I would assume most if not all of them are on a holiday break, so no surprise they are not active on the forums at the moment. That being said, "we are giving up on steam because it sells poorly" is something I could easily imagine them say. I mean they have already said the exact same thing about BR Blue, retro US and other countries as well.
would be a fair split but not really one for DTG as BR and Steam to them ain’t selling equally as Modern.
I think my knowledge of train sim history, which probably goes back earlier than when some on here were still in nappies, is quite sound thank you. And even the earlier steam locos in RS (as it was) on the S&D route had better physics and sound than the TSW effort.
One thought came to mind: If it is harder to make trains in TSW rather than TSC, could it be that they simply cannot get the physics for steam locos the way they want, and therefore chose to put steam on the sidelines? If so, then some sort of confirmation would be nice.
Part of the problem there is that they still don't have a solid foundation for steam physics. They put out their first product with incomplete steam physics, set on an extremely busy route in real life with two locomotives. The rumour of DTG blaming poor sales doesn't sit right with me, when the quality itself isn't quite there. A smaller branch line project should've been picked for the first steam route, so devs could spend more time working on the steam simulation itself. Steam does have the potential to sell extremely well but the quality really needs to be there first.
They jumped into the deep end, I think, and can't get themselves out of the hole they dug. But I could also imagine a small branch line would have caused outrage on these forums because, yawn, "its yet again another small route with one train".
I'd put it down to interference from higher up the chain. In articles leading up to Spirit of Steam, CEO Paul Jackson mentioned that he specifically wanted Crewe in the 1950's in the game. If they had started with a branch line, including a tank engine, some coaches, wagons and a brake van. I don't personally think people would've complained because it would be offset by the hype of it being the first steam route. DTG could've then built off of that, made the second route something a little bigger in scope, include a tender engine with some additional rolling stock while layering in the stock from the first route. Just slowly build things up that way. Spirit of Steam also released before the whole "route with one train" thing kicked off I think. That mostly started becoming a thing during TSW3's run.
I will say with total conviction that the 7F and Black Five that launched with Rail Simulator are far above any of the steam locos in TSW by the simple virtue of actually modelling water and coal, and allowing the player control over their use.
Not if it was the right route with the right train. A small GWR branch such as Princetown or Newbury to Lambourn would have offered both scenery and somewhere to test physics with something like a Pannier Tank and a small tender loco. For LMS, a London area branch (maybe Harrow to Stanmore or Watford to Rickmansworth would have kicked things off. Of course that wouldn't quite have fulfilled PJ's vision but it would have provided a proof of concept before jumping into what became something of the white elephant of SoS, which is not the fault of those who bought in thinking it was the launch pad for a more sophisticated experience.
I could see that, but then you need to ask yourself: would DTG really choose a route that would be entertaining in scenery as well as rolling stock?
It sounds like he should have been challenged on that decision. Crewe wasnt exactly an easy place to start.
Based on the preview vids I think they will pull this off, indeed largely already have when it comes to core programming (seriously, making sure the stack chuffs alternate left and right? Wow.) But wide subject matter appeal, I'm afraid that's unlikely. The focus for this very, very small group of enthusiasts is 3-foot narrow gauge in the western US, especially California.
True but we can hope LOL, its built on UE5 so i wonder if they would be willing to i dunno sell there physics simulation engine or even lease it, as it may either be able to be back ported to UE4 or at the worst give DTG a better understanding of how to write one for TSW. ill add it to my ever growing wish list for TSW Take Care & Happy New Year all Gary
Really impressed with this so far. The more I see of it the better it looks. Devs seem really cool and knowledgeable and from what I've heard in some of the videos they have also regularly fired steam locomotives themselves. Apparently you will be able play in single player as normal or multiplayer if you want. You can either both drive and fire, or just drive and have a separate AI/automated fireman do the firing. I think you might be able to fire yourself together with an AI/automated driver too. Built in Unreal Engine 5. It is set around the 3ft narrow gauge railroads that sprang up in the United States during the 1870s and 1880s. Perhaps the most famous being the Denver and Rio Grande Western 3ft gauge system which lasted long after other 3ft railroads became defunct or converted to standard gauge. Real locomotive classes are modelled, including many of the Baldwin 3ft gauge designs. Oil, coal and wood firing are all simulated.
Well, since I began with Rail Simulator myself with Kujo, I would say I have been around for a fair amount of time my self. We can agree to disagree on some points.
