Hello all, as the title imply, I would like to know why make longer route if they are not to be use fully, for example the new Cajun Pass and the Sherman hill, with all the run available, only a very small number make the full route, most of them you make part of the route, then the run stop in the middle of nowhere At this point it would be better to have shorter route and be able to have most run use the whole route
I think this is a compromise. There are not many people who can last 2-3 hours. These full-length services are especially for them perhaps. For the rest - divided into parts. You can always do 'back to free roam' and continue your journey * a part of timetable are sequences of this type. BR o7
but that is not the way the game is design; the game is design to do the run as they are laid out in the route menu as for those that can not (or do not want to) do the full route, then they can do just the part from the start they want to do, or wait until they can afford the time to do the full route
Probably designed that way bearing in mind TSW3 launched with the save function removed and only restored after considerable community pressure applied to DTG. However it should be noted not just TSW that suffers this. I bought several routes recently for TSC, such as Welsh Marches, and very few have scenarios that take you across the entire route in one go.
Some services have (Part 1), (Part 2), etc in the name. With these services, click the 'Return to Free Roam' button to resume the service. I've not properly dived into Cajon yet so don't know if it has these.
i But it is a waste if the route can not be done in most o the runs, that is why I am saying they should then make shorter route that can be done from one end to the other for most if not all of the runs
I like the splitted into parts services or sequences like for BR 363 on DRA or CRR' so called moves. However, there are indeed not many of 'no-stop' full runs, true.
I am not saying there could be a few runs like that, the split one, but not ost of them For any trainset made, or to be made in the future, most runs should from one end to the other, and if the route planned is estimate not to be possible to do it like that then make only part of the route, so that it can be use fully
Your argument makes no sense. Just continue to the next service if you want the full run. Why take options away from players?
If you want long runs try "The Setup" on Clinchfield. An hour and a half of accumulated play and still got about half a dozen switching moves to do.
It is not taking option from player, it is to give a real run, otherwise it is a waste of resources to create a long route and not be able to use except for a few runs and the Next service is never the continuation, it is another run, and also it never start from the stop point of the previous run
I don't drive US Freight that often, but as far as I can remember, these services are linked to each other in the timetables. I don't know of any example where parts here would not have been passable? You don't always drive the whole track. They probably don't do that IRL either. On the other hand, you can create your own scenario. But would that be so satisfying?
If you pick 'Return to Free Roam', you carry on in the same train without having to go back through the menu and reload the game, as long as the train you're in has another service in sequence and isn't leaving the map. It's the quickest way to carry on driving and makes self-contained routes a joy to drive. With this method, you do start from the stop point of the previous run.
An example of this: First leg Service name : Z-ELPSDG6-05 Route: Barstow -> Victorville Start time: 09:02 Duration: 41m Second leg Service name: Z-ELPSDG6-05 Route: Victorville -> San Bernadino Start time: 09:43 Duration: 1h 17m As SonicScott91 says, all you have to do when you arrive in Victorville and complete the first leg is to pick Return to Free Roam to be put back in the seat and be ready to continue on the second leg from Victorville to San Bernadino. The good thing about DTG setting it up like this is that you can choose to continue straight away or, if you don't have the time, load up the second part some other day and continue from where you left off without having to use the buggy Save Game function.
I think the way it is currently is the best option especially with a save function still not working as intended. Like many have said you are free to continue part 2 of a service if you so wish. If you really want the full experience try doing L-SBDHES3-05a & b as a continuation. I mean you only have an approximate layover at Hesperia of 3 1/2 hours.
Shorter routes wouldn't make sense in some cases, especially freight ones. I wouldn't want a shorter route that ends in the middle of the tracks in the middle of nowhere if that's where the devs decided to end it. And I like split up services cuz I don't got time to sit for 2 hours and do a full run and with save game not working half the time atm, I wouldn't be interested in a full run. Also shorter routes means more frustrated people. I wouldn't want to drive like a 10km route that would be over in like 10 minutes doing end up end runs. It wouldn't even be worth the $30 I pay for a route.
