My opinion is that DTG should develop its own game engine. With its own tool, it would be easier to eliminate non-standard software behaviors such as blurry textures.
While I do agree with you, an own engine would be better for multiple reasons, the questions is are they capable of making their own engine? It will cost a lot of time, effort and knowlegde to do so, so they have to do it right or better not. In general, more and more developers are moving away from their own engines and switching to UE5. I'm not happy with it at all, as the results are not that good and a lof of UE5 games are suffering from bad performance and bad image quality. For the people thinking, UE5 will solve the issues and the game will look way better, well this is not what you see with a lot of released UE5 games. Especially on consoles, the results are far from great.
I agree, developing your own game engine would be very difficult and expensive. But relying on another company's product, and one that is not suitable for train simulation, is not a good idea. Just the blurry textures on consoles certainly affected the entire company's revenue and caused a lot of customer distrust.
I have to agree with you again, but is UE actually suitable for any type of game seeing the current situation? Farming Simulator 25 is using an own engine, at least on Series S there were blurry textures too. Most likely no proper optimization was causing it here too, as I believe it's fixed in the meantime. I think DTG can do a lot with optimization and change stuff in the core. The whole timetable for example is loaded into memory, are the current SSD's not fast enough to just read it from there?
Many posts have been written. In short: it won't be on the new engine. And to all those who have the imagination that a clean slate would somehow fix things: no it won't. Let alone all the technical difficulties of making UE 5 work with a train simulation game all over again. The development processes currently in place would result in the exact same result: routes that are hit-and-miss regarding features. Because one route is started as a copy from another one which may not have all the newest features already included. The extra mile which usually makes the difference between a bland and mediocre route and one that stands out as amazing is consistently the thing that isn't budgeted for. Great routes usually have developers put in their unpaid free time to improve it beyond what is scheduled for. Unless that changes, you will keep having some routes which are genius and others which are mediocre. More important than the engine would be to cut support to old consoles. But that's a catch-22. So long as a lot of people use them, DTG won't cut and so long as TSW runs on these consoles, those people won't update because they likely only play TSW and don't need newer consoles otherwise. Regarding rolling stock, we would still have duplications galore with every route getting a new version of a rolling stock with minor adjustments. So you need to buy the same rolling stock again and again to get the newest updated versions. One reason for this: if you had one version of the rolling stock that is continuously updated, you would need to test it with every route it was ever included in a timetable with. The QA demands would skyrocket.
The big advantage (for developers) with UE5 (from Epic in general) is simply the ability to easily outsource work to smaller development studios. For this reason, many publishers are switching to this graphics engine. It's a sort of "globalization" of programming work. Plus, with NANITE and Lumen, work is better and more streamlined. After that, there is much to be argued about whether Unreal Engine IS the ultimate graphics engine.
I believe, they don't test substitutions on all routes either and if they do you have the same situation as with one version for all routes and the need for testing. The thing is, not every loco of wagon is exactly the same, for example, there are German dostos with green and amber displays.
Let's say that TSW's situation is what it is. This is probably also due to the fact that some addons are more than 10 years old. Therefore, they are necessarily obsolete. If you want to try to change something for better or worse, you have to look ahead. For me, TSW is no longer satisfactory in its current state. I emphasize "for me." Otherwise, the situation will remain as it is. Stop.
I don't think that will ever happen, they seem to be pretty comfortable where they are with no real competition as they are the only ones churning out content for us to consume. Yes, Running Train blows TSW out of the water in many aspects but doesn't cater to a wider audience (i.e. British, German, USA).
Maybe, but they won't get any more money from me. The last addon I purchased was BR 147. And it will stay that way. I'm waiting (certainly something new). Other users are free to think differently. Every opinion is highly respectable.
It's also a known fact Epic Games like to sweeten the pot for using there engine, there's only one outcome if nearly all devs switch to using UE5 and that's an endless supply of the same cr_p wrapped in a different skirt, monopoly is never the answer for the consumer, there are very big reasons different genres of games use different engines, generalisation leads to stagnation that leads to everyone settling for a lesser product.
