Smaller Routes - A Possible Short Term Solution

So with the recent release of Frankfurt S-Bahn the overall consensus seems to be that while it is a good route, the state it is in on consoles is unacceptable. Whether it be the reduced timetable or middling performance, a lot of players are unhappy with the package.

What I'd like to know is how many people would generally be okay with routes being smaller in scale as a partial way of combating this. I've seen a fair few people recently saying that DTG shouldn't have taken on such a large route with busy stations if they knew that it wouldn't run in parity between PC and Consoles and, that instead they should've focused their efforts on making a generally smaller/less populous route that would be the same across all platforms. Counter to this, for as long as I've been lurking on the forums, I've seen plenty of people complain about routes being too short and too linear. A number of people are fed up of "bus stop" services that offer little in terms of varied gameplay.

I think we've all established that the current core cannot reasonably handle the amount of services needed on busy routes when it comes to consoles. Unfortunately this is not something that can be instantly remedied, it might even take years (I don't know, depends how complicated or messy the codebase is). Ultimately, my question is would players in general be okay with seeing less complex and generally shorter routes over routes with heavily reduced AI Traffic?

Also, some people may be wondering why they don't just reduce the price of one version. The reason I haven't brought that up as an option is because the amount of dev time does not change and that would likely not be a viable business decision. In my mind, it's not a realistic solution even if it would be nice.

 

As a pc player that doesn't suffer from these problems. No I don't want to see shorter routes. Especially not to remedy a problem dtg should fix. After all we are paying customers.

 

As a PC user myself, If they link the smaller routes up using their route hopping feature while ensuring all TTs are aligned then I have no big issue with smaller routes as you can carry on with a continuous service but in the case of the 390s, ICE, 80* or any other HS train they need the longer routes, but with that none of these reduced TT, full gas all the way!

I know consoles are getting the sharp end of the stick when it comes to TTs but I would be disappointed if it went to parity as each system design is different and PC versions where vram is better distributed shouldn't be hamstrung to what consoles can and cant do.

 

we need point-to point service that exist in real life , not a fragment from a long journey

 

I don't really care if a route is short or long, as PS5 player i want the full timetable on every route will come out, i have upgraded to gen9 to have what i have missed on PS4, not to have reduced timetable again

 

Exactly my thoughts!

I get where you are coming from - but the core needs to be remedied. Even if they have to take a backseat from releasing routes in the interim and just focus on loco DLC or something idk to keep the lights on. Personally, I'm not interested in short routes, or long routes with reduced timetables.

 

Personally I'm hoping the work DTG are doing on improving the memory situation means we won't need compromises in future.

Also, long/short doesn't equal complex/simple, Frankfurt S-Bahn isn't a long route.

One of the biggest plus points of TSW is the wide range of route types, sometimes I fancy doing a 'bus stop' service, sometimes I want to blast through the countryside at 200mph, other times I want to be doing loads of back and forth shunting work, another day I want to drive a heritage loco up and down some steep gradients, etc. etc.

The last thing I want is for DTG to only ever produce one type of route, I want them to push the game to it's limits, break it, then fix it, but next time fix it before release rather than after the backlash!

 

They've got to draw a line somewhere in there though.

There's Flixtrain services that run from Aachen to Dresden which are represented in the new Köln - Aachen timetable - there is absolutely no shot that they'll ever be possible to drive in their full length in one route.

Obviously Frankfurt S-Bahn - with the route to Hanau already built and only missing the tunnel to connect it - is a different story but on longer mainline routes that's not really a starting point and that's why most routes run City to City

 

I would love some smaller routes provided that they are well replicated and historical. KWVR, SVR, KESR and the Bluebell lines spring to mind!!

 

Preston to Carlisle from JustTrains is approximately 90 miles in route length. I’m a PS5 user and have never experienced any significant problems with the busy timetable. I have created scenarios with 20+ Ai services and apart from the know stuttering issue, there is no major drop in performance.

 

I'm probably biased as I am a PC player but would much rather keep the situation as it is now.

Instead of making compromises, try and sort out the issue to maximise the timetable potential for console players.

I really want to see a Waterloo based route but I don't see myself buying it if it were to be ended at Surbiton instead of having it go all the way to Guildford or Woking. You only really get one full service which would be Hampton Court (assuming they would include it in the first place), otherwise it's just broken up services with maybe the odd fast service here and there. Even if it meant a reduced timetable for me on PC I wouldn't mind the sacrifice.

 

Before the 390s or 8xx family get another long route, the BR Class 43 deserves one first. They’re the most iconic fast train in the UK after all. The HST has only got two shorter routes and the drive on both is just over 25-30 minutes. It’s over before you properly get into the drive.

I agree on timetables though, PC should get the full timetable. If it means consoles have to go the reduced path for optimisation reasons, that shouldn’t mean PC has its timetable reduced.

I also think that the missing services that Liam added to WCML South should be released on PC only. They could be added to console later once optimisation improves on those platforms.

 

I agree regarding the Class 43, however, I just cannot drive the thing without a Valenta engine.

