Put on your tin foil hats and get your neuralisers ready, it's time for a conspiracy. When DTG cancelled the editor for TSW they gave the very basic explanation of 'licensing issues'. However, other games have distributed modified versions of the Unreal Engine, which was what DTG said was the problem. So unless DTG have done something very specific and dramatic with Unreal that they haven't explained which makes them unable to distribute it, there has to be another reason or reasons. Train Simulator has been kept going for years because of its editor. While anyone can make anything for TS, most mods require at least one DTG pack to work, meaning a relatively small amount of TS mods don't support DTG in any way. Even largely separate mods may still need something like the European Loco and Asset Pack to run. However, because of how open TS' editor is DTG have absolutely no control over what is made and released. Anyone can make anything with the time and effort, but the trouble with this is that people can profit without any of it going to DTG. Remember, if I buy twenty third party TS routes that use the EU Loco and Asset Pack, I only need to buy that pack once, so DTG only profit once from that. And for that reason I have theorised the cancellation of the TSW editor had nothing to do with licensing, but rather was to do with control and business. If DTG released an editor for TSW, it would be the only thing that would bring me back to the game. The scenario planner may not be the 'glorified Quick Drive' some describe it to be, but it is no substitute for an actual scenario editor. Similarly, there is a commendable effort to reverse engineer the route editor but this can only go so far without insider knowledge. Therefore anything made for TSW has to go through DTG in some way. Those lucky enough to get chosen to develop trains and routes have to do so on DTG's terms, with DTG and the storefront taking much of the money made from sales. Reskins can be made, but must use DTG's servers if they are to be made available on consoles. Scenarios can be made in the scenario planner and published but advanced scenarios can't be made easily, if at all. In Train Simulator I am building a route. I can release it for how much I want, when I want and can keep all the money for myself. If I wanted to put it on Steam, I'd have to get in touch with DTG or a partner company and then the long process of getting it on there would start, with them taking a cut of the profits made and both Valve and DTG will take a cut. The prices would not be set by me (hence why Virtual Railroads and other developers dumb down content to make it reflect the lower price DTG sets) and I've effectively lost control of my own product. This is why the majority of TS third party developers release outside of Steam. TSW is different. If Matt Peddlesden sent me an email saying "Yes, let's get you started on TSW DLC" there would be a learning period for the tools, then the very long development times, and then it would have to be released based on DTG's pricing. Again, DTG takes a cut - but there's no other option. For TSW, you either go with DTG or you don't go at all. This means DTG will take a cut no matter who releases for TSW, and this cut will be far larger than the one-time purchase of the Great Western Main Line I made nine years ago to get the EU Loco and Asset Pack. In summary, my theory, true or not, is that DTG purposely cancelled the TSW editor after realising they'd make more from profit cuts from third party developers than the purchasing of DLC to use as asset packs. While DTG doesn't release sales figures, I reckon that TSW as it stands now makes more than TS, and I believe the lack of an editor is an indirect part of this as it forces all TSW DLC to go through DTG.
TSW is all about the cash. TSC went for market dominance and they got that boxed off, when someone mentions TrainSimulator, you always go to TSC. TrainSimWorld is never going to get that same feat, and even if it did, it wouldn’t matter. TSW is basically a cash cow for DTG, ultimately they don’t need to appease PC players, all they need to do is keep console users paying and for that they have no need to share their editor. Honestly the lack of an editor doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the state of Scenario Planner & the complete lack of a consist editor. Ultimately, DTG introducing the unreal editor would massively negate their ability to unveil ‘flashy’ features, which DTG seem think makes TSW modular & attractive.
I can understand to some extent them holding back a route editor, but really no excuse at this stage for not having a decent activity and consist editor. It has gone entirely quiet on Scenario Planner 2.0, it’s high time we were not restricted to the limited consists and pathing that we currently have. Not saying we should get access to the full timetable editor, though I don’t really see why not, but something better than what is available. We also need a Quick Drive similar to TSC which will randomly populate the route with AI traffic rather than having to put in manually using the very limited slots available.
