will be limited.
Part of the problem is that people will pay for the things they consider important ,but this is mostly rolling stock and railway equipment, as JVC and others have found , people will not buy enough of the items such as trees to make producing them profitable. My worry is, if users wont (or cant ) make these items in the future , then who will ? For instance when was the last time that ANYONE made a new animated fully functioning industry ? That particular art seems to have been lost as their creators have died or left the game and as each interactive industry gradually ceases to work due to the game changes , what assets will take their place and who will create them ?
The assumption that all change is good has been proven wrong so many times .I've seen this happen over and over since the 1990s, I was one of those educators who embraced the use of computers, only to see cackhanded implementation because admin thought the presence of the computer itself was enough, no one factored in peripherals, training programs, networking , competent tech staff and all the other things that were essential to make the investment work, millions were squandered because few people thought the program through in a holistic way , when we informed admin there were issues they either didnt want to know or we were accused of being defeatist, I'm afraid there are aspects of the development of trainz that remind me of that process .
