Feature Future Vision: Msfs-inspired Base Content, Dynamic Realism & Cooperative Shared Cockpit

Hello everyone,

I'm a big fan of the Train Sim World series and truly appreciate the level of detail and immersion you've achieved. As we look towards the future, especially with TSW6 on the horizon, I wanted to share a couple of ambitious ideas inspired by other highly realistic simulators like Microsoft Flight Simulator. These suggestions, I believe, could significantly enhance the core gameplay experience, offer immense value, and foster even greater community engagement.

One of the most compelling aspects of Microsoft Flight Simulator is its vast, accessible base game content. You don't need to purchase additional content just to fly anywhere in the world, and a wide array of aircraft are included from the start. I really think Train Sim World could benefit greatly from a similar approach to its core content.

Imagine a base game where the initial offering of routes and rolling stock is significantly more expansive. Instead of just a couple of routes, there could be a much more diverse selection covering different regions and types of operations (like a mix of passenger, freight, and different eras) and a substantially larger fleet of trains included from day one. This isn't about creating unrealistic global railways that stretch from Europe to the USA, but rather ensuring that the included content provides a richer, more varied, and less restrictive experience right out of the box.

Oh, and also, I'd love to see real liveries that you don't have to buy DLCs for. Perhaps this could be achieved by including a broad selection of real-world liveries in the base game, or through robust modding support that truly enhances the experience. A key consideration for modded liveries, especially in a multiplayer setting, would be synchronization – if I'm running a train with an NS livery, it would be amazing if my friends also saw that livery without needing to download it manually. This kind of expanded, accessible content, whether official or community-driven, would allow for so much more creative freedom and endless experimentation. DLC could then focus on highly detailed, specific real-world routes, unique historical rolling stock, advanced scenarios, or major regional expansions for those who want even more. The core experience would simply feel much more open and free, significantly increasing the game's initial appeal and long-term value.

This leads directly into another exciting possibility for enhancing realism and social play: cooperative shared cockpit multiplayer. Imagine being able to pilot a single train with friends, not just driving separate trains, but truly working together within the same locomotive. This would allow for distinct roles, such as one person driving (controlling speed, braking, signals) and another acting as the engineer or secondman (monitoring gauges, managing auxiliary systems like pantographs, doors, lights, safety systems like AWS/PZB/TVM, troubleshooting faults, and communicating with dispatch). For passenger services, you could even have a friend take on the role of a conductor or guard, checking tickets, managing doors, and signaling departures. This kind of multi-person interaction would elevate the simulation to a new level, fostering communication, coordination, and a deeper understanding of real-world railway operations. It would transform a solitary experience into a genuinely collaborative one, adding immense social and immersive potential.

And finally, to truly deepen the simulation experience while still keeping it accessible, I'd love an optional setting for realistic train startups. Just like in MSFS, you could choose to spawn the train fully cold and perform every single step of the startup procedure yourself, flipping switches, testing systems, and bringing the locomotive to life. This would include real-world scenario elements, where factors like weather conditions (e.g., cold or rain) could realistically affect startup times and procedures, making it take longer than in ideal conditions. But critically, this should be optional, so players can turn it off and just spawn with the train ready to drive if they prefer.

And continuing that thread of realism, it would be incredible if every action had a consequence, just like in the real world. This also ties into multiplayer synchronization, ensuring that any action taken by any player within a shared session leads to consistent outcomes. This extends to system failures, unexpected delays, or even rule violations. If you run a red light, for instance, the game shouldn't just abruptly end. Instead, it should trigger realistic consequences - perhaps an emergency brake application, a fine, a recorded incident that affects your career progression, or even a scenario failure that still allows the game to continue with a penalty, rather than a hard stop. This kind of dynamic consequence system would make every decision matter and significantly enhance the sense of responsibility and immersion.

Thank you for considering these ideas. I believe they could truly help Train Sim World evolve into an even more comprehensive and engaging simulation for years to come.

Best regards,
Max van Gelder

 

Revisiting these ideas after a few days, I'm particularly interested if anyone has thoughts on how the 'optional realistic startup' could be best integrated for both new and veteran players.

 

Its already in game with the Expert 101.

For all the other features you suggested, you dont need to wait for any of them to ever be a thing.

I dont think you understand how MSFS works. They did not build the entire world, because everything you get to see as realistic landscape is only a 2d satelite texture with terrain data applied.
The average time to build a route for DTG is about a 1,5 year +/- 3 months, so if they would follow your idea then you would need to wait for 30 years until a new TSW launches. Or just dont wait at all because DTG would have gone bancrupt by then.

 

Well back in the mid to late 00’s, MS did have a vision for a “World Of Rails” approach to train simulation but it never came to anything and got cancelled when they downsized Aces Studios. However at best, for most of the world it would have been simple vector lines on low resolution terrain. The flight sim approach really can’t work with train sims. Railways are just too complex with infrastructure, signalling etc and a generic representation isn’t going to cut it.

 

Cabin operations don't exactly require two people to have roles most of the time as far as I know, everything is operated from the driver's console. The rest, I don't particularly get this idea. At best, it'll be a fun way to chat and vibe with people, that's it.
Only thing that might be interesting would be a multiplayer guard experience.

The rest, well... when it comes to passing red signals, there actually is a consequence that you don't see because the game ends. The game actually does apply emergency breaks and even triggers a zwangsbremsung.
This can be fixed probably by a mod which that turns off the end of scenario screen. Not much more can be done that would be of value, because the theoretical consequences in a game would be meh.

 

Thanks for your input and for taking the time to read through my suggestions. I appreciate you sharing your perspective on these points.

