First where did I say you are a fanboy? Please point me to it because I never said you were a fanboy or called anyone on this thread a fanboy Also where did I say that your views should be ignored? I said that if anyone enjoys a product that is fine. You have a right to say that but a person shouldn't dismiss criticism where it is warranted and it seems some have tried to dismiss valid criticisms as nothing but trolls and other names. On the standards part, a person's standards may be different from someone else and you basically proved my point. I also said that there is nothing wrong with that. You can enjoy the product and can say you do. Just don't dismiss valid criticism is all I was saying. Oh and another thing, try not to take people words and act like they said something they didn't say. Also don't take statements out of context
Your comment literally makes no sense. There are thousands of games big and small that have positive reviews. If a product gets a negative reviews like Cyberpunk 2077 when it first released or Star Wars Battlefront 2 at launch, that does mean something is wrong or there are those that don't enjoy it and will explain why. Just because you like this dlc doesn't prove your point. You enjoy it and that's fine. People that play a product will leave a review that is either positive or negative and will explain why. Just because something doesn't fit your viewpoint doesn't mean it should just be dismissed on both sides
Hey. I’ve edited my post as it’s maybe not clear enough, there are no ‘problems’ with the 158 per se, it’s just noticeably different to AP’s version. I know you’ll tell me that that is because SimuGraph is more realistic than AP’s TSC’s scripting so it may well be that it’s more accurate of course! I’ve no real world experience to compare it to obviously but versus the AP version the brakes take about a third as long again to release from Full Service, it is a fair bit quicker (roughly 3 seconds) to 30mph from a standing start and conversely quicker to stop using Full Service brakes by roughly the same amount. The more general problems I did see with it though were that the instrument light switch seemed to do nothing. To call the GSM-R ‘working’ is stretching the bounds of truth beyond breaking point, to not be able to use the Vultron Destination system is disappointing and the destination display itself is obviously totally wrong. The transition of the sound’s definitely don’t sound correct as you add power to the engine, that was probably the most notable issue. I’m guessing none of that is within your gift to ‘fix’ or add, but those were my first impressions. Regarding the HST, the brakes seem to be way too effective for train of that size and speed and are far too quick to release. The other big thing is that when adding power I believe the VP185 adds approx 600 amps then stabilises for a couple of seconds before the amps then start to build further. That behaviour is totally absent, and it behaves exactly like the GWE HST where you add power and coal immediately goes on the fire. As I said though, the rolling stock are by far and away the best part of the DLC.
There's different opinions. I truly believe that there's people enjoying the route, it is just that each of us has different expectations. Some play to kill time, collect achievements as their main goal, and some want a simulation. For me, I've decided TSW will not be my main game. UE4 can look pretty, but I get more immersion from good route building and a close-to-real simulation of how things work. That's where, for german content, Zusi 3 comes in. All track infrastructure is highly accurate, and it is the only simulator that has the safety systems work like they do in real life, covering old Indusi, PZB, LZB and ETCS. Working EbuLa, MFDs, individual brake setup for each wagon (G/P/R). Yes, it is developed by a small team, and many of the devs have other jobs and build content in their spare time. You only pay for the game once, and all subsequent additions are delivered for free. The operational accuracy and the huge timetables and connected network are so immersive for me that I don't care about the simpler graphics. But this is left to each player. Accept that there are people that have seen much better content for TSW like Rush Hour (they should have set this as a standard) and are apalled by the game not using its potential.
I wouldn't be that dismissive There are areas where Simugraph really shines in comparison to TSC, but the things you brought up are possible to make accurate to real life in both games. So it just comes down to having the right data. For the brake application and release timings I tuned the 158 based on recordings of the brake cylinder gauge in a real Class 158.The timings in the game are to within a tenth of a second (yes I'm picky lol). The AP variant could simply be wrong in this aspect, or it could be within normal variance. The engine and transmission were tuned based on tractive effort diagrams from Voith of the T 211 rz transmission. For the high speed range I also tuned the air resistance characteristics of the train based on real world acceleration timings and "the train will be at this speed at this landmark" anecdotes from an EMR driver. The latter was within +- 1 mph. I think people underestimate how good torque these trains have at low speed. Brakes were also tuned on real world data. I used several different points of data here: OTDR deceleration standards for same/similar class of DMUs, driver reports and posted average deceleration rates per step. All this together gave me enough data to be confident that the Class 158 brakes within the normal variance of the prototype. Here is a graph that shows the braking distance of the in-game Class 158 in full service versus speed. I tested tare braking performance and "crush load" which I approximated as around 140 passengers per car (twice the normal capacity). Now let's compare this against real world tests made by British Rail. On page 23 in this document you can find two similar graphs that plot the braking distance in full service versus speed, for tare and crush load conditions. If anything the in-game performance is slightly worse than the mean of the real world tests, but in line with the ID425 material. For example from 50 km/h (~ 30 mph) the in-game braking distance is bang on compared to the real world tests. I know you didn't conclude that the differences vs AP was because the TSW Class 158 is realistic, but I still wanted to give some evidence/support for the physics of the TSW variant For the criticism you have of the sounds, all I can say is that I somewhat agree but I don't think this is something that is completely fixable in TSW, at least with how the sounds are implemented in TSW vs TSC. In TSW the engine sounds are linked to Simugraph parameters (more specifically the flywheel RPM) and then depending on the RPM of the engine the game interpolates/mixes different loops with some parameter that measures how close the RPM are to different thresholds. In TSC instead when the throttle is notched up a "spool up" sound is played and then fades into a loop. I didn't do the sound engineering for the Class 158, the only thing I did w.r.t. sounds was to change some threshold parameters after I had tweaked Simugraph. There is a reason for why DTG doesn't use the same methods as in TSC, and it is not because they lacked recordings (they had all the recordings that AP made, afaik). Most input I've heard on the sounds (no pun intended), internally in the beta team and from the public, has been positive, but if you happen to notice a bug or artifact then it can really ruin the gameplay, so I completely empathize with you. Lastly, I was not really involved with the HST so I can't speak to that. I do want to go back and implement some of the quirks of the VP185, but I can't promise anything.
