Okay thanks, that is interesting. Maybe it will be looked at then. I do remember it being mentioned, I was one of them, pretty much as soon as SOS was released.
I fear that if something was being looked at we would've had something slightly more from DTG in this thread? They've consistently buried their heads in the sand on this one whuch is frustrating to say the least.
DTG said they are not working on updating steam at all plenty of times. It's disappointing but unfortunately thats the reality of it. And we need to accept it for now. Why do they need to repond. If they go back to steam in the future the I'm sure they will let us know but for now it is dead.
The Official Line is that DTG themselves are not doing anything with steam. However, some (who?) third parties have expressed an interest.
What incentive is there for 3rd parties to produce steam content in TSW? The whole concept in Simugraph is broken or incomplete; the physics, the manual firing, the AI audio, etc.. What is needed is to recruit steam traction experts to start from scratch in Simugraph, but that requires a longer-term vision, of which steam and period content is a part. It is evident that DTG do not have such a vision.
it's very clear that they should have done it right the first time or not at all. Would have been better without steam than having bad steam that will never be updated. very dissapointed in DTG's attitude towards this and fixing other DLC
I'm quite surprised that Matt hasn't chimed in here with a truth bomb or two. We still don't have any clear idea of why steam has been abandoned - my best guess is that a single engineer was working on steam physics, and the engineer in question either lost interest, burnt out, or left altogether, and no one since has been considered capable of going in and fixing the fundamental issues. Peak Forest selling exceptionally poorly by all accounts probably only added to the reasons to quietly sweep the whole mess under the carpet. Given that Matt *has* confirmed recently that third parties can't fix said issues (they are core coding problems in C++), we clearly can't rely on the party line that 'third parties are interested' because they'd only end up churning out the same kind of broken content that already exists, which even DTG must be aware isn't good enough. It's really disappointing and although Matt has quite fairly accused the community of being far too cynical at times, I do think a more detailed response is warranted on this particular topic.
I’m not. Pay attention to what DTG/Matt says and what they don’t say. We only get “truth bombs” if they make DTG look good. There’s no way to spin the abandonment of steam as anything other than broken promises.
I remember having a good chat with Matt in 2022 just after BCC released and I asked him about Steam and I remember he said to me the future of steam relies heavily on how well the second route performs, because obviously the first steam route in the game was bound to sell well but the second not so much. Knowing now that the second route was Peak Forest I have to say I'm surprised they picked such a random route considering the future of steam depended on it. I'm not surprised it didn't perform well, it reused the same trains, physics weren't fixed and the route isn't something that comes to mind when thinking about iconic train journeys. I think the whole handling of Steam has been very poor but I think it can be redeemed. Start again from scratch, fix the physics simulation and make a little tank engine for WSR to get people invested again, then make a route that features both Steam and Diesel traction so people who like either will get the route. After that and if you have a decent collection of rolling stock you could make something more substantial with a great timetable and plenty of variety. #FixSteam
So if the topic is about "how the route is performing", we should also discuss: - how does the steam implementation performs? (manual firing, water & coal consumption?) - adequate start and end points of the route? (even at buxton they modeled the entire backside of the train station and put an invisible wall....??) - how does the timetable perform? (glad at least somebody realised the 104 is nessecary, and very happy it comes with 2 new freight wagons) So its the customers fault, who has as steam fan only the decision of a bad businesscase 1 or bad businesscase 2 (or neither). - how does an empty crewe perform without a single loco dlc? Not even with peak forest an effort was made to create any shunting layers in the original SOS crewe liverpool map. Hell not even static stock of the 4F and the ici limestone wagons. DTG you should be thankful for all the backers. (This rant is against the poor decision making, in no way in matts direction, who is very passionate and makes tsw as best he can).
Peak Forest was nice, but in terms of appealing to steam fans something ike the S&D or Riviera Line in the 50's would have had far more mainstream appeal even if it required two rather than one new locos buildng.
