Xbox Any Reason Why Some Scenery Is Basic?

Just been doing the West Cornwall run and the houses and roads are incredibly basic.

There was also some dreadful looking roads in Sehs next to one of the stations that had a roundabout next to it.

Is it not possible for some of these routes to get updated? At a distance they look ok but under closer scrutiny next to the track they look like something from 20 plus years ago.

It’s such a nice sim but it doesn’t half get let down by some graphics and lighting!

 

This is for performance and time management reasons. You don't want your details to get out of hand and end up with a slide show and you have to plan what time you have around what features and assets are most important to include. I would love to see them up the scenery detail but I wouldn't want it done at a cost of my performance or to the determent of more important details along the route.

 

A lot of the scenery is autogenerated and you just can't have everything looking perfect. It's down to performance optimization and of course time. If they spend their resources making everything as detailed as possible, as dense as possible and giving it the best lighting, you would get low fps. That also takes a really long time and they can't spend too long on a project cuz deadlines exist. Having unique custom assets for everything would also be resource intensive and time consuming. There's also the issue with pop in at the last second. Even though niddertalbahn looks beautiful, you can see the details popping in front of you as you move along. Imagine having that at high speed which ruins the experience. So it's all about balance. They have deadlines and a budget so they can't make tsw look like the most beautiful game out there.

 

A lot of the scenery is for cab view or person view only, if you’re using exterior camera you are going to see a lot more “off” things.

you will likely not notice as much problems with it sticking to cab view.

As for different assets it’s mostly down to timing for route creation then memory management.

 

It’s also cause some DLCs are rushed and the first thing on the chop is scenery. It’s easier to sell a train’s model than it is a route’s scenery.

ARL and WCL are the worst offenders.

 

That's one of my biggest gripes with TSW. I have come to the conclusion they are not able to do better. Even the routes that are praised for their scenery still feel meh compared to scenery we have gotten used to in other games.

 

Rivet have been fairly universally panned for their scenic efforts on West Cornwall. It looks more like Kernow from the Dark Ages with all those trees. Sadly it now seems to languish in their forgotten DLC pole

As an old hand route builder in MSTS, Trainz and TSC, I can confirm that getting the right balance between accuracy, performance and time to build is very tricky. Priority has to be given to the view seen from the cab but that has to be offset by the fact some people like to drive from external view or of course when shunting etc. You can get away with less detail away from the linesidr on a flat route as opposed to one which runs through the hills and mountains.

PFR is a good example of scenery done well but even that has missing distant hills or tears in the scenery.

 

I´m not willing anymore to buy into that "OMG-it´s-gonna-be-a-slideshow-if-you-increase-details-and-granularity" narrative from DTG´s white knights. I do not believe that TSW is the ultimate resource hog, the second to none, incomparable simulation wonder which not even the NASA mars mission mainframes could handle. Burn the heretic at the stake, I care not, but some element is missing in this all too convenient argumentation chain.

 

Naturally, I had to look at the Prague one.
The problem is that TSW and MSFS are two entirely different games, MSFS uses satellite data to make quick approximation of the model. But the details are very low. This is OK from a plane that flies high above the city, but not for a train simulator.
The Dancing House is distorted by the algorithm, road from Jirásek Bridge fades to nothing and the flat texture of boats on the water surface is nothing to write home about.

EDIT: The technology is getting there, but this level of detail is insufficient for a game where you drive any on-ground transport, be it train, car or a bus.

 

You act like MSFS and TSW are made by developers of similar competence. TSW struggles to maintain a steady frame rate at the best of times with the level of detail they currently have. There are numerous routes that are poorly optimized and have big performance hits when they get to more dense areas, not to mention multiple different trains moving around. I don't want my frame rate to be dropped just so someone can have more rubbish or a few more different buildings on the side of the tracks, it's not that critical to me, sorry.

You're better off asking them to optimize what they have first, than to ask them to add to their house of cards.