I haven’t purchased the route. Wondering how’s the service AI in St Pancras station for SEHS. About how many AI trains does it add per hour there?
Thanks for replying in such depth. It’s not wrong as I said, just different and felt so after having used the AP version for so long. As I also said earlier in the thread, the sort of effort you’ve clearly put in to this is what I’d hope to see replicated across every aspect of this game going forward. That detail is really the ‘future of train sim’
In my opinion, such short distances for the full price as those of the MML are only justified if the overall quality is also corresponding. In other words, if a route is short but well detailed, I would still accept it. The vehicles included are good. But here we have a carelessly created route, which is also extremely short. Also a measly timetable. There would have to be a big makeover to compensate for that. But that won't happen, let's be honest. And if that's the case, then Skyhook has to live with the bad ratings. I'm sorry. No, that's wrong! If something is good, it is also said, see Niddertalbahn. MML isn't good overall though, hence the overwhelmingly bad reviews.
Oh the irony of these services appearing in another route yet they don't actually appear on the route we play. Those 6 per hour in each direction would all originate from Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham etc and should appear on the timetable!
This probably comes down to the TT dev, I believe it was Joe who did the SEHS AI, but it wasn’t him who did the TT for the DLC itself. I still can’t fathom how a relatively small TT IRL was bastardised so much.
I can kind of understand why there would be a low number of HST services as outside of peak-times they were only on 1 train per hour in each direction to Nottingham in 2019. If they plan on releasing a DLC for the 222 then having the HSTs run those services now means you end up in a situation similar to the 313 on East Coastway where the 222 can't sub in because it has a different number of coaches and duplicate timetables are required. However there is really no excuse for the local services as even if there are plans for a 156, it has the same number of coaches and can just sub in.
Slightly underwhelmed to be honest, just as i was with Glasgow to Edinburgh..far too quiet , like Central, BNew St...
The physics in the TSW version of the 158 are actually better than AP. The physics chap William is spending hour upon hour tweaking stuff even now, he is incredible….. stuff most of you won’t have the first clue about, ( myself included.some of the stuff is way over my head )… but trust me, it has been super well researched and no guess work !!! There’s so much stuff that has been implemented I’ve lost count - he has a video of a REAL brake release and application timings sent by a real train driver and he has got the timings to something like within 0.3 sec of the real thing. AP got the brake release timings and brake retardation rates of their HST wrong, so wouldn’t be surprised if they have also got it wrong with their 158 Pretty sure the HST braking is about right. Some HST examples - On board data recorders have recorded an emergency brake application of -11 or 12%g in some accident report data downloads. ( I was thinking like you before doing research on this very topic at the beginning of TSW2 GWE HST etc. it’s about right )
I’m aware of the 158, and as you’ll see above we’ve discussed this already. I didn’t say it was wrong, just different. I’ve also said a few posts up that if only the care and attention William has put into the 158 was replicated across the rest of the route, even the rest of the game, then we’d all be in a better place. What hacks me off though is you have that care going in to the Simugraph setup, yet at the same time the instrument light switch doesn’t work, the destination display is entirely wrong, the GSM-R is a joke, the Vultron system doesn’t work etc etc. As always with this game, it’s amazing one minute then rank amateur the next. Regarding the HST, it’s not the release rate that is the issue, the train seems to stop far too quickly. You say AP got their numbers wrong (something I highly doubt, also it wasn’t ‘their’ HST remember, they were trying to fix the mess that was the DTG version), do you have any evidence for that? It wasn’t all that long ago that we were told by Rivet they had nailed the braking on the 385 after extensive research and input from real drivers, shortly before people who had driven them for real said it was wrong. It was very clearly wrong. It was then patched and changed, so please excuse my slight cynicism. This HST isn’t miles away from the AP version, but it’s enough to be noticeable. They also haven’t modelled the way the VP185 takes a second or so to respond when power is added before increasing the amps to about 400, stabilising again for a couple of seconds before increasing once more.
I brought the route for a class 158 and that's great really pleased with it. But the route feels dull. It doesn't feel well crafted. The tutorials are so basic and not actually included in the correct section.
For the person who was saying that the HST brakes were too powerful I have just done a few tests and can confirm that they are NOT. With the accident rail report data showing -11-12%g in an emergency braking situation with one example set, this should take approximately 24 seconds to go from 60mph to zero. I have not taken into account application time, just slammed the brakes on at 65 mph and started the stop watch when it hit 60mph and timed it from there. I believe the average set reaches about -10%g possibly -11%g This is very unscientific but it definitely proves that the braking in the game falls well within expected real life performance and is most definitely not ‘way too enthusiastic’ ( like I originally thought too, with the GWE HST - both are fine ) Hope that puts your mind at rest and now that you can sleep at night. :p :p
PC "ultra" presets are a joke, a concession to framerates on antique hardware. View and LOD distance should always be tweaked up in the engine.ini file; that shouldn't offend you as you plainly are willing to improve TSC with 3rd party enhancements.