I see your logic, but as far as I'm aware it would be perfectly legal for Dovetail to put in the license for the editor "you will not commercially distribute anything you make with these tools without Dovetail Games' permission". But that said, I do doubt that licensing issues were the whole story, not with how much they hyped the editor and how many Unreal games with mod support are out there.
Maybe DTG will release editor for TSW based on UE4, when they will release another incarnation (whatever number it will have) of TSW based on UE5. This way TSW UE5 will be the new cash generator and TSW on UE4 will be not longer officially supported by DTG, hence why not let people develop some routes etc. for it, if they want.
It's just a continued lack of understanding of the simulation community at large. Games where user mods are allowed thrive while closed systems die off. To some extent, mods have kept the truck simulators going strong for a decade. Same goes for something like GTAV. Flight simulator is an obvious example as well. I even see some niche places that keep the old Microsoft Train Simulator alive with mods. It's quite amazing what a community can do to breathe life into a game with mods. I could imagine TSW with a thriving freeware and payware marketplace with new routes and trains to try out. And I agree, the licencing issue is a lame excuse. Why would this hobby be so unique as being a barrier? By the same logic, shouldnt TSC's freeware section be shut down? Anyhow, good conversation, but ultimately will fall on deaf ears. TSW is destined to remain small and niche.
It’s quite something to mislead people when you say an editor is coming, then mislead them again when you say it’s not. In my opinion it’s very obvious that DTG’s management want as much of the revenue as they can get their hands on, because that’s what their accountants can readily quantify. Only they know whether that is their greed, or the pressure being put on them by their Venture Capital investors (https://www.alcuincapital.com). I suspect the latter FWIW. What accountants can’t put a value on though is the longevity of the game when non-DTG developers are able to sustain it organically. Keeping an editor out of the public domain means they can control everything and therefore control the revenue. The accountants ought to look at why TSC has lasted as long as it has. Clue, it’s not because of DTG’s content, as much of it is woeful. Many of DTG’s routes eventually end up being pretty good but their rolling stock is shockingly poor. Were it not for Armstrong Powerhouse I would never have got into TSC, and nor would I have spent far too much money on DTG’s borked content to allow AP’s stuff to work. Were it not for the editor it’s highly likely that devs like ATS would never have come into being. I’ve bought DTG TSC content this very month to allow me to get the most out of ATS’s Kings X - Cambridge route. Without the editor allowing that to happen I’d have been off playing another game. ATS existing and coming into TSW can probably be traced back to the fact that TSC had an editor. In my general experience businesses that are run by accountants for shareholders/investors benefit are never particularly very good at what they do because they lose sight of the most important people, the staff and the customers. Treat your staff well and give your customers a consistently excellent product and the rest takes care of itself. You might not make as much profit in the very short term, but you will have a much healthier and longer lasting business going forward. Look at what’s happened to Southwest Airlines since Herb Keller left and they started running the business by the balance sheet. I’d say that by stopping a public editor DTG are severely limiting the game’s development. It’s clearly putting far too much pressure on the deadlines the developers are working to. As a consequence many of us are done with spending money on this stuff, and more and more people will come to the same conclusion when they reach their own personal tipping point. You should never rest on your laurels or treat your customers like idiots. In my opinion DTG (not necessarily the developers) have been doing both for FAR too long, particularly where TSW is concerned.