In my personal opinion, that the Spirit of Steam route Liverpool-Crewe should've been delayed as a TSW 3 or TSW 4 release instead of being released in Train Sim World 2 because this would have give them more time to do more research on steam loco operations, fix the bugs in the route, figure out a manuel firing system, show statistic on how much coal and water that is used during the trip, and fireman/firewoman doing more in the cab beiside firing coal. I have TSW 3 for Steam and watching youtube videos on the gameplay of Spirit of Steam in both TSW 2 and TSW 3 version. After watching the videos I think Spirit of Steam was rushed and coudl've been delayed. I would like to see steam loco's in TSW but it's the poor execution on Dovetail for creating bad Steam Physics and I'm not sure I would buy Spirit of Steam, Peak Forest, or the Flying Scotsman if I buy TSW 4 because of the way Dovetail badly simulated steam loco's in the game.
That’s now how Dovetail work though. Good enough - push it out the door and (maybe) patch later. Also don’t forget this was a vanity project of the then CEO Paul Jackson who had tasked the team with building a product that recreated the train spotting years of his youth. Though quite how two loco types, no buffet cars and an empty timetable quite fulfilled that is uncertain. However the pressure was on to deliver that experience to the boss!
They were able to shove it out the door for TSW2 and then never patch it again. Forcing every one to buy tsw3 if they wanted their broken content fixed. Of course it makes sense for them to do that. Their business model is making money by doing minimal development.
I also would go for a "steam test" under very different conditions. It seems logical to me that if DTG wants to do the special thing of a steam engine, they'd go for a UK route and a UK steam engine, since its local and most known to them. And because of this probably finding old documentation about these steam engines is better to find in the UK. However, and although many people would disagree here, a UK steam engine is not what everybody in this community is interested in. As I said in another thread, I'd prefer a US steam train (big boy or alike) - maybe in a nice wild west setting or something like that or of course a german steam engine. If that would be a success it could mean a better reception of steam by DTG and the general future of steam development could benefit from it. In a nutshell: DTG, TEST STEAM UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS!
This isn't just Dovetail though Vern. I don't know what has happened to game development in recent years. Every new release is 'early access', open beta etc etc, no one game is released in its finished state. And by the time full release is announced, everyone who is going to play it has played it, finished it, modded it, review bombed it. The seemingly brattish 'gimme gimme gimme' attitude which prevails in society is a bad thing for game development all round.
Can't agree there.I like having something that looks, sounds and SORTA feels like steam.over "nothing at all." Not being a steam affecionado, I can't say what's "wrong" with it so it seems fine to me.... it's workable for me and probably 80-90% of casual users. Denying the say 85% of people casual steam engines because they're not "good enough" for the 15% seems a bit harsh.
The UK was absolutely the correct decision to start steam development on. Britain was the birthplace of the steam locomotive, not only that but the majority of iconic locomotives are over here too. I certainly wouldn't turn down a Big Boy but they definitely shouldn't make such a complex locomotive until they actually nail down the simulation aspect for steam traction. The only thing that should've been done different was smaller projects, start of with a small rural branch line somewhere in Britain with a tank engine or two. I personally would've chosen something set in the Great Western Railway (GWR) with a Pannier and 14XX, a few coaches and wagons. Then the second steam route should've been something a little bit more substantial with a tender engine, while also using stock from the previous route for layers. The GWR Grange and Manor Classes would've been a good choice for the second route, also adding a few more wagon and coach types. The third route could've then been a Riviera Line in the 50's for TSW, adding a Castle class for express services and using all previously released stock to fill in the timetable for a busier TSW steam experience. There would also be room for a steam/diesel hydraulic timetable to be added later on too. The problem was that DTG bit off too much than they could chew. They chose a busy mainline route as the first route without the stock to give that route the proper atmosphere of a mainline in the steam era. Naturally, steam is way more complex than a simple modern EMU to simulate, more time was needed on the simulation and a smaller first route could've given them more time and resource to focus on the steam aspects.
Looking at the giant scope of sos and pf, DTG have done a good job (on the routes itself) . Both steam routes have their flair and a lot of effort went into it. They shoud definetly have started with smaller projects. But instead of abandon it, i rather would like to see them finish the core with manual firing and release it on a small branch line or a dock side with 1 new tank engine and 2-3 goods wagon.
