This looks great, Jane - thank you for all the hard work and for keeping us informed. At some point would you be able to tell us a bit about work on signalling and signage - making sure AWS ramps are in the right places and activate only in the correct direction, TPWS trigger speeds are correct, and speed restriction commencement boards are in the correct places with the correct numbers on them. My apologies if you’ve covered all this before - there are quite a few threads and other information sources to search now! Thanks in advance.
Hi Jane, The team at Skyhook are doing an amazing job with the route, and it is much appreciated by all with the fixes and beautification of the route that is ongoing. Thank you and have a lovely weekend
Hi Jane, you should be able to use a slightly-altered sign that says BLUSH or something similar instead. At least there will be a sign.
Please say one of the fixes is the rain aerodynamics on the HST cab windows. Am looking at it streaking towards the front of the cab on the door windows when I'm driving at 100mph and rain just doesn't work like that!
You're actually going so fast that you're going backwards when that happens Spoiler (No, I don't know how that works either)
Jane and the team at Skyhook may I say on behalf of myself and the TSW3 community that your all doing an amazing job updating this amazing route and your customer satisfaction is definitely heading for 100%. As an estimate could you say roughly when the first update patch is expected for release ? Best regards one happy player
Appreciate you replying, will await your tag, as I may miss your update. Also, can you confirm more freight is included and potential railtours and certainly additional AI that pass the realms of the route itself (Sheffield, Lincoln) etc... Thanks
jane-skyhook I to thank you for the updates, ya are showing, things are looking good in the images and looking forward to the update. Have a great weekend and take care...
I have tried to say the below before but it needed some sort of approval so you don't need to go to specsavers if it pops up at some point and you see it twice! This is looking absolutely glorious so a very big thumbs up to you and your team: you've definitely earnt the long weekend. The only question I have is whether the GCR bridge over the MML at Loughborough has been changed to resemble the real structure any further as the rest of Loughborough really is looking brilliant. Have a great, well deserved, weekend!
I've bought the route, but I have yet to load it up. I'm waiting for the patch first, and looks like it will be well worth the wait.
After I made that comment I checked the entire train and it's the same the whole way down it. It's the Chasing Yellows scenario so I'm assuming someone at Skyhook has cocked up and put the train on the tracks backwards
This is all well and good, but just as I updated my scathing GWE review of the Class 166 when it was transformed from ridiculously fast to correct real life physics, I changed it to a really positive review as it deserved to be updated. ( I will also change Rivet’s review of their 150/2 IF and when they bring it up to an acceptable standard ). When the patch is released and all those who posted really negative reviews of this release, ( some very unjust to be honest ) please update those reviews accordingly. I think it’s important and only fair.
Massive thanks to Skyhook for the continued updates to the route. Much appreciation for the high quality work.
A few numbers for you, as many of you have asked about timetable enhancements. Disclaimer - These numbers may be subject to change, based on testing and if any issues are found. They are also very likely to climb. These numbers do NOT include drivable freight or AI freight (I haven't got reliable numbers for those yet). However, as we stand today (disclaimer again please). We are now touching 600 services or thereabouts. This includes a massive uplift to route AI. There are in excess of over 100 new drivable services currently going through test. Just wanted to share, Jane (also in the other thread as I think its important info that you all asked for )
While I am very pleased to see some custom bridges, I'm not entirely convinced by the foliage improvements. It still looks pretty bare compared to the real thing: It's very rare to see a tree that close to the track with no shrubs or bushes around it: And the right hand side of this area could do with some more bushes: jane-skyhook Are the areas in these shots you've shared with us still being worked on?
Don't forget they need to still maintain a performance balance, which might necessitate a reduction in foliage.
If that is the case this game has bigger problems than we all thought. I don’t think that’s it, plenty of other routes are far far more detailed.
Unfortunately, we are always working to a performance budget, so we cannot go crazy with foliage as much as we want to. So I have to temper expectations a little here. If we provide real-life heavy foliage the performance of the route will suffer, depending on your PC or console spec. So whilst we can upgrade foliage (and we have) we are still very limited. We have made the decision to spend our processor and GPU budget primarily on key features, including the detail of those bridges and new buildings etc, along with the modelling quality of the traction. There is also a limit on assets size across a route. I wish we could be photorealistic on the trackside, but it is always a balance. We are always working with trade-offs to maintain performance. So key items and traction have taken priority which I feel is sensible. It doesn't mean we haven't upgraded lineside scenery where we can. We have just had to do that within limitations so we don't turn the sim in to a slideshow. all the best Jane
This is really interesting Jane, and is something that has always baffled me with this game. Why is this a problem? Why do we not have settings that allow those with powerful machines to utilise that power, and those without as much grunt the ability to tune the game to their machine. We kinda do, except in this case Ultra in is anything but. I’ve never really understood why this is the case. In a nutshell, is the route (game?) being hampered by the lowest common denominator? Additionally, where does the detail in Niddertalbahn fit in to this? I’m asking you because you’re engaging here. Ask this of people in DTG and it never gets answered.
