Upcoming Release Lirr Commuter: New York - Long Beach, Hempstead & Hicksville

To be honest, yes. Never thought TSW physics would be that complex.

So there is something like this going on in the background:

for (;
{
if (on tracks != 1) {
play weird crash simulation;
turn on blackscreen;
break;
}
}

end session;

But I think what eldomtom2 wanted to point out here in several posts is why is there this 'play weird crash simulation' statement at all? If licensors do have a problem with this and the weird crash simulation is also only a bit and short sequence (the actual start of the crash) and you also can't replace 'play weird crash simulation;' with 'play correct crash simulation;', why having it in then at all?

It doesn't make sense to leave the 'play weird crash simulation;' statement, as rather just continue to the 'turn on blackscreen;' statement and break out of the for loop.

By the way, sorry if I wrote some statements incorrectly, my C practice is actually a little bit rosted since a while. Also the formatting comes not as I wanted here and the sign coming in. Well, the DTG Forums are not StackOverflow I guess.

 

As I see it, it's not so much "Weird crash simulation" as "The engine has no inbuilt capacity for vehicle or terrain deformation and that would be a whole bunch of unnecessary extra work which would only be to the detriment of licensing deals, and the scenario automatically stops a few seconds after a derail occurs, so we get the physics of completely unbreakable carriages leaving the equally unbreakable rails and bouncing off unbreakable ground", it ends the scenario after it detects this occurring because that's the point at which the game's physics report back that it has happened, that also happens to be the point at which the realism of the simulation breaks down because objects which are not designed to interact are now interacting. Because shocker, you're not supposed to crash the trains. That means you're not very good at this game and should probably not be allowed in the cab of a real one.
You see it happen because it literally has to happen first for the physics simulation to know it has happened and trigger a game over.



TLDR: DTG did NOT create some kind of crash animation that plays when you crash. What happens is literally the result of the same physics the game runs on and uses to recognise that a crash or derailment has taken place playing out what happens when you break the rules those physics are operating within. You are imagining extra steps which are simply not there.

 

Mind the weirdest game for denying crashes is X-Plane. Make a hard landing or come down short of the runway in a forest and the aircraft simply bounces off the ground back into the air. Absurd! At least FSX and MSFS 2020 register the crash if you augur in or clip a building, as opposed to the previously mentioned no collision with other player planes in MP.

 

Anyway....

While I think my stance is pretty clear on derailments in the game engine....

When it comes to discussion of upcoming route announcements, I am far more open to a policy of minimising this kind of derailment.


Perhaps the people who do seem to care a bunch about it could make a dedicated thread?

 

I understand your point and it indeed could be this way, however I would like to have the devs confimation if this is really true.

Me too. If it serves the purpose of having more companies/routes etc. and less license problems, I'm all the way in with that.

But otherwise if it won't, I just raise the question why not enhance the crash experience then, if you already have the full license issues as if you would have a completely realistic crash experience?

If licensors already made conditions to crashes in game, breaking the session immediately after the train derailed and only the start of the crash is displayed seems for me illogically because all what is complained about is not even a correct crash depicted in TSW, it's just the start of it.

And to reverse this, if all what the license problem is causing is just a weird start sequence of the crash, not even the entire crash, why having the crash in at all?

And yes you gave an answer to this why this probably isn't possible, but my concerns still remain and I want these to be answered by the developers, just to confirm that this is true.

I would also like to do so yes, but however the discussion about it started here because of the features or better non-features of LIRR 2.0. Also I'm afraid that the discussion is already as much evolved in here that it would not make big sense to start a new one from the beginning somewhere else, missing Matt's statements to base the discussion on.

 

I heavily doubt that it starts the fadeout the instant it detects a derailment - that could only happen if there was a time delay on it recognising it.
And of course, you could also just not have a fadeout at all.

 

Someone mentioned in another thread about the “one unders” when passengers wander off the platform in front of the train. Hopefully the route has been double and triple checked for this or MTA will be on the phone faster than you can say cease and desist.

And what about doors opening on parts of the train not at the platform? What will MTA say when they see that?!

 

At the risk of being off topic, "perfect" superelevation is not a thing. Well, it is in theory, but it's not what you use in real life due to a number of reasons. If you want to build a realistic route, I'd recommend finding out how real railways are planned and built, rather than getting second hand information from someone else.

If I'm unsure about the real railway, I first check my copy of "Bahnwesen. Planung, Bau und Betrieb von Eisenbahnen, S-, U-, Stadt- und Straßenbahnen" by Joachim Fiedler and Wolfgang Scherz. It really has all the basics you should know to be able to build a realistic virtual railway.

 

While you're here Matt, how exactly did LIRR get this far when they many players prefer playing with safety systems off? While I vastly playing with safeties on, I know many more casual fans don't, and certainly I was that way starting out. And historically TSW in-game has never really forced players to use them, in fact for a time the game really didn't seem to even acknowledge them at all till the recent updates with scoring.

