What about the rest of people who don't want to be spending lots of money on a single network, and for people with less capable machines?
I don't have concrete evidence of that. Are you privy to sales information? I'd love to see it if you are! I never said they don't EXIST. The issue in this thread was whether people would bay 2-3 times as much for 2-3 times LONGER routes. I don't think there's much of a market for that. There's always a SMALL market for almost anything, but there are "sweet spots" where DTG has said routes sell better. 1) Routes that take about an hour. 2) Price point $30-$50. 3) "Non-historical" Violating 2/3 (or even all 3) of those DTG sales guidelines is just highly unlikely. Never say "impossible"...but very unlikely.
Matt basically has said this on so many instances that it’s high speed routes that sell the most SEHS, LGV Nord are the most popular routes lol.
1. You don’t have to buy it. 2. Other players shouldn’t be held back, because of the limitations of less fortunate players. 3. Money talks.
The same is true of the reverse. 1. DTG don't have to make it just because you want it. 2. Nothing is stopping you from proposing a specific project and helping a 3rd party finance it for development 3. Money talks Instead of vague statements, why not actively be constructive and propose a specific project, help get it funded and pitch it to a 3rd party developer? They'd be FAR more likely to get involved if the ground work is already laid and it's less of a financial risk. Crowdfunding for example would provide some cash up front and ALSO prove that there's a market at the end. I keep hearing these vague expectations without the work put in to make them practical reality. I'd love to help with the project because it would be interesting to see if it would happen. I'd be happy to help with the organizational plan or the conceptual development, etc. Lots of experience running project teams. However, someone with a PASSION for the project should really be doing the legwork. I'm of the opinion that it's not the size of the route, it's how much fun it is to use ;-) The first question is.... WHAT route can the whole community agree on? Then is the niche market large enough to support it? Then will enough of them pitch in to get it rolling? IF you get a positive to those three questions, then you MIGHT make it work. If not, then you would be better off going through garage sales looking for old tarnished brass lamps with a genie inside.
1. I’m not games developer, nor do I work for DTG or have any experience in route building. What could I bring to the table, apart from financial support? 2. DTG like money, if 90% of the player base tomorrow all voted on X fully networked route. DTG would consider making it. 3. Genies are fictional and hold no place in TSW, apart from cats. Cats I like.
Well, you just don't buy it. Same as always. This logic also applies to the following cases when relevant: What about the rest of people who don't want German content? What about the rest of people who don't want American content? What about the rest of people who don't want British content? What about people who don't like freight? What about people who only want British rolling stock from the 70's? And the answer to those is "Well, you just don't buy it". Yet here we are I hope DTG can see the sense in making networks, like Riesa-Dresden was a glimpse of or Southeastern high speed extended (but even more extended ) Just like with the expert version of the 101, it could have its own pricing structure to cover the additional efforts needed. A single cohesive network with many different services patterns, types and perhaps rolling stock would be much more interesting than x A to B routes.
How exactly do you know why routes cannot be extended? Are you a software engineer or do you have experience in UE? edit. Just seen your earlier response. NEVER say never…..
The issue is not routes being short. The issue is how some routes end at illogical points in the line. For example SEHS has services to Cannon Street/Victoria but only ends at Dartford. GWE only heads to Reading when you get services to Oxford or Beyond. ECML, MML have the same issues aswell. Because I’m almost sure an Underground route around 40 miles long will feel more complete than a High Speed 80 mile route where none of the stations at either end are ones where trains terminate
One of the most annoying things in TSW is liberal use of timetables for routes outside of what's actually playable on the route. Since you mentioned GWR, I clearly remember all the journey timetables and scenarios where you are suppose to take an incoming train from one place to another, but none of the stations mentioned are playable. Can't remember what exact stations were mentioned but I'm like; "just give me the route to the stations you are mentioning"...
GWE was actually alright for its time. TSW was still new then, they had to start somewhere. It's only started showing its age in the last couple of years.
1. Yes. Financial support. Up front. That also signals a potential market. Exactly my point. 2. See above. That's also EXACTLY what I asked for. A specific route AND a list of people willing to buy it. 3. Not sure why you connect genies and cats in your head but... okay.... to each their own. If your cat grants wishes then take good care of it!
