So we know that the awc 805 will be coming soon, and the 90 looks like it’s not majorly far behind. But my concern is that because there’s multiple third parties making contributions to the route, will there be potentially 3 different timetables? My biggest concern is that the 90 will not layer onto the 805 timetable, and vice versa if the 90 comes with its own timetable, I don’t believe that’s been confirmed yet though. It’s the same issue with the expert 101, and I think the coordination between third party dlc could be better so that we can get more out of add ons
The multiple timetables annoy me Personally why they can’t just have one timetable and add to that is beyond me.
It's their product, their choice. Also, from what I've gathered by a few posts somewhere on here, they (the ones developing the 90 and the 805) don't exactly get along.
It’s just another example of how disjointed TSW is. Multiple timetables can just go on the list with all the other things that there a multiple versions of purely because devs either can’t or aren’t allowed to figure out the technical gremlins behind having one modular framework. Half the reason TSW is in the state that it’s in is because the publishing approach is to just throw everything into a box rather than neatly integrating content. The 90 in theory can substitute into most WCML freight runs, however given ATS made a mess with the 66 & now we just randomly have a separate version of that (separate to the already messy 66 selection), I suspect substitution won’t be happening. Separate timetables do make sense with things like the 2019 TFW pacer pack & 2025 WCML though. It’s just going to take AAS setting it up for the various packs, though that in itself is likely a nightmare as third parties are seemingly struggling to play nice together in that regard.
Where DTG need to get a grip, if need be bang a few heads together and tell the 3P’s you will work together or forget about us publishing your content. It’s not as if TSW is like TSC where 3P’s can publish what they like, where they like. DTG are supposed to be keeping a tight oversight on things.
One would hope that AAS have worked with ATS to implement the Class 90 timetable within their upcoming one. It would make the most logical sense.
Think about timetables before you complain about multiple versions. How would you use a timetable which is set in the modern era and is mixed with who knows what rolling stock from earlier times, or using a version of the stock which is materially different from current versions. Then there is (especially in the UK) the bizarre circus of ever-changing operators and liveries and changes over time to the track/station layout. It seems to me that layer toggling aleviates that issue. One question occurs to me though - does TSW pre-load all the timetable versions, because that certainly could be a potential problem.
100% agree! It's already bad and getting worse with each release, and it seems like especially the veteran TSC devs who are used to being king of the castle can't deal with being (in a small way) part of a bigger organization. The completely new devs don't seem to share the same parochial attitudes thank goodness. I frankly have no sympathy for them engaging in anti-consumer nonsense like we've seen wrt Cargo Line timetables on Shap, and the ATS/AABS beef. A 3rd-party can go create their own train game, or publish it for free as a mod if they don't want to play nicely.
I think having a 2002 timetable and a 2019 timetable to suit different rolling stock is acceptable. What is not is having 3 versions of the same year because they are offered by different 3rd parties. Though I do understand the issue Skyhook had with Revits timetable implementation. This again should drop back to DTG having a standard for how timetable and pathing works, so integration and standardising future updates is easy.
ATS are happy to work with any third party we hold no grudges at the end of the day it’s better for the community and us as developers to make the products as playable as possible
It would be good to have all the products in one timetable. I don't mind having separate timetables, for example the new 142 for Cardiff offers a different timetable in a different year, but if they are fundamentally the same, it is a little ludicrous.
Absolutely 100 percent and great to hear this. A better bigger team is more enjoyable than many small teams
I don’t think the issue is expressly “X team doesn’t like Z team”. It’s more one studio is building something one way, then another a different way & so on. ATS for whatever reason made a whole new 66 option, instead of being a sub selection which splits which one you need to pick to access services. Skyhook have had numerous issues with creating timetables because Rivet built out Fifes TT in a way that caused issues, then there was the military pack problem with WCMLOS on the back of JT. Then there’s Rivets 66’s which are some of the most unique versions we have, something we really need when that loco is all we have for modern UK freight, but it literally won’t work with 90% of the game. Now there’s JT who have oddly locked the ATW 150 & 153 from subbing. I could go on but the point is the wildly inconsistent development methods are really convoluting the game in ways it really doesn’t need, and the outcome is incredibly poor quality of life factors, decreased content value & generally just a messy game.
I lost the London to Milton Keynes route when i transfered everything over to 6 totally disappeared off my future purchases for some reason so i hope the 90 will layer onto other routes
Have you contacted DTG about that. Do you play on gamepass by chance as by doing that you don’t own the routes per say that ship with TSW 5 so you won’t have them in TSW 6 unless you bought the route
Yeh they cant do anything without proof of purchase but it disappeared off my purchase list so they cant do much its frustrating i got the free starter pack everything else transferred over but that route the pendalino even transferred over ok it came with that route so its odd that transferred but not the route
The Pendolino is a separate pack to the route. If you played TSW5 via gamepass & didn’t actually buy it, then you never owned the route & that’s why you don’t have it now. If you did buy it, you’ll have an email receipt which is your proof of purchase.
