Disappointed In Short Routes

I'm writing this as someone who loves the NEC and feel a bit tired of the lack of care it's keeps getting from dovetail but I know this is not only a American problem but also a UK problem to a degree. I feel like we keep getting routes with unfilling destinations NYC to Trenton? New York to Stamford?? The new NJT line only running the electrified portion even though there DLC locomotive for dual mode. It also keeps feeling like a downgrade from TS where we got NYC to Philadelphia/New York to New Haven. There wasn't an excuse back then about not having the septa license why now? And there doesn't seem to be any good reason to not go to New Haven when it's only an additional 41 miles and most of NYC to New Rochelle and grand Central to the Harlem line are from my knowledge the same from previous DLC it feels like multiple used content with a few extra miles to resell it. Especially after dovetail abandoned NYC Amtrak without much care to players who paid for it. I feel like we continue to get less and less "new content" or being able to go distances that feel really big. I loved sitting down and playing for an hour and half on the new haven line.

I know most of this comes down to development time, but I rather wait a few months and get something more fulfilling. Especially when it feels like dovetail is still putting out stuff that is not ready, TSW 6 already have stuff that was promoted but now said to be coming later. Then why even make TSW 6 can we please stop making new games every year this year has showed the most issues with this system of constant new games.

I hope I'm not the only one who feels this way about this stuff but I think a large portion of people are tired of hoping for extensions later and just want a very long and feature rich route, the M8 allows us to get service all the way to New London but we're already stopping in Stamford without much outlook to going father north. I think a lot of people would think the line between New Haven and Providence would be an ultra pretty route with how much seaside and marsh it goes thru.

Anyone else have similar feelings?

 

Well we have seen a glimmer of long routes being possible via extension by DTG pushing Dresden - Riesa out to Leipzig. However that already produced a few muttering from people who feel they are paying twice for the route. Previously, SEHS and LIRR both got extended to make them longer, though admittedly LIRR didn’t add that much.

Though not the US admittedly, the WCML over Shap from Just Trains and last years ECML from Peterborough to Doncaster are pushing towards the 100 mile mark. The trade off there is that both routes traverse relatively sparse countryside with no big urban or industrial areas to model.

Ultimately it does all boil down to time and money vs likely revenue. Another important consideration is, the longer the route the lengthier the runs become which then hits the bottleneck of the single save slot.

However I do agree there needs to be more diversity, the UK has suffered from a plethora of short 15 - 20 mile mark “bus stop” type routes which is why this years South Devon main line is a good choice. You actually get a mix of longer distance express runs and the stopping services to Paignton.

 

I like having a mix of both, actually.
Sometimes I wanna delve in and enjoy a long 1,5 hour run from one big city to another. But sometimes i just wanna spend a relaxed half hour doing a short service from some backwater place to another. Or just a little bit of shunting operation
During weekdays, after I come back from work and have done all the shopping and my chores, I often lack the time and/or energy to sit down for about 2 hours for just one continuous service. I often fall back on some nice cozy 45-minutes-hop in those cases. At the weekend, I gravitate more to the longer runs instead.

Variety is the key. Having multiple options to choose from is the way to go, in my opinion.

 

Just been over in the TSC section and see they are getting a nice new freight route in Wyoming some 72 miles.

Have asked the question over there but worth repeating here, even if third parties are involved, if TSC can get a cracking new long freight route, why not TSW? The whole thing seems to give the lie to the “no access” excuse that gets regularly trotted out when it comes to research of both the line and any train assets. I would Day One a route like Green River in TSW, so once again it’s time we heard solutions not problems (same as all the other “too difficult” cases).

 

I wish we had longer routes. TSW has plenty of choice for shorter playsessions with plenty of services being 30 minutes or even shorter. But there isn't much for the longer playsessions. The only routes that take 2 hours or more are US freight routes. I wish we had more passenger routes that take 2 hours, or maybe even more.

I remember that one time I drove TSC Canadian Mountain Passes DLC, a full length drive that took 6 hours, all in one game session. Ok, I wouldn't do that often, but it was certainly nice to have the opportunity.

