While working on the editor i always check new features of the game... this time it was Creators club and what i found looks very interesting. So far Creators Club can be used for Scenarios and Livery. As you can see in those 2 included screens there is UGCType::Scenario which is for scenarios and UGCType::Livery which is for livery. No surprise there right... that part is from scenario and livery files saved from Creators Club. What is more interesting that core part of the game got another UGCType and this is UGCType::Route. So is DTG working on some RouteEditor which will be part of the game and users will be able to share some Routes based on original game assets ?
I very much hope so but honestly it may just be futureproofing for if they decide to make a route builder. I wouldn't read into it much unless they say something.
As much as I would like to see a route editor, it probably won't happen. And if it does, it would 99% be PC Only. Plus, a short Isle of Wight route as around 2-3 Gigabytes. Imagine how big a London - Edinburgh route would be if someone made it.
You are wrong, route like that will be for example 100 MB only. Nice example is livery editor or scenario editor... livery editory you will expect that it will take couple of MB and that file is only couple of kb. In Game Route Editor will work only with already owned assets so the route map file will only include informations which asset is placed there. Nice example of in game route editor can be Hmmsim Metro where map created with that type of route editor is only 15 MB which is not that big file to share.
I'm pretty sure this time you are wrong here i guess you have already seen the tile sizes of the current game. One of the most space consuming aspect are the tiles because the data in them is not compressed but only serialised raw data and it holds all the data for the tracks, all the scenery, the ground painting and terrain. It's a few gigabytes even for a small route with reused assets. And that can not be changed as this is the way UE4 works.
The reason all routes are several GBs in size is that all routes have their own version of each asset, instead of them sharing the same ones. For example, remember those generic sedans and SUVs that fill the parking lots on all routes? Or the same warehouse buildings? Even though they always look the same, each route has a separate copy of them.
Honestly I don't know.The concept of shared asset packs, like it was in TS, seems much better in every way I can think of. Less storage space, shared assets can be up to date if they're changed, etc. I can sort of understand their reasoning for making it like this for rolling stock assets or gameplay elements, as they say it's easier to not brake things this way when something gets updated (like the Class 66 having two variants), but honestly what's the point of this for scenery assets? This way the same set of buildings or parked car assets will take up space multiplied by the number of routes you have, as all routes will have these basic assets. You have 10 routes? Then those car models will take up 10 times the hard drive space than they would really need to. This approach to me seems to go against the modern norms of game development. But it does have some advantages for modding, as you can modify these assets to be unique for each route. For example, the generic car assets I mentioned all have british style yellow licence plates. This looks really out of place on american routes, so I changed them to white for Sherman Hill, which looks much better. If these were shared assets, then modifying them would change them for all routes, so now they would be out of place on british routes. Of course, this could be simply solved if they just used separate british, european and american vehicle asset packs, so it's not really an advantage, simply something modders can make use of now that it's been made like this.
Well then maybe you should buy Hmmsim Metro and check yourself because they magically changed that as the are using ingame editor and you know ingame stuff is working different way then UE4 editor - well at least you should know that as there is already Planner and Livery editor, both are using ue4 .sav file format What is Hmmsim Metro using is huge empty land template (a lot of tiles) and that whole map is taking less then a 1 MB. And then there is a tools which are working with that map and adding stuff there. So the map file saved in ingame editor only include info about placed assets, tons of numbers for the terrain, rails, signals, etc... And yeah that map file is again .sav file from UE4 game. Basically the same stuff like file from livery editor where you can see only which decal was used, color, size of the decal etc... While normal texture is for example 2 MB then why is that livery editor file only couple of kb ? with your logic it should be the same size or maybe even bigger. The same can be about scenario planner... timetable created with ue4 tools got at least 100 kb, if there is couple of instructions etc... you can end up even with 1 MB while with planner your file is only for example 10 kb.
Sorry i was wrong, its even smaller - 30 kb Then saved map file from ingame editor is right now 25 MB That file include just numbers and links to the assets placed on the map and it include even trains configurations, etc... not just map: And then template of that map: If you cant see the pictures then there is the links: http://www.trainsim.cz/obr5/hmmmap1.jpg http://www.trainsim.cz/obr5/hmmmap2.jpg http://www.trainsim.cz/obr5/hmmmap3.jpg http://www.trainsim.cz/obr5/hmmmap.jpg
I have my doubts, but wouldn't it be better to create a decent Scenario Designer first? The current one has serious design flaws, e.e. you cannot include events, just stopping points where you need to specify at one level for the whole scenario whether you want to pick up passengers. They did not have a good look at the Scenario Editor for TS, which is not so bad at all.
There are still plans for Sceanrio planner 2.0. DTG stated that they first wanted to get the CC out and then work on SP and LD 2.0. So it may be something that comes in the second half of the year.
Thank you, I am aware of that. But is is not even at the roadmap now and after the serious disappointment about the first attempt (I really delved deep and I know all ins and outs of it and believe me, it is so bad...) I am not very hopeful and I get a bit cynical when people even dare to mention a route editor.
Are you sure there are still plans? Those have been removed from the roadmap, which means they have abandoned that project. Works well enough to bring money in, no reason to touch it again. That's the DTG way...
They are not canceling it. The suspension will only be temporary. Suspended and cancelled are two different things
When first version of Planner was released, they wrote that next summer update will bring version 2.0, closer to the release they change the plan and wrote that year 2021 will include 2 main core updates, one in summer, second (that Steam core update) in winter - so far i noticed only one core update - summer one. Dont have to go that far... multiplayer is released since september 2017 - problem is nobody can find it in the game menu and i think they still dont even start working on it. I created that thread because of that Route tag, but i dont expect that they will release in game route editor... at least not anytime soon... with their speed maybe v1 in 2030 and then v2 2040.
Look things change. Scenario Planner 2.0/Livery designer isn't cancelled. Development was simply paused until creators club is fully released since all we have is a beta. As for a route editor, that won't happen. Multiplayer could happen in the future considering that's what a overwhelming majority of players want
I still remember the expanded Bakerloo services - Announced 1 and a half years ago and we still don't have them - which got taken off the roadmap saying it would be re-added eventually. 1 year later it still has not been added
DTG need to upgrade the dispatcher. The current one can't handle that many trains in a self contained route apparently
Dovetail really need to make sure they can deliver promises. If they were not sure they would be able to deliver, then don't promise it in the first place. It makes the community angry and then when/if it actually does come Bugs, Errors, Etc, are criticised 'more' because of a lengthy development time