Being obsessed recently with driving Bossman and Victory Works locos in TS Classic, the current TSW offerings have to be underwhelming. However, I believe we users are partly to blame. Matt has said on more than one occasion that content decisions are weighted, among other things, by player statistics and it is a fact that by far the largest number of players favor modern routes and locos. So steam is as niche sector, whatever the level of realism. Since it seems obvious that for the moment DTG are not going to put major resources into steam, maybe we should concentrate on persuading Matt to go for more limited options. Personally, I would be reasonably satisfied with locos with better steam management - more realistic safety valves for instance - albeit with automated firing and watering, provided the overall modelling was good. A suggestion - steam consists, with Br Class 1 for Northern Trans-Pennine or/and Diesel Legends of Great Western - and no, I don't care they are not realistic scenarios (to feed my nostalgia a Large Prairie would be perfect) . I realize free roam or scenario planner can contribute, but that does not bring DTG more revenue and to get better locos, DTG must be able to sell something!
Of course, anecdotally, it's still possible to find the odd dud in TSC and by Just Trains too (not sure who the original author is). On the back of the 7MT I bought the 6MT Clan class. Visual model and smoke effects look nice but turned out sound is aliased to the old Kuju Black Five. Even thrashing up the gradients on Port Road with 100% regulator and 50% cutoff, impossible to run out of steam, safeties continually blowing off. No lap position on the brake handle regardless of where I put the small ejector, either slightly applying or slightly releasing. And once again an add on where scenario scoring has been left at default so if you are three or four minutes late, quite likely on a challenging run, you get docked 2000 XP. Then I tried the LNWR D2. Opposite end of the scale, too complex for its own good and ended up refunding. (Too late to do that with the 6MT).
It's very convenient for DTG to blame everything on the playerbase. Maybe more people would play steam if it was actually finished... The safety valves are realistic. The only way to stop them constantly blowing off is either to create an incredibly complex auto-fireman or just add manual firing and injector control.
I believe Matt said in an earlier thread they could've set the maximum boiler pressure to below the safeties but made a conscious decision not too as the 8F and Jubilee at release apparently could be driven in a way that keeps the pressure low enough. Unfortunately this doesn't work at all on the FS or 4F in my experience which seem to be the equivalent steam versions of an EMU in my experience anyway
I would definitely start in a very different way - Br 52 on Tharandtrampe, very simple, yet sizeable steamer. The loco is known throughout Europe, almost every European country has a version of it still operational and you're not relying on just steam carrying the whole route. And that route has museums on both ends, the perfect setting for it. It also offers enough variety (fast sections, grades, etc.), and you can layer on pretty much all German routes. Polish it, THEN create new stuff.
I would have started with a Steam Gala Pack for WSR. WSR ist still missing some GWR locos like a Hall Class or a Pannier Tank. But yes, a german steam loco like a 52 or a 01 would be great too, I still hope we see some more steam in TSW one day.
The argument that "people aren't playing steam because it's not good enough" seems counter-logical. In any other "sim" you judge interest by if people go for even something CLOSE to the experience, not demand perfection first. A "modern" plane game offers 1 biplane for example to see if people WANT to see biplanes, they don't invest a ton of money into biplanes ASSUMING the public wants them because ONE guy said he likes them on a forum. It's not wrong of them as a company to go by purchase and usage statistics. Not sure HOW detailed they are with this stuff (can they see which locos and routes you use every day? I honestly don't know) Regardless, if not a lot of people have picked up PFR and SOS...they assume it's not popular which judging by the proportion of people here who went crazy over the LIRR, EMUs seem to be what MOST of the fanbase likes. Something easy, fun and quick. The near opposite of steam locos, especially "more complicated" ones that are being asked for here. I'm not opposed to steam and often like more complication for a challenge (grades, freight, shunting, etc) However, I know I am not looking for a "manual fireman" or more gauges to fiddle with so I can definitely see that if 90% of the player base has zero interest....they won't put much time into it. There is a LOT of competition out there for steam trains too, so there's that to consider. They'd have to make it BETTER than the compettion who gets their "fix" on Railroads Online or Railroader or a half dozen other steam-focused and "accurate" sims. Those sims DON'T offer diesel for the most part and NOTHING electric so it seems TSW is already in it's "niche." While I get the pull of familiar controls and wanting to "have it all", I have to ask.... if you're playing a "modern" train sim most of the time... why not just pick up those other games to scratch that "steam itch" for that 10% of the time? Why the push to put steam trains into a modern train sim? Wouldn't you think it just as ODD that there was a push for diesel engines in a steam-focused train sim? A couple for fun and variety or just for "kicks" (which we have 4 of them in TSW already), but I honestly wouldn't go over to Railroads Online and demand that they make "100% accurate electric trains" because it'd be weird..... Hell, Railroader DID include diesels (early ones, because it's a 1950s "transition" game) and they're not great.... very clunky, but they're there, like steam is technically here in TSW... I would feel rude going onto THEIR forum and complaining they need to dump more research into modern EMUs for their Appalachian coal mining track or to "overhaul the game engine" to allow "more accurate diesels." Again, it'd be weird and arrogant to demand that. Why not just have BOTH games and let them specialize what they're good at?
