I did kind of get that vibe, actually. I have always had a bit of a love/hate feeling towards JT (and their flight sim side), Obviously not the developers or coal face but their management side. I mentioned the piggy backing on huge amounts of Kuju content for their TSC routes but more recently we had the farce of the Met Line where you had to buy the route and required stock separately. That practice also seems to have spilled over on to some of their other TSC content where additional purchases are required to run all the scenarios.
I think ultimately players don't want to have to change between timetables for variety. We want 1 varied timetable for the route. It's silly to have some things visible on some timetables, and some only on others - unless of course it is a newer improved timetable, such as BKL, CCL, GWE eventually etc. Development companies should collaborate to allow this - ultimately they are contributing to the same game, published by the same company.
You know, JT and SHG are competing with each other. Both are in competition to produce 3rd party content for TSW. Makes sense JT would be hesitant to allow their competitor to modify their content.
Whilst yes there is some degree of competition, there is also a degree of complimentary products which benefit from co-operation. Take Blackpool Branches as an example. Rivet and DTG both allowed their products to be used as layers (Rivet also allowed JT to layer in the Pacer on WCL). Would Blackpool Branches have been the success it was had it just have been the Pacer? The answer is of course no. 3rd parties shouldn’t be able to cherry pick when to collaborate depending if it suits them, it’s got to be a 2 way street or the whole thing is at risk of falling down.
Exactly this, particularly as it’s all channeled through DTG as part of the TSW “brand” for publication,
Although they are, they shouldn't, because this should, in theory, be a friendly community where the developers cooperate to deliver high-quality content. It's a niche playerbase aftetall. Part of this is like that because TSW5 doesn't have a significant competitor.
Yes and no. There's "allowing it to layer in" and then there's "come fiddle with the code of our timetable." Two different things. One is parking your car on your neighbor's driveway. The other is letting your neighbor fiddle around with the engine and take it for a spin. I can see why they'd want to keep things in house.
The timetable doesn't now because the 86 isn't in game. You don't know what the future holds. Why do you NEED it desperately in a timetable that doesn't need it (didn't pull the War Wagons in real life) You literally have a timetable with it in it that is NEXT to it on the screen in game. It's no more work on your part to click on the JT timetable and use the 86. Self-imposed hardship.
The problem isn't that clicking a button to choose a timetable is too much work. The problem is that neither of the two timetables is as good as one unified one would be: if you play the Cargo Line timetable, you will get inaccurate AI traffic (87s where there should be 86s), and if you play the default timetable, you will get no Cargo Line AI traffic at all.
So you get what you have now. When it's released. When the 86 doesn't exist. Couldn't JT just then toggle the 86 to sub in for the 87 anywhere it's found? I don't believe it's adding the 86 specifically TO the timetable in addition. They're just allowing you to use it on some routes the 87 is doing. That's something JT could do that wouldn't involve changing any timetable. Just allow the 86 to replace the 87 anywhere it's found in game. (which would mean the London-Euston route, etc too) So this issue is bigger than just SHG's one pack isn't it?
As the Class 86 hasn't been released yet there's a lot of assumptions being made here. 1. Specific paths in the JT Timetable will be allocated to the Class 86 if I've read the info correctly. 2. If Skyhook create a timetable bug, having used the JT TT then they could theoretically render the whole JT route unusable. 3. If JT or Skyhook modify their TT in the future it could have repercussions on the others DLC. 4. It would be up to DTG to request use of the Class 86 from JT for use in other routes, JT cannot modify how other DLC subs work. 5. There are community TT that exist that will probably utilise the 86 (as a sub) like the OTS WCMLs TT. 6. JT still aim to add the 86/87 into their Blackpool Branches DLC at a later stage. 7. It's possible that adding even more layers to an existing route, Military to WCML might create performance issues with the route, which is something that the original DLC creator and DTG as the publisher would aim to avoid.
It's been stated many times that the 86 won't have any extra paths, they are being subbed in to cross country services.
Of course they should. They're separate companies working on separate projects. Whether they collaborate or share, and on what terms, is a business decision between them.
I guess I thought that DTG had more control over content published under their brand name, including this kind of collaboration. I guess I was wrong. I wonder if this applies just to JT because of their size and history with DTG or are all 3rd parties in complete charge of their content.