I agree with the firing aspect of the early kettles in Rail Simulator - they beat the current implementation in TSW… but physics wise… remember getting wheel slip when stopped? Now that was some good physics . Latter implementations where you had correctly operate the injectors to lift properly and the addition of cold water into the boiler reduced pressure is something sorely missed as well. But many of the early kettles didn’t have the steam chests properly simulated. Over the years. Both Kujo, now DTG and third parties really upped their game to where they are a great challenge to run properly. Many have pointed to the new railroader sim as having good steam, yes they deplete coal and water, but cylinder c0cks are decorative only, you can’t stoke the firebox nor fill the boiler, dampers are non existent and the blowers do nothing. Yes it is early access so in time, hopefully those aspects will come into play. TSC at this point in time is the best representation I have seen, but as I postulated in my previous post, it took time to develop to that state. Only time will tell if or when TSW will come into maturity with respect to Steam. Best
Wasn't referring directly to you with the nappy comment! My involvement started with the SIAM driver sims and Simudrive @1994 on the Commodore Amiga!
we are both old … was mostly into flight sims in the ‘80s and ‘90s … and going to sea … wasn’t till I retired from the service and started my consulting career where I had an ample amount of free time to get into the hobby …. Best
I predicted the situation we are in now (not just related to steam) years ago. I said that DTG were not capable of developing TSW into its potential and that they would need a major attitude change if they planned on making significant progress with the game. This was when Rush Hour had come and gone, but when TSW3 was not on the horizon. That attitude change never happened. I remember when they announced Spirit of Steam (the name, not the route itself, which was unveiled much later) I was convinced that they were going to do the Riviera Line in the Fifties. I thought it was obvious. It was a very popular and well-regarded route in Train Simulator because of the quality of the route building for the time, the amount of stock and the variety of it. Yes, the locomotives weren't that great especially with the standard we have now with Bossman Games, Victory Works and to a lesser extent Caledonia Works, but the DLC was still at the top end of TS routes. They'd done all of the research for the route. There was a clear market for it - it's practically the best steam route in the UK. It embodies the charm and beauty of steam locomotives when they were at their peak in design, but also had some of the most iconic diesel locomotives in the UK running on it. The Class 52 is probably the most iconic on the route, but the Class 42 would be a great choice as well. The latter was made in TS by BMG and is the true highlight of the Western Hydraulics triple-pack, which included the 52 and 35 which were much simpler but still pleasantly driveable. While the first steam in TSW should have been a low-risk loco DLC, if they were set on having a route then it would have been best to go something they already had experience with and would be less likely to mess up. My ideal (and hopefully quite reasonable) version of the route in TSW would have been as follows: The full route between Exeter and Kingswear, with at least one branch line done. The Class 52 but rebuilt. I can't remember how good or bad the Diesel Legends version of it was so I can't comment on it, but either way an update would be good. The Castle Class - pretty much the definitive (and certainly most iconic) GWR loco, so it would be an insult not to have it. A Pannier Tank of some sort for light freight, shunting and local passenger services. An additional tender engine for freight runs, possibly a Grange or Hall although I'm not that knowledgeable on Western region freight so I couldn't say for sure. I think that an updated diesel, a small tank engine and two relatively similar tender locomotives wouldn't be that much more work than what we got in SOS. Of course, with the route research being effectively already done they would have had more time to build the trains regardless. Only for some people. Many of us, including myself, have learnt to be sceptical of anything related to TSW until it comes out and can prove its worth.
So you're disappointed they didn't do what you expected. Did you really think they wouldn't jump in at the deep end?
They shouldn't have, it's as simple as that. Surely somebody in DTG must have thought at some point 'we've bitten off more than we can chew'? They went straight to the West Coast Main Line, one of the busiest routes in the country, then included two quite similar locomotives with no opportunity for shunting and not enough content to make the route as busy as it needed to be. The reason why I was convinced it would be the Riviera Line was because from a development standpoint it just made more sense. It's a simpler route with less variables, that was a popular route in TS, and that had all of the research needed already complete, and with one locomotive ready to be included with it straight away. Of course, they should have made a small loco DLC first (likely for the WSR) which would have had less of a risk. One loco DLC doesn't really matter, but an entire route (and one promoted and hyped as much as SOS) absolutely does. That's why Peak Forest allegedly sold badly - if SOS was as bad as it was, why buy another route which went to nowhere from nowhere, had one reused train and one completely broken one? There are certainly other routes that could have worked better than the West Coast Main Line as a first steam route, but I guess it's sod's law that DTG give steam three piss-poor attempts, and then when not enough people buy into it because they have an eye for things actually working they throw it all away just to spend their time making uninteresting, most often modern routes that don't appeal to the rest of the playerbase - all while Train Simulator gets its best ever steam locomotives from Bossman Games, Victory Works and Caledonia Works. All of them have recently released steam locos or ones that are being developed as we speak, so clearly the lack of sales potential for steam in TSW isn't because of steam locomotives themselves. It's all about who is making them.