You're missing the point. People didn't buy SOS or PFR not because they're not interested in steam, but because of the poor physics, lacklustre timetables and undelivered features such as manual firing which were promised upon the release of SOS, as well as the absurd route choices (Liverpool-Crewe not as busy as it was and PFR had a weird end point). People went crazy over LIRR for reasons not related to EMUs. For one, it was a TSW2020 route which they updated to TSW4 standards, a rare thing in TSW (it is to date one of only two routes to receive this treatment (WSR wasn't an official project). It also had a much improved and busier timetable close to real life. No one was excited about more EMUs, especially since the M9 and M7 are similar. They were excited about yet another route being improved upon. Saying we shouldn't press for it is ridiculous. DTG created all the hype around steam, they are the ones who made promises they never delivered on. We, the customers, expected that, we paid for SOS on the condition it would be improved. But was it? No. Instead, they left it to rot, then they produced another steam route which has also been left to rot. By surprise, Flying Scotsman came with TSW. At this point, there hadn't been anything steam related since TSW2. What did they do? They didn't introduce manual firing, improved physics etc. Instead, there isn't even an AI fireman, and the physics of the otherwise well modelled train are appalling. Point is, DTG are to blame for the state of steam in TSW, not us. They made the promises, they didn't deliver them, they butchered the physics. It is now up to 3rd parties, but they're unlikely to do anything unless DTG fix the core steam issues first, which they won't do.
Valid point. What console? Maybe that's where the focus should be... bringing those games to consoles? Does TSC use the same Simulgraph that people say can't be used with Steam?
Perhaps DTG might look at developing some DLC that equates to study-level sims, starting in the steam era? Maybe similar to the 'expert' series, although I've no idea how well those sell/sold. Have DTG actually come out and said 'Steam is dead to us' ? If they haven't, then there is hope.
I have no experience in how hard it is to "port" over things to console, but it seems like it'd be easier for RRO and RR and expand to Xbox or PS rather than DTG revamp their core sim engine. As for a "study level".... that's an option under an entirely new title. However, that requires hiring another development team and developing a new system from the ground up. I'm not sure that would be easier than porting over the other steam-focused train sims. They already have everything built and have already probably made plans to port them sometime in the future (they're just small development companies too) The problem is that they are ALL new, and barely out of Beta on the PC. They need to get stable there, THEN port over a stable product. A new even MORE complex game started by TSW would still need to go through all those steps too in order to get through testing, so that would be BEHIND those other games as well. It wouldn't be starting so much from "scratch" in that TSW might be able to lend some brain power to the effort, but I don't see them taking people off other projects to work on a new, untested one from scratch. It would essentially be a brand new team on a brand new project putting them behind the other games. I really think encouraging those other games to come to console would be a better use of your time. They already exist, they already have THOUGHT about porting over, haven't ruled it out, and just said they need more time to get the PC version stable first. You'd also have all the CONTENT from those games being built up which a from scratch "Steam Train World" would still lack. Not to mention, releasing ANOTHER steam game dilutes the market reducing profit. It would be an uphill battle to get people off the other platforms to your new one. I'd just play the pseudo-steam in TSW and wait on RRO or RR to port over to console in 6 months to a year. Or buy a cheap laptop? 4GB of Ram and 8GB download is pretty simple for modern computers. That's not intensive graphics or processor at all. TSW for example needs 8GB and 80GB download for just the base game. Most of us already have laptops for work, travel, etc....