IIRC, Cajon Pass does have a few services that do the entire run from Barstow to San Bernardino. But most have a stop in Victorville or Hesperia. EDIT: Also for a route like Sherman Hill or Cajon Pass. Building the route only half way would cause an extreme uproar in the NA communities, cause both routes "SHOUD" be their full lenghts. Cajon Pass not to Barstow takes away flat Desert Running, and Sherman Hill isnt Sherman Hill without both Laramie and Cheyenne (Though DTG had to cut track 3)
Now we finally get to a point with longer routes, what is a huge step up for tsw in my opinion and makes the entire experience massive better. So whats happening now? A few "gold medal hunter" appear on the horizon and complain it takes too long for them etc. My advice, please go for an other arcade game if you care all about medals. I understand many arguments of people just spend 1 hour or 30mins in the sim, and thats ok. If we get a full working save system, everybody is happy. But the "short" routes were one of my most annoying points in tsw. I agree not everybody is into that and its just too expensive for a shot in the blue for dtg, so the solution might be to focus on a extension system, each independent dlcs, where players can plug (buy) their prefered route lenght. But shorter routes because Hans is only playing 30mins? NOT AT ALL. You can always plan your trip and leave at a station. Next day take over the service at this station, but yeah i guess our medal grinders have to get a point in their life too. But why cant you just seach another peace of software for it? To bring your question to a point: long routes combined in a network gives you exponnential variety. On top the big variety tsw starts to have, gives the ultimate immersion booster. Means when dtg is gonna sell, there is something for everybodies taste, not just make the a to b longer.
Extending sehs was the best thing dtg could do as premiere, you can always just drive to ebsfleet and quit. But for people like the jurney to ashford, its possible now.
I'm by no means a medal hunter but there's room for every kind of player in TSW. DTG chose to put medals into TSW, therefore players wanting to earn as many gold medals as possible is a completely valid way of playing. They don't need to go to another piece of software, they're most welcome here Complaints around medals are because DTG set the score thresholds too high that gold medals are impossible to achieve on some services. I've not seen any medal hunters complain about longer route lengths.
I wouldn't exactly call them long routes. 100 miles is a fairly short distance. There's not many routes in tsw the represent the entire length of a line.
TSW is a broad church, and the more players we have the more content we'll get, telling someone to go play another game just because you think your way is the only way comes across as arrogant and is ultimately self-defeating. You already can play longer services is you combine them using the methods illustrated above, and there's plenty of single runs in excess of 90minutes to 2 hours as well. We're slowly getting longer routes BUT in order for them to be a commercial success they need to offer something for all players, which IMO is something DTG are getting the balance right on.
Thats the discussion we need, that dtg can cover a huge fanbase with tons of different playing styles we had already in a thread one year ago. Thats something tsw does well. Nothing is ment personally here, everybody can share his opinion.
Take it this way, a train driver that take the train at Barstow (or San Bernardino), or at one of the yard on Sherman hill, would not just drive the train to the summit of either hill (pass), but all the way to at least the next yard, so the way it is done right now is not realistic at all Yes i do agree that so runs would be to bring goods to factory or other industry along the way, and those I am OK with, have them in, but also have the runs that are from or to the East coast to the West coast, be from the North yard to the South yard, and vice-versa That way you something for everyone, the short runs that delivers the goods along the way, for those that prefer to do short runs, and the full length runs for those that prefer the longer
No, IRL they would drive it halfway, get stuck at a red, run out of hours and have to tie down the train for the next crew, cause PSR.....
UK Freight trains often get held at signals for 30mins plus to allow passenger trains to pass, do you really want to be held at a red for a considerable time? L-SBDHES3-05a & b on Cajon should be 1 single service, but who in their right mind wants to be held at a red for 3 1/2 hours?? And as been said many times in this thread, there is nothing stopping you combining both or more parts of a service into a single run. So what you are asking for is already possible in game.
You'd then have to wait another hour or two for the crew van, then ride in the van for several more hours. They'd then send a different crew the next day to continue the run so that they don't have to pay you overtime to stay overnight on the other end.
I find it kind of absurd to suggest that only with these newer routes do we know need to divide services in half. Does anyone here seriously think everyone has the time to sit down and play a hour and a half on Sand Patch or Clinchfield? Hell, isn't it kind of ignorant to even assume everyone has thirty minutes to do so? Sure most probably can, but then again most people have two arms, and I would be probably be considered scum if I were to suggest DTG shouldn't cater to amputees. I can sit down and play most modern games for either five minutes or five hours if I really want to, there save systems are flexible enough to allow anyone to play them. TSW doesn't have this (reliably at least) and frankly I would consider this a accessibly issue. If you are tight on time there's huge parts of content that you spent good money on that you can't play easily because of this. This isn't something people should tolerate half measures on, because you're never gonna account for everyone. Some services do make sense to divide in half, for example some of Sand Patch's services use helpers, and those decouple at summit. So those make logical sense to bring to a stop, and to divide into two (or three technically) parts. But there should be sensible reasons behind it, not just a vain attempt to be more accessible. Saving would solve those problems way better if it actually bloody worked consistently.