I had tsw5 on gamepass and bought the route thats the thing my proof of purchase has disappeared so i have to re buy it in a sale possibly
It isnt ive looked i bought it the same time as the pendalino thats in the purchase history but not the route its strange
I hate to sound like a LOVE and if someone was telling me that I didn't buy something that I defo thought I did, I would be annoyed myself, but... From all the provided evidence, it really sounds like you did not actually purchase it.
I did purchase it i done about 30 timetable services on it but i havent got proof of purchase so nothing can be done i will have to re buy in a sale
If you go to the Microsoft website and go to your account there's an option (the icon looks like a shopping trolley) to view your purchase history, surely it'll be in there.
i second this, seeing as the 90s now out it feels even more relevant. unless i’ve missed something there’s not been any 100% guarantee that it’ll layer onto tvl, and whether it’ll be with the default timetable. also looks like there’s been little progress with a b2c layer
It is true though that ATS and All Aboard do not get on well, I don’t want to speculate about such things but maybe that’s it
This is the problem when so many parties work on content for tsw. It's great, but then when they don't co-operate it leads to products that should interact just being separated. And to be fair it isn't exclusive to AAB and ATS. There's also the separated timetables for Skyhook's Cargoline stuff too
After playing a bit of the 805, I reverted to the Nuclear timetable, as it's the best and most complete of the 4 available (Intermodal is of course next best, with only a handful fewer services). This route is at its best with a full timetable.
Haha, I'm the absolute opposite. I appreciate it can been frustrating, but I love having options. If the Class 90 is in one but not the other, I'm fine with that. We're a long way from the days when a busy mainline route has one main type of traction making it feel dead and/or unrealistic (ECML was the last one). So long as each timetable has a relatively realistic roster of traction then I'm happy to have some choice.
What options do you get though? These could all be layers that turn on & off, instead we just get worse timetables that offer no variety in gameplay other than less trains. E2G for example makes sense since you switch between electric & diesel TT’s, but the WCML versions are just senseless & born out of not wanting to test TT’s.
no excuse. they can either get along or call it a day with tsw because everyone wins if they make an agreement
It depends how much is missing and how realistic it feels. As an example based on reality, it would be more than feasible to drive a train in 2026 from Milton Keynes to Crewe without seeing a Class 90 hauling freight. So its omission wouldn't bother me. Though "cards on the table"; I only briefly worked for Freightliner, I preferred working on a busy commuter route, so I can take or leave freight trains. If we had a new timetable for London Commuter but it still didn't include the omnipresent Class 700, I'd be frustrated.
They could be layers to turn on and off in an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world nor do I think it's "born out of not wanting to test TTs". Kind of reminds me when you hear commuters say something like "Greater Anglia can't be bothered to run trains on time". As I frequently have to say, I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that. Not all the reasons and all the problems DTG and other developers encounter will be made public so when something like this happens I trust that a compromise has happened. With so many different DLCs dropping for the one line, I think it'll take a few years for us to get to a point were each section has what we could call an ultimate timetable. I get the frustration, it's just something that doesn't bother me. I try each timetable then generally stick to the versions I enjoy using because it has the mix of traction I like. I'd rather have more timetables than just one for each route.
What would be good, is that if DTG actually implemented a WTT. So for those of you who don't know what the WTT is, it's known as the working timetable, and it's what the real UK rail network runs on. It's a Network Rail created timetable, that all services are submitted into, and then NR/GBR will then advise a TOC or a FOC whether they can run their train in the said timetable. So what we could do with, is that when a route is created, the original timetable of that said route becomes the WTT for that route and held by DTG (who should really create a role of Timetable planner within their office). This base timetable should in theory be built with spare freight, stopping, express paths in it as standard, even if the developer doesn't have rolling stock to fill those paths. Then when a new loco or train is built within the simulator, the creator's of the new piece of rolling stock can then submit new paths for those trains to run in the routes WTT, this is then approved by DTG as part of the QA process, and then those pieces of rolling stock populate pre allocated pathing's in the timetable. If you've got the layer, you get the path in the simulator/game. If a path goes across 2 or more routes within the game environment, the developer should get the option to add their rolling stock in the same pathing to the next route section.
Ha, businesses in one sector all getting along. Once you've worked in a business sector for 35 years you'll realise that's a completely unrealistic thing to say.
And you can not get along and still do business together. After all that's what it is: just business.
Yes, but it sometimes throws a spanner in the works too. In my last job I frequently sat around a table with dozens of claims adjusters from other insurance companies while trying to put together a settlement offer on a big project that went wrong because our clients couldn't get along. And those discussions often got derailed (pardon the pun) because one or two insurance companies refused to budge. It's puerile but that's grown-up adults for you.
that’s a completely different situation. what we’ve got here is two relatively small third parties who should be able to make a deal