Here's a thought... what about something like West Texas for a "long/fast" route? It's very flat, very empty and there's very few assets to add. That'd be much less dev time for more miles, with about average hard drive space and about average cost. It'd be kinda bland scenery wise compared to the huge hills and streams and towns of most maps, but I think it could be doable so it's maybe twice as long or so...about 200-250 miles? There'd be a variety of cargo and long distance passenger options. DTG already has the licenses to the main Class 1 railroads and AMTRAK out there. Would people buy a West Texas route with a few towns on a 200-250 mile route of wide open desert? Depending on how much they can reuse assets in the desert, could be even 300 miles (500 km) maybe. Might be $40-$50. Just spitballing based on other routes, and have no idea which "route" would be best, just saying that regionally the whole Southwest is there for the picking and it'd give the "longer/faster route" players something. Could just as easily be New Mexico or Arizona. There's 3 AMTRAK lines that regularly go out there (Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited and Southwest Chief) that you could use part of, in addition to the freight along the same routes too. Gives you an idea of the routes to look at if you want to do some research. I'm not a railfan by nature, so there's others better educated in the details to determine what's the most practical "realistically." I'm a numbers guy. I focus on resources and what's "doable." This seems like it could work in theory as a solid compromise. Imagine Cajon Pass....without the mountains, but it'd take you hours to cross it. Freight runs at around 55mph would be a good 4 hours, and an AMTRAK run at 95mph would take about 2+ hours. Look into it. Lemme know what you think.
Dtg have also explained that empty routes with not much to look at is much more difficult. They have to make the scene not boring to look at. The moment there's something else in the scene like mountains, it increases dev time as well. So just because a route is long and boring or short and sweet, it doesn't make the job any easier. 200 miles is still way too long when they still have to create certain things manually
Well that's not technical then, it's an aesthetic choice. They are choosing to do more work to "pretty it up." There's your answer then to the thread. Although that technically leaves third parties free to do what they want since they aren't working for DTG.
Even then, the moment a scene has stuff in it, it me takes much longer. No line is completely straight with nothing on it. A completely straight line with absolutely nothing is different from everything else. The moment there's hills, mountains, fences, etc, it's much harder
What about densely packed areas with multiple tracks in the same space? Say a railyard or an urban area? Does that "reusing" the same space make it any easier? And what about tunnels? Would for example it be easier to do the whole London Underground than the Fife Circle line given how much less scenery and assets you need? Would a trolley service that stays within a few square miles be easier since it's the same buildings it goes around repeatedly from different directions? Such as in San Francisco, or New Orleans? They're slower of course (being streetcars and urban commuter) and you get to admire the same scenery for longer but there's a lot more rails to put in for the same small space. Just curious.
Anything with tunnels would take a long time due to light baking since there isn't dynamic lighting in tunnels and for it to look right.
Interesting. The longest route in game is full of tunnels and is still 186 km long (Kassel) I kinda figured part of that length was because there were so many tunnels to cut down on work. Or is that an older lighting system?
I guess you can test it out using the editor. Just know that length isn't everything and there's no easy. A short dense route may take as long as a not so dense long route. It all depends
This is a non-arguement. Routes have to end somewhere. Take Cathcart: The new timetable features services to Edinburgh, Lanark, London KX, Gourock, Wemyss Bay, Largs, Ayr, Ardrossan - and will to Carlisle, Dumfries, East Kilbride, etc. If we go on the "well, you give me those services, so give me the entire route!" idea, then suddenly you have the entire ScotRail network - once you go to Edinburgh, then Dundee. Then you have the ECML - so you branch off at Newcastle, etc, etc, until you have every route under the sun. Those places are referenced because that's where the train goes. GWR ends at Reading because that's where the route ends. ECW ends at Eastbourne, because that's where the route ends. SEHS ends at Dartford/Faversham/Ashford, because that's where the route ends. Just because the trains go to Oxford, or Hastings, or Charing Cross - does not mean the route should, or even can.
I see your point but why couldn’t they stretch it out further when possible. For example ECW could’ve went to Hastings or Ore and GWE at least to Oxford although I’ll cut them some slack with GWE since it is an early route.