Regarding the "realistic startup" with Expert 101, you're absolutely right that TSW already offers a good level of procedure in Expert mode. My suggestion was perhaps looking a bit further, towards an optional system that could incorporate dynamic real-world elements like weather influencing startup times, and crucially, ensuring every action (from cold-and-dark procedures to driving) is fully synchronized in shared multiplayer. That level of interconnected realism and dynamic consequence isn't quite there yet, but it's something I'd love to see explored for deeper immersion.

And you're right, my post is indeed about a "future vision" for the game. I don't expect any of these larger features to be around the corner or in TSW6's immediate release. Implementing things like robust shared cockpit or a fundamentally different content model would clearly be a massive undertaking, likely years away, if ever.

On the MSFS comparison and development time: I completely agree that MSFS's world generation is based on satellite data and procedural generation, not manually built routes like TSW. My apologies if that wasn't clear in my phrasing. My point about "MSFS-style content" wasn't to suggest DTG should somehow hand-build the entire world or that they should instantly develop 30 years' worth of content. Instead, it was an idea about how the base game might evolve to offer more upfront value and broader freedom, perhaps through a more diverse initial content package or by exploring entirely different technological approaches for scalable content generation for general areas (not highly detailed routes). The goal was to spark a conversation about evolving the core experience and value proposition over the long term, acknowledging that the current development model has its limitations and a different approach could enhance player engagement significantly for future iterations.

Ultimately, these are ambitious thoughts for where the simulation could go. Appreciate your realistic take on the challenges involved!

Cheers, Max van Gelder

 

Thanks for bringing up Microsoft's "World of Rails" vision from the 00s – that's an interesting historical context and shows this idea isn't new, and that it faced challenges.

You're absolutely right that railway infrastructure is fundamentally different and far more complex to generate generically than an open sky and terrain for aircraft. Signals, specific track layouts for junctions, sidings, yards, complex electrical systems (overhead lines, third rail), detailed station platforms, and the precise physics of a train on rails simply don't translate directly from satellite images and AI like broad landscapes for flight sims. A "generic representation" for detailed, operational train driving wouldn't "cut it" for the kind of realism TSW aims for, and I completely agree with that.

My intention with the "MSFS-style content" idea wasn't to suggest an exact copy of their procedural world generation for every single track in TSW, or that Dovetail Games should try to build an entire hand-crafted planet. Instead, it was more about the philosophy of a more expansive, value-rich base game that offers greater freedom and variety upfront, perhaps exploring how technology could enable:

• More diverse base content: A wider variety of included locomotives and routes representing different operational types or regions from day one, giving players more to do without immediate DLC purchases.
  
  
• Connecting existing detailed routes: Perhaps an overarching map or lighter, less detailed "connecting" lines between highly detailed routes could eventually allow for longer, more varied journeys than just individual route sections, even if these connecting sections are less realistic in their infrastructure than the core routes. This is more of a speculative "what if" for future tech.
• Redefining DLC's role: Making DLC truly about premium, highly-detailed expansions of specific regions or eras, rather than what some perceive as fundamental core content.

The core desire is for a less restrictive, more dynamic experience in the base game, fostering more emergent gameplay and collaborative opportunities, which I believe is where the "future vision" for train simulation could eventually head, even if it requires significant innovation beyond current methods.

Appreciate the realistic assessment of the technical hurdles

Cheers, Max van Gelder

 

Thanks for your thoughts on the cabin operations and consequences.

On the shared cockpit / crew roles: You're right that many modern trains, especially passenger services, are designed for single-person operation from the driver's console. However, my suggestion for cooperative shared cockpit multiplayer was less about the necessity for two people on every train in the real world, and more about creating optional, deeper teamwork opportunities within the simulation for players.

In real-world freight, older trains, or even for specific shunting operations and safety checks, a second person (be it a secondman, engineer's assistant, or shunter) can still be part of the crew, with distinct tasks like monitoring systems, communications, or assisting with ground operations. My vision was for players to choose to take on these support roles for a more collaborative and immersive experience – whether it's managing auxiliary systems, reading signals and callouts, or indeed, the multiplayer guard experience you mentioned, which I think is an excellent idea and would fit perfectly into this multi-person crew concept. It's about enhancing the social and simulation depth beyond just a "vibe," by allowing players to truly work together to operate a single train in a more complex way.

Regarding consequences for passing a red signal: You're correct that TSW already applies the emergency brakes (Zwangsbremsung) and ends the scenario. My suggestion wasn't to remove the emergency stop itself, but rather to evolve the consequence system beyond an immediate "game over."

Instead of just ending the session abruptly, the idea was to introduce more varied and persistent in-game consequences. This could include things like:

• Financial penalties/fines that affect a persistent career mode.
  
  
• Reputational impact within a theoretical driver profile.
  
  
• The need for recovery operations (e.g., waiting for new dispatcher instructions, a rescue loco, or a significant delay penalty) that allow the scenario to continue rather than just ending, even with a major setback.
  
  
• Impact on subsequent AI traffic on the route due to your actions.
  

While a mod to remove the "game over" screen is a step, my thought was for a deeper, integrated system where the simulation truly responds to a serious error by making you deal with the aftermath within the game world, rather than simply resetting. For a simulator, these "theoretical" consequences can actually add a significant layer of challenge, learning, and realism, pushing players to truly understand the impact of their decisions.

Cheers, Max van Gelder

 

Trains aren't driven by two people, unless they're steam trains.

 

To be fair, this is not far off how I stream the game anyway. I think my chat might like being able to ride the train.

This I definitely want, also on some of the shunting duties on certain US routes, there's a bunch of manual switches that a second player could throw. Something I think a lot of players overlook by using the map to do it.