Out Now Br Class 90 Freight Loco - Out Now!

Im ok with having multiple TTs but as long as they are different years/era similar to the current WCML south tt and then the 2025 version as the original is before the 80x and the 2025 is for said 80x and any rolling stock there after (730 cough).. but yes the 90 should have been added to both and the Birmingham - Crewe DLC, Not have a separate version to itself.

DTG need to add this into their agreements that rolling stock created/or variants if new must be integrated into all working TTs where applicable... this will also allow previous DLC to benefit from new rolling stock being implemented into them.. ie MML should have XC added or Glossip could do with a TT that mirrors MAC with AI offering better immersive play, getting tired of Ghost towns!

It might actually help with sales knowing how far reaching a DLC will be.

 

I think it's personal taste. I don't mind separate timetables. Keeps things simpler and organized. For example if I am in the "Diesel Gala" timetable on WSR I know it'll be mostly diesels. On some routes there are timetables in different years which you want to keep separate.
There's just as much reason to do it one way as the other.

 

That for me is different though, one is a Diesel Gala and the other is a Steam gala. Two different timetables and themes. That needs separate timetables.

It's when for example a route is released with one Timetable, then three months later a DLC featuring a train for that era and route is released but has a separate timetable because the developers decided it was easier to do a copy and paste instead of fitting it into the timetable.

 

You kind of answered your own question there. It's more work and it changes the original timetable. The flow changes the more traffic you put in. It often impinges on existing traffic, and TSW's dispatcher is far from perfect. Plus it involves often "tinkering" with other companies' property (if ATS wants to put the 90 into JT's Shap timetable and you want Skyhook's cargo pack in there for it to pull that starts to complicate things with so many chefs stirring the pot.
I think simple substitutions would work better in most cases.
You just code your loco to sub in for another similar loco in the route and then you don't touch the timetable, it just "replaces" what's already there. Much less work and interference.
It's not a 100% solution, but 80-90% of the time there's something similar already there which you can layer into in an existing timetable.
Some examples would be adding a new kind of element like cargo to a "passenger" focused route, or passengers into a cargo focused route (like Oakville for example) But, something that drastic probably should be a remaster and timetable overhaul entirely anyway.

In summary, reworking timetables is
-More design work
-More QA work
- More possibility for "breaking" existing schedules
-interfering in another company's property and coding, leading to more work communicating and resolving issues
-having everything in the "same table" is often problematic (for example if you want the 90 in the Shap timetable but people complain it's "too new" or "not the right variant." You can turn off layers I suppose, which is itself another step.

Using new timetables avoids all of that.
It's only downsides are
-You have to choose what one to use
-You don't get everything at all times in the same timetable
-(for completionists, there's the NEED to complete EVERY timetable... but that's not really a game issue, that's kind of a personal obsession)

As I said, there are pros and cons of either method.
The one with the least work and fewer relative downsides for the majority seems to be just making new timetables. There are positives as well for some of us, whereby that new timetable isn't always exactly the same, and it does sometimes give a new drive experience from the few small changes. Yes for big differences on the Steam Gala or the different year tiemetables, but also just having a Cargo Pack installed changes the rhythm of a route a little, and you don't have to fiddle with layers. It's just different on its own, and if I want a run without them I can just use the original timetable.

If you keep tweaking the ONE timetable, then you LOSE that original timetable experience as they're all melded into one. You lost that option.


It's really a matter of not being able to please everyone. We all have different styles, likes and dislikes.
The "default" way of doing the least work (and potential harm) is using new timetables.
To deviate from that and start tinkering with timetables is more work and "risk", while not really offering much "reward" for the developer.

 

If only there was a way to subsidise the work needed to fit stock into timetables, like say, £12.99-£14.99 for a loco pack.

 

But on the flip side, if I pick Timetable A, then I'm not getting the added DLCs for Timetable B, if I pick Timetable D, I will get A and B but not C because developers didn't talk to each other. Whichever timetable we pick, we miss out on something.

A combined timetable would solve that. Hell it's one of the reasons we pay for DLCs, to give the developers incentive to do that.

 

In addition to the cost of already making the locomotive?

 

And that's good and bad.... not everyone wants them combined together.

 

that’s why a combined, everything-included timetable would be an option alongside all the separate ones

 

So now you want twice the work making a "full" timetable and a bunch of other timetables separately too?

 

twice the work for who? it’s a case of enabling layering for the original timetable, and the other ones staying as they are

 

You mean substitutions?
Because additional new layers require opening up and changing the original timetable and testing to make sure it still works.

 

For me, I like timetables to be as realistic as possible. For that matter, I like TSW as a simulator because it offers excellent realism. If the benefit of a DLC is limited it will affect my decision. I am a WCML fan, Euston to MK is my favourite route, but I haven't bought the Class 90 or 805 because, among other reasons, they don't add to realism in terms of the complete experience.

operator#7940 you make good points about the considerations of developers and I concede you have identified the most likely pragmatic decision. But I still want it and would pay for it. I'll have to as an Xbox player with no access to mods.

For the record, I didn't buy the 805 because of all the blurry/core issues and am yet to get the 90 because of the limited routes it layers to and total number of services.