Mission creep. The more you add, the higher the price goes. It's a balance between length of route/detail and price. I don't really have an issue with it as long as it ends somewhere practical (like a railway station, not an empty track section) You can quite literally make any claim with railroads that they "don't stop there" since they keep connecting to others on and on. Why doesn't the GWE line go all the way to Penzance because there IS a train that goes that whole length? It ends at Reading because there are trains that go to Reading and that's a logical end point for a route of roughly the same size as others.
ECW is also a relatively early route. But, let's look at all of the other UK routes, shall we, perhaps we'll see a pattern.. Reading and Eastbourne are both logical end points to their routes; Reading is the first (proper) major station after London - pretty much everything stops there, before branching in various directions. Eastbourne is the physical terminus of the route from Brighton as trains have to turn back. Whilst, operationally, most trains continue - the route ends. It is a sensible enough end point. Most routes are complete lines: Glossop Line, Birmingham Cross-City Line, Cathcart Circle Line, Isle of Wight (both), Goblin ("Suffragette") Line, Edinburgh - Glasgow, Fife Circle Line, Blackpool - Preston - Ormskirk ((two routes in one, no less!)), Bakerloo Line and Brighton Mainline, to be exact. These range from only a few miles (IoW) to about 50 (FCC/BPO/BML). The best of the lot as BPO and BML - two of the best in the game, you could argue. The worst are probably Fife Circle, Edinburgh - Glasgow and the original Isle of Wight - ~50, ~40 and >10 miles, respectively. Their length doesn't on the slightest play into it - timetable, rolling stock, and overall quality, is what decides. Now, while BML could go to London Bridge, it is a full run so I'm counting it - so we can exclude all of them. Peak Forest is also, fairly sensible. If we want to be technical - this is the entire Manchester, Buxton, Matlock & Midland Railway - which ran from Ambergate to Buxton and Chinley via Peak Forest. It could have, perhaps, went to Derby. In the North - there isn't a logical end point, so Chinley, just after the junction with the Hope Valley line, makes sense. Spirit of Steam is Liverpool - Crewe, which is an extension of the WCML. Crewe is a junction, Liverpool is a terminus. Works for me. Southeastern is a bit more complicated. The original was a remake of London - Faversham from YSC, so that was fine. The new one isn't - so it's best to go individually. Ashford - the southern end of HS1 for Domestic services. Faversham - Junction between the Dover and Ramsgate lines. If you go further you either have to pick one, or you do both. It's a nice end point. London STP - Terminus, easy. Dartford - Terminus for the Southeastern "Metro" services from London, so stopping it here keeps the route as a more regional-commuter style route (in terms of the non-395 operations), rather than a full London Commuter 2.0 type thing. NTP is between two major cities and comprises the entirety of the Huddersfield Line, so that, again, to me, is perfectly fine. Tees Valley Line works - but Bishop Auckland feels like a missed opportunity, as is the Bouley freight branch. Alas, it's a good route and not a huge disaster. There are, granted, end points that are not sensible, however, and they are a totally different talking point. West Cornwall, for example, should probably have been left at Truro - a major station - and (in an ideal world) trading St. Austell for Falmouth. Truro would feel like a better end, though, rather than just a random station. ECML I don't have a huge problem with, Doncaster is a big enough station, but York is a much better end point, really, and I can see that arguement. Anyone saying it should have went to London instead of Peterborough is wrong, though. That's a step too far. The point being (TLDR)-: Route length doesn't always matter End Points have to be somewhere. They're probably where they are for a reason.
It's true of US routes too. Cajon Pass starts at San Bernadino (major railyard) and ends at Barstow (major railyard) Cheyenne goes between two cities. Peninsula goes from the end of the line to a major station. Northeast goes from a railyard in NYC to a major station. Horsehoe Pass goes from city to city. Boston goes city to city. Antelope goes city to city. Clinchfield goes city to city. etc. I don't really have an issue with the end points of routes in general. They seem to start and end at pretty substantial stations, railyards or the like. I keep hearing this saying that they "don't make sense" but haven't seen any good examples...except for "this one service goes farther." As I said, that line of thinking could lead ANYWHERE since there's ALWAYS trains that keep going....