I do find it odd that Bus Simulator 21 has a official modkit that allow you to make maps, custom assets and buses but this game doesn't. As the OP stated, there are other UE games that have tools for players to create whatever they like. The whole licensing issues thing frankly is vague and doesn't explain the full picture. What I don't really understand is what happened to scenario planner 2.0 and why do we not have a timetable editor? Adding those things would allow players to really be more creative when it comes to making scenarios because at it's current form, Scenario planner is extremely basic in design. A timetable editor would allow people to add services they perhaps want to see in a route. For example, there were complaints by some that the Class 385 can't be used in the timetable on Cathcart Circle. Whilst the reasoning as to why it can't is completely justified, having a timetable editor would allow those that would want to add a different train to a timetable to do just that which could lead to interesting timetables in routes that perhaps don't have much variety. If there was an editor though, how would be implemented for console users? Unless DTG add a editor system similar to one seen in Cities Skylines, I can't see an editor coming to consoles. As for DTG not adding an editor due to them being "greedy", I don't think that is the case. If it was, then there would be no editor in TSC by that logic and all third party stuff would be taken down if DTG wanted all the money for themselves surely? Clearly something happened that prevented an editor to not come for tsw, but I don't think it has anything to due with DTG wanting to maximize revenue although I do understand why some here may think that. Also while yes the console market makes most of the revenue for TSW, you have to understand that there really isn't an alternative for console players who want to play a train simulator and hasn't been one since tsw was released. On xbox, the only other train game is metro simulator. That isn't DTG's fault but that's just how it is. With simrail coming to consoles, there will at least be an proper alternative to tsw for console users
what about the licensing be referring at least in part to the license required by the train companies and other such license holding party, other than EPIC and Dove Tail Games
That could be why. Cuz it allows players to release liveries dtg doesn't have the licenses to which could harm future relations with those tocs. But you could make the argument about creators club which probably has lots of liveries that dtg don't have the licenses to.
We're talking about the route editor here. And even if we were talking about rolling stock, it is up to the third party creator to conform to copyright laws and not DTG.
What’s even worse is hyping up the editor release, doing an editor preview stream where they say “while you wait for the editor, make sure to buy more content and build up your collection for when the editor releases” for them to silently cancel it, and release not one, but two brand new paid games.
From the first day when they announced editor it was clearly stated that editor will never come to consoles and it will be PC only. So console users knows that from the beginning that they will be limited with that feature. And because DTG would like to have same content on consoles like on PC then they just completely canceled public editor because if consoles cant have it then nobody will have it... that was stated many times too.
Let's see what happens when SimRail comes out with an editor. That will put an awful lot of pressure on DTG to release an editor, too.
Dtg is activly blocking what gives freedome & creativity to players in tsw. I got the ntp path extension mod, it was just entirely diffrent and atmospheric to place static stock, have 30+ services etc. Back in 2021 you could take over an a.i service as long the train has stopped. This got cutted and the game only allows your service to control. There is a red text now. Somebody at dtgs house must have noticed a player could just take over the other train and drive back. 2nd evidence are the pathetic few paths players can choose in scenario planner. Further on i tried a walkaround and coupled at the end destination at lackenby tvl, an a.i train which had to go in the other direction. So the a.i driver was spawning like regular but not active due my loco was coupled and controlled by me. Actually the signalling were setting up correctly to drive back, but after the mainsignal bCk on the mainline i got stuck at a red. Just get it, tsc is still a cashcow and dtg doesnt want you to have more freedome as the basic "quick drive" called scenario planner. No consist editor too. My personal guess is they must have realised there are far more talented and ambitious modder out there as they ever could keep up.
That was perhaps a reality back then, but not now. There are many simulator games on console with built in mod downloaders. Farming Sim, MSFS, Snow Runner as examples. The only caveat with console modding is the restriction of scripting due the closed nature of the platforms. Throwing down some track and using existing trains and scenery assets could be done. Not sure if this game could allow for custom scenery assets. Definitely not an easy undertaking to implement, but shouldn't be impossible.
DTG never specified which licensed were the problem. I highly doubt it's about Unreal itself, but there are 2 possibilities: They use some 3rd party libraries that have their own licensing restrictions (don't make the mistake of thinking that Unreal engine is the only software in the game subject to licensing) The editor would have allowed users to make use of DTG content (trains and assets) in ways that violated the agreement DTG has with the license holders (railway companies). It would only take one such strict license agreement to make it infeasible to release an editor without some strict content control. Without knowing details regarding 3rd party agreements it's rather dumb to speculate that they are not being truthful. And by their nature these are things that would certainly not be elaborated on to the public. No sane business would share details of a legal nature.