Again, missing the point. Those games have different goals and a different audience to TSW, so not really comparable. Why should we invest in new games for steam, when we've already invested enough in TSW? Why shouldn't TSW also offer steam? Why should I instead invest in a computer to drive steam trains? Why shouldn't TSW have them? It should, because its a train simulator, not an EMU simulator. Nowhere is TSW defined as the ultimate EMU experience. Its about time these excuses about no steam in TSW were put to bed. There's no reason for steam to not exist in TSW, there's clearly a market for it as this thread and the suggestions forum suggest. Rather, it's about time DTG actually listened to their customers and gave them what they want.
Because they've said they can't DO steam with the current game system. It would require a whole new game system design, essentially a new game. Do you go to a car dealership and say "I need this car... but with an engine you don't make and I want it NOW?" Have you played these other games to declare they are NOT what you want? They are steam engines you can drive in a game. I'm sorry you don't want to invest a few dollars in a cheap laptop to play them and instead insist that a company make something you personally want on your timeframe for basically no money and you are upset it hasn't happened it. I've given you options. I've suggested solutions. If you persist in just blaming TSW for "not being good enough" then that's fine. You have a right to do that. However, you HAVE 90% of what you want (there ARE 4 steam engines in TSW, just not "good enough" for your personal standards) so feel free to keep yelling at the wall and not helping yourself or others. A niche of a niche of a niche is not a large market, and I'm sorry if you feel oppressed as a member of that tiny minority that doesn't get exactly what they want when they want it for nothing. I tried to be helpful several times and suggest workable solutions. You don't want solutions, so that's fine. If complaining makes you feel better than taking constructive action, then I'll leave you to it.
Unfortunately, it would appear from DTG's current business plan that they see the majority of players as demanding only joystick driven electric commuter trains and routes. There is a significant minority of us that feel that they should be covering all types of traction including steam, but not enough of us to persuade them to invest in the tech and personnel to build those locos and the routes on which to run them. If someone were in charge of development with the desire and the moxie to build the expansive, all-inclusive train simulator that was implicit in the early days of TSW, I think it would pay off economically in the long run but it does require vision and the courage to take some chances. Those qualities are sadly lacking at this time.
Can't, or won't? I'm steering towards the latter. They didn't even say they couldn't get it right, they just quietly put it on the shelf. It's not about me not wanting to invest in a computer. I don't even have the space for one, nor do I even have the money. The options you've given are just play another game if you want steam. Steam exists in TSW, they've shown its possible but they just won't do anything with it. I don't have 90% of what I want, four steam trains with broken physics is not what I want. You may not be bothered about steam in TSW, but that doesn't go for everyone else. Your only solutions to the lack of steam in TSW is invest in a computer and play another game. That is not a solution. The solution is to find a way to make it work. I can assure you I'm not the only one thinking this way as this thread clearly shows. I also don't like being told to just go somewhere else to get what I want. A bit of advice: if the only solution you can give is "go play another game instead", don't offer it.
So you admit steam does exist in TSW...just not the EXACT steam features you want? If TSW won't do it, and the other companies ARE potentially willing to look into porting to console it in 6-12 months.... Why keep barking up the wrong tree? A thread with a dozen people doesn't mean there's a market big enough to create a new game for. There are far more people on the "modular" thread and TSW said they absolutely "won't" and "can't" do that... but people WANT it. I'm not blaming them for being lazy or greedy. In fact, someone in THAT thread suggested "hey, you can do modular in TSC, here's how" and I appreciated the suggestion. It's a different game, but if you want a feature that's NOT in here... go there for that. Now I can go there for that feature and stay on TSW for other features. It was in fact a helpful suggestion. I can enjoy parts of TSC and parts of TSW (and parts of other sims) and they don't all have to offer everything.
