Since the update to GWE I have been until play, I tried the 166and after accelerating fir 2 minutes was only at 30mph. The problem with the 166 before was at 63mph it gave in accelerating but now it just has no power. Seriously this little thing ruined the entire game. Reminds me of when they removed the brakes from the 377 took me months to be able to play again. Can't you focus on fixing bugs and giving us content rather than stuff like this and pus which doesn't work or noticable at all even on routes where supposed to be.
The rocket ship-like acceleration of the Class 166 was quite a serious "bug" for a game that calls itself a "simulator"!
The 166 is pretty much exactly true to how it is in real life acceleration wise and so is not a bug. They are surprisingly slow in real life compared to things like sprinters.
If you're only doing 30 after 120 seconds of accelleration then something's wrong. In 2 mins you should be doing about 50 if not more. With diesel hydraulics you drive a bit differently to diesel electrics in that from a standing start you go straight to step 5 acceleration, then at about 5mph you put it up to step 7, then start winding it back again as you get up to 15 or so. From there you accelerate as normal I drove the 166 yesterday and it worked fine for me If you watch some youtube of these sorts of trains (works the same for 150/153/156/158) you will hear them go to high revs from a start, then notch up, and then notch back again and this is simulated in game
I'm finding the 166 seriously slow. But I find, strangely that it accelerates really good from 70-90mph, but it is a real slog getting from 0-60mph. If they are that slow in real life the engines must be knackered from being in notch 7 90% of the time.
I can only describe the experience I had where I had 1.2miles to first stop and with 750yds left to go iwas only at 31mph, the previous acceleration getting it to 63mph in that time was a bit much but it was over compensated for. I know that saying the fast acceleration yet the 166 was still the 2nd slowest MU in the game after the 101, now it is the slowest by a long shot. As for how I'm driving the 166 I start in notch 3, at 5mph go to notch 5 then at 19mph go to notch 7 Also no reason why 2 or 3 people don't like the 166 acceleration and it get changed yet hundreds ask for intercity routes and DMUs and they say no. Its like there's a select few who get to decide the game As the being a Simulator, there needs to be a decision is it a Simulator for training in which it should be taken off the steam store and console stores or is it a Simulator game! In which it needs to hit the magic formula of 70% Simulator and 30% game. I am for the experience of driving trains and if they did the above split I would be happy but when I drove the 166 it was the first time I have had major pain from this game that I actually pulled the plug out of the wall instead of turning stuff off correctly because that's how much it got to me. Call it a Simulator, make it as a Simulator but at the end of the day it's being sold as a game and that should take precedence. I didn't pay over £300 for different iterations and dlc of this game plus buying an expensive conservatory to play it just for 1 person to go it's not 100% accurate. Hit 70% accurate and leave at that it's fine.
The 166 exists already, to change the acceleration and deceleration characteristics is a matter of a few tweaks in settings To make and design routes and assets from scratch takes months, so that's why new routes and assets aren't as easy to come by Nah, boot it
Hmmmmm... I think that seems a little bit conservative compared to some posts I found on RailUK Forums (one example below): https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...units-driving-techniques.182477/#post-3999720 I haven't used the 166 in TSW for yonks, and I can't remember the physics on it all that well. Only that it was mostly easy to keep to time back then, prior to the update.