Well I just finished "The Setup" on Clinchfield with a total time of two and a half hours. Luckily the save game didn't let me down as it took four or five sessions to complete. I certainly think once the save game is in a reliable state, DTG should revisit Cajon and make any services that are booked to run straight through as one continuous journey, not broken in two at Victorville.
I think that a split actually corresponds more to the real nature and not to the imperfections of the memory function. And I think it also has a lot to do with motivation. Even if I had a lot of time and the save function was error-free - would I really want to do a service longer than 3 hours? Hardly likely. It is certainly also a question of the attention span that you sometimes expect an end after 1.5 hours. So I can conclude this service as one that has been successfully completed and I feel good about it. And there is nothing to prevent you from completing further service afterwards or from resuming service from the free roam. If you have the time, desire and motivation to do so - please. Assuming that most services would actually mean the complete run, I would have little motivation to do so, despite saving. Also because there is only one memory slot. But to conclude or demand that the routes should be shorter is, with all due respect, outrageous.
And you comment is exactly what I mean, why make longer route, if the need is for shorter one. Like you said most people, for whatever the reason prefers shorter runs, then DTG should make shorter route that fit what people prefer to do, and so we can make runs that goes from one end to the other in the laps of time that fit what most people prefer to be in the game
All the more reason we need a robust save system with one quicksave slot and multiple additional slots where we can stick longer services we don't have the time to complete in a single sitting, or right away the next time we have time free. Sometimes I absolutely love having a two hour service I can sit down with and relax to, setting aside some proper time out from my day and knowing that I won't let myself get distracted by real life's worries for a healthy while. And I appreciate them being there, just as much as I appreciate having ones I can do on a short break. As long as we get a varied bunch of services for each loco on a route I don't mind having a mix of longer and shorter ones.
The services being split in Cajon Pass is a good thing and has no real downsides to it. If players only consider a full run from one end to another as the gameplay and not consider a shorter run as a gameplay option then having each service go all the way end to end may fit with their thinking. If a player has the time to do the full run or wants to split a full run with a save to finish later then the full run being one service would be fine. However, some players may only want to run half the route as the way they play the game. And they don’t need a shorter route to do that, you can run a shorter section of the longer route. If you take an F7 service from San Bernadino to Barstow, the first part of such a service is a very long uphill grind, whereas the second part is a fast run. The option is there currently to play the fastest section as often as you like without first having to play for the two hours or so to get to that bit every time you want to drive the downhill bit. The save function is not an option here but splitting the service into two caters for both a half run or a full run. It is very much the correct way to set out the services on such a timetable. The split points aren’t always the same place either so that adds to the choice of length of the run you might want to do. If doing the whole run os your thing then stopping at a red signal somewhere along the way is a perfectly legitimate thing to happen and having the service split there is not an issue. You can just jump back in, as explained many times. Not everyone considers the full run to be the only correct way to play. Having said that, I have played nearly every service on Cajon, with all three locos, and generally (except on one or two occasions) finished the complete run by driving both halves in one sitting. I’ve even done a there and back in one sitting, so I’m all for long runs but having them split into sections hasn’t been an issue, it just makes it better all round. I can’t see myself returning to do full runs all the time, selecting one service for part of the route will become a way I will play as well. DTG have catered for all eventualities here with their split services.
Even if thats the case that many people prefere short runs, it doesnt mean most people prefere short routes. Why do we need smartphones if 80% want to use their mobile for phone only? The millions of features nobody needs are a huge selling point. In tsw its about getting more variety/ network, connected regions, more activities, freight & passenger & shunting all in one map. On top you can travel as passenger, get out of a train and jump into the next train. Tons of possibilities. And to be straight, every single time at northwhite plains im annoyed because i cant go to southeast. Big size maps allow just more activities and more immersion. On a short a to b route you mostly will follow the green singnals. This means on the other side the devs have to use its potential. I agree in only one point with your opinion. Not every route has to be long or getting extended. Small branchlines like a merdy route is also very welcome, they could add variety in rolling stock instad. My opinion is a dev has to think big, means today planning and create for the future. Having 4 different dostos already in the big uniqe opportunity of a new train sim with an entire reset of its stock isnt quite the "big thinking", just hope dtg can keep it under control without hiring an entire team to clean the mess of former dlcs. Once again, nice to get longer routes. But the real progress of tsw 3 is the extended uk route in my opinion.