Where did I say steam doesn't exist in TSW? Reading my posts you would know I didn't say that. If you just can't accept that I and others want steam in TSW, then why bother engaging with this thread when that is the whole point of this. Also, TSC is different to TSW, they are not the same. You can't do one thing in TSC and replicate it in TSW and the same the other way around. I can't exactly play TSC with a functioning 24 hour timetable, it wasn't built that way. I want to drive steam and modern trains, not one or the other. TSW can fulfill both, there's no reason why it shouldn't.
Not saying it doesn't exist...just that I find it perfectly playable and acceptable....you do not. That's the point. It's not "complete" for you. I consider it "complete." Just like the 101 is in game. It's completely playable. I am not opposed to the "expert" 101 coming into game, but it's not necessary. And now you're trying to twist my words and say TSC and TSW are "the same." I intentionally said they are different games. I said get different features in different games and not expect them all to be the same. You keep saying "it can fulfill both", but that's a theory. As I said, lots of people say it's possible to have modular routes in game too. DTG says no. If I keep saying "it can do it" then does that make it true? Or just wishful thinking from WANTING it to be true? You do bring up a valid point accidentally. How hard would it be to add timetables to TSC? That's a good question. I'm sure someone with experience editing and modding would be able to answer that. Anyway, that's a bit off topic. Point being I said you go to the games with the features you want. I am not an expert on why TSW can or can't have whatever you think steam engines "should be" but if the developers don't want to do it, it's irrelevant. In THEIR mind, they have "given you steam engines" in some form. I don't own the game. I don't design it. Just saying "this should happen" doesn't change what IS. Before in this and another thread I asked what you could ADD as a third party developer to REPLACE the current loco algorithm, basically putting a second one in a mod. Look at it this way.... there are lots of systems designed into locos that DTG didn't create. The 3rd party did. The "engineering diagrams" for those subsystems were created by the 3rd party using their designs. They run in ADDITION to whatever is in the game already. The announcement system on the 170 on Fife for example is not DTG... it's a program Rivet uses and then ties to something else (geographic marker I think) that triggers those announcements. However, it also doesn't interfere with say the engine or lights... it's separate. Here's the bit I don't know.... what happens if you take a piece of "rolling stock" as a basis (with no locomotive link to Simulgraph) and attach your OWN steam engine simulator onto it? It doesn't then have to be "compatible" with it. It just runs on it's own. To the GAME it's just a piece of rolling stock the Simulgraph doesn't need to hook to. There's no conflict (just like a box car has no "engine" so doesn't like to it) The problem from what people have said is designing that "accurate steam simulation." It's supposedly very complex, and they all say "well I don't want to do it." Well... why would DTG want to tackle it if none of YOU want to do it either? It seems like THIS would be a prime example of what a 3rd party developer would be suited for. Find THEM and have them make one. If the market is there for steam fans in TSW, then that 3rd party developer would make money from doing it. They have MORE incentive to do so than DTG does. Have you talked to any of the 3rd party developers about this? Or told them how much you'd love a steam loco? Has anyone in the community taken a look at how to do it? Throwing this all on DTG to "solve" a problem they don't think exists seems lazy and selfish. "I want this so YOU need to do it!" The argument that "people aren't buying steam because it's not good enough" flies in the face of reality too. Lots of people ARE buying the Scotsman and it's not perfect. People buy LOTS of stuff that's not perfect (Rivet still sells stuff....) I just don't think a large market is there for "expert level steam" from DTG. They are just too busy making other content they know there's a bigger market for. Now... a third party developer (say one or two people passionate about steam locos) then YES, that makes perfect sense. It's a small group, with less work on ONE project, and it only needs to sell a few copies to reimburse them for their time. Who has approached TSG with having a steam loco be their next project after the 101 and 218? I've seen some of the stuff the community has come out with and WOW.... if anything I'd rather have the community build an "expert" steam train rather than DTG...or maybe Rivet? Point being.... you're barking up the wrong tree as I said before. Send your complains to people who MIGHT actually listen and have a chance of building what you want. The group that says they aren't interested in it are not the ones to keep asking. DTG considers the Jubilee, Scotsman, 4F and 8F to be "steam locos" in their book. THEY think they're good. (Hell, judging by the community posts a LOT of people are pleased with them.) It's not DTG's "responsibility" to meet your standards. They have their own standards, just like everyone does. You don't have to meet my standards, I don't have to meet your standards, and DTG isn't obligated to meet either of ours. We can buy their products or not. It's not a "product bug" to fix. It's just not offering exactly what you want.
