As dtg stated before they don't want to add extensions or connections cause A it's dlc for dlc and B it's hard to connect routes on the client's end. But what if they did it like in ts classic where they don't sell the extension seperate but they release the route again with the extension already built in like they did with for example peninsula corridor-gilroy and NJT? Those who have the og route get a built in discount and those who haven't pay full price, would this be viable?
Excellent idea and the best route to do this is Schnellfahrstrecke Köln-Aachen with the Liege-Aachen section. That will feature NMBS the company you work for with HLE18 Eurofirma Coach I10 and ÖBB WLABmz 424/425. Note ÖBB 424/425 gets the Taurus locomotive at Aachen Hbf tracks 6-9
The main issues still remain and new ones are introduced with that approach. Whether an extension is a separate entity or comes pre-joined up with a discount for owning the original, it is still only available to those who either own that route or are willing to pay double for a route that they weren’t interested in before just because it’s longer. The number of sales is still never going to reach that of an entirely new route. Joining of two separately available routes (that are not envisaged as extensions) is much better client side even if that is much harder to accomplish as it requires no new versions to be made or sold (with tricky discount models for external store partners) or options to uninstall the shorter versions to free up disk space (PS4 players can’t currently uninstall any DLC). The biggest issue with extensions still exists in that the development time for an extension takes up the development time of a brand new route elsewhere. People have been asking for extensions from the time there were only a handful of routes and asking for extensions for every route that comes out. If every route that is made got an extension there would be none of the routes that have been made for TSW2 at all yet, as extensions for the earlier routes would still be being made. People would be asking for the second extension to GWE because they are still not satisfied with the length of the route after the first one. There would now be longer versions of SPG, GWE, MSB, NTP, TVL, LIRR, RSN (in the other direction to RRO) and Rapid Transit. There would be no Clinchfield, no HMA, no LGV, no Bakerloo or SKA and no SEHS yet. Not even an ECW. They would not have got that far. Oakville and HRR would just be on the roadmap, Cathcart Circle would still be 18 months away. You get the idea. Development time is finite and more players want variety and new things than want extensions for their old routes.
[ And even more players prefer a few decent routes over pumping out variety with mediocre quality at best.
I think we'll see extensions eventually, it's just a case of waiting until the time is right. I don't expect to see every route get an extension, they don't need to extend every route, just a few & GWE would benefit from that enormously. Like everything in TSW, balance is key, some want short routes, others want long routes.
That's a very subjective statement! Especially considering you are posting this in a suggestion forum with over 6000 threads, the vast majority of which are new route suggestions. Of course, it is possible most players would be happy with fewer but higher quality routes, I doubt it, but it is possible. The problem is how exactly DTG are supposed to finance the resources to put into these fewer but higher quality extended routes if they're then selling them at a discount to the vast majority of their customer base who already own the original part of the extended route? It's not very clear how this model would work given extensions and mergers with existing routes are more resource intensive not less.
You mean the cyclical bug reports... 1000 reports of the same bug isn't the same as 1000 bugs... Not saying there aren't a load of things people want fixed (or improved) but at least be realistic about what's going on and much of it relates to how fixes and updates are released rather than whether such things get dev time or not
If they took more time and hadn't have qa gaps then they would save time by not having to go back and redo things like glaring issues with pzb or entire services being unplayable due to derailmant, wrong platform orientation, distant dispatcher not releasing in time, if these were minor things, fine but looking at the reception and reviews of recent routes it seems they set a bar they can't reach no more due to time and resource limits
I never read reviews, mainly because I don't care what OTHER people think and am more than capable of seeing mistakes and issues for myself And I did say that there were issues, but rather than "continual", you've quoted a few valid bugs. Bugs which DTG have said they're addressing (or have addressed and are awaiting release on) Don't get me wrong I completely disagree with DTGs way of working, but there is also a lot of overkill on the forums as to what should be done about such things. Look at the 313, rebuilt from scratch several times and now people complain because they don't have the faulty incomplete version in their collection yet
I applaud they took it back to production, that's the right thing to do when they admit it can be better, i don't read reviews either, but people who are new or want to know what's what before spending their money might and that affects how well it sells in the end. It's frustrating when they release wonky stuff cause i know they're well capable of doing great things, i love spg en peninsula corridor, it's most i play while Germany woulf be my usual favourite, just because it's so well done, the timetables, the rolling stock, sure it had issues but none gameplay breaking, not having the correct horn doesn't really affect the gameplay aspect that much compared to a buggy safety system. I want them to do better cause i know they can. I'm a real train driver and i want people to get as close as possible to the joy and challenge of driving the real thing, i want it to breathe the atmosphere of our job so people who may never be able to do it for real at least get a taste.