All well and good, but you’re forgetting Train Sim Classic. If you’re going to call people ‘dumb’ make sure your argument is bulletproof first.
According to Occam´s Razor, I´d simply suspect that the dev nerds over there are not capable to implement a decent editor into an already messy software structure.
The software structure aint bad at all tbh. It isn't about not being capable ( they are capable), it's more about control and $.
Exactly this. It's what Kuju and their EA masters wanted in the run up to Rail Simulator in 2007 (later Railworks), even to the point of having to request access to the editors, initially. Fortunately they didn't get their way and the independent Railworks/TSC scene thrives, though with file hosting issues if what you make doesn't conform to (now) DTG's Steam Workshop restrictions.
Yeah The console market is bigger than Pc and they can't handle editors that well and then there's no point in dovetail developing it. so constraints in consoles become a constraint for all.
An editor doesn't need to be released on console. Other games with editors / mods are built on PC and are made available through the game using an in game mod hub.
For those with patience, the current "consist editor" is using manual track sections on mainlines to model your desired train. For example washford on the wsr railway. The player starts at washford direction minehead. Technically you can now set up 5 trains ending at washford, all direction minehead. I park my train directly on the manual sidings to not cause problems with signals. This way i created the Rhht with "rog" painted class 37s. Only Downside, it takes a lot of time. With a Route based consist editor it would be much easier.
I fail to see the relevance of TSC here. Licenses can be granted for one thing in one product, not necessarily as a blanket coverage that allows them to freely use it wherever. We have had the devs say on stream before that just because they had rights to use something in TSC didn't automatically mean it applies to TSW. We also know that every license holder is different and needs negotiates different terms. Besides, if you wanted to make the argument that it's ok to use someone else's IP because we did it before (or someone else did it before) then that's a very poor legal argument. And on another note, saying an argument is dumb is not equivalent to calling people dumb. But I guess it was a mistake to assume the posters of this forum would be reasonable enough not to twist my words. That's what I get for trying to bring logic into a conspiracy thread I guess.
Just because you fail to see it doesn’t mean TSC doesn’t have relevance. Of course it does. To suggest that a TOC would be happy to give their licence for TSC which has an editor (and remember, is a game in which you can pass red signals and crash at whatever speed you wish) but then not grant a licence to TSW is just not realistic. If you’re keen on logic, where’s the logic in that? What possible reason could someone have for granting a licence for one and not the other, particularly when the ‘other’ actively prevents you from crashing? I’m not suggesting you make the assumption that one automatically grants rights to the other, but it follows that it’s a weird road to travel that gets you to one being ok and the other not. I don’t know if you’re a longer time lurker, or these being your 2nd & 3rd posts shows you’re new to the game, but just because DTG say something in a stream does not mean it’s actually the case. Learning this sooner rather than later will stand you in good stead. The point being that just because DTG say ‘no editor’ is down to licensing doesn’t automatically mean that that is the case.
I find it hard to believe that there was all the Hype about the release of the editor then dtg just changed their minds due to it being unfair on console owners. More like someone higher up got wind of it and realised there would be a big loss in revenue if players could create diesel legends of great Western all by themselves and not have to pay money for it for example. Or upgrade routes etc...
Yea, there is a reason I don't post here. Who cares how many posts I've made? I have been following TSW since its first announcement and I have seen most of the comments DTG have made public through various media. I usually avoid these forums because frankly there's a lot of people here who seem to have bad social skills. Your argument is based on a very naive perspective of business legal relations. As I said in my previous post, you cannot assume an IP holder is OK with something new just because of a previous agreement you might have had. You are using blanket logic. DTG doesn't want to lose their relationships, or worse be sued; and we have seen that they have gone as far as deliberately excluding certain trains from the livery editor because of licensing restrictions. To me, that is a sign that they take many precautions with legal concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if this attitude is the result of some previous backlash that occurred (possibly in TSC, where you seem to think they have so much free reign) with a license holder. Heck with how many other companies DTG works with I'd say some legal disagreement would be inevitable. But like I said before, you can't, in a legal setting, make the claim that you're in the clear because you did something before and nobody stopped you. If you truly believe that DTG has devine control over everything they do and just choose to lie to their paying customers, then it to me shows a level of immaturity. I have worked over 10 years in an industry that focuses on game-based simulation software and I would advise people here to trust me that developers are human people who often have their hands tied by having to support running a business. There are times when they simply don't have the power or capability to do something even if they really wanted to and thought they could. Falling short of a goal happens often, and trying to explain the details to your customers will only get you in more trouble. Of course I realize I'm preaching this to a forum full of devout DTG skeptics so how can I expect people to see things any other way, but I still wanted to share my experience.