 

There's always optimization that can be done, but consoles also come with hard limits. At some point, it's like bringing a 12 oz. reusable mug into Starbucks and demanding 20 oz of coffee in it because other people can get that much. It's on DTG to fill up the consoles as best they can, but they can't magically give them a capacity equal to PCs.

 

None of the above options...

PS5 and Gen9 consoles are perfectly capable hardware to play the hardware. It's a DTG issue, not a Gen9 issue, and should not be confused. I as a PS5 user have perfectly capable hardware for this type of game and upgraded to a Gen9 to be able to take full advantage of its capabilities in the first place.

I think, A) Polls like this are inflammatory to console users. And further create this 'Them & Us' attitude between PC users and Gen9 console users.

B) I fear by normalising or brushing off the Gen9 issues will only allow this issues to persist and be brushed off by DTG. Again, Gen9s are perfectly capable hardware.

But if they want to alienate and push away 50% of players and customers, they'd certainly be going the right way by normalising such things.

Saying that though, I'm giving DTG the benefit of the doubt as Matt said they are continuing to throw resources into resolving the optimisation and core issues affecting Gen9 and have made some progress... So I'm willing to wait a roadmap or two before drawing a firm conclusion on the direction the game is going for Gen9 console users.

 

We should get more routes like west coast main line 1980s and Mittenwaldbahn which run amazingly on gen 9 consoles

 

As a X-Box Series X player i also dont mind long or short routes, but i also want full time tables with the release, and not a little piece of the cake from it all.

 

And what’s wrong with longer but less taxing routes? For Germany that could be something like the Obereruhrtalbahn. For the UK many of us have £33 ready and waiting for Inverness to Perth or Inverness to Kyle (if set back in diesel hauled days with Class 26’s). A route doesn’t have to start or end in a big city terminus to tick LAMPOIL and we know from the PFR start and end points DTG are not afraid to do this.

 

There is one obvious problem with aligning timetables with routes to allow almost seamless route-hopping (even though it would appeal to me). That is that doing so would force the routes to be set in the same era and use more or less exactly the same rolling stock. Since we have a broad spectrum of users with interests in just about all eras and types of stock, aligning timetables would possibly have a major negative effect on sales of DLCs. In view of current realities in route length, I would suggest that the HST fans go to TSC (oh horrors PC only!) where they could thrash their beast along the London-Swansea or Western and Eastern Main Line routes, for example. And AP mods still have functions not yet seen on TSW models.

 

A compromise. Longer routes with simpler junctions.

 

Also fewer electrified routes. All that catenary on FSB must be adding a horrendous graphical workload.

 

I don't like either alternative so didn't vote. I don't want to " compromise " on either length or complexity. It's up to DTG to cure whatever ails TSW and, if they can't, start over with a different engine.

I hope this issue wth gen9 consoles and the optimization process will be attacked with renewed vigor.

 

I personally believe that a busier route is more appropriate than 50-70 miles and only one train is seen running besides your own.

 

If the TSC graphics were upgraded to the TSW level I would make the switch and probably not come back to TSW.

 

Or if TSC got a proper timetable mode. However reading between the lines of what’s posted elsewhere I get the impression DTG are all but done with TSC, at least so far as the core is concerned.

 

I couldnt agree more. +1

 

I raise your Highland ML / Kyle Line w/ 26s and suggest the West Highland Line with the 156 and 37 as two separate timetables. Double the gameplay, caters to both Modern DMU fans and classic locomotive fans, and is equally as stunning. Even Fort William - Mallaig would do.

Most importantly - no shot of memory issues there.

 

Or do it in 1992 when it was a mix of Loco Hauled and 156s. BR bit the bullet after 1990 and 1991 had some real overcrowding issues with backpackers and cyclists. A route like this may temp me back to TSW which I am all but done with.

 

The length of a route doesn't matter.

Look at Mildmay, a blurry mess, for a 12 mile route. Where as JT's WCML isn't, but is 90 miles.

 

Tbf, the blurry mess is more a TSW5 core issue

 

Actually it started with the June 3rd 2024 update on TSW4 and has been getting worse with every new update.

 

I really liked the direction that was taken with Peak Forest at the time. I remember the Steam Gala scenario or what it was called. I liked the interactive aspects of it. Walking around talking to people, filling up water with the crane and using turntables. That really set TSW apart from TSC and other games. I wish they would have explored this direction more with freight loading, setting up engines, talking to staff and so on... they could have made many interactive (and even small country) routes in Germany, USA and other parts of the world. But they did a complete shift towards modern commuter routes with a strong focus on timetables/driving.

 

There is missing a third alternative:

Memory Optimization combined with not always bringing out new game versions every year and not always adding new unnecessary content like umbrellas, smartphones, new lighting, new more memory intensibe ballast and so on.

Look at Köln Aachen. It has old graphics, but it's still some of the favorite routes of many players.

 

Perhaps Just Trains worked harder on optimization.

 

Yes they should release the routes later for consoles, when they are optimized well.