Route milage doesn't mean much to me. I measure route length in time, because that's what matters. I realize developing a longer route takes more time (and thus money), so I hope extensions like Leipzig-Dresden are a solution to add some longer routes in the TSW catalogue.

 

IMHO this is all down to DTG failing to develop the Public Editor properly. In doing so they have cut off any chance of the community making routes and releasing them for general use.

As a result the only people capable of producing routes are DTG themselves and, as a result, we often get 'disappointing' releases. (Disappointing as in short in length, poor start/finish points, lack of paths, poor lighting, lack of rolling stock etc etc).

Had the editor been allowed to flourish then I bet we would have already seen 10-20 extra routes released and, possibly, a small amount of additional rolling stock. Now that would've been great.

The other point is if you do see anyone making progress with the current incomplete editor then they often get hoovered up by DTG meaning that that project is lost to the community. Radio silence results and, to quote Freddie, it appears that "another one bites the dust".

Curiously there seems to be a fair few community members that support this approach. I genuinely think that these people simply don't realise what they could have extra in TSW if they worked collectively to push DTG to finish the editor and allow community projects to be released. Many seem to have lost either the ability or curiousity to 'tinker under the bonnet' which is a shame.

DTG finish the Editor, produce proper documentation for it and allow us the capability to create the routes you seem incapable / unwilling to release. In the end that approach will make more money for you as the game becomes more interesting to the buying public.

 

You mean like the mess that TSC community projects are? Spread across the internet on websites that may or may not longer exist, having lists of dependencies which may be either paid or free, if they respective host website still exists. Requiring hours of searching the web and fiddling with files to get it working. And obviously, only for PC and needing a complete reinstall with every yearly TSW game.

No thanks. I don't think we're missing out on that. I'd rather have these 'community projects' being upgraded as third party developers releasing DLC that just requires a simple payment and a click on the install button to get it working.

 

And that answer is exactly why TSW will never reach the heights it could do

You have dissed the more creative community members, given the thumbs up to yearly releases, handed DTG absolute control and, in doing so, have ensured that TSW doesn't reach it's full potential.

All in one post. Well done Sir

 

I do agree to some extent with regard to the scavenger hunt in TSC for routes and assets though generally I tend to confine myself to stuff off Steam, either DLC, Marketplace or Workshop. Look no further than my comments regarding what looks like an excellent Czech route. The original links are long dead going to a hosting or malware site. Then a suggestion to visit another forum to get new links requires you to make an account there to see the information. No thanks, I have enough places harvesting my email addresses as it is.

As regards the TSW editor, I would have been quite happy just to have been able to make a scaled up model or miniature railway, but the obscure processes and lack of documentation completely kybosh it at the hobby level. I’m guessing that’s because DTG don’t want freeware competing with their expensive DLC plus, of course, the fact any third party routes will be PC only. In short, they want absolute control over our TSW experience.

 

Sure, a more accessible editor would be nice. It'd also be nice if there was a central cross-platform place to upload and share community created routes. I'd encourage that.

TSC has a small number of community created routes hosted on the Steam Workshop, the more easy-to-use part of the content the community has created for TSC. Uploading things to the Steam Workshop means you can only use assets that are available on Steam, so official DLC, nothing else. I understand that's a limitation, but it makes it easier for users to get stuff operational. These few community projects had a clear list of which DLC was required to get them to work. Unfortunately, a number of DLC is no longer available due to licensing issues, in a similar fashion of TSW's Caltrain content.

So even on an official supported sharing platform, you'd run into problems with dependencies being no longer available. That sucks, both for the new user which can no longer obtain these community projects, and for the creator, as there's less people being able to enjoy their work (isn't that part of what makes modding fun?).

So IMO it'd be beneficial if community projects were helped keeping things clean. And by becoming a third party developer, they'd also generate some income for their hard work. There'd also be some QA to ensure the content meets a certain minimum quality. There's some great community created TSC routes, but there's also a lot of garbage. IMO such a system is a win-win for both the community and the creators. Obviously a more accessible editor would help community modders making the first steps, which in the end leads to more content available to the community.