Which of course you’re absolutely right to do. I re-iterate again though that I have never said, nor implied, that having the licence for a company in TSC confers the right to use the same licence in TSW. In my last post I said the opposite, explicitly. You accused me of twisting your words, well, pot kettle etc. This is a thread about an editor. DTG claimed that the reason there isn’t one is down to licensing. I don’t believe them. There are plenty UE4 games out there with built in editors and in this context TSC is absolutely relevant because that is a DTG made train simulator with licences and an editor. The law is the law, it’s not one rule for one and one rule for another. Finally, if everything DTG said in their streams had come to fruition this would literally be the best game ever. Whether you want to label it as lying, misleading, massaging the truth, making a honest mistake, accidentally sharing information they shouldn’t, it matters not. The upshot is the same, they’ve said one thing and done another many many times over. I’ve spent money on their products because I believed what they said when what they said wasn’t true. I’ve every right to be hacked off by that, as have many others here who want the best for this franchise but are constantly frustrated by it falling short of what is promised. If I’m wrong on this one, then explain why DTG themselves have publicly apologised God knows how many times for doing this very thing. Each time they’ve said ‘they must do better’ I’ve believed them until they fed us the bulls*** about taking time out to finally fix the many issues with TSW2 and instead the paid, forced, upgrade to TSW3 came along. Then they made all manner of claims about TSW3 which weren’t true either whilst hyping it to high heaven to sell it. That, for me, was the straw that broke the Camels back, and if they’re going to treat people who’ve been with them from the beginning like that then they’d better damn well expect some pushback. And yes, that includes the ‘make sure you’ve got all the content so you can get the most out of the editor’ LOVE.
And, of course, if issue with TOCs were the cause, they could just restrict the ability to use DTG DLC in the editor.
DTG have proven time and time again that they are immature, but I think I'd be repeating my past threads if I were to list all the reasons.
There is absolutely no acceptable reason why TSW doesn't have an editor. The "licensing issues" excuse is deplorably pathetic, and it is utterly shameful how DTG destroyed the trust and betrayed their dedicated customers by breaking what is arguably, the most hyped promise they ever made. As others have mentioned, it makes zero sense that a carrier would grant a license to DTG for TSC which has an editor, but not for TSW. And considering that cooked content can't be edited in the first place, there shouldn't be concern that someone could edit DTG or third party content. Cooked assets could be restricted if need be as well, but there's absolutely no reason why an editor can't exist for users to create their own routes and rolling stock from scratch. Furthermore, while the official editor does include paid extensions to the Unreal Editor, such as SimplyGon, these extensions are publicly available and if one wanted to enable the functionality provided by such an extension, they could simply purchase it themselves through Epic's marketplace. Unreal's license is clearly not an issue either, as the Unreal Editor is publicly available for free contingent upon income generated by content created in the editor falling below a certain threshold. Even the source code to Unreal Editor is available to the public for crying out loud! In the past, DTG has implicated the complexity and learning curve of the Unreal Editor as another sorry excuse for why they can't release a public editor. Yet in reality, the Unreal Editor is easy to learn for anyone who puts the time in. The blueprint system allows those who don't know programming and scripting an easy to use, connect the dots, graphical interface to implement complex gameplay logic. In my opinion, the Unreal Editor is easier to use than the editor in TSC, and provides a much wider array of features. The argument about how the editor would not be available on consoles is true. Any editor for consoles would have to be built into the game, much like Livery Designer and Scenario Planner, and would be severely limited compared to the capabilities the full Unreal Editor offers. However, the notion that console players would be too jealous of PC players because they have the equipment to run the full editor has to be the most petty excuse I ever heard. Bottom line is there is simply no excuse why DTG reneged on their promise and no one should simply accept their decision, whatever the supposed reason, and those who were let down should continue to protest until DTG puts the editor back on the table. DTG should NEVER EVER hear the end of this!