 

Especially on Kinzigtalbahn in the rural areas.

 

It seems it depends on the developers.

 

On that route, I always find that going either way, the textures are fine until you pass another moving train

 

A third option: instead of building too many new routes that are difficult to handle with current hardware, a remaster or expansion of older routes would be possible. If Thomas and Friends visited all the other routes, they would surely all be remastered. LOL

You could say that consoles slow down development, but using fewer resources more effectively is the key. As already mentioned, TSW isn't an exclusive club experience for PC players, but a multiplatform game. Otherwise it would continue to exist as a niche product and not be suitable for the masses.

I don't think we should skimp on details on train platforms. Why not have dogs or cats in the game? If we want to promote inclusion, wheelchair users or strollers should also be visible on train platforms. Then maybe more memory optimization on buildings or vegetation.

Last but not least, I think the most important lesson with the release of the current Frankfurt S-Bahn DLC is: never divide your player base by reducing content. That only leads to countless discussions and frustration. Ultimately, the TSW steamer needs to get back on track for September with all players on board.

 

The one thing that seems to be emerging with FSN, is not just the performance of these complex routes but that the signalling AI just cannot cope with intensive services on an intricate network. You would think they learned from the fragility of previous routes like BML. Without fundamental changes to “Otto” you are taking a huge chance pushing it too far. You can only do so much deleting stuck trains which, in my case yesterday evening, crashed the game anyway.

 

If I were a developer and had to develop for different platforms, I would adhere to set limits.

These limits are so tight that they even allow games like GTA 5, etc., to run on a cheap PS5 Gen. 9. But it is a limit.

So if it runs smoothly on such limited hardware, porting it to a high-end PC could also work.

But seriously:
UE programming is done in C++. Memory management is therefore a difficult undertaking and must be a top priority. The tighter the limit, the more difficult it becomes. So they try it on the PC first. If it stutters there, the player can easily and inexpensively upgrade. This saves development costs, and the DLC is sold for now. Afterward, you can always see if you can somehow get it to run halfway decently on the console. Until then, there's a reduced version, and it's better to have half of the whole thing than nothing.

In my opinion, the problem is that despite desperately wanting to capture the console market, they're still developing for the PC. The PC community always agrees with the developer that TSW has no place on consoles. So, the neglect continues, with development that prioritizes questionable issues. A self-inflicted problem from the very beginning, and that's why it has to be dragged on. A disgrace...

 

I don't think the length of a route is the problem, it is more what is in your eyeline at any given time and your console or PC has to deal with that. Perfect example is Mildmay, that is a short route, but everything becomes fuzzy wuzzy, that route map you are trying to read on the train suddenly becomes fuzzy and you think your eyes have gone funny. I went into the layers and there are train services that you won't see, but they are there running and that is draining. Fair play to the gentlemen who created it, he threw everything at it, but not everyone can run everything, I am sitting on a 9.5 console, the .5 was expensive to get and in terms of TSW I probably gained a bit? DTG have given console players the ability to adjust the settings almost like a PC, you can have more services, but you have reduced performance, if you want more performance reduce the services, it won't solve all problems, but it helps till DTG can rob, steal and cheat and cheat is very important

 

I doubt dtg have the ability or budget to optimise tsw to anywhere near the same standard as GTA 5.
I can run GTA 5 at 60fps on a gt1030. The same gt1030 can't even manage the menu on tsw5.

Tsw5 uses more video memory than triple A titles with RT enabled.

 

Say what?

 

The First blurry Route was Kassel Würzburg in TSW 3 with the ICE 1

 

TBH not all PC players said so. But there are some posts even in that forum like "Dump your console and buy a PC".

 

Not necessarily... In my case the whole PC needs changing! However even for those with relatively new hardware, going to a high end GPU probably costs near enough the same as buying a console and then you probably need to put a more powerful PSU in too.

 

The cost of the latest high end GPU will buy you 5 ps5's

 

Ironically a whole bunch of the feedback on PC is about the denser timetable having loads of stuck trains and signalling errors, so you win some, you lose some, I guess...

 

That's the problem!

You can't just go ahead and say TSW is being developed for the console (Gen 9) and the PC, and then it won't run on the console, and upgrading the PC is more expensive than a console. Find the error...

I'm not a developer, but I can't imagine that, for example, GTA5 runs less in memory than TSW. I just know that if I set the limit on the PC, I'll automatically run into problems on the console. And if I manage the memory accordingly, that's what will happen.

As long as TSW is being developed on the PC, I don't see a medium-term solution. It will always remain a patchwork. It ties up and costs a lot of resources, which is also reflected in the price. I would consider whether it might not be cheaper in the long run to develop in parallel, or to make a cut and develop on the console and then port to the PC.

But until then, it's still selling pretty well that it's all down to these stupid consoles that can't do anything anyway, but you're so desperate to get your hands on them. It's so sad that PC gamers are only at a disadvantage because of this.

(Warning: contains irony, sarcasm, and cynicism ;-) )