A mate and I had a lengthy discussion last week. If we were in charge at DTG, what would be our next 6 route releases. I'd be interested in other peoples' choices but here goes mine; 1) GWR 2019 - Paddington to Oxford and Bristol (under the wires). Green classes 800, 387 and an updated HST included. 2) SWT 2017 - PDL extension from Woking to Weymouth. 3) Scotrail - Edinburgh to Inverness. Featuring new Scotrail HSTs and Caledonian Sleeper trains 4) Greater Anglia Commuter Lines - 2018 Version Liverpool Street to Ipswich & Southend Vic/Clacton/Braintree/Sudbury/Harwich. Updated 360, AP 321, 345/720. 5) Midland Main Line Extension including updated Bedford to London with Class 700s and a new Bedford to Corby and Nottingham section. 6) Crossrail Reading/Paddington to Shenfield/Abbey Wood add-on for GWR and/or GA or standalone. Class 345. 387/720 AI.
Paddington is already covered, if a few years back. If you're going to do a London line do Crossrail, or some lines from Blackfriars, Cannon Street and Charing Cross out through Lewisham and the North Kent lines or Sevenoaks. With connections at Woolwich Arsenal, Abbey Wood, Lewisham, Dartford, Gravesend, Strood, Rochester and Rainham the North Kent lines has a lot of scenario possibility, especially hooking up to the South London, East London and Kent Mainlines. PDL is definitely too new for an update already Some of the scotrail lines could probably do with an update, but the same could be said of the welsh network outside north and south. A complete run from PAD to Milford Haven or Pembroke Dock could definitely be a thing, let alone a scenic trip through Llandrindod Wells from Crewe to Swansea GEML isn't that old, and the Wherry Lines are basically boring now but I can see the Southend lines being a thing. For me, for the UK I would love to see some of the cross country lines filled in, I'm thinking Severn Tunnel Junction to Gloucester, Cheltenham and so on (replicating Maesteg to Cheltenham or Cardiff to Nottingham) Another one in the south would be the line from Taunton and Bath through Warminster to Southampton. This would allow extensions from the South Wales Coastal packs through to the PDL I'm sure there are a number of northern routes which are either absent or due an overhaul as well
I’m a big fan of the GWR in general and I understand the ‘under the wires’ update but between DTG (on both TS and TSW) and JT it’s probably the most covered route out there. So for me another route wouldn’t be a priority. On the PDL extension I’d like to see Weymouth but I do wonder if we’ll see new work nearer to the recent investment in Waterloo. Scotland always seems to me to have pretty good coverage already (between DTG and JT) but the HSTs are an interesting idea. Greater Angelia and Midland mainline are both extensions of what exists. Nothing wrong in that of course but to me it opens the question is all that is left extensions of existing routes? All of your choices are contemporary lengthy routes. They have merit but I’d hope the dream manager included some diversity into this list. So for example Wherry Lines from AP demonstrated how wonderful a fairly short and little used line could be. There must be other examples. Perhaps ‘Cornish branch lines’ before JT get there. Then I think there’s room for some non contemporary routes. Weardale and Teesdale is a good example of the kind of route I’d encourage. There must again be many other examples. I used to live on the Northeast coast as a child. Steelworks, transporter bridges in the background, coal mining and coastal resorts. I think those sorts of lines have their place. Equally your list excludes any opportunity for steam running and it’s U.K. only.
Do bear in mind that this is what I would want, not a balanced view of what's needed. GWR has had a massive regeneration, wires, new trains, new station layouts. The JT version is, well, not great and the DTG one is a Kuju route. I think many would welcome a new version. No, there's more to come, but I think there's value in updating what's already there too, graphics have moved on and of course going 64 bit opens up more opportunities for longer, more complete routes. My list excludes steam because I don't enjoy it, don't forget I'm in charge. Personally I'd love some French rural routes now that Germany is well covered. This is an opportunity for people to say what they would do if they were in charge. A bit of fun. Go for it.....