The reason I'm confused is as you note yourself some operators have absurdly strict requirements that don't make them a fit for a TSW game. Conversely though that should mean DTG have to have extensive discussion catching licensors up to speed, and thus make sure they know what they're signing up for. So I'm confused how DTG seemingly were caught off guard by this, when surely DTG & LIRR should've already had some sort of deal in place. As otherwise DTG wouldn't have started development, as I know for fact based on prior statements you've made DTG don't start development on routes unless they already have a licensing agreement in place with the railway companies that are present in said DLC.

 

But this is completely opposite to what you've said in the past. If what you say is true then crash videos etc. aren't a problem at all. Also, it seems implausible to me that there aren't operators who will say "we don't want crashes, but we're fine with speeding as long as trains are locked to the rails".

 

Yeah let’s get off the crash topic and the safety system stuff, I mean honestly it’s better to have this nice route with a nice network in New York City with the safety system enabled then not at all, and if some would rather just not have the route they can just… not buy it.
Though TBH what I would like to know more about is why you chose the stations that you did for this new LIRR route with its extension, and if maybe East Williston on the tiny part of the Oyster Bay branch that is electrified could possibly be added sometime? It’s in TSC (if that helps for reference?) and I think the area around it is scanned already. I don’t know that much about game dev or route building but it seems to be a tiny extension that should be easier to make and would give some more services, that station added along with the added stations we are getting already would be pretty cool.

 

Ah, thanks for responding and telling us the thought process on why you chose what you did.

 

You deserve to be declared a saint for the level of patience you’ve exhibited on this topic. Thank you, as always, for your care, consideration, and professionalism - speaks volumes about who you are as a person and a manager. Keep up the good work, sir!

 

Appreciate the input Matt. Not sure if it’s actually used these days but a year or two back when reading up on LIRR they had a freight branch to Bushwick., I think it was called. In the day loads of industry spurs and sidings off it. I even hankered after doing a “proto model” of it in Trainz but that fell into vapourware.

Could be an interesting further addition at some point.

Anyhow I’m certainly thinking LIRR 2.0 might be worth a preorder punt after all. Despite the warts I quite enjoy driving the original as unlike Harlem you have a bit of a network and the speed limit going into the terminus isn’t half a mile at 10 MPH.
As I’ve said previously, it’s probably the closest we’ll get to a NYC Transit route as the Subway is still out of the picture, so fire up and enjoy.

 

So what about assists? I understand DTG got caught off guard but isn't this an opportunity to start researching new ways of assists? Race games are full of assists. Same with the SPAD. What if there was a setting you never get to pass a red light as the train will already have stopped?

Blasphemy?

 

Well, there are some things DTG is happy to explain and some things DTG isn't...

 

After the release of the LOSL and the impressive looking Semmeringbahn, I am really looking forward to seeing this LIRR extension. My only gripe at the moment is the discount for those who have the original route, but won’t care about that, if l feel the route is worth the money. Don’t mind paying more for something if it’s really good!!!

 

Happy to see L.I.R.R. getting some love again! I will be watching the preview streams and reviews, as I'm looking forward to seeing how much it improved compared to the original L.I.R.R. route.

While I don't care much about the M9, it's nice to see it in game and I know many people have been asking for it. Including the M3 as a layer is also a good move, would have been very sad to see it completely abandoned. And I do hope we will finally see the diesels+bilevels as separate add-on in the near future.

If the safety systems finally work as intended and the route is properly busy, then that's great news. I do wonder how much of the original route got updated scenery wise though, as the distaint terrain still seems blank and empty in some of the screenshots. Hopefully we won't see the same dramatic contrast in scenery quality between the new and old sections like we have seen on New York - Trenton.

Regarding the safety changes, I don't mind the safety systems being on by default, but completely disabling the circuit braker seems a bit of an overkill. And while the change in safety systems is understandable, but why are the door controls altered? And while at the topic of door controls, will selective door control finally be implemented on the route to stop doors opening on cars overhanging the shorter platforms?

Anyway, I will be looking forward to this. Won't buy it straight away, since I still don't feel the desire to get TSW4. But maybe in the future when I get back to TSW for Tadami Line, I will get this one as well - if it ends up being good, that is.

 

My inclination right now is to pre-order the route on the 23rd, but I will take a long, hard look at the previews. Scenery, water textures, station modeling and especially the revised timetable. One of the turnoffs in the original route was the sparseness of AI traffic, so that element is key to improved gameplay.

The omission of diesel traction is a missed opportunity, but that so often happens with TSW. I wish DTG would just once go " full Monty " on rolling stock on a new route, but I guess they never will. And, like NYT, it would have been good to see some freight activity.

I actually don't mind the safety systems being on by default, I switch them in on Harlem and Trenton anyway.