 

QA sounds like new invention I mean Cardiff city still has that bug where after doing 1 service timetable doesn’t clear so you can’t see running board for subsequent services and also the class 153 if doing guard mode AI still drives 153 from rear cab I bet though dtg made sure and prioritised discord server to be bug free

 

That is the second essential part of this. (Didn't think about it in my first post). I'd back Mr Purno 100% on this.

Yes you would get a few pennies but would also have to give up control (quality, length, timetable) to get them. Not all of us want to do that.
But I totally accept your point of there being some "absolute garbage out there". Perhaps we could incorporate some sort of ratings system for any route uploaded. (But this is taking the thread in a different direction).

 

Third party developers don't give up that control. They can do any route they want and take as long as they want. But DTG is not a publisher that pays them upfront. So they have essentially two options: do their third-party activity as a side project and have another job that pays the bills. Then it can take a long time to release or do it full time but then they are limited by financials as well: how much money can they afford to pay before seeing anything in return?

 

For me the most disappointing routes were CCN & MAC, the latter of which obviously suffered dev issues & I think was lucky to see the light of day.

CCN being disappointing due to the lack of route & MAC being disappointing as it’s well built but under-realised.

Also back to third parties, you have the Mildmay line extension in the works too, so I don’t know how much of the above logic regarding third parties translates to reality.

Back to topic though, im quite dissatisfied with how routes are being handled once again, for me milage is neither here nor there, but logic is the big hitter. There is no logic in what CCN offers, you’re basically shunting DMU’s as opposed to operating a commuter network, then there’s MAC which is just abit sad in the run it offers you.

 

plenty of long routes for me that have services that take's more then 1 hour to finish
for some the routes are too short , exactly right or too long
good that for me it does not matter at all
so long as i can enjoy driving a train

 

Another point about doing routes for release through DTG and getting a commission is that if you want to stay on the right side of the law, you need to declare that as income for tax purposes. In the UK that means having to fill out self assessment tax returns even if your main income is PAYE. The Inland Revenue will then adjust your tax code for the following year to ensure they get the income tax you owe. For many, not worth the hassle for what will probably amount to a bit of beer money.

Far better to facilitate those who would like to do something but distribute the end result as freeware.

 

Are you excited for Rivera line and voyager what are your thoughts

 

yes I am
no thoughts yet about it
did not watch the previews of the routes

 

The Riveria preview is night before early access starts

 

Save the best until last i hope.

 

That’s what makes me lose interest in TSC, I see so many freeware routes I want to try out, but then i check the list of extra content needed (30+ items sometimes) and immediately click off.
It’s too expensive, at least with TSW you know where you stand and layers are optional.

 

Absolutely this. And whether the fault is at my end or not, TSC has become unreliable and uninstalled again after it simply wouldn't run, earlier this evening. Like MSTS before it, fun while it lasted but time to move forward.

 

While you identify a genuine problem, it is also a solved problem in other software. As part of the opening up it needs, TSW should implement some sort of basic package management where (in basic terms) add ons are hosted centrally or at least in defined places and semantically define what other third party packages they need. Then the installer/uninstaller for these packages can keep track of the dependencies for you.

 

Honestly I'm super excited for the Devon route, it seems like it will not only be really scenic but also a good mix of services and a good distance, honestly is the bigger reason I wanna pick up TSW 6 even though there is a us commuter route

 

I remember that was one reason the person who was making the new haven to Boston line stopped working on the ts versions was because they wanted to work on TSW but all we really got out of it was the Boston to Providence route while it's an okay route as someone who lives and railfan on it it feels a bit subpar in a lot of the scenery and assets.

 

London Euston to MK in a Pendo was like an April fools day joke, so yes I concur.

 

As long as there are logical start and end points, length doesn't matter.

 

So going off that logic the old shuttle from Aberdeen to Aberdeen Waterloo would be fine as a route for you?, (about like 4 miles or something and would be set pretty far back) it’s technically a logistical start and end since it was officially the route hehehe,

they actually have a second line which would be more of my interest but this is just pointing out length does matter!

 

Not that easy to become a third party developer. Involves licensing, taxes etc... doing it freeware is much easier. There are around 100 routes uploaded to Railsim on the German side for TSC. I would say 5 or 6 of them are worth downloading. I think every community (US, UK, Germany etc.) has got a couple of freeware diamonds that should be in every collection. It is a shame that TSW does not have that.

