You would be surprised how people can screw up deals when they don't like each other. Even when it goes against their own interest. Could be the case in any business situation, really.
It is but you're missing the point I'm making. It happens between two small clients sometimes too, cases go to court because small businesses can't agree on the most rudimentary of issues. As you've said "should be able to make a deal". I often think that then get surprised at how difficult it is to resolve disputes. Two directors of a golf club ran up a combined half a million in legal fees in a dispute over the renovation of a club house. They were both retired lawyers of fairly high standing, neither would budge an inch. That's still a different situation but it should inform you that sometimes the optimal outcome for the customer (in that example the golf club members) is not possible.
i completely understand your point and appreciate you explaining it, i just feel that with the presence of a middleman in dtg, who make the final decisions, an ultimatum should be possible
Yes, exactly, DTG should tell them neither one gets published until they figure it out in a way that gets the customer the best experience at the end of the day.
And that surely wouldn't be in DTG's best interest. They would lose income as well by stopping them from publishing
Not to belittle the 2 teams, but it’s a group of guys who had a falling out over a project, not 2 Fortune 500 companies. The overdramatising of ‘negotiations’ is ridiculous. if I were in AAS’ shoes then yeah I wouldn’t wanna collaborate with ATS either, but both studios focusing on one mainline in the same era & not collaborating is just stupid. That being said, I don’t believe for a second that these guys don’t know what content each other are & aren't working on, the potential for them to overlap when they have the same development interests is way too high. No idea where DTG is in all this either, surely with the publishing rights they hold over all the content they’d have some say in it all. In any case if ATS is to be believed, we should see more synchrony in content, though we still have the issue of multiple timetables that don’t even follow the same baseline.
You'd be surprised. A "group of guys" falling out over a project can lead to business interruption and economic loss claims, badly framed allegations of defamation, allegations of breaches of NDAs and alleged future earnings claims. That golf club renovation was estimated to cost around £100k. Small money for the SE of England. Both Directors promised the work to their mates, sides were taken, Whatsapp groups were formed, regrettable things were said that were leaked to both parties, all heck broke loose, a punch-up ensued on hole no 2, police were called, one was banned, he then issued lawsuits against all the other directors and the club. I repeat, these were retired old men. It was a complete nothing situation. I may write a book about my claims career one day. I've dealt with some amazing acts of stupidity. Anyway, sorry went well of topic there. Stay safe everyone, it's a mad world out there.
I feel like it has been addressed a lot to the point it is a little bit reptitive but just to be clear. All Aboard has no disagreements or issues with ATS as a business. People seem to still refer back to a post I made quite awhile ago which was from me personally and was before All Aboard really existed. With that being said I please ask that the whole speculation about All Aboard not wanting to work with ATS or as some say "petty drama" please come to a close. It is not remotely true and personally despite my past issues with ATS, I wish them all the best with anything they decide to produce. (This is my own personal statement on the matter)
We have confirmed before but the Class 90 will not feature on Trent Valley as the timetable was finished awhile ago. I know theres a thread somewhere where we put a proper statement about this.
Yeah no worries. Do bear in mind I posted that in November, and I have since been informed on the reasoning behind each developers choices which I respect.
Does that mean that, apart from testing, it's really close to release ? I can't wait for it ! I don't know what foggy#2817 has in mind, but speaking for myself, I also prefer to play the Nuclear timetable as it features more trains types (Class 378 on Watford DC + Nuclear & Intermodal freight).
i feel the same way tbh. despite the high number of services, i just feel like throughout a regular service i pass less trains than on some of the other wcmls timetables. this is something i’ve seen mentioned by others too
I don't really think it is incomplete. Maybe the Skyhook CL timetables have some more variety in freight. The main reason why I prefer the CL timetables over the 805 ones is an apparent difference in the way AP is rewarded. The 805 timetable and scenarios award a maximum of 65 points per half mile driven, where other timetables award 65 points per quarter mile driven (the latter thus giving you more points for te same distance). I also saw this on Birmingham-Crewe. Don't know if this was a conscious design choice, but I wonder why it was done this way.