 

If your point is that MSFS looks worse the closer to the ground you get, then point made. MSFS on the ground looks a lot worse than TSW. Like, awful. But it’s meant to be viewed from a far anyway as you’ll spend most of your time in the air, and it works for a flight sim. Would not be acceptable for a game where you’re spending time on the ground.

 

The comparison with MSFS is correct in that it is meant to be viewed from above. But we have many games that are viewed from ground level like racing games, open world games..... If any of those came with this scenery they would be ridiculed and flop immediately. The only reason why DTG isn't ridiculed so often for their scenery is because they are the only serious train game on the market.

I also find that stupid decisions were made when they started this game. As has been mentioned the scenery is meant to be viewed from the cockpit. I do understand this but why is the camera then not locked to cockpit? Once they decided to work with free cam they should have addressed the problem with scenery made to be seen from the cockpit view

 

Plenty of ground areas in MSFS look significantly better than anything in TSW. Hell, look at any third party airport, the detail in them is insane.

 

Well sorry, I do not agree. Look at the videos, especially on the close flybys. Of course, you´ll find objects that look awful, you´ll find cars clipping through assets or driving on the wrong side. But have a first look at the vast (and I mean vast!) variety of custom build assets, many of them with quite good 3D resolution, look at the shadowing, look ate the lighting .... and the complete absence of assets and objects suddenly popping in or building detail, even at long distance. Now, compare that to TSW with its generic and very limited library and you might understand my point of view. (Hell, I can´t stand anymore to see that godawful Tudor Church that has to stand in for virtually every church, be it in the UK, GE or US.) Just as an example.
The stock is generic and repetitive. You´ll find the same housings all over the routes, the same sheds and whatnot. And not even that detailed. On SoS house (windows slot) details are built when I´m looking at them from 50m away. And so it goes ...

Did I mention the awful (and wrong) lighting, shadows only in a spit distance and the weird reflection handling of TSW?

 

I would have to somewhat disagree, there’s many areas what look familiar in MSFS and many that barely make out their areas, the bridges at least for a while (don’t know if they still are) were completely represented underwater. Many of the buildings substitutes in MSFS are completely inaccurate to their real life counter parts, then theirs the un focused airports (the ones without specific details) Diagoras International Airport for one I visited in MSFS looks a lot different to real life (I have been their in reality)

my local corner shops are represented in MSFS with London Belgravia Mansion models (they in real life are built in similar to a 60s style debatable communistic style)



As for those areas of extra dlc, they are expected to look a hell of a lot better when you are charging about quarter to a fifth of a whole TSW route. They’ve had a considerable more time in than the absolute vast majority of earth in MSFS

edit: it’s the same way if DTG brung out a Reigate upgrade dlc, you would expect it to be of higher quality, true to life, and not the standard already available.

 

Keep showing off screen shots that look like they’re from a PlayStation 1 game.
These all look terrible- but I’m not bashing MSFS because, as with any game, concessions need to be made so that people can run the game. Photogrammetry is great for distant scenery way up in the air but the close up resolution is terrible.
You can’t have scenery that looks like this on line side.
Do I want better graphics on TSW? Yea sure, but what’s the cost???
And please find more relevant example to prove your point, people will take your feedback more seriously.
These are your great examples of ground scenery? Come on lol

Plenty of stations in TSW look fine too. We can sit here and cherry pick stations vs airports but we’re talking about general scenery. MSFS builders are not using the same techniques to build airports as they are with the rest of general scenery. Also, jfk is a literal slideshow when taxiing, so I’m not sure that’s the one you want to use as your prime example of prime performance

 

Ah OK, ridicularize at will. How original!

I´ve got a SDD sitting full of these shots. Some close around the stations, some more distant. So what? That wasn´t the point.
And the limit is 5 per post.

