An eternal question, maybe a little bit silly from me but... why cannot we get routes like they used to be in TS Classic? For example WCML South or Chatham Mainline. They have logical termini and in case of the Chatham line the entire mainline. The answer could be the technical limitations, but I do not think that modern consoles/pc cannot run a little bit longer TSW route. But the real answer most probably starts with letter "m" and ends with "y"
DTG have said that it takes longer to make DLC for TSW than for TSC. Perhaps this is true, perhaps it is not. I believe it is true, since walking around is a key part of TSW, so buildings and platforms need to be made to a slightly higher standard (sometimes with interiors). But, the have said that the technology can support routes of any length, but they have to get the route out at some point, and so time is the limiting factor. In business, time is money.
There are plenty of routes from tsc that have been remade in tsw but it takes a lot of time Dtg also need the appropriate licenses. A license in tsc does not guarantee a license in tsw. They have to be obtained separately. Without the appropriate licenses, dtg can't do anything. There's the length. There are many routes in tsc that are too long for the scope of tsw. Dtg only have a limited budget and time to work with. Lots of route building is still done by hand and the scene needs to be a realistic representation of real life. That means a lot of time needs to be spent building a dlc. Unreal is more complex to work with so things take much longer. Tsc routes can be to large in scope. Having multiple new pieces of rolling stock takes a really long time because simugraph is complex. Creating branchlines on top of the mainline takes a while. Like I said, dtg don't have an unlimited budget or time to work with.
Making the route bigger in any way also means making the timetable more complex in TSW. This isn't an insurmountable problem of course, it essentially just means a bit more work for one (1) person, but this simply isn't a thing at all in TSC.
TSW can support longer routes without any problem as evidenced by SEHS, FC, AV etc. they just didn’t want to spend the time doing them. DTG with this game have a policy of fast and furious dlc sales. Encouragingly Matt has acknowledged that we want longer routes to aid replayability, a longer route where drives can be split up over 2 sessions stays a lot fresher than a 13 mile drive for a lot longer.
I've had experience developing routes in both games, and TS is a lot easier and quicker to use, even though TSW's editor has a number of very good features I'd love in TS.
Doing my current A to Z playthrough of all my TSC routes (well, that’s the plan), it is immediately apparent just how more diverse and varied the collection of routes is in TSC compared to TSW. And that goes for the length too. DTG have dug themselves into a rut and now seem to have this “can’t do” attitude as well, when it comes to what content gets made. Of course these days most TSC route DLC content has been built by third parties whereas with TSW the majority still see me to be made in house. Whether that has any bearing I don’t know, maybe the UE4 processes just aren’t up to coping with the longer routes we take for granted in TSC, or MSTS before it. Even Bernina line, Rivet couldn’t be bothered to go the extra distance and take us into Pontresina or St Moritz. Bernina Halfbahn, I’ve named it. Maybe they will surprise us with the summer pack be it TSW5 or something else, but I fear the balance of the content will continue to be these 15 to 20 mile electric bus services, A to B, nothing else to do once you’ve made a couple of runs.
We're talking Rivet here, I'm sure it will arrive in an "Enhancement pack" with a hefty price tag at some point.
Specifically, I think it was time= money, and you need to recoup that cost and market research said most people weren't willing to pay double for twice the route. The other part is simply pure speculation on your part since it's entirely hypothetical. We have people playing Glossop and West Somerset lines over and over (at around 20 miles), and we have people playing Kassel at 116 miles once and moving on so... the length is usually not as important as interesting content on the route. There is already a discussion thread on this if you want to add to that. As far as the original thread topic.... they're different because they're different. It's a different game entirely. No avatar walking around, different graphics, different editor, different copyright issues, etc. Is the real reason this is being asked all the time because people can't get TSC on console? Because if you have a PC you can just play both.
