After some research we've found that the add-on manager is still preventing assets from loading in certain circumstances. If you build a scenery layer, these assets will not load in game unless you put a train native to the doner route in a timetable. I don't know if anyone has cooked and packed a custom route and tried it in game yet with the same problem? But this is a huge concern which I hope DTG will look into. Some of us tested this in a scenario scenery layer: Built a layer for Fife Circle. By default the trains used in its timetable are 170 from FifeCircle, 385 from EdinGlasgow and 801from PeterboroughDonny. Any assets placed in a layer from these routes will load normally. If, however, eg. I placed a car asset from PrestonBlackpool it will not load. A test was done by adding a new timetable with a class 142 on the route. At this point the car asset appeared. This is a little worrying as people are working hard to build routes whos scenery might not even load when cooked and packed. I noticed that RVDs have an option for RequiredDLC. Might make sense for layer definition files to have this too.
I have tried cooking and packing a route I am making (which has its own landscape etc. but uses many TSW assets) and it is simply not recognised in the game at all. After putting the packed file in the DLC folder there is no option in game to access the route or any scenarios. I guess this is because something is missing in my current file structure but it may be that the game is simply not allowing me to use my route in game because I am using DLC assets..
Since the beginning I'm afraid that it could be possible that releasing a freeware route project could not work, dependent upon technical limitations. Once the Editor got released, Matt said they had plans to do something like an in-game Creators Club but just only for routes and other Editor related stuff. But I don't think it will happen soon. If it really is true that the cooked route project would not be recognised in TSW, it would have an impact on my work, too. I can't continue to spend time on a project, it's unsafe whether it can be used.
I understand. I think I have similar feelings about the editor road map. When the editor was released with TSW 4, there was significant fanfare and excitement generated by DTG. The road map outlined regular updates to the editor in each time horizon slot, several very helpful live streams happened, there was a lot of very helpful tutorials from Matt posted here in this forum on a regular basis. All of it appeared a positive sign that the editor was indeed an important missing element of TSW that was finally coming to fruition. Lately I get a very different feeling. The editor has all but disappeared from the road map, I don't know of any official tutorials of any form being posted lately by DTG (maybe I missed them?), and to my knowledge there has not been a single update to the editor since the release to even address some of the most basic bugs. I seems the editor is: WYSIWYG. I remember one very repetitive and vocal theme as to the motive of the editor public release at the time that I didn't pay a lot of attention to and in retrospect probably should have. The idea was that getting the editor in to as many interested hands as possible would stimulate new third party relationships. Maybe that was the whole motive of the release in a nutshell and it was never intended to go any further. Maybe I just missed the nuances that were very obvious to everyone else in my excitement and just saw what I was wishing for since the beginning of TSW. I hesitate to spend any more time on the route I had planned and have started (a roughly 30 mile section of railroads centered around my hometown) for several reasons. First and foremost, if I spent several years on the project, I'd like to share it with anyone that might be interested. Also, even if I just made it for my own use, I would want to be able to use custom liveries, etc. that would require compiling the project and integrating it with the actual TSW game. This does not seem to be anywhere on the horizon. I'm appreciative that we have an editor to sandbox with and I'm appreciative of the time the DTG team has given us with the tutorials they have made. I envisioned something developing similar to TSC that would allow more, but I think maybe I heard what I was wishing for and not listening to what was actually being offered.
Without hearing more from DTG, we're left traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries will be announced by DTG, sometime in the coming months. That's a roadmap up ahead: your next stop: the PC Editor!
I've had that suspicion for a long time, that the primary reason for releasing the editor was to recruit capable creators as 3rd party (and to please those pointing out the promise to release an editor since back in 2017). The Cooking feature wasn't left out by accident, and the AddOn manager which acts as a content guard, scanning each pak on startup (TSW3 didn't, that's why it launches so fast - addons were mounted in the Engine.ini) was introduced at the same time the beta Editor came. Not a single small route out there, I was expecting to see a lot of (no matter how simple) "My first route" projects being released. TSW is not "creator's sim" TSC, that's now all too obvious. I had posted a similar message months ago, predicting that many route projects will simply vanish, because of either too high goals for a first project or that impassible wall to finalize your pak - for which you need to be a DTG partner to overcome that. Which was dismissed by some as being "conspiracy stuff". I think it's just realistic. Think we all know DTG (as a company) don't take it that seriously with the truth. Their vocal reassurance in livestreams to care for the PC Editor should be taken with the usual bucket of salt. Judge by deeds not words. Of course, would be nice to be proven wrong but I don't expect that. Anyhow - huge SimRail update (what would be SimRail 2 if DTG made it) is out, I'll be off for a while
Here's my (for real) take: I for one plan to forge on ahead, regardless. Hopefully, DTG will opt not to snub such a dedicated part of their fanbase (many of whom have been waiting YEARS to make their own content to use in-game.) I guess we'll know more definitively, whenever the Editor comes out of beta. Worst case scenario (for me, at least,) I'll be left with all of these Unreal-Engine-compatible assets I've been making....
