When comparing the luzern sursee route, rivet improved a lot. And thats what matters to me. So who knows, if its the 484 as their new uk loco, we might see the changes in iow as a second route. If they really consider going the extra mile here, its day 1 for me. Just putting the 484 on the current iow route..., not so sure about buying it. Somebody pointed it out aleady: it wont fit through the tunnel after ryde esplanade .
It's off-topic, I know, and not your core point, but I don't know of any railway which deliberately keeps trains moving slowly rather than stopping them, in order to keep passengers happy. I'd be interested to hear if there is one. There are various signalling systems which release signals only when the train slows on approach, and Drivers do approach red signals slowly, but in my experience in both cases it's for safety reasons, not to keep passengers happy. In terms of communication - it's all relative, of course, but I think DTG still communicate a lot through various means (more than the makers of any other game I play). You're right that they used to interact even more directly on forums, but I think they got a bit burnt with that and stepped back a bit. None the less, there is still lots of communication.
I believe I've heard it on a few train drivers streams... Better to move the train slowly than stop completely and not only because of momentum being much hard to gain from a stop etc etc
I think that with the new support DtG offers 3rd party devs and a higher expectation for quality from said devs those that have purchased the route may or may not have a surprise if one reads between the lines of Jaspers post that seems a possibility? Maybe perhaps.
There is a west Cornwall enhancement pack on tsc. I would rely more on these to improve the experience than dtg doing anything about it.
I'm sure that DtG has a defined set of standards for quality regards 3rd party devs, and I am pretty sure that they would "encourage" those standards particularly if there was such a lot of negative feedback for a DLC.
What we shouldn't forget is that after Matt gave Jasper a tough time during the WCL preview stream the route did get delayed for some QoL improvements and bug-fixes so Rivet were actually given every opportunity to bring things up to a much higher standard...yet still chose do only what was required in order to get it into the various storefronts.
It's clearly not happening is it?!?! Still seeing the same shoddy DLC up for sale and no leadership from Rivet to make it right. At least their wallets are filled up though. I'm sure it pays the Internet bill so that Jasper can 'monitor' the forums..Assumingly, it doesn't break the wallet to feedback to his Dev team though but still, here we are..
If they do now they didn't when this DLC was being developed. If anything it was BECAUSE of this DLC that those standards may have been developed
It probably was, but I think for entirely different reasons. WCL came off the back of Rush Hour and it's fair to say that despite all those pre-release assurances about more care being taken (the price rise justification) in making these routes the quality rulebook was still well and truly thrown out of the window, so I guess something just had to give...and Jasper just happened to be the rabbit in the headlights when that moment arrived. I'm not saying that Rivet are the innocent party in all this but I'm definitely suggesting that the events surrounding that stream had very little to do with IoW, Arosa or indeed WCL. Mind you, I did learn two rather interesting things from Jasper's public flogging: (1) Rather peculiar how Matt was quick to spot multiple issues with WCL in a 90 minute stream, yet nobody at DTG can spot equally as glaring issues within their own routes during an entire QA/testing cycle! (2) "That's not good enough", "that has to be fixed" when discussing WCL issues. "Hmm, I'll have to pass this onto [insert team] to put on a list of things to look into at a later date" when discussing [insert DTG route] issues.
Last night I noticed on Faversham high speed route that strood tunnel, on the higham side has a concrete entrance! It's brick in real life. How the hell can they get wrong.
I'm not sure how the failures in DTGs own output might have changed their stance on 3rd party output... I think the outcry on IoW, Arosa, WCL may have been enough to bring this on on it's own Yup, both are about true, and both are the main reason I think there should be a dev cut off (ie nothing NEW is added, only bugs fixed) about a month before release with the "initial preview" being used as a showcase to the community so they can rip it apart and find the issues that can (and should) be fixed before actual release I think they should also do this with core updates, but on a 12 week cycle so that things can be more stable and not get messed up so much Maybe I'm alone on that...
I realise you're compensating here but really... you think the worst thing about that tunnel entrance is that it's the wrong material? (top is in game, bottom is google street view from the station car park - JIC). And lest we forget this is about 5 miles from their offices in Chatham by road
Knowing TSW the new Uk loco being developed by Rivet will turn out to be a GWR Class 800 to run on WCL so we can mix not 2 but 3 eras on this route, and to mix it up even further then wont model the 800/3 but just a 800/0 which will run off invisible overheads.
Well now you have pointed it out, yeah that is terrible. I've not noticed. I'm not trying to defend dtg but the dem data is far from accurate. Then on the other hand the difference there is unacceptable! I will have a look on tsc in a bit to see how it looks on there. But even if the terrain can't be perfect, I'd expect track side assets to be. I.e tunnel entrances. Perhaps they looked on wiki and see the tunnel had been lined with concrete in recent years and assumed the entrance has been too.
No idea why they wouldn't just send someone out to have a look. I know COVID and all, but the tunnel's been there for a few years (it used to be a canal tunnel, that's a fair while ago) and even with COVID you can walk into Higham and be several dozen yards from anyone on a busy day!
I would have hoped by now Rivet would have worked to make the St. Ives scenery look more realistic. There is better looking scenery in the TSC versions of the route!
Unfortunately my hope of this DLC ever having some real love and attention to detail paid to it has long gone right out the window. They’ve collected their wages, up sticks and moved on to other things now
It is a shame, as this route really had massive potential, but instead well we got what we got. I only use the route to give a peak a thrashing in a different setting to NTP.