Simugraph is a physics engine DTG created instead of using UE4s native engine, like when you sometimes see on loading screens with names like Chaos and Phys-X
Why on earth would anyone want a version of TSW with even worse performance than it already has? UE5 is a bloated, overweight processor hog. The only reason game studios everywhere are using it is because they can hire kids off the street who can't code and make them "devs" using UE's point-and-click toolbox.
Because we are already halfway through the year 2026. Technology has advanced a bit since TSW was conceived (specifically, 2014/2015).
Let’s just imagine for one second that DTG are experimenting with UE5, and they have a game planned for next year. They could scrap all existing dlc for UE4 and start fresh for UE5, we’d still have our routes and add-on’s for TSW in UE4. That’s the question though, would players get on board with that idea? Or are they adamant about having all their content in one place, on one game? Personally I’d like to see DTG start fresh at some point. The TSW will never improve much from what we have now performance wise, and thanks to blurry textures DTG are going to keep freeing up memory on existing routes, which in turn makes the game look less detailed. That’s coming from a console players prospective. Running Train on Steam has already set the standard for what’s capable when UE5. I wonder if everyone at DTG is asking themselves “could we pull off something like this” using UE5…
I'm with you on that. A UE5+ train sim is the only way we're going to get a London Underground route/network or similar, or other types of route that TSWx can't handle. A new sim won't delete my TSW routes, or prevent 3rd parties still producing routes for TSW.
A lot of people saying UE5 will make a new train sim better when that isn’t necessarily the case. Yes there are improved tools for building things, but it comes with its own set of performance issues for a sim-like game. It won’t necessarily resolve blurry textures either.
Won’t happen. It’s simply too expensive in terms of time & cost and as bizarre as it sounds it would be a more cost effective option to use an existing engine. Whether people like it or not UE is the de facto game engine. There are other game engines out there but whether other devs want another (potential) competitor using it is debatable. Blurry textures would not be solved by DTG having its own game engine. A big part of the blurry textures problem has to do with VRAM that the current consoles have particularly Xbox. It’s also been well documented elsewhere on streams & in this forum about the issues around blurry textures.
A London Underground Simulator would be wicked. I'd assume it would be better to set it during the times ATO weren't as prevalent but I think it would be fun. I'm not familiar with the stock that retired in the previous two decades but I remember watching a video of a similar simulator which was pretty detailed. I really enjoy the Bakerloo Line in TSW, so the Piccadilly, H&C, Circle and Met Line would be on the cards for me.
I believe they are capable of building their own engine, especially since simugraph and other add ons the the EU4 version they use are pretty extensive. But this has two negatives, first, I doubt it would be a graphical improvement as they would be more concerned with performance and stability. Second is that I would assume third party development would be more difficult and require a lot more support from DTG when they already seem fairly stretched. I don't think switching to UE5 is an option at the moment simply because the engine still isn't in a great place. Why risk a total overhaul of your product to an engine that probably won't increase performance or stability (would more likely decrease it) when they are the two major things you are chasing at the moment?
An engine on its own will not solve blurry textures, however you can optimize your own engine more and better (if you're capable) for the task. You can leave out everything you don't need for the type of game you develop, while something like UE is a total package with unnessary stuff included. Second thing is optimization in the game/routes itself. Firefly already proved there is optimization possible. I guess it's easier to optimize when you're building a route from scratch then later on an excisting route. If I remember correctly, Firefly mentioned something about reworking the excisting part from SEHS as more difficult then building from scratch. UE5 is not build for better performance or lower memory usage, it's build to make it more easy for developers. With Lumen for example, they don't have to do light baking anymore, so it saves time. However, Lumen will come with a cost: performance. In the meantime, there are now a few UE5 games not using Lumen and Nanite and those have a much better preformance then the ones who do use it. Split fiction and Riven remake are 2 examples. I wonder what would happened when DTG had developed TSW from the start with low memory usage in mind. Maybe they had made different choises with the things they've added over the years. Supporting a game this long, based on the same technology as the 1st TSW from 2017, is not an ideal situation when you keep adding stuff.