 

Here’s your MSFS train yard bro.
I believe this is Cheyenne yards, shop, and roundhouse. This is how you want TSW to look?
(pic not mine, stole it from another post on a thread discussing the same thing we’re going over right now)
Don’t take it personal; I am not ridiculing you. But I’m getting a kick out of the point you’re trying to make- MSFS? Really?
Scenery from the sky is stunning, I love the game, but it’s apples and oranges compared to TSW and other driving sims.

Let’s compare other driving sims though? Other train sims? I’m open to seeing those comparisons.

 

Because all the assets are transferred directly from Train SIm, nobody has been working on them. These houses in the game are probably 10-15 years old.

Lighting in the game at a terrible level, the windows in the houses do not shine and just "painted white", even during the day or at night.

What is there to talk about, if the game files are called Train Simulator 2 prototype. We play the prototype!

 

JFK runs fine for me, use it all the time.

 

Well, I think we can at least agree that this is nothing more than a rhetorical question.
I can tell you how I don´t want to have it looking -->



You can do this with the other pics as well, repetitiveness was anyway my point above. But I´m too lazy a bum to do it for you.
I can understand as well if you don´t touch the subjects of TSW lighting, shadowing and reflections.
Lastly, the german "Schrebergartensiedlung" can be found on every german route. In that very same layout and config. And I´m pretty sure also in the US and the UK. Not sure on how many, though, but I seem to remember to have seen this also on SoS ...

 

I don't think the comparison with other games like MSFS is very instructive.

I would compare the most recent routes like Glossop with the earliest routes like GWE and routes from a couple of years ago such as BML.

There should have been a steady and noticeable improvement in scenery over time along with the required optimization. Personally, I haven't seen it.

Compare say CJP with SPG. I would have to say that SPG is better, even better than CRR. And BML is better than BCC. That shouldn't be the case.

It's all in the eye of the beholder of course but, for me the only clear improvement is the skybox. Lighting, especially at night and in tunnels, is actually worse now than in earlier routes.

Overall, there has not been the progress in scenery creation that you would expect in a game that's been around for 5 years or more.

 

Glossop is a nicely detailed route, I can't see anything glaringly barren about it. There is a part of the route where the elevation of houses are not accurate to what is there in reality but that is a different issue altogether.

Personally I am more interested in what the route looks like from the drivers cab or when standing on a station or the lineside. There are definatley some areas where I think more detail could be added but I don't think on the whole it is as poor as some make out, but we all see things with our own pair of eyes.

I do agree though that some of the houses and other buildings, some of which are fairly close to the lineside seem quite basic. However I remember thinking that when TVL came out so it isn't a new thing. I do think we could have some more variety to building too, more local variations and styles. The churches stand out the most for me, they really do not represent the variety of ecclesastical architecture seen in the UK or anywhere else I imagine. However it is a train simulator not a townscape simulator.

For me it is the overall effect which is important and I don't generally see anything which I think excessively jarring, but certainly there are area it could improve but you can say that about anything in any game.

 

TSW is definitely a resource hog. I don't think its because its the worlds best looking and most complicated simulation, but probably a mix of poor optimization/inefficient memory usage. Also maybe even the engine itself is not optimal for train simulators, who knows. When you think Unreal Engine the bread and butter are shooter games. I've heard people mention "tile loading" as a reason the engine stutters as you move along.

But performance is definitely an issue in the game across the board. I see complaints about performance from high end consoles (PS5 and XSX) as well as high spec PC users.

The interesting thing with TSW is it generally actually has pretty high FPS (usually around 60 in most areas on top end consoles) but its the stutters that make it feel like its not performing well.

MSFS is an AMAZING game. I really sometimes can't wrap my head around how good it looks and runs. I play it on Xbox Series X and it runs better than TSW. That said, as awesome as it looks, a lot of it is AI generated using satellite map data, which wouldn't work for TSW. As anyone who plays MSFS knows a lot of the buildings look "good from far but far from good", which is fine when you are a few thousand feet above them.