But the games you mentioned have a very narrow focus on American shortlines. The steam simulation doesn't have to be better than those games if it's competing in covering areas that they don't. DTG have never said that. Rivet is in a very different position to people with the public editor. They have communication with DTG and the ability to ask for changes to be made to TSW's code. Multiple people who are working on making content with the public editor have said that new Simugraph nodes cannot be added, meaning that improved steam loco simulation is impossible with the public editor's Simugraph. I don't know if it's possible to make a loco in the public editor that doesn't use Simugraph, but I suspect not. But bear in mind that you are asking an awful lot from people who are not the professional game devs in this situation by suggesting that they should just code their own locomotive simulation from scratch.
I've given my thoughts and opinions on the subject, sorry they don't align with yours. Just accept that. Have a nice day.
Notable there was nothing in the core and route update which just landed addressing either steam traction or the two primary routes it runs on. Truly abandoned.
I'll add two cents to this thread. I started playing TSW in 2020. When Spirit Of Steam was announced, I was willing to try it out even though steam isn't something I really perfer. However when SOS released, i had heard about some issues that plagued the route so I decided to see if there was going to be improvements before purchasing. Those improvements never came. When Peak Forest was announced, I thought that the route looked nice but the route choice was a joke to be honest. The route should have been longer in my opinion. Also the fact that the issues pertaining to the simulation of the steam trains were still there put me off completely. Had sos been in a better state when it released, I would've bought it but because it released the way it did, I kept my wallet shut. Honestly I believe DTG bit more than they could chew. DTG should've started with a smaller route. Choosing Liverpool to Crewe to appease the Bosses childhood fantasies made zero sense. The route has so many tracks that sit empty and the route is effectively a ghost town. They should've made a smaller route with a smaller tank engine in the beginning instead of building something massive. Maybe they could've made a tank engine for West Somerset. Now I don't know if the sales of sos or peak forest were good but for a game that advertises itself as an highly immersive rail simulation featuring authentic routes and trains from around the world, it is hardly surprising that there are those that expect that especially at the prices DTG charge. DTG set the expectations themselves. There will be those that have lower expectations but if steam didn't sell due to poor physics, than that would hardly be surprising. People would rightly expect physics to be authentic. DTG often times don't go back to make improvements to previous content and if they do, it make take years for them to fix or an update ends up breaking something else. It's a shame that steam has been abandoned but this seems self inflicted by a company that often overpromises yet can't deliver. Instead of starting small, they were too ambitious and they ended up failing. I don't see third parties coming in to try to fix the mess that is steam in tsw.
Just a note that some people, e.g. me, did in fact pass on buying steam due to a total lack of interest. I don't doubt that some other potential customers were turned off due to flaws and compromises in the implementation, but it's perilous to assign the motivation of a subset of a subset of customers to the majority. As has been observed, several other train sims already do steam. The reason for DTG putting the brakes on could be as simple as their slice of the pie not being big enough after several tries to make further efforts worthwhile.
Unfortunately, there isn't a steam only focused simulator that specialises in British steam locomotives to my knowledge. TS Classic's third party scene is the only option for quality British locos. The issue here is that they sell TSW as the "Ultimate" train simulator and they actually include steam traction in their advertising as well. To turn around and say "we're not doing steam anymore" but then continue to advertise steam will give potential customers the wrong idea. If they want to do an ultimate, all-purpose train simulator then that has to include all three steam, diesel and electric in a variety of time periods and regions. Without that, TSW is a simulator that covers a specific niche rather than the thing it claims itself to be... The only hope I have is that DTG have made their announcement to get us off their backs for a while, work on steam quietly in the background and then come out of nowhere with a new route and the physics fixes we've been asking for. I'm not holding my breath though! For me at least, the game's future is looking bleak right now. The only content I'm looking forward to is whatever JT are making and the BR Class 104. DTG's constant modern content is getting tiresome, they need more era variety in their releases, steam or no steam.