 

I always play with safety systems on, without them it is kinda boring and no real challenge... safety systems make me pay attention at all times, so it is more engaging in the end

 

I also would like to appeal to Matt that he took the time and patience to give answers to my questions and want to thank him very much for his very insightful replies, giving the players more in-depth knowledge about processes behind the curtains.

However, your words could describe someone just wanting a bit more answers as a demon in comparison. Since safety systems always being on is a huge cut in players freedom, being exposed to questions questioning these changes is completely previsible for a developer, not so that they would need to answer as Matt did very well, but just being exposed to this topic or critic to tactics people have doubts about is quite normal in the game industry as well as anywhere else.

In the same way Rivet got critic for Fife Circle, and this is absolutely okay and reasonable. However, Matt proved that he can do better than them and I respect and appreciate that skill and level of responsbility much on him (at least in this regard - I miss a abit more responsibilty in terms of the PC Editor and the projects which dedicate some life time on their project but noone seems to take care).

 

DTGs point of view melt in front of such simgame like msfs or assetto corsa competizione, run8 etc. , where devs found ways to incorporate full spectrum of events without unintentional negatives. JUST give us good simulation, we don't need crashing scenes... "SIM" in TSW is an obligation to make simulation not just Train World

 

Hi Matt. - Re the Editor - I presume you know that it is down at the moment.?

I appear to have ended up with a scenario that is half one 'build' and half another meaning that some formations won't show up in-game. Will that correct itself when you update the Editor on Monday? (I have applied the unofficial patch but that doesn't correct my issue).

 

Gee, I wonder who that might be......

 

Your opinion, and yes, you are entitled to it.

 

I didn't only meant improvements to the Editor with that statement. I (and others who already gave up their projects - maybe because of that) missing the help from you a bit here and there. And I don't even mean tutorials with this. I guess some creators would really like to see that from your side getting in touch with them, and not only to provide an email adress (to which by the way in more than 3 weeks noone responded).

I guess if I'm spending months of free time to this project already, I could expect a little more engagement from DTG's side to making a sellable product out of it.

And yes, I would have preferred if I could do this conversation in particular in a way discreet and personal manner, however noone from DTG seems to take care about that.

 

Will this DLC be free if you already own the previous LIRR? Which I do.

 

Nope if you are wanting to have the new version you will be paying for it, been mentioned fair few times already I'm afraid......

 

Tell you what's going to be a pain with safety systems being non-disableable.

AFK end-to-end shader compilation runs.

I set up a custom scenario for every route where I send a train down the track at the highest speed it can handle without derailing on any of the corners, in order to swiftly compile shaders after each patch, to minimise stutter when I actually play the route.

Is it definitely only the LIRR units this will apply to, so I can send something down there in off the rails mode?

 

I'm guessing only LIRR stock will have the safeties enforced. You could always do a "Off the Rails" scenario and use rolling stock from another route that doesn't have the safeties enforced.

 

If you are on Steam there is a 10% preorder discount and 10% if you own the previous version. So £6 off £30 which is not the most generous saving. IMHO should have been £20 for existing owners with preorder.

 

That's my hope. Just hoping for confirmation from Matt that yes, OTR scenarios with an ICE or similar will be fine.

 

Should have been free if you already own the previous LIRR anyways. DTG did that with the West Somerset Railway remaster.

 

WSR was a spare time personal project so was graciously provided free of charge. LIRR was rebuilt as a commercial project and does include a new train and additional mileage, neither of which was a part of the WSR effort. So while I think £24 (after discounts) is a bit steep for the new version, I don't share the view it should be entirely free. Like I said, £20 which would be the £12 for the train DLC and £8 for the additional mileage, new timetable and various other improvements.

 

I'm sorry, waiting on basic Editor fixes because DTG is waiting to hire someone to work on it is frankly a sign of poor management. These are fixes that have been promised since before TSW4's launch.
Also, there is the matter of steam, which definitely is being swept under the rug...

 

Brilliant, thanks.

 

They can't make it free due to the new content which includes a brand new train. A remaster includes no new content in terms of new track and train

 

They should have released the train as a separate DLC.

 

They should do what ever they think is best for them, the company, because it's their vision and effort gone into making it a real product. Sizable chunk of the player base might not like the desicion they have made as a company, but do have to respect and accept the outcome of said desicion.......

 

You'd still have to pay for the extension though.

 

I think they should have used the current LIRR route and increased the price from £24.99 - £29.99 with the extension and the new loco. And fixing some bugs, like they did on the South Eastern High Speed.

 

i agree with you its not that much stop to make on the far rockaway as well. I MEAN COME ON DTG. Which still go back to me saying that the team don't give any love to the US Fan and

 

We have to wait and see, so hopefully the team will deliver

 

i believe he was the one that work on this project as well, because he have done almost all of the north american commuter route so far