 

I think the biggest visual things that bring me out of routes are:
1. The water, I haven't seen a single route where it doesn't look terrible. Some of them it just looks like a solid physical object (Peninusla Corridor).
2. Mountain/ground textures. A lot of mountains just look really bad, I think its because they don't have proper shadows from trees/things on them or variety. They look like solid uniform blobs made out of plasticene.

The buildings/trees/stations etc all look really good for the most part, it's just the "underlying" scenery that is jarring.

 

Fences next to the track look really awful in cockpit mode.

 

I

Niddertalbahn is a good example to bring up because, as far as route and timetable goes, it is one of the simplest routes out there. There are only a few trains running around, and it is single track so you hardly see other traffic. Yet it also is one of the lower FPS routes. And you can see why, it is the most detailed route as far as trees, foliage, unique buildings, grass, etc etc. I would imagine if you took that level of detail and expanded it onto a bigger route with a lot more traffic and trains, it would run pretty poorly in the current state of TSW. Not to say they won't some day get there.

 

I've seen some online videos of TS classic routes where there is literally no distant scenery. If you zoom out in external view, beyond the houses and trees you see from the cab there's just nothing there. Which, in some ways makes sense and would be a great way to save time and performance. TSW on the other hand at least makes an effort to show trees off in the distant hillsides. They don't look totally convincing but better than nothing.

 

I have to agree with you about the water and the mountains. Those are two scenery elements that neither DTG nor its partners have been able to master to this point. Water that looks like glass or a frosted bathroom window and mountains which have unexplained gaps or pieces missing are almost a sine qua non in TSW.

 

How are these assets made? I was always under the impression that almost everything that is not related to railways are standard assets from UE and already used in many other games.

 

To my greater surprise Rivet DID update Truro Cathedral on WCL. When was that done? Switch from TSW2 to TSW3? (I´ve noticed working PIS as well.)

 

Also to mention the popin of scenery of niddertalbahn. From my experience, the details on the foliage pop in right in front of you. It's nothing unique to tsw but it is more jarring on this route compared to other routes. So going at high speeds with that sort of popin of detail would not be great to look at.

 

June i think. They did it when they updated all their other older dlc

 

I think it was quite recently. They have done a nice job with its replacement. If they can't get iconic buildings like that right then we have little chance with anything else. Pearson was a very distinctive Victorian "high church" architect and what was there before was quite insulting. Glad they have made up for it.

 

I don't think " barren " is what I meant. There's no shortage of scenery. But, looking at Glossop, BCC and, even BML, there are glaring errors in the scenery which should not be happening 5 years into development.

And the lighting in the most recent offerings is severely flawed and, after years of development, should be much better. The " eye adaptation " feature for example, is a disaster in my old peepers.

Instead of bringing in that debatable feature, improving tunnel and night lighting would have been a better use of dev time. Just as giving NPC's umbrellas only to see them continue to behave like idiots is a misplaced use of time and money.

 

Don’t evade the question: is that how you want TSW to look?
You’re over here zooming wayyyyy far from line side, to make everything line-side look even worse. It’s disingenuous, this isn’t a flight sim, we don’t play the game from that POV.

Again, stop making the flight sim comparison, so we can move on to a more constructive comparison. Can they do better? Absolutely. I want better, but I also want to know of something in the train sim or driving sim genre that does it better, and we can build off of that.

The flight sim comparison is a non start, might as well tell me elden ring looks better.

 

Let's not forget the shadow in front of you on the tracks.

 

Oh c´mon, you pick THE ugly example from MSFS to make your point (Noooooooooo, that is not how I want it to look in TSW) and accuse me to make the line side looking worse by zooming in from way far (you presume too much, there´s no zoom. Otherwise the houses wouldn´t cast at least some shadows)?

Really?

So, you don´t notice the repetitions of many assets and objects, the bad lighting, the awful shadowing, the weird reflections while in the driver seat? Sorry, but I do.

 

I think half the houses on the Peninsula Corridor are actually UK assets, they certainly don't look like any of the houses I saw when I was in San Francisco two months ago.