Different product, difference licensing agreements. If you're selling TSW as an "ultra realism based" product, didn't SNCF send a 4 page document with some incredibly small changes in order for licence granting, while TSC may have been gained in a much looser nature. Just because DTG have a licence, doesn't mean it is all encompassing. Other sims, for example, will get a manufacturer's license, but for one product at a time, so even though they hold a VOLVO licence agreement with Eurotruck it doesn't cover volvo on American truck
You don't need to be a long time user of a forum to know how licencing agreements work, to be honest, I get the strong impression you don't either. But nice, bully other users. That'll sure get your opinions accepted
Yes, we know TSC and TSW *may* be covered by different licensing agreements (though I suspect that DTG tries to cover both TSC and TSW with the same agreement). But anything about how they differ is speculation, and in any case as I have stated irrelevant to the question of the editor.
I don’t see how it’s a licensing issue? why would DTG even claim an editor was being worked on, hype it up, and even do an editor preview stream if all along the licensing would affect the editor… that doesn’t make sense.
Brilliant post. ‘Bully’. Best thing I’ve read all year. ps I’m not trying to get my opinions accepted. It’s called a debate.
It has to do with Train operators company licencing agreement with Dovetail Games. Also factor in the infrastructure owners for the railway Network in the UK Network Rail while in Austria it's ÖBB Infra ARTC Australian Railway track Corporation Australia Interstate Network. Switzerland Chemin du Fer Fédéraux Suisse CFF SBB Infra Germany DB Netze. Lastly Infrabel België Belgique and Prorail The Netherlands which you need the information from them to make a custom route.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... The licensing in TS is the issue for the people making content, not DTG. The same applies to safety system implementation, research and everything else required to develop a route. It is up to the developer, not DTG, to get licenses and do research.
My point is this is that in order to make a custom workshop route on the TSW editor you need to get train operator licence and infrastructure owners data to make one.
Why is it any different at all to TSC? I can’t see that it is, not from a legal standpoint at least. ps It’s really difficult to write that sentence in a way that doesn’t appear combative. I’ve edited it to try again, it’s a rhetorical question and I really don’t mean it to sound aggressive!
Why does this continue to be re-hashed over and over? There's no editor. Unless DTG do an unexpected u-turn, there will never be an official editor. Do the reasons even matter at this point? If you want a train sim with an editor, there's several options.
To be blunt about it, I don’t feel like I can particularly trust what DTG say. I would have said that it’s entirely possible this game will see an editor at some point. I personally feel it comes down to whatever drives the most revenue. If the see-saw tips then I’d suggest all bets are off. That’s obviously based on nothing but my gut instinct.
Not that it matters, but regarding the difference in licesning between TSC and TSW, is that the cat is already out of the bag with TSC and no way to undo that. It's entirely possible that, for example, Amtrak made their TSW license contingent on not providing certain editing tools to the end-user, and specfically cited issues they have with user-generated content in TSC. Is DTG supposed to say, "buzz off Amtrak, we don't need you!"...no, because they absolutely need that license to have a viable commercial product. I don't think it's particularly complicated.
We are not debating the existence of it. In my original post I suggested DTG lied (or told a half truth) to keep the control they have over TSW content rather than let it be a free for all like Train Simulator and MSTS. The thread however has become a debate on the amount effect licensing restrictions have on TSW. And yes, I did move back to the train game with an editor. The lack of one is one of the main reasons I gave up on TSW around a year ago.
But DTG have gotten licenses for new TSC content post-TSW launch, and as we know from BNSF licenses can be revoked.