They've already made their own engine, which was used for TSC so they are definitely capable. Would probably be quite expensive for a similar level of fidelity as TSW though (but that's just me guessing).
I dont disagree with what you say but DTG aren’t going to develop their own engine…it costs millions. Cheaper to buy ‘off the shelf’.
I also do not expect they're gonna develop an own engine, however the game would benefit from it, when they do it right. I even doubt they will go to UE5 anytine soon. UE6 is around the corner, GEN10 consoles will be there most likely in a couple of years, so it isn't really the right time for big steps at the moment.
Meanwhile, UE6 isn't all that different from UE5 in terms of graphics. UE6 is more of a technical evolution. Also, I still don't understand the reference to next-gen consoles. Xbox will essentially be a PC with access to the entire Steam library, etc., and in case you hadn't noticed, the Steam Machine is coming out this summer. Another PC with the entire Steam library available. PlayStation will adapt to this new concept, or it will be significantly diminished by inappropriate choices. The days of PS or Xbox exclusive games are over.
You clearly don't keep up with the industry then, Sony themselves have confirmed single player titles are going back to be exclusive. And I think Xbox has said stuff indicating that console exclusives aren't off the table now. As the new CEO (And supposedly a lot of other people in Xbox) seem to actually take massive issue with Phil's "Everything is a Xbox" direction he had taken it in. It's also a bit silly to ignore Nintendo, who is arguably the most successful (Sans maybe Valve) while also being the most committed to exclusive titles for their system. Also on the Steam Machine, as nice as the hardware may be you got to bare in mind Valve hardware is not mass hardware. Compare the Steam Deck's sales to Nintendo Switch 1 or 2 and it's a night and day difference. They don't make hardware in large enough numbers to disrupt the industry, even when it's genuinely great and competitively priced. I don't doubt it will do well enough for them, but doing well for Valve probably means 5 million units tops, they really only sell to people who already are deep in the Steam ecosystem.
I did not, but I guess if they wipe the name they may wipe the shame. I see they've said it will address the issues of UE5, here's hoping.
Maybe I'm misinformed. Ultimately, I sometimes rely on my own inferences. Some exclusives will always exist. But few. However, the philosophy is changing. I believe we're moving in the direction where users who invest in a platform (especially given the prices they're being asked for) will increasingly desire access to the widest possible library. The point, however, is that the idea that every new next-gen video game is strictly tied to the release of new consoles/PCs seems a bit utopian to me.
The bar to entry when it comes to building your own engine increases the more features you want to include, however, and TSW most definitely at this point has many more features than TSC. Adding more features to match many of those offered by other contemporary engines, means the cost part of a cost benefit analysis rises considerably vs making an in-house engine back then
as always comes up with these discussions, UE5 will just destroy what performance we do have. As for saying things like well UE5 has more features, just go and look at the games that actually have produced good games on UE5, many of the additional features UE5 offers have to be disabled to achieve good performance levels. That’s not even considering most devs are using upscaling these days to get to acceptable FPS, something DTG still isn’t doing. By the time you add all the other caveats such as DTG simply not knowing how to optimise assets, purposely bloating TSW with duplicated assets that don’t need to exist (such as 15 versions of 146’s, dostos, 66’s etc), having multiple versions of the same feature in the game, all as standalone cases rather than being one modular system, simugraph which I have no doubt is shoddily made considering everything else DTG designs & then the fact that UE isn’t even capable of building a train sim to this scale confirmed by how DTG have to use a Frankenstein version of UE. Frankly if DTG sorted their development philosophy out & cleaned up what they currently have, we’d get a better simulator than UE5 could deliver any time soon.
Given my almost PC melting experience with Running Train, if TSW7 did come as UE5 doubt I could run it until I get a new rig.