As you see, Jane confirmed my suspicion re performance balance. And while I can't answer for Jane re your questions– obviously – they sound like ones only DTG could possibly answer, even if they choose not to. Skyhook (and other third parties) use, and are limited by, the core they are given. DTG built it and chose the user settings. I mean, they do have user settings that help tailor for individuals' different PC hardware. Although even ultra settings don't often seem very ultra for the more modern PC hardware... DTG have ongoing optimisation on the road map. Let's see what happens with that... Maybe the developer of Niddertalbahn know something others don't, for some reason. Who knows. But I guess you'd need to ask that developer as well as DTG.
Disappointing but I appreciate the explanation, thank you. Really pertinent questions to ask. It's nice that Jane is being transparent on this because I've always felt DTG have skirted round the issue. It doesn't really fill me with confidence going forward though that routes will become more and more detailed. It almost sounds like as it stands a route cannot be made to accurately reflect its real life counterpart because something has 'gotta give' to make it run well on lower end systems, in this case the foliage. I wonder why DTG couldn't implement a foliage or detail slider though like in TS Classic where when you turn it down, foliage starts to disappear but performance increases and vice versa.
That already exists does it not? The issue is that ‘Ultra’ is the equivalent of ‘High’ in most games. I don’t get why they intentionally dial down the quality of their game when it doesn’t have to be like that. Anyway, It’s getting off topic, but I think it’s a valid question. We have a developer saying they’d like to go in for higher detail but they are hampered by their performance budget, yet a route like Niddertalbahn is immensely detailed, so how does that work? It also has very detailed rolling stock. Go figure. TSC taxes my PC more than TSW. I want better visuals but for some reason DTG have decided they won’t provide them. My question is why?
Comes back around to devs not understanding how to work with Unreal unfortunately. I reckon TSG & co took the time to learn things, which is how we got Niddertalbahn. I doubt the average dev at DTG/Rivet/Skyhook is going home and trying to learn about it, and I reckon the training just isn’t in place to an extent it should be. It’s not just an issue with performance either, it’s lighting, rendering, draw distance, shadow distance then all the rest (Yaya technically performance). Not taking a dig at Skyhook here, I think the issue has much deeper roots. It’s a long-standing TSW issue that the use of Unreal has been…lacking. Anyways, the new timetable is sounding great! It’s a shame about the lineside (I don’t think the issue is needing more foliage, but just bringing it in abit closer) - hopefully the other scenic changes make up for it. Dare I say this might be an update worth previewing? Certainly shaping upto be a huge overhaul. Can’t wait to see it either way.
Foliage consumes a lot of resources to render, add shadows and you have an FPS killing machine. While I think Niddertalbahn is the best route so far, the woods section is a perfect example of an FPS killing machine. If you own a NASA PC, there is a way to increase the amount of grass and bushes in all routes with ini settings: grass.DensityScale=1.0 (max setting)
Yeah because everyone from around the world can afford to head to the station they live thousands of miles away from.
I've played quite a bit of Niddertalbahn and it is well- modeled with plenty of detail. A truly excellent piece of work. However, is it that much better than early routes like SPG? At the risk of putting everyone's nose out of joint, I would say it's not. I think we've just gotten so used to the questionable quality of recent routes that we've forgotten that DTG is quite capable of producing a level of excellence that modern PC's and consoles can handle with ease. It seems to me that the current time and budget constraints are the problem, not the so- called performance limitations of our machines. I don't have a supercomputer, but I'm pretty sure that it's not being pushed very hard by TSW. With all due respect, I think this " performance " argument is really just an excuse for lowering the quality and thus the time and expense of route development. As far as SHG is concerned, I feel bad for them because, with all this extra work they're forced to do to bring MML up to scratch, I doubt if they'll make enough to buy a big Mac for everyone in the office. If they'd been given enough time to develop the route to their and our satisfaction, well........you know the rest.