I don't get what the problem is here? You can drive the full route or am I missing something? There's a few services where you can go from one end to the other. Or services where you may have to change trains half way through but still get to drive the full length. It's not like there's 50 miles of track that's completely un accessible.
The point is if they make long route, like the Cajon Pass, Sherman hill, etc..., if most of the runs are the shorter kind, then you only get to see a very short part of the route anyway, so why make it long. We want to see the scenery around the route, but with a longer route like Cajon Pass, you only get to it a few times as the runs are mostly short, then they should create the short route so we get to enjoy the complete scenery. look at the new German route, I read it is the longest route ever made, and at the same time most of the runs are from one end to the other and we can then enjoy it to the fullest
Rats point is (as far im correct), that london 2 brighton could end at gatwick airport, because most people only drive 30mins... Its just funny, since ts2020 there were tons of threads "pls make longer routes" etc, even more about merge and extending. I question the point of this thread. A short route in RL will never get longer when making the digital counterpart of it. With a growing amount of devs the focus should be on a healthy mix of all kind of routes, but reasonable ending points.
only on a very few runs that you can enjoy the full route, so or 90%+ of the runs available, most of the route is wasted
It depends on the route and the service. A route like cajon pass where the service you are joining has already travelled 100s of miles has probably reached the end of its travels half way through cajon pass or maybe even due a change of crew. It's a realistic timetable. That's what the services do in rl. You can use scenario designer to make a service and do the full run.
Again it's a realistic timetable. Trains run from both Victoria and Brighton and terminate a Gatwick Airport, for passengers traveling to Gatwick Airport only. There's loads of services that do the full run also.
That also doesn't mean people want shorter routes. People can get really upset the routes are too short. For example the high speed routes and the actual short routes like harlem and luzern sursee got a lot of angry people cuz it was too short and not worth the price. People aren't going to be happy with shorter or longer routes. I don't want situations where routes are shortened just to make us stop at a random location where it doesn't make sense. Like if it was a high speed route, I wouldn't want the endpoint to be like a random like sbahn station cuz the route builders decided to end the route there. Or for a freight route, they decide that a random location in the middle of the track is a good idea to end the route. I don't want a worse experience just cus the route is shortened. Also realize shorter routes means we gotta pay more. Like it they decided to split a 40 mile route into 2, 20 mile routes, we would be paying double to get 2 than 1 40 mile route.
Its not people pay 30euro to enjoy 99% of a tracksection in one time and leave it after 1 run. Isnt it better with a long route and a certain amount of activity to enjoy the route over a long period of time? Discover new details or new surprises in a different service? Since dtg implemented a.i services, we got more variety and with the new tsw 3, the player is like one driver in a huge map, needs to perform his tasks while nobody is waiting the delays. This is what makes it immersing. In the begin the impression was more everything was about the player. Tsw is on a very good way, and you can have a short trip even when playing a big route.
I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to impose their way of playing on others - but then again, this is the internet I guess. Most people's attention span for playing (and this is from a PC only audience, not taking console into account, before anyone starts casting shade in that direction) is 30-45 minutes. That's not the only reason for cutting services up however. My personal preference is the downhill run on US long haulers - I don't enjoy the uphill's as much but one must go up to go down, so without cuts, you have to start every service at the beginning and endure the long run up before you get to what you wanted - and now you're long past the 30-45 minute attention span. Saying "all runs stop at Gatwick" means you're forgetting people like to start at Brighton (or anywhere else on the route). Longer routes aren't a problem at all. A longer route means you can have a variety of shorter runs that are all different. Chaining of services together one after the other means you can still do the longer run without problem. We really only cut up the US services because otherwise it's all 2-3 hour gameplay and most people will just skip it, that's not choice. The *ONLY* downside with the split services is that you have to stop partway and then get going right away again rather than just blasting through - but it's not the end of the world at all, and we do try and add some straight through services in as well to mitigate that. I just honestly don't see what the problem is here. It should be the best of both worlds. Play the game your way, if you're enjoying it, you're doing it right. Matt.
Well there is no scenario designer yet, and probably never, and even if there was one, what would be the point, after you are done creating the scenario, there is no more incentive to run it as you already know everything that will happen
yes and I agree, and I have not mentioned this route, as the route is good, since most it is the full or nearly full route