While I do agree that route length is important - I think the TSW user have a good point that those route lengths are far from optimal - I'm not convinced that super long routes are the way to go. Perhaps I'm in a minority but I can't see myself driving from Penzance to Paddington in one go. For me having the route split up into reasonable sized bits isn't a problem.Generally I find a session of around 30-75 minutes fits my schedule pretty well. But then perhaps I'm in a minority. On the JT GWR offering although it might be a little non-PC to say so on a DTG forum I don't actually think its that bad. In terms of 'going for it' I think we've all got personal reasons why we'd like to see specific routes included. For me I'd like the Cotswold Line to Worcester (more interesting now because it's doubled) and the old Westbury-Weymouth (somewhere to use the Hymek) with the Maiden Newton-Bridport line included. But would they sell? There may be an argument that modern routes are easier to build because it's easier to collect material (videos, digital map and terrain information) than for more historic routes. Interested in your comment that 64 bit 'opens up more opportunities for longer, more complete routes'. Is that the expectation? Even if the memory comes for free with 64 bit building longer and more complete routes presumably increases time and cost. Do you think that your new longer, complete routes will be more expensive than the current offerings? Personally (and here I'm raising JT as an example) - I think they're pushing the boundaries of what a reasonable number of people will pay for DLC. After all add up all their bits of the GWR - including those parts not done and it's a reasonable amount of money. If that was released as a single route offering would you pay GBP 100 or more?
I'm pretty sure DTG confirmed that route lengths have to be shorter in 32bit. The Waterloo - Portsmouth release was a brave choice before the switchover given its length. Given the assurance that TS and TSW will coexist I think we'll now start to see more sections of the network filled in not just from the usual players, there's a lot of youngsters starting to test their route building skills. It's an interesting question about the whole-route bundle. If I apply it to my neck-o-the-woods, a DLC pack covering the entire Greater Anglia region with our new stock 720s/745s/755s, a freight loco and some AI 345 and 710s. At £100, yes, I'd buy it. Likewise Paddington to Penzance or Paris Metro or even just the London Underground Surface Lines (maybe not just S stock though zzzzzz). But I would hope that those on more modest budgets would be able to buy it in stages.
Given the general (rubbish) threads on Steam flaming TrainSimulator for the total cost of the DLC individual items at GBP 100 would send it into meltdown. Personally I think the market likely contracts pretty quickly above price levels that we see now. Add to that the time taken to work on longer richer routes and the economics change significantly. 64 bit removes one limitation but I’m not totally convinced that other constraints (like the potentially increased cost of DLC) don’t become an inhibitor. People moving into fill the gaps in DLC routes is encouraging but if you’re right about pay DLC raising the bar with 64 bit that’s going to increase the challenge for freeware providers.
I see no reason for route lengths to be increased. Breaks in scenarios at stops can simulate real life, as in the train stops so a natural break in the driving occurs. A full scenario from London to Penzance might be fine, but would you really want to sit there for over 5 hours in one stint? Having just looked there would be an hour and a half without a stop between Reading and Exeter, and for me that's more than enough in one stint!
Length of scenarios and route length are really two different items. I agree that scenario time lengths sweet spot seems to be between 45 minutes to an hour for me. Looking over my collection - almost all scenarios I have completed are less than an hour long - the scenarios that are 90 minutes or longer stare at me wishing for a star or check mark, but remain so since I do not have time to start and finish one in one session, especially with saving and restarting being such a gamble. That does not mean to me that routes should only be able to have a maximum run of an hour or so. Longer routes give the possibility of more variety of industry and passenger which can give more opportunity for scenario builders. Driving the full run from London to Penzance does not need to be in one setting but 3 - 5 different scenarios with crew changes or whatever for the scenario ending -- BUT you have still had the experience of the full run on the route.. And since my experiences, desires and time constraints are different from everyone else's - a longer route gives one the opportunity to make the run in one sitting if so desired.
Agreed, if you're running shuttles or shunting or whatever but in terms of the two items raised (ie long runs or LDN - PNZ) this WOULD be a long single direction run in terms of both time and distance, so the scenario and route would be long. 5½ hours and about 300 miles...
Sounds like we are in agreement then, Scenario length should not dictate route length -- have a great one...
Seems like you've waded in on someone else's discussion and got the wrong end of the stick... The originator of this was the following: So specifically routes rather than scenarios
Yesterday I bought an extension to what I guess is the longest UK route currently available. I noticed that the quick drives for the longest portions are ‘without AI’. So presumably length and memory have a direct correlation here - and probably why a missing further extension has been much delayed. So, the OP is correct in that 64 bit presumably removes that limitation, or sets the bar way higher. The current memory limitation probably results in extended development times as effort is spent managing overall memory rather than building the route and its furniture. However such work on efficiency has benefits. Now that memory usage is less of a constraint there will be less effort needed around this. Effort will still be needed on performance in any one stretch of the route (FPS) but the total accumulation of the size of the route isn’t a real constraint. However longer (bigger) routes presumably mean more disk space and - most noticeably longer load times. Given that and if longer bigger DLC is coming we need some evidence (other than the moving white line) about the progress of the load and estimated time to conclusion? It would be useful to know if you’ve enough time to completion of the load to say, make a cup of tea, prepare the Sunday lunch or go on holiday before it completes.