Remember Tees Valley? Have a look at the line-side foliage on that route. No performance problems there. Same for SPG, as Crosstie says, and GWE. There are others too, so with respect to Jane I don’t buy the performance argument. I also agree with Crosstie’s point about Niddertalbahn. In my opinion it should be for the player to configure the game to their personal sweet spot, hitting their preferred balance between visual quality and performance, by using the settings rather than the developer intentionally dialling it back for a ‘one size fits all approach’. Whilst grass.DensityScale=1.0 does help a bit, it also can cause issues, like grass where it shouldn’t be. Unfortunately it also doesn’t increase the draw distance which is one of the major problems.
Yeah, I'm afraid I’m not buying it. Sorry. This is TVL leaving Darlington. In addition to the foliage, look at the clutter (shock horror) and how much more detailed the texturing is in the cab (around the window frame, throttle, gear handle, light panel, AWS sunflower and holder etc etc) compared to anything we've seen in a long long time. Everything these days is either plain, or incredibly low resolution. Also, see how the cab of the 101 is appropriately lit considering the light outside? When did that stop being a ‘thing’? Furthermore, the 101 was a pretty complex unit too form a Simugraph POV was it not? I honestly think we've forgotten what TSW can look like and people just accept the rubbish we keep getting fed these days as the best that can be done. If the lineside foliage can look like that on TVL, why does it not look like that on MML?
To demonstrate what I mean by 'plain' texturing, this is the Class 158 by comparison. It's all just so basic;
I wonder whether this is partly to do with licensing? The 101 has been made to look pretty scruffy, which makes it look more realistic. There was no TOC to complain because it was a recreation of a defunct BR unit. But with the 158 I suspect making it look immaculate came with the licence. When you see London Midland’s addition of grime etc to the desk, it looks massively better.
This reposte that everything that is below par in this game is somehow down to licensing is also not one I can get on board with. I’ve said this before, but if TOC’s (in the UK particularly) are demanding that the trains in a computer game are absolutely pristine then they have their priorities all wrong. I would suggest they ought to concentrate on sorting their actual trains out and running a reliable, clean service. If this is genuinely part of the licensing then it’s time to tell these TOCs to poke off. Again, it’s not one rule for everyone else and one rule for DTG. Anyway, this has stepped into being off-topic again. One thing I’d forgotten to ask and haven’t seen mentioned yet, is whether or not the ‘lighting-up’ time has been changed to work off ambient light rather than time of day as DTG told us would be the new normal a few months back? jane-skyhook Has it been done, and if not yet then will it be done before the patch releases? Many thanks.
I’m not sure what your point is, sorry. Yes it’s more taxing than MML, but then it should be. That doesn’t alter the fact that TVL has great line-side foliage and clutter and that isn’t anymore taxing than MML. For those who don’t have machines that can deal with Niddertalbahn they can turn the details down. I’m not sure where the issue is? What they didn’t do is say ‘well, this won’t work for some people so we’d better dial the detail right down for everyone’.
Niddertalbahn is great but frankly and at the risk of the pitchforks and kindling for the stake coming out, after a few runs it starts to get…boring. In fact I would have to rate it less entertaining than WSR, in some respects. A very repetitive service pattern - how many times can you drive a DMU from Stockheim to Bad Vibel and vv calling all stations before it gets a bit samey? There’s also the lingering knowledge that the 628 sounds are not 100% authentic and were synthesised from the 612, in part. There’s no real gradients to challenge the driver. Maybe if it got a 218 or a steam loco, but even then the line speed is so low you’ll be full throttle for 30 seconds then coastarama. MML does have a varied service pattern, a bit of high speed thrash. Admittedly not much gradient challenge but it hasn’t bored me yet.
No arguments here, although that doesn’t alter the point about the detail in the route. But lets say Niddertalbahn is a red herring. Lets compare instead the detail and foliage in MML to SPG, GWE, TVL, SEHS etc. That’s why I simply don’t buy this ‘performance’ argument.
Oh I agree. When I’ve built my own routes in Trainz, TSC etc. I have a clutter phase for each km of scenery placement. Start with the basics, roads, fences, field patterns. Then trees and buildings. Then along the trackside putting in shrubs, grass splines, relay boxes if necessary maybe cable troughs or point rodding as necessary.
Perhaps I misunderstood your own point. I thought you meant that Niddertalbahn is an example of a highly-detailed route with no performance issues, to which I would disagree. But perhaps you meant that the existence of the Niddertalbahn breaking traditional performance budgets is a reason to question them on other routes. Cheers
Yeah, that’s it. Turn the detail up then let the player find their own personal balance through the settings menu. I can’t understand this approach where the developer is setting the bar for ‘Ultra’ so low and giving the player no option to make things better. Niddertalbahn is indeed both taxing and detailed, but it didn’t stop it being released and lauded. Look how customisable MSFS or DCS are for example. The options in TSW are incredibly basic by comparison.