People complaining about requirements don´t understand that using many different assets makes a route really shine and look realistic. Developers don´t do it to annoy players, it´s done for a reason. Everyone is always asking for great detail in routes, right?
To me, it sounds lazy and disrespectful to dismiss people who have spent hundreds of hours building a route in their free time with: 'I can’t be bothered to download stuff from websites and hunt down assets".
If TSC builders had built routes for themselfs and never uploaded them, people would have also complained. No matter what you, it´s always wrong.

 

How about Stourbridge Town to Stourbridge Junction?

 

Hehehe yeah

 

I love the way the OP goes

As if 41 miles of urban landscape can just be tossed off in a weekend, and incurs no development cost.

41 miles is a whole route by itself!

 

Just give some coffee and a computer I will get done it a week /j

 

What I was getting at was logical places to start and end rather than cutting routes off I the middle of nowhere.

Which is where length comes in. Because a longer route is likely to start or end somewhere illogical, whereas shorter routes aren't.

 

So long as we get George, the legendary Stourbridge Jn cat.

 

We have enough trouble getting the TSW passengers to behave without, now, introducing puss-engers as well.

 

He’s great. I follow him on Instagram. Legend!

 

If they’d focused on just going straight to Birmingham new street, without the other tube and overground services faff (which imo should’ve been used as AI like on the Mildway line) than we’d have a longer route. When driving on the WCML I had no intention of driving anything by else but the pendolino or the 350. That should’ve been the main selling point.
TSW8 or 9 were probably see an extension to Birmingham though if the demand is high enough.

 

And very friendly he is too!

 

Because TSC isn't TSW?
If you think TSC is better that's fine, but don't pretend they are of the same level of detail or programmed the same.
It's like asking why bicycles don't fly because they have wheels like airplanes.

 

This has got nothing to do with comparing TSC to TSW which if you read some of my recent posts is little short of frustrating.

No, it's that DTG squeak about licensing and access to produce such routes for TSW, yet here we have a fine long freight route, yes developed by a third party, being released for TSC. So it can be done, seems to me it's more a case they don't want to for TSW.

 

It has everything to do with it because they are entirely different things. While there is some element of truth to the fact that the audiences for TSC and TSW are different (a ton more long distance freight and steam fans in TSC for example), it remains the fact that TSC is a lot simpler than TSW. They aren't even the same game engine.
It'd be fairer to compare TSW to Fortnite than TSC.
Just compare how much data is in the comparable DLCs to get an idea of the scale.
Preston over Shap route for TSW is about 17.6 GB
Preston over Shap route for TSC is about 1.9 GB

Those are not comparable sizes.
The computer power to run them are also massively different.
Steam recommends about 2 GB of RAM and 6 GB of storage space to run the TSC version.
The recommendation for the TSW version is 16 GB of RAM and 80 GB of storage space.

Again, not at all comparable.

A 200+ mile route would be pushing 40 GB and given how length in part determines performance (since TSW loads in the whole route before you play to run the more in depth "moving map" and TSC uses a much simpler method), performance degrades in TSW the longer the route is.
So if 16GB is "recommended" doubling that means you are crashing quite a few peoples' computers and consoles are SCREWED.
An XBOX S is the top of the line and only has 10 GB of RAM and 512 GB of hard drive space standard. As I said, you're going to kill your frame rates or crash it with it's limited RAM and if it's already 300 GB for existing content, that's 60% of your XBox with just one full install of TSW. Doubling the length of routes means you will only be able to fit half as many, they will run like LOVE (if at all on console), and you'll have to delete some routes over time if you want to put anything else substantial on your console. (AAA games can be 100 GB each too without DLC)
So the console players are hosed.
And they can't add more since they're self contained systems.
That's the whole selling point of the console in the first place.

Meanwhile, testing by DTG shows MOST people don't do more than 45 minutes to an hour max. So the amount of people who would bother to play all 200+ miles is very very small.... out of an already small playerbase, limiting sales. Routes twice as long also cost twice as much to make so you'd need to charge twice as much.
Would you pay $90 for a route that's twice as long as Preston over Shap?
Few would...most won't.
So you have to pay twice as much to make a route that less than half the number of players will buy (and probably won't even run on consoles)...losing money.