Most people’s views on here have to be speculation re. what DTG’s policies are. Including yours. We don’t really know. But what we do know is that TSC successfully sells long routes and so does Trainz. The point is DTG/3rd parties can make longer routes without putting the price out of reach just the same as those others (TS is DTG), for the simple reason that it’s likely far more people will buy them. The FC is a step in the right direction, it was no more expensive. Same with AV. They will get increased sales imo. I heard Matt with my own ears saying people want longer routes and they as a company understand that. Which is very positive indeed.
It is good that DTG know players want longer routes. The problem with short routes such as the Glossip and Suffragette Lines is that they lack long term replay value especially if they have little to no service variety. I hear that part of the reason we get routes that are short and linear is because there are some players who don't have the time to do a long service. My counter to that would be, isn't that what the save game is for? The average player isn't going to finish a video game in one sitting so if someone doesn't have the time to complete a service, they can just save their progress. Although the save game I believe has some issues still. Maybe we will get longer routes in the future
Save game generally works okay now. The exception is if you finish one run, return to free roam and take over another train or the same one heading back. At that point when you save and reload it doesn’t preserve the objective data so that and the clock fail to appear at the top LH of the screen, nor do the track lollipop markers. But hey ho, you never know DTG might have fixed this for TSW5. The other issue of course being only one save slot unlike TSC, so you can’t go off and play something else that might also need to be saved. You have to return and finish your current scenario.
I think it's mainly down to the huge increase in dev time. I do enjoy the length of some of those routes. London network I thought was great but this is a different product
Am I right in thinking it's not currently possible to simply go back to an existing route and add an extension. Maybe the next iteration of the game (whatever it's called) will rectify this issue and allow some smart yet relatively small extensions (York to Doncaster/ Eastbourne to Ore / Croydon to Blackfriars spring to mind). The other light at the end of the tunnel is Creators Content. Hobbyists can spend as long as they want making routes without commercial pressures so maybe that's where longer routes will come from.
If they are going to make shorter routes put some randomness in routing and delays. I doubt they will mind as the business model is wow day 1 purchases.
I would have thought so long as there is an uncooked master version, which surely there ought to be to incorporate fixes, that could be extended ad infinitum. It’s more that DTG don’t want to do it and as said prefer to go for the “wow” factor with an all new 20 mile latest one handle EMU wonder train. That said, sure I saw a rumour, or maybe I started it, that the big German route could be HRR extended back to Düsseldorf and Koln, where a certain green thing runs across a couple of times a day!
Flixtrain? Also are they not running out of EMUs? They may have to consider two handles or even a locomotive.....
Allegedly so! The route is entirely speculation though based on where Flixtrain operates, not entirely implausible. Best to keep schtum until 20th August, I guess… Or, heaven forbid, something with a regulator and cutoff screw…
A lot of this is addressed in the existing "Why Can't Routes be Longer" thread. Among those reasons is that consoles ARE hard pressed for hard drive space with every game growing larger all the time. And yes, longer routes take more dev times for the same quality. There are some better and worse TSC routes... Some routes ARE similar between games. Huddersfield and NTP are basically the same tracks modeled in two different games. (Manchester to Leeds) I don't have the Huddersfield one to compare with to see how different they are, but it does happen. Since I've played TSW a lot more than TSC.... are there any "super long" routes like you say? The few I have aren't SUPER long... they're about TSW length. (which goes up to around 175 km for Kassel, which is pretty long....) So what are you considering "long?" 300km? 500km? If you want to get into the details of longer routes, as I said there's already a thread quite lengthy discussing that.
DTG have uncooked versions of every DLC ever made, including those by third parties. Extensions are possible and have been done before, as you say DTG just don't want to do them. There are some very long routes in TS. There are a number of fictional routes which exceed miles like JT's Marsdonshire and Valley Corridor routes, and the massive Cresston network is a combined 250 miles or so - I am working with another person on an extended remaster which will push 350. As for real routes, there are merges which exceed 100 miles, including the combined Thameslink