I’m much more worried about the bridge clearance on this shot. Looks a tad too low to me, certainly much lower than the one in the real photo. We don’t want the trains clipping through it. That’s a bigger issue than a few missing bushes.
Let's just debunk this 'realistic lineside foliage is not possible because performance' myth once and for all. In every example here I have issues with the lack of grass draw distance (and the refusal to let the player choose what they wish to have), but at least it is there. East Coastway West Cornwall Local West Somerset Railway Great Western Express Southeastern Highspeed
It's already obvious that the initial lack of detail on this route was not to do with performance, but ostensibly because of the time constraints imposed by the publisher. That issue is neither here nor there now, because it's also obvious from Jane's updates that, under her watch, lineside clutter, more asset detail, more foliage are being added because there was performance headroom. That still doesn't negate the need for, and Jane's statement about, performance balance.
I prefer to look at what’s actually being said rather than infer something that hasn’t; Here is MML in it's current guise outside of Leicester for comparison; I appreciate that foliage has been added (although we've yet to see it of course) but I've demonstrated that other routes have 'real-life heavy foliage' so why not this one? Yes performance might suffer, but so what? Again, it should be for the developer to make Ultra actually look Ultra then let the player dial back the settings to fit their hardware, rather than them make it look like this ^ (which is 4K Ultra with a load of .ini tweaks) and say 'tough, that's your lot because some people have weak hardware'. I'm struggling to think of another game I've played that takes this approach. These are the .ini changes I use with a number of them solely focussed on foliage lod, density and quality. Imagine what it looks like in it's vanilla state; [SystemSettings] r.ViewDistanceScale=3 ts2.dbg.JourneyChapterLockOverride=1 r.DFDistanceScale=10 r.DFFullResolution=1 r.Streaming.FramesForFullUpdate=1 r.Streaming.PoolSize=4500 r.Streaming.MaxTempMemoryAllowed=500 r.Shadow.DistanceScale=2 r.Shadow.FilterMethod=1 foliage.DitheredLOD=1 foliage.LODDistanceScale=5 r.BloomQuality=3 r.LightMaxDrawDistanceScale=50.0 r.MinScreenRadiusForLights=0.00 ts2.save.CheckpointsEnabled=0 r.TemporalAACurrentFrameWeight=0.2 r.TemporalAASamples=4 r.ToneMapper.Sharpen=0.5 r.SSR.Quality=4 r.SSR.Temporal=1 TimeOfDaySystem.AutoExposure.SpeedUp=10 TimeOfDaySystem.AutoExposure.SpeedDown=1 r.CreateShadersOnLoad=1 grass.DensityScale=1.0
But... Don't we need to wait for the updated version to compare to other routes? Can we hold tight and see what the improved version is like aesthetically before we continue screenshot comparisons? As for what's going on under the hood as well as visually, I wouldn't know how it compares to the other routes. Is there more complexity in the train (that you can't see) than ones running on other routes? I don't know. It's just a thought. None of us can say. Re the developer giving us more options, totally agree. But this brings me back to what I've said before: they are working with the core they are given. The rest is down to DTG to optimise their core and implement more graphics options. Skyhook can't enable that. So they have to find the balance with what they are given, for what "ultra" is in its current iteration.
And, yes, sometimes there is just bad development planning and laziness and/or lack of skill/less skill than other developers. Of course.
Fair points, but I’d rather make the point now whilst the patch is still being worked on rather than complain afterwards. I can’t believe there is anything anymore complex going on in the units than other routes. The HST is effectively the same one as on GWE and it doesn’t look to me that the 158 is anymore in-depth than the 166. If it is, and it is that that is dragging performance down then I think we need to ask is it worth it? Do we notice the difference? The answer is no. As it stands right now, pre-patch, the run up audio on the 158 is actually pretty poor. Hopefully that will be changed in the patch. re The core. I couldn't agree more. This game is so far behind the drag curve it’s crazy. No native DX12, no DLSS/FSR (all of which is free performance and standard features of UE4 I believe), no proper direct controller support, diesel exhaust that exits vertically at 125mph and looks like a steam train (which has been modded, again with no editor. I those guys can do it why not DTG?), grass, foliage and trees that draw 5ft in front of you, shadows that don’t work, no cab occlusion, no ambient occlusion and so and and so on. I don’t hold anyone other than DTG responsible for that but equally, where it is demonstrably possible to put dense line-side foliage on to a route I believe it is absolutely fair that we should expect that as standard, particularly on ‘Ultra’ settings.