They'd have probably done better with steam if they'd instead introduced just one steam loco on an existing route as a railtour. But I guess someone higher up wanted different.
It was explained earlier on, the now-former CEO Peter Jackson specifically wanted the section of the WCML we got despite it not being sensible as a first route.
Yes. As related, Paul Jackson the then CEO wanted to recreate memories of standing on Crewe station in the late 1950's, ergo we got Crewe to Liverpool. But as at least one other person in the thread has commented, with hindsight someone should have said, "Yes we'll have a look at it for you boss, but let's explore the concept first with a shorter route and/or an add on for one of the existing routes." Which in all likelihood would have been a Hall or Pannier to layer in on WSR - or indeed the Riviera Line as being discussed. Edit: To be positive and show willing (I don't know how much Dovetail Live monitors individual route play), forgoing the Japanese Sim, Railroader and Snowrunner this evening and maybe tomorrow get some miles in on SoS and PFR - flawed as they are.
I will be blunt - things like steam chests are much less necessary than coal and water simulation. Without that TSW steam locomotives are fundamentally unfinished and thus inferior to the most basic TSC steam locos.
I will be blunt as well - steam chest simulation is very important if you want to simulate a steam engine. It is all part of a good simulation. Of course I used to be a conning officer on a steam powered destroyer escort… while a steam turbine is quite a bit different than direct steam piston, the planning factor for when to add or remove steam because of the delay and persistence is a big part of being able to handle the ship. Unlike the instantaneous response of a diesel electric or reduction gear diesel. The maintenance of the water level and fuel mass while important, do not add the same attention factor to the maneuvering. To sum up, all factors are important for a good simulation.
For all that I agree that something less ambitious would have been better for their first steam route, I feel as if DTG were within a whisker of creating something incredible with Crewe - Liverpool. The steam physics were poor (although better than they are now, after a later revamp made them worse), there was a shortage of traffic, and the AI timings were horrible - but the route itself was, in my view, very well done, considering how ambitious it was. I still feel - and maybe this is a sort of weird nostalgia, rather than a genuine belief that they’ll re-visit it - that it could be salvaged. Push it forward in time a couple of years, introduce the 4F and a few green diesel locos and DMUs so that we don’t have the Jubilee on inappropriate stopping trains, and re-build the timetable (lift it from one of the 1950s/60s public timetables readily available online), and it could still be a superb route, without a need for any new trains or work on the route. The only thing that would need some significant work would be sorting out the steam physics which - if they’re not going to abandon steam completely - DTG will need to do anyway.
Thinking along similar lines just now as one of the Lime Street to Runcorn (Chester) stoppers came round in Journey mode. A Jubilee on Load 5 is absurd. This would be an ideal job for the Class 104 DMU when it releases and if I remember my research at the time, the type was not uncommon in the Liverpool area. That and the 4F on some of the shorter freights or some yard work, even sell it for £4.99 as a new timetable, I'd take it. Oh yes and no AI timings which seem to be based on a Class 86 or similar.
I agree completely; the steam chest is the beating heart of the engine, which the stomach and intestines merely serve to keep going.
That changes in power application are delayed is, to my mind, of less importance than simulating the most basic elements of how a steam locomotive generates steam. That is not to say that steam chest simulation isn't important, but it's of less importance than other things.
That is your opinion. In my view steam generation is the fireman’s job, using the steam is the engineers job. And I was speaking as a previous ship driver. Best is to have it all simulated correctly
Not at all. Sorry if I'm unclear with my replies me and words are difficult sometimes I'm happy to wait for DTGs reply as I mentioned in my previous comment. On the contrary I hope this one isn't true. And as I said previously in another comment: if it is true then I like many am not going to be particularly happy. I also think (my opinion) that its understandable for people to ask the question. I just believe that steam needs addressing and am just frustrated with the state of it. And its also frustrating that dtg haven't addressed the matter for a long time. Edit - Also I do still play a lot of SOS and PFR so I do still engage with it. I love the PFR route its beautiful and still a nice drive despite the timetable. It's only FS I've stayed clear of due to forum reviews.
As an aside, somthing else they need to sort out on the Jubilee is that absurd side to side rocking. Even at low speeds it's like the thing is on a pogo stick but the motion is coming from the centre line of the loco not the side. Very offputting and more than a little seasick inducing. Seems to have got worse in TSW4.
