Yeah, there is more than plenty that can help fill out the CRR route, but DTG never bothered with them.... GP7: Can be used in local coal service, There is alot of coal tipples not used on the route, this loco could of served these and brought the cars back to either yard for switching, loco can also sub in as power with the F7 (Same Prime Mover and HP at it) Plus would be the 1st high hood in TSW. DTG easily could of modified the CN GP9R into a CRR spec GP7 and used the F7 sounds for it. SW7/NW2: Used to switch cars in yards. U36C: Even though the CRR didn't like them and traded them away for SD45's. they are an older GE that would of given a different mainline experience than the SD40. 3 loco DLCs, right there, plus if these also added more period accurate cars, you would have a nice immersive 1970's route for Clinchfield....
Longest routes is not really about a GPU. Because the rendering range is the same as on short routes. It's more about CPU and memory
The answer is yes, but I don't know what the timeframe would be. I did mention adding a steam engine but being aware of the big history that comes with doing so in the US.
True, I run a 3060 with 12GB, so I wouldn't have an issue, but I know my potato would. (6th Gen Intel i7 with an RX560) But still it's an idea and a minimum spec can be posted for it so people know.
I don't see much difference in RAM consumption on the Leipzig-Dresden route compared to other routes. My 16GB of VRAM is starting to run out, and I'm finishing the trip with 15GB.
It's not that I looked at the system requirements for DLC (I've never looked at them because I know the approximate performance level of the game), but PC is a separate world and a minority. Va Your 3060 is already more powerful than the one in consoles and has three-quarters of the memory available on consoles (16GB total). Yes, it's easy to say we want a 300km route. I don't think there are any technical obstacles to this. But if it doesn't work on consoles, it's a commercial failure. We need to be realistic.
You've got a good point. I am tempted to get a console, but with the Xbox and Steam consoles coming out soon, which are more like a PC, I kind of wonder if that will be an issue at all? Who knows. But we'll see how it shakes out. I obviously would still keep it limited in length, but it would be a dream to have some of the routes, though.
Yeah, it's that RAM backlog for tracking the movements on the whole route that kills it for consoles. It's not what you can see... it's what is in the "background." Although to be fair, even the really good GPUs in consoles get dated over time since they've stagnated compared to PCs. The new hyped (but no release dates) console "hybrids" are basically just PCs, so maybe it won't be a huge difference in the future. Might just end up with basically a slim PC with a funny controller (even offering Steam support) Which... I get that's what consoles ARE deep down.. the same "guts" as computers... but it's that different UI and "frozen" specs that make them different. Anyway, long story short I don't think CURRENTLY longer routes are good for consoles. We can't predict the future. However, there is often just not enough to do INSIDE of the space we have. As I've mentioned before there are often a LOT of stuff on the maps that just sit there unused. Sidings for example, or stations that are modeled but the trains never stop at. Sometimes even whole branchlines like on Shap that were created and never used. It's not how long routes are... it's how the routes are used. The ultimate example of a "long, unused" route is Kassel. It's over 100 miles of.... nothing. Just one straight line with nothing to break it up. I did an end to end run and that was torture. Like watching paint dry. Just endless nothing. Even Shap (I hate to say it, and I know it has it's fans who adore it) is a bit long for my tastes for how relatively little there is to do/see. It's well done for what it is, but it's just not "engaging." Meanwhile, there's one branchline on it fully modeled not used that has more interesting stuff down there (you can only WALK to) and another branchline party done that you also can't use. Then of course there's SOS and PFR which (steam arguments aside) are woefully empty. BEAUTIFUL maps that would be engaging if there were more traffic and stops in the timetables. So no, in summary "longer routes" don't make things better. If done as they currently are, it just ends up with more emptiness. Fill what we have better first!
That’s one issue. Another is the sweet spot for TSW seem to be around 1-1:30hr time frame for routes. How many people would play a full route longer than that without leveraging the save feature? Not saying people wouldn’t, but I’m curious what that number looks like. I know it’s a commuter rail, but the NYC-Stamford stop would be great if it went to New Haven. For Amtrak, that’s 4 stops between the 5 stations for the NEC Regional taking about 1:45 mins in total. Acela is 2 stops taking about 1:40 (due to all the congestion on the line. Metro-North trains that go up to New Haven are usually express straight to Stamford (with maybe a stop or 2 before, then local all the way to New Haven taking a straight 50 minutes to Stamford and a total of 2:15. How many people would want to play services that long, especially when there are long breaks between stops?
People that REALLY go on about long freight routes should give Run 8 a try. It shows you just how uneventful a LONG freight run is. Now Run 8's realism and dynamic consist system DOES make the beginning and ending FAR better than TSW (you actually have to build your consists and drop them off the right place in order, safely) However, en route that's literal hours of traveling. It can take 10 REAL world hours to get from one side of the in-game network to the other (Los Angeles to Seligman, Arizona for example which is about 400 miles) Most of it is like Cajon Pass too (which is part of it)... empty desert with a few small towns. WHOLE lotta nothin'. The people that ask for those 200+ mile routes in TSW haven't played long routes to see what it's like. Give it a try first. Run 8 isn't as good graphics wise as TSW, so it's not really a "competitor" in my view. Go pick it up, it comes with HUNDREDS of miles of track in the baseline game, all from Needles through Tehechapi all the way up to Bakersfield and lots of side routes so it's worth a look. It gives you a perspective on SIZE in American railroading in the southwest. It's kind of the opposite problem to TSW.
Run 8 also has alot more that can go wrong if you don't know what you are doing (IE broken knuckles) Which apparently is a feature that is possible in TSW (Apparently its there in the editor) but is not enabled.