Just picked this up on the PS Sale. It's working for me, having said that I am from Los Angeles and have no earthly clue what the Cornish countryside actually looks like. One positive I will add is that West Cornwall seems to run "cleaner" on my PS5, with less technical snags. Steady frame rate and very little pop-in with the tracks and oncoming scenery. Compare that to some of the native TSW3 routes, which play out like a Gumby cartoon.
I agree, West Cornwal Local has the potential to be the best route in DTG, but the mess to the scenery they have made around St. Ives and its branch line as well as the look of Penzance, to me makes it the worst route in the game. If the Just Trains team of graphic designers had made this route it would have been superb, but Rivet have not made this a labour of love like their Scottish routes.
Wow, these mountains are much higher in real life. Makes much more sense to have a tunnel in the first place. I guess not being familiar with a route does help not seeing these kinds of (pretty big) inaccuracies...
Don't get your hopes up about an update for wcl coming still waiting for the sound on the 150 to get sorted after over a year since it's release same goes with Edinburgh to Glasgow route
Rivet tend to talk the talk, but when it comes to the walking bit last seen running in the opposite direction. Admittedly they (more or less) fixed the 1938 stock but that tends to be the exception.
Rivet certainly do not listen to their customers and their concerns and seem happy to have a bad name in the industry. They appear not to care with the non quality of their products and do not take the pride to make them into a quality product.
I won’t support Rivet anymore however much I want the route. It seems to take a year for any sort of a patch and when it arrives it doesn’t cover what was complained about. For me there are broken services on Luzern and the awful sound of the coaches + physics issues on Arosa. Then there is the 150 which once you drive the AP 150 on TSC, you really see how bad Rivet’s version is. To their credit they seem very good at building models. Their stations and trains look great. But if you can’t get the physics and sound right or even close, then it’s not going to be good enough. I guess if all comes down to money. But if their current routes are what you get for the money, I don’t want to pay. I actually don’t mind WCL, but it is quite a work of fiction in both scenery and rolling stock used.
It’s clear that Rivet do not care about what we say as customers, otherwise they would have done something about all their errors. I hope they don’t do another product until they have corrected the mess of errors in all their products first, but cannot see that happening at all, can you!. It’s about time DTG stepped in and did something about all their errors, as Rivet clearly aren’t bothered.
Agree it seems very much fire & forget, which is frustrating. I’m in the same place as others have said after Edinburgh to Glasgow, in that I can’t see my buying the next route unless reviews suggest there’s no major issues
Problem with that is, DTG aren't particularly bothered about fixing bugs and errors on their own routes, so you've no hope of them clamping down or stepping in to fix routes made by others.
Scorpion71 I don’t mean that DTG do the work, they have enough of their own work, but DTG should say to Rivet that customers are not happy so get some work done to improve all their errors. It wouldn’t take that long and customers will benefit and thank Rivet for the corrections. If customers are not happy they will not buy again.
Just come back from St. Ives and took a couple of trips on the branch line. I played the route after coming back and can see why folk were a little miffed at the quality of the scenery. It is very underwhelming, TSC seems to be a much better representation too. I'd like to ask as well, whats the deal with Lelant Saltings? From what I can gather this was a pretty well used station prior to 2019??
We need: Sound upgrade and GWR Livery Pack for Class 150 Scenary Upgrade and Extension to Plymouth Class 800 Class 158 livery upgrade to GWR.
That's impossible. They were unable to reacquire the GWR licence for this route, which is why they had to set it in the BR era. Even if they could, do you seriously think they'd completely change the era of the route? Not only would it upset those who like the BR setting, but it would be a great deal of work to update the stations etc, the line between St Austell and Truro would also need to be redoubled. I know Rivet sort of did this with IOW, but this would be a much bigger task.
I'm sure we can have debranded versions of the trains/stations etc. Remember the North Wales Coastal route issue, that 'eventually' got a work around.
Maybe with time they can revisit the route and give it a SEHS-style makeover with an extension across to Plymouth featuring a Valenta-powered HST and a redone Class 150/2 (they are already halfway there with St Austell - another 40 miles seems do-able).
It seems like Rivet started building the route before considering the first thing on the LAMP process, then repeated this with IOW 2022. IMO the route would have been much better set modern day to make use of HST layers or if not backdated to the 1970's where the BR Blue Class 08, 31, 40, 45, 47, 52 and 101 could all be used. 1990's is an odd choice as we have very little appropriate stock for layers - it feels as if this era was picked purely to get the Class 150 into the game with a workaround of the licensing.
Yes Barryr21, it’s very disappointing to find the scenery doesn’t resemble what you experienced on your visit to the beautiful St. Ives. The place is so magical and Rivet have made it look like a totally fictional setting. Can you see this view from the St. Ives platform in the game. No. It would not take them long to re-do both St. Ives and Penzance to look more realistic, but basically they are not bothered as with all the negativity received you would think they would have done it by know, including the 150. St. Ives is such a joyous and lovable place and this is not depicted into the route. Anyone who knows the route well, will be totally gutted by seeing that the Rivet route does not resemble it in the slightest. IMO it’s the worst route in TSW for realistic resemblance. Just wait to see what Just Trains make of their route, it already looks amazing and they make Rivet games look like a bunch of amateurs. Rivet are working on a couple more routes according to the road map and I certainly won’t be buying them. It will be interesting to read the reviews!
This is probably more of a "me" problem, but I absolutely cannot stand debranded/ fictional liveries. It completely kills the immersion for me. I can't play the new IOW without using a recreation of the SWR livery from creator's club.
I asked them that when it was released because, until recently, Lelant Saltings was a park and ride station for St Ives (I’ve used it myself). As it is, no trains in the game stop there. I basically got fobbed off.