When you say Birmingham - Crewe are you referring to the 2025 timetable or the 2019 one? Just so I can check. It won't be changed now as it would mess peoples scoring up but just so we can ensure the points is being rewarded correctly on trent valley
The issue there is, more varied stock = more chance of blurry textures/higher memory usage. I'll note it down though for review. No promises on anything changing at current however. Thanks for your input!
no worries, the only proper issue i have is that it’s sold as ‘the busiest wcmls timetable available’ but it doesn’t really feel like that. i appreciate that blurry textures don’t help either, but i get these anyway as it is
If I recall correctly, both timetables (and the scenarios) on Birmingham-Crewe seem to score this way. At least with the 350's that come with this route. However, I used the class 390 on the 2019 timetable and it scored like the 'normal' one (giving me a much higher score than the set goal for platinum), while using it on the 2025 timetable (and on the 805 timetable on WCML) used the other scoring system. But I will check again.
I checked again and I found the following: - 2019 timetable on Birmingham-Crewe awards points every quarter mile - Base scenarios on Birmingham-Crewe awards point every half mile - Modern timetable awards points every half mile - WCML class 805 scenarios and timetable awards points every half mile. So the 2019 BSC timetable uses the regular points system, the others are different. Edit: I found this while driving, but it's also clearly reflected in the platinum goal scores for the services.
Perfect, I did the 2019 timetable for B2C and I have done the timetable for Trent Valley so you will get the same points system as the 2019 timetable. In regards to the others, there wont be any changes due to the fact it will wipe everyones scores if we change it but I will flag it either way
Cheers. Good to know these long distance hauls with the 390 on Trent Valley will yield a large amount of points
But this doesn't have an effect on PC as much and the TT for this platform should be heavily loaded to maximize services, can we not have 2 like others have done before a less intensive one for Console and a complete, fuller version for PC? it does need more freight added in though, 10 services is not enough for a full day on WCML, while intermodal and standard 2024 had 44 playable services From my point of view I found that the new TT lacks peak hour services for WCMLsth, this could be because we are yet to see the 807 or other 350 variant layer in but compared to others the 2025 TT felt a little underwhelming with regards to traffic levels as per thread and below https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/class-805-review.96395/#post-1088551 I did two comparisons, well a sample size of movements (stop and non stopping) between FAWX 2024 + OTS 2019 TT and the in game 2025 + 2024 std/intermodal version at Harrow and Wealdstone between 7:40-8:01am in June 2024 standard / intermodal TT - 25 movements (1 being freight), 15 across the fast & slow lines (805/390/350/377/66), as well as 10 underground/overground services New Evero 2025 TT - 20 Movements (without any freight),10 across the fast & slow lines (805/390/350/377), as well as 10 underground/overground services Fawx 2024 modded - 22 movements (without any freight) 12 across the fast & slow lines (805/390/350/377), as well as 10 underground/overground services OTS 2019 modded - 24 movements (without any freight) 17 across the fast & slow lines (390/350/377), as well as 7 underground/overground services Real world According to Realtime trains 4/2- 27 movements - 17 across the fast & slow lines (805/390/350/377/66), as well as 10 underground/overground services Then an afternoon peak service sample size across the in game only TTs, this time and once again the new TT is quieter especially on the mainline.. Harrow and Wealdstone movements (stop and non stopping) between 5:40pm-6:01pm in June 2024 standard / intermodal TT - 20 movements (1 being freight), 13 across the fast & slow lines (805/390/350/377/66), as well as 7 underground/overground services New Evero 2025 TT - 17 movements (1 being freight), 9 across the fast & slow lines (805/390/350/377/66), as well as 8 underground/overground services I wondered despite the increase (46 more playable services than the 2024 intermodal and 47 more then the 2024 TT, cannot comment on AI only) if many of the game play to make up 997 are stock movements and not actual PAX services, or maybe its just spread out across a 24hr time period then having it more condensed?