For a route to have a logical end point, at least one train needs to end its journey there. BML - no contest, each end of the line is a terminus. There are services that stop illogical in between, yes, but each end point has at least one terminating service. A few services between Selhurst Depot and Victoria as well. ECW - Trains may continue to Hastings/Ore from Eastbourne. But there are services between Eastbourne and Brighton (albeit limited), as well as the Seaford branch (you could argue this is why the route doesn't continue to Hastings/Ore). Therefore, a logical terminus exists. SEHS - St Pancras, all services terminate. Dartford at least one does. Some trains stop around Gillingham (in fact, two back to back Thameslink services go solely between the two stations). Faversham - 395s run there, some of which terminate, making it a logical end for those services). Ashford - some start/terminate here, another logical end. NTP - the 101 services terminate at Manchester, Huddersfield and Leeds, so a logical end (for those services) exists. The route itself is also a decent length. TVL - some 101 services terminate at Darlington, Saltburn is the end of the line. So, those services have a logical end. Point is, routes do have a logical end, maybe not for all services that run on them, but as long as at least one service terminates at either end, I'd consider them having a logical end point.
You can only go so far with this logic. This means that if they wanted, GWE would end at Maidenhead because some services stop there, the BKL at Queens Park for the same reason or even for the BML at Gatwick. But of course we know they can stretch it further than the stations I’ve mentioned cause they have.
Again...within the established limits. London Commuter is around 50 miles...which is about "normal." How much farther would you have it go? It connects from London (terminus) to Brighton (switching point for ECW) What would be the point of stopping at Gatwick? It's not an end point, it's not a major station. I realize you're trying to make a point...my point is your point is not a good one. A BETTER criticism that was brought up above is the St. Austell/Falmouth one. Falmouth and Truro are the more likely end points for the West Cornwall map. However, they chose Austell. However, in that case I think it's because then the route would be a lot shorter, or it'd be broken up (going to Falmouth would be another extension and you have to turn around, rather than continuing on, breaking up continuity) Then again, Blackpool has branches too. In the end it's up to the designer's choice and they have reasons. Length, convenience, showing what they think is more "interesting", etc. I'd love to hear some of the thought behind these map designs from the developers. It'd be interesting to me to find out why they made the choices they did. It's rarely as arbitrary as you think.
The examples I put are based on the logic of the person I replied to. Im trying to say why his point, which is any station where a train terminates is a logical point, cannot be applied everywhere. I used BML as one of my examples because GEX has services that terminate there
I get that, and I explained my response. His concept is sound. My point is that it's the designer's choice and they have reasons for why they end it where they do. It's not arbitrary. You could rationally end it anywhere there's a service ending and say it's "this service route...with others layered on." Otherwise as I've said before someone will ALWAYS say "well this ONE train doesn't stop there so you HAVE to extend it!" Now that is irrational because then all of the UK rail system needs to be done since trains go everywhere. For example, the regular Paddington to Penzance service is in the game on both the GWE and the WCL routes, but on different ends. That reasoning (I won't say it's YOUR reasoning personally, but it does appear to be the way you're leaning) seems to be that since the London-Penzance doesn't end at Reading then we need to keep extending the route till it goes all the way to Penzance.... because it does in real life?" And of course there's a train that runs from Brighton to Penzance...so gotta make that non-stop too.... pretty soon you have the whole UK rail system in one map. Which while it would be COOL.... is way beyond the scope of TSW as currently modeled. Maybe in 20 years when there are no local hard drives and we all just "stream" games from central servers with unlimited data space, and we're on TSW 25.... For now the developers make compromises. I don't always agree with them (for example on WCL) but they make them based on their perspective.
Never did I say it could be applied everywhere. But the point I'm making is that if a station has a terminating service, its a logical end for that service only. So, that route then has a logical end. Is it logical in the wider scheme of things? No, because most services pass through. But it is logical in that you can drive at least one service end to end. Routes have to end somewhere. They can't continue forever.
There's a difference between a BML-style route, which is A-B and at a reasonable length, and a mainline more like the WCML or the ECML, which is far too long. Services on the ECML (from London) end anywhere from Peterborough, to Leeds, to Aberdeen. You have to call it quits. All trains on the GWE route call at Reading (certainly, in-game), and while yes, Gatwick shares that trait - it would be too short to call it there. You may as well end at Clapham Jcn or East Croydon if you end it there.