It's an issue that seems to be present on all rolling stock that is not on actual bogeys. The DB BR 363/365 also does it quity badly, and I believe so does the BR Class 08.
A side effect I guess of the trains following a central database line rather the the visible rails. One more musing while I’m at it. Just started the final “Journey” trip on PFR and really got to ask what bright spark decided it should have been a semi fast service to Manchester, starting at the unlikely train crew relief point of Cromford, in thick mist and heavy rain which means you see nothing of the scenery? This should have been an end to end run from Ambergate to Chinley on a glorious summer evening with the sun starting to go down and the sky glowing golden red. Something to promote the line, then they have the nerve to (allegedly) state the route didn’t sell well and steam in TSW is dead stick.
It just feels like DTG lurch from.one policy to another and will blame poor sales for a reason to completely abandon an era or type of railway operation. If the only thing that sells is modern emus then fair enough but like many I'm not convinced that the poor sales is down to people not liking steam or anything else thats deemed a poor seller. I go back to MSTS first route full length S and C (Settle and Carlisle) with Flying Scotsman both icons. TSW first route Liverpool to Crewe with a Jubilee and 8f. None of which are iconic although the route is one personally important to me but annoyingly abandoned now if the rumours are true. One common theme is like myself not only are players frustrated they are also bored. Bringing the editing abilities in was a step in the right direction but ultimately I am now a rare user of TSW as I simply have better things to do. The other half bought me a VR headset so I'm now getting into that also.....
Then perhaps the success of Blackpool will be a wakeup call: what sells are well-made routes with attention to detail and lots of variety. SoS and PF were not disappointments because players don't like steam, but because both those routes were disappointing- both as routes and especially in the steam department. A steam route with traction modeled to Bossman TSC standards would, I predict, sell like hotcakes even on a fairly unexceptional route, and if put on a route on a par with, not even Blackpool, but, say Riesa or SEHS, would simply mint money. There is I think a great deal of pent-up demand for good steam. Poor steam, not so much.
And of course it's worth remembering that SoS was sold on the basis that manual firing would be coming...
The excuse book normally comes along next, we haven't got time, can't get access, there's a deadline, there's no reference material, licence can't be got etc...
Indeed crewe liverpool is very well done, same as peak forrest. Looking at the scope of sos, not a single loco dlc got released, not even 4f layers to advertise steam... Thats a waste of all the time and ressources those employee were putting in the route, to recreate it as historicly accurate as possible. And they did a good job, its from 1959, more than 60 years back. All this to leave it behind empty?
It’s a terrible waste. As a route, SoS (and PFR) is so well done and there are these endless yards all over the route and yet, we never got even one loco (4F layer or DLC) to make use of any of it. I still dream of using the docks around Ditton.
Yes a pitiful waste, it is a well made route and I think largely they have captured the feel of the era well, so why abandon it. It certainly would make me think twice about purchasing another historic route, unless it came with everything you need "out of the box". There is so much potential for DLC for this route. I don't even have it installed now, I will stick to TSC for the steam experience unless things wildly change.
Probably one for the Resolutions thread but IMHO now they are gripping £30 for a route DLC, any new release but particularly steam era needs a minimum of two new locos, additional rolling stock items and, where practical, layers from other routes. That is the only way to build up a portfolio of assets to really populate a route.
So agree with this.....but TBH it applies to all routes (not just these two). The effort that must go in to making one of these larger routes is then completely wasted by the lack of playability in-game. Lack of access (why so few paths?) And lack of stock being the obvious causes. On the Steam front I have no idea why no tank engines have been made. On the coaching front no Buffet car. On the 'access' front why do all routes have over 50% of their mileage shut off from the game? Obviously, on a modern route, this is, sometimes, less apparent as there are fewer sidings (although the near empty New Street, Piccadilly etc are the same thing) but on the 'older' routes the emptiness is just so jarring and unnecessary. I suppose a fully working Editor can change some of this but it would be better all round if DTG could resolve some of these issues themselves.
The main thing that stopped me from purchasing Peak Forest is that at full price, the route really only contains one new loco and doesn't really offer anything substantially different from the experience offered by SoS. They should have at least differentiated the Jubilee and 8F slightly by giving them different liveries, or even included BR Green diesels instead (then have the Jubilee and 8F layer on).
The artist who worked on stations like Glasgow Central or Birmingham New Street must be utterly frustrated by the lack of subsequent utilisation in the game. Sometimes a payday isn't enough, you want to see your creation as intended, alive and vibrant with trains from all parts of the country and different companies. Not Ghostville.