My understanding is that 3rd parties have free reign over what they want to do (as in, DTG can't tell them to make a certain route or train, or only create routes in a certain era), the main barrier being they can't publish it themselves through TSW, so has to be approved by DTG first.
Kinda correct... third parties don't have free reign, they have to get a project approved by DTG first as you could end up in a scenario where more than one third party could end up developing the same DLC at the same time. DTG can also require changes to be made. For instance Just Trains had alcohol on sale in the kiosks in their Preston-Carlisle route and was asked to remove it all. DTG will obviously give thoughts on other aspects, as you say a third party can choose whatever time period they like, but DTG can give feedback that what's been chosen isn't suitable/likely to sell lots. In terms of "quality" of the DLC It seems DTG only require the DLC works as intended, and none gameplay content (like scenery) seems to not factor in to the equation (as seen by complete turds like Fife Circle).
Really? How petty. I never realised the PEGI rating was so strict but hey we can have people wandering across the track getting virtually splatted and they don’t bat an eyelid…
Further to the above, I was playing a bit of Transport Fever 2 the other day, which also has a PEGI 3 rating, and one of the items you can make and transport is… alcohol! So seems to me DTG are perhaps being over cautious and more than a little petty about this, particularly if the alcohol was just beer and not stronger spirits etc. Take this to its logical extreme and you wouldn’t have pubs anywhere on a TSW route for fear some 4 year old playing the game says to mummy and daddy, “Off down the Fox and Hounds for a pint of mild”. Probably couldn’t call the pub Fox and Hounds either…
Is it just generic alcohol though? I have a feeling DTG objected as it was named as specific drinks. I don't know either way, just theorising. Edit from PEGI website:
Given that DTG are working with Mattel on Thomas related content It probably figures that they would wish to maintain a clean image.
SCS is another company that plays it safe with their cargo's as well, with Wineries (Labeled as Vineyards) and no alcohol, just everything thrown under "Beverages" (At least for ATS). Meanwhile back in the day Railroad Tycoon 3 had you carry alcohol and ammunition.
And that quirky little sailing game (Sailwind) actually had the player smoking tobacco to buff their resistance to fatigue on long voyages. Go figure. Though I could never get the hang of navigation in that one, or how to rig the sails if the wind was against you. GPS and an outboard motor, please.
LucaZone Adam. If I could give some constructive feedback...... Can the team please make "scenario's" more engaging, rather that simply copying a "drive from A-B" Timetable service? Scenario's should encourage gameplay that's different to a simple TT service. The difference should not be ""it's raining""..... With freight workings it would be logical that we have to walk to our locomotive, drive it from a siding/yard to the head of our train, possibly add/remove some wagons before departure, maybe we should be prompted to check wagon handbrakes are off, maybe one could be "accidentally" set to ON for us to find.... maybe en-route we encounter a problem with a wagon in our rake and have to set it down in a siding...and when we arrive at our destination do the opposite, maybe our train and loco detach, maybe we need to pin down some wagon brakes, maybe we need to report to someone on the yard..? Maybe a different scenario would be to rescue the broken wagon, take it somewhere, get it fixed, deliver it to a yard? All ideas, and some of these we nicely implemented with Cargo Line Vol.2 Aggregates DLC. But Vol 3 and 4 have suffered at the hands of the copy and paste monster. Appreciate any comments around why the above is not a viable proposition
"Alcohol" doesn't mean "booze" though. It's a family of industrial chemicals. Grain alcohol for example. That's a valid non-booze cargo. Far different from an actual bottle on a store shelf. I'm not convinced that's what this is all about, just saying that "alcohol" is a much bigger thing than just "booze." Ethyl Alcohol is just one small sub-group.
In RRT3, it literally comes from a Brewery, its icons being a wine bottle and beer mug, even the ESRB rating lists "Alcohol Reference" Of course, that was 2003, and things have changed in over 20 years..... Cant speak for Transport Fever 2, as I never played the campaign mode which has the alcohol as cargo.
It's been a long time since i played Transport Fever 2, but don't recall "alcoholl." Is it a dlc? List of indsutry and cargo in game from company website https://www.transportfever2.com/wik...memanual:simulation:cargo:tf2_cargochains.pdf
It's on the third vanilla map set in Mexico where you transport cactus juice to a factory where it is distilled into alcohol for export. You need to shift 30 units to clear the objective (which takes a long time using horse and cart!).