Longer routes take longer to produce, Longer routes take longer to complete, Longer routes take longer to create faultless scenarios, Longer routes require more and different AI trains for variety, Longer routes take longer to play end-to-end, Longer routes are more expensive, Longer routes won't fit in the consoles Longer routes without a fail safe save and resume function are worthless But perhaps in installments we'll finally get a full London-Glasgow-Edinburgh via both the ECML and WCML and all the interconnections?
Well, after we've had an overview for the british and american routes...short overview for german routes... Rapid Transit or short S2L (as you discover by launching the editor) - covers the whole regular S2 line of S-Bahn Mitteldeutschland back in 2016 (or after the abbreviation S2 Leipzig, I guess). Actually, trains to Markkleeberg-Gaschwitz were driving only on weekdays back then. RSN - Well, Finnentrop might seem as somewhere in between at first, but actually, shortly after Finnentrop there is a neutral section, so, at least, you're riding the whole electric circuit and well, the Biggetal-Bahn (Finnentrop-Olpe) starts there. All in all, doesn't sound that pointless, making the cut there. RRO - might seem a bit strange, cutting it at Wuppertal-Steinbeck, but there is the Gbf of Wuppertal, even though tracks are laid until Wuppertal Zoologischer Garten and are ending at the Sonnborner Brücke (not modelled in game), so maybe that would have been somehow a better end point, but well, would it be so different?. HRR - Well,actually the Duisburg-Bochum section, somehow, even to me, still seems a bit short. Somehow, I still would prefer at least Dortmund as an logical endpoint, while behind Duisburg, it's splitting up into at least three different directions... MSB - Well, that's the Spessart-crossing, so, I don't know where it should be prolonged to feel better, even though, the ICE trains between Aschaffenburg and Nantenbacher Kurve, even as AI only, would give it a bit more reality and fun, being too late would probably mean blocking an ICE to be on time, or being to early might even mean getting a red light at Nantenbach, where you would have to wait for an ICE branching in. SKA - The High-Speed part is somehow between Köln and Aachen, and at both ends the trains would divert onto different lines. So, actually seems ok. HMA - All in all, not really discussable, there are several lines branching in or out, but generally I wouldn't say it doesn't make sense, even though München Hbf actually feels somehow deserted with only three tracks used out of around 40... HBL - Again, lines split up behind Lübeck, where most of the lines aren't electrificated, but, all in all, it's the part with the most traffic. And, with adding generally the BR 218 Hamburg-Kiel services on this line, well, I think was the right move to really show the amount of traffic between these two cities. DRA - Still a bit (Flughafen-Branch) missing, and with the right train (BR 642) in game, it would give some more variety to this route, even though only riding it between Weixdorf/Radebeul to Dresden Hbf... And the later routes? Well, actually, all in all, they all have their quite logical endpoints, even though, there might be trains that are going quite farther then the routes do. But, well, even actually driving on a long distance service, at some point, you've been replaced somewhere in between, while you will take over the next train back, after a rest, before ending your shift.
There are really long runs possible in Run8, Seligman to Los Angeles or Bakersfield with at least two AI crew changes. Using a qualified World Save, depending on AI traffic and train make up, it can take you a real day to traverse this territory under Otto. Most of the time, you're looking at Arizona's and California's high desert, a quite barren landscape.
It is not that DTG does not make long-distance routes to win the favor of players, but they are a commercial company, and their first choice is "to use the shortest time, the shortest mileage, and the fastest time to earn a business model that suits their own interests". There is nothing wrong at the company level, and our players' choice is "when DTG shows you the route you like, choose to buy it, if not, you can choose to wait". DTG will not make a route for anyone individually.
Run8 is very much to my taste, but the graphics are too old. I want to see if Run8 4.0 can make a breakthrough in graphics. I am waiting.
This seems pretty spot on. In reference to the other reasons stated above, by other posters, it looks like ‘the route that must not be named’ is destined for great length. Another catalyst for a long route is the licensees granting permission, or receiving a request for licensing permission, in good time, and way before any supposed deadlines in development. Take this ‘route that must not be named’ as an example.. the AWC license has been around since TSW2. The WMR/LNWR must have been around the launch of TSW3 (or not long after launch).. and then the TfL one would have been given at the start of the Goblin line development, which could have been around the launch of TSW4. Hopefully the next ‘flagship’ route not only proves these reasons correct, but also delivers in terms of expectation from the fan base!