Meanwhile, if you're DTG... you look at TSC...which you ALSO OWN offering plenty long routes, many of them steam and freight.
What is DTG's motivation in trying to convert that to TSW?
Seems like a lose-lose-lose since the only people demanding it be in TSW (ie that can't play those longer routes in TSC) would be console players...who likely can't handle the new routes on consoles anyway.

 

I mean, Brandon seems to help out more in the case of signaling work around the NEC for DTG on their routes, which it seems like most players really enjoy. (Such as the upcoming Morristown route)

 

tl:dr your rather unnecessary essay…
My point was nothing to do with the file sizes or anything else. Simply to point out that DTG are claiming they are not doing US freight routes because of lack of co-operation from the railroads. Yet here we have a third party route, released through DTG (and incidentally 70 miles, not 200 miles) which must have been licensed and fully researched. So if a third party can get the necessary signalling, track and gradient information plus use Google Earth and other resources to produce the route, at the least it throws the spotlight on DTG for failing to do so for TSW. I mean for god’s sake, they could ask or even pay this guy for his research, probably happy to help.

Anyhow it is what it is and I still harbour the view just like the NYC Subway situation, there is too much of a “can’t do” mindset within the TSW management team when it comes to doing something that requires a bit of ingenuity and lateral thinking to get the information.

 

Could also be a return on investment.

US freight routes have been the lower selling and least popular routes on TSW whenever they come up on polls and general vibe overall, and aside from those hard core and vocal minority, DTG feels like it's better to focus on US passenger routes where they have gotten access, then try to sell a route where the masses dont have a care for. So DTG just dont see a profit into putting effort into making them. And just using the existing content as layers where possible.

(I dont know how many times when someone asks about routes and people will usually mention they dont own or play US freight routes cause they find them boring.)

Which really leaves HIS as the only group that can actually do anything, but I feel like they'll fall into their TSC tactics and release subpar content because people will buy bulk US freight products due to the lack of them produced by DTG. (Worth noting as well that Milepost is one of the additions HIS made to their team for TSW)

 

Always hated the whole vocal minority saying because it leaves out the like 80% of players that don’t use the forums, I say the reason why usa freight isn’t being bought that often is because of the lack Tod 4 lighting and up to date standards

like I wasn’t even to interested in us freight before I tried clinchfield railroad and loved it, that’s what got me into us freight since I gave it chance with the old lightning, most people interested in the older routes are hesitant to buy them because they are not to date

 

Probably the point my feeble brain was trying to make! But they brush over it with tales of access difficulty etc.

Well guess there’s a reason after all to keep TSC (and Run 8) installed!

 

Its a shame really, Clichfield wad one of my favorite routes for TSW2 when it came out, it offered things the TSC route didn't with its branch lines, but it was the worst selling TSW2 era route and support for it was shortly dropped.

Not even Matt's "supposed" personal fixes for it ever came to.

There is so much the route could of built on, including more era appropriate stock and locos, given DTG more stuff to use for a 70s-80s era US route, but no...

 

And what's sad is if I I remember right Matt was making mentions in the lead up to launch that there gaps left in the timetable that could be filled later. So it kind of seems like they probably did want to do a GP unit or something along those lines at one point or another.

 

Vern, as much as I respect you as a forum veteran, it's all irrelevant to the OP and frankly irrelevant to the greater topic. If you can't have "long routes" because of hardware limitations then arguing about the licensing for "long freight routes" is pointless as a sub-set of the other group. Yes, you can say you meant short freight routes...but that's irrelevant to the OP.

The OP wanted to know why we can't have long routes and I explained with details and examples. Sorry if being on topic and informative was frustrating to you. I felt the same frustration seeing you not address the OP's question of why they can't get a super long, richly textured route with full features.

To be clear since this is the internet and there is no in person facial expressions or voice tone, I'm not upset with you at all, and not accusatory or combative. Simply explaining my point to a friend over a pint at the pub as if discussing a disagreement about football.

That's my intent anyway. I apologize if I upset you.