I think the one and only reason and issue they faced was - how do we prevent people from packing DTG plugins into their freeware paks - hence the AddonManager checking for suspicious stuff - because it is simply not controllable what people are uploading to the net. So far, blueprints, textures, sound files and map tiles are allowed, else mods wouldn't be possible were we pack modified versions of existing DTG content plugins. But - on some occasions, the mod would get blocked. Not sure if any logfile could give details of what exactly happens. For TSC it works because all DTG model vertex coordinates are encrypted with a key, that needs Steam's Proof of Purchase appmanifest mechanism. Upon ownership validation the models get decrypted via a preprocessor. So you could pack DTG assets into freeware technically, but if you weren't owning that DLC yourself they'd be useless and result in "polygon madness". A brilliant and unintrusive DRM method, even allowing multiple installations, and not performed at runtime like Denuvo using processor power for doing things not fully known. A reason why TSC is so unrestrictive. To me, it comes across as friendly and inviting, whereas TSW as suspicious, mistrusting and unfriendly. (That's why I soon stopped using the TSW editor and focus on modding, using UE4.26 editor instead for my cooking needs.) Just downloaded some great freeware routes adding +1,000 miles to my TSC collection. I still think they're pursuing the idea of their own Creator's platform as the sole place to upload freeware (that can then be checked for malcontent and legal issues).
Well, I like that perspective. Enjoy the journey and don't be too concerned with the destination. That's one problem I have making progress on my route. I enjoy the journey too much I think. I lay 1000m of track and then stop to drive a train on it for a "test". That will evolve into driving the whole route again and again admiring all of the grey, checkerboard LIDAR features of my hometown. LOL
But, of course, the basic Steam DLC DRM is very very easy to crack. I won't go into details, of course... Of course the same problem applies to any check TSW is making.
In case you didn't saw it, the April roadmap surprisingly had "PC Editor Improvements" after 2 roadmaps missing it in the TBC category. However, I think this is just sugar coating and calming the angry PC Editor crowd. Matt said that it's very complicated to improve the Editor because just like in the base game an improvement to one thing might cause bug or crash to a couple of others things and I can understand the reasoning in that however, also letting the PC Editor in its current state isn't the right solution. The other problem as you said is no tutorials. I can state you when the last masterclass tutorial was given by DTG. It was the 12th of October. Nothing new since then. Now take a look at the date the we have today. In case you missed it, I complained about this fault of DTG in the February Q&A roadmap and asking if DTG does care about their community developers at all and how they would support them. The answer was "We want to provide you shorter tutorials now (because we ain't got time for longer ones)". Okay, I took that pill and was very happy about that. However, now almost 3 months later nothing happened again. They seem to be okay with that the situation isn't going forward, but in the end it's a vicious circle with many potential good projects (also would helping them making a profit out of it) doesn't come to be alive. Yes, and I somehow can understand this tactic. However, even this tactic does not work out too well IMHO once they absolutely show no interest in most of these helping hands and in the end maybe potentially making profit to them. Not that I would aspect that they sign every project started here, but it's very unfortunate some very good projects like the Chemnitz Riesa, the Klagenfurt or several others projects got dropped because of missing support from DTG and the approach from DTG to a creator might could have been the better way to get more third party creators in. I personally did my route application to tswpartners@dovetailgames.com (as indicated in the PC Editor Beta FAQ) on 20th of March. Guess what. Until today no reply. One day after my application I wrote to the current day operator of the route. They replied - in comparison to DTG - after a couple of hours and although it was at the afternoon. They said they would cooperate but would wait until DTG gets in touch with them or I have some official papers, which I can understand personally. Now sunday one week ago, I wrote about what happened to Matt (as he even encouraged me to get in conversation with him after some hints of mine in threads about the issue). He was kind and helpful, said that they're looking into what went wrong next day. But this is already more than 1 week ago again. So since more than 4 weeks no response at my application. Fortunately some of us are lucky enough that DTG hooked up on their application and they finally experience the whole benefits of the behind the scenes technical support from the first party team coming with the contract. We have one official confirmation, one unofficial confirmation and one - has to be - confirmation from 3 our fellows that they made the race. Congrats to them. However, on the same time what is happening with the other people whose projects seem to be not good enough for DTG or maybe even didn't ask for an application before they gave their projects up? It's not okay that DTG is not caring about "the rest", which funny enough seems to be the majority. For me personally, I don't have to beg for that I'm wasting all my time so that they could potentially make a profit with it. I have other things I'm interested about or should accomplish instead in my life as well. For example, I recently gained new interest for ETS2 as I purchased some new DLCs and found a way to improve graphics and gameplay vastly (config file and mods). Maybe I'm interested to make a cabin mod for it. I know that it works because dozens of others did so and it seems to work well (unlike with the PC Editor as pointed at above). Yes, the "way is the target". However, we shouldn't forget that we do all of this to have the end product I think. It's not just to have fun with some pieces of finished scenery, we're doing this to have at least a short route ready to be released at some point so that we can share the fun with it. Therefore it's a serious concern whether this can even be reached or not. And the problem is the more I'm evolving in the project and the more I dedicate and invest time to it, the more this concerns comes up. I think I'm moreover the opposite and this even caused some problems to me. One time I just builded the route and scenery on and on and on, but forgot to actually test it. Now I'm a having a bit of tiny but somehow irreversible blueprint error sticking on my leg. Now I know that I should do PIE way more often and see how everything works. Sometimes I even spot things in PIE,I woudn't really notice if I'm just in working in the viewport. Very important lesson learned to test my work regularly.
I agree. I'm always starting computer and model making "projects" without being sure that they'll ever be completed but I do them as a hobby. If I only ever get to see my route (see GWR Steam Era thread) while playing in the Editor that will be okay. My main concern is that I have found the passenger control navmeshes don't work in PIE mode and, if I set off from Calne station, by the time I reach Chippenham (5 miles away) level streaming has broken the navmesh and there are no passengers. Also I can't alter the weather in PIE mode. I don't see what DTG would gain by preventing me from using my own route in my copy of the game when I have purchased the DLC I have used or adapted. Even if I gave the pak. file to someone else it wouldn't be any use to them if they don't own the game or the DLC required for the route. Perhaps one day somebody will explain how to set up and cook a route plug so that it could at least be tested "in game."