I suspect we won't see something like this for a good while until we have a good catalog of existing routes.
I don't think that KoeleKoen made a subjective statement. It might not be evidenced, but it wasn't subjective. I am tempted to say that maybe you should step back for a bit, and have a think about what you are saying in your posts (but without over-thinking it too much), before making idle comment. But I am not going to do that, because I prefer to play the ball, not the person.... so I am going to stick to the topic in hand. It is very very possible that KoeleKoen is right. If DTG concentrated on building out the NEC and similar routes in the US, and on the mainlines in the UK and Germany, and did absolutely nothing else., then they could build up each route in 30-40 mile chunks as standalone DLCs, and knit the chunks together (assuming that they build a function in core to allow that), for anyone wanting a longer route spanning multtiple DLCs. The quality would (I think) get driven upwards, as more time could be spent developing a much smaller range of assets. Although maybe each DLC chunk could have some local variety of traction/services (including freight, etc.). You could then end up with routes that are hundreds of miles long. And some people would buy into this - it has been clearly demonstrated in TS2012. Personally, I would not want this at all (yet) - and I am actually perfectly happy with the way DTG currently manage their route selection, for development, because they provide a really good range of experiences. I think that they could do more with variety of rolling stock in each new pack, but I think their approach to choosing routes (including their lengths) is almost perfect. Also, I am broadly happy with the quality.... eventually. I think that they should do more with QA (actual QA, as part of a command & control process, and not just what DTG call "testing") to ensure that there is quality built in at release, because otherwise there is always the risk that a route will get "Oakvilled" and be allowed to rot in its own mediocrity. Thankfully, this sort of "never ever" event with TSW and TSW 2 has been rare, so far - but it should still be "never". I very much hope that DTG does not (yet) adopt the model suggested by KoeleKoen, even though I think it could be a successful one, because I want to see the variety come first. But I support KoeleKoen's right to make the suggestion without being slammed down with, ironically, quite subjective statements, like the ones in your own posts.
As much as I like the idea, I was incredibly salty in TSC when a Route I owned was rereleased with an extension and no form of compensation was offered. I Think it was the North London Line, when the goblin was added, and I was just "its not worth the total amount"
What happened with routes such as North London Line, Chatham Mainline (twice) and such wasn't an 'extension' in the sense people mainly talk about. They refer to a payed DLC, such as the Sheerness branch, or the LGV to Lyon. SEHS on TSW falls into category A here, where it was more of a rebuild and re-release, than an extension. The main issue that is exclusive to TSW is updating the timetable on an extended route, and not bringing any issued into it. SEHS had a total rebuild of its timetable, but, again, the route was totally overhauled; not just extended. Personally, I don't think route extensions should happen, in either the DLC or re-release form. The DLC form creates a requirement system TSW has longed to get away from, and the re-release form just means we keep seeing the same routes repeating. We don't need extensions either. We've barely scratched the surface of what the UK, US, Germany and such can offer. We should explore new regions, get new trains, make new experiences - before we tie ourselves down to the same old regions. We should expand the horizons of the game - even if that means in the 'Big 3' countries of the game, or if it means globally - before we start extending anything. Mergers are a far better option in my opinion, it means there's no requirements, you can buy one of the {×} number of DLCs merged together, without needing any of the other ones. However, it still faces the same technical issues as extensions, and then some more.
These being how to load and unload the signalling without needing to have the whole signal set in memory and being monitored and how to have timetables that flow over the DLC boundary that can then use adjacent DLC The map already loads in tiles, and if they have their geography mapped correctly (something I would have hoped they'd learned from the same issue in TSC) this should work already, especially with the ability to dynamically load and unload DLC from the recent update
Not a complete overhaul of sehs since like half the track was already there. There were certain things changed such as ohle and environmental details but not a rebuild from the ground. New things include new signalling, timetable, new track and new tsw3 features