 

I’m not even defending tsw. Scenery needs work. We all know it. Lighting, reflections, tracks directly in front of you look super wonky. Pop in.

I’m looking around at the rest of the relevant games on the market. Driving sims, train sims. Where are we at compared to those? Where the market is at will often tell you what is possible and what is not. What is likely to happen and what is not. Keep ignoring that point though.

You’re in here comparing a plane game to a train game, which have two totally different techniques of building scenery and give two totally different points of view for the player (high in the sky vs on the ground). And you want me to take you seriously.

 

To be fair, West Cornwall is not really known for good rural/distant scenery. It was Rivet’s first long-distance TSW Route and they kind of bit off more than they could chew. So it’s not really the best add-on for judging TSW’s scenery, because it’s significantly below average on WCL.

Your console could also be playing a part here. If you’re on the Xbox One (or to a lesser degree the Series S), detail is going to be significantly reduced and shadows will be non-existent at a distance. I recently upgraded from PS4 to 5 and the difference in overall quality is insane.

 

For those of you who don’t play MSFS, and think the grass is greener on the other side… Well, we have our fair share of complaints regarding graphics too.

(A lot of it depends on what you fly; if you’re flying something big and complex, the game needs to compensate for this)

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/...ing-a-potentially-great-sim-discussion/594349

The games need improvements but at the end of the day, it’s what we have and don’t let the whiners ruin the experience for you.

 

As for "only want DTG to make the content they are interested in" I personally am not super keen on the BR era (due to the trains inducing headaches for me). I still want TVL/NTP upgraded, and I still want the Deltic to be released for all the people that really like it, despite having zero interest in it myself. I'm also glad JT are bringing out a new route in the era for people.

As someone flying weekly in MSFS, the Graphics have never at any point been an issue for me.
The game looks spectacular, with great lighting, shadows and LOD. The clouds are some of the best in any game.

The only graphical issue I can even think of is when they did the Canada update and used messed up data for the Photogrammetry, which resulted in Toronto looking like it melted. Aside from that it's all looked good, and I fly all over Europe, Asia and the US.

That said, you really cant compare a game developed by Microsoft, which might as well have an infinite budget as it's a prestige project, to Dovetail who are a small dev.

 

I dunno, I think both turned out very well in Clinchfield.

 

Glad you don’t have issues, but we can’t discount all the people who do. People with all grades of hardware have had stuttering issues. Well documented in their forums. Plenty of wonky bugs, missing bridges, cars driving on water etc. (people in tsw would have an absolute meltdown if they drove next to this bridge on a route, like with the old floating trucks on Sherman hill lmao)

I really enjoy both games but I think TSW players are so jaded that they think every other sim is so many miles ahead and problem free but it’s just not true.

 

I found the difference to be very disappointing but I did not expect it to be a phenomenal difference. TSW2 on PS4 felt like PS3 graphics and with TSW3 they just moved up a bit and now you have PS4 graphics on PS5. (Base PS4 graphics, not PS4 pro graphics)

Let's hope TSW 4 or whatever they announce the 22nd turns the graphics up a notch to PS4 Pro graphics on PS5 but that does not make the assets look any better

 

Clinchfield is helped by the fact you can't really see far past the nearby mountainside, so the distant mountains are mostly blocked by the scenery.

 

For sure my kind of Cathedral. Father Willis 1887, huh?
Yummy ...

 

You say your not defending it when your posts suggests otherwise. The msfs comparison isn't totally invalid. This game has been out for a long time and it is clear that many routes do have basic scenery due to them being rushed like NY-Trenton or DTG not nearly as putting much effort on them. Not everyone plays in the cab view and I do believe that the fact that the progress has been very inconsistent. There is no denying that work has to be done and comparing one game to another doesn't make a point invalid just because you don't agree with it

 

Yes a Father Willis and one of the finest Cathedral organs in England. He was Britains Cavaille-Coll or Schultz.

It is one I would love to play but I doubt I will ever get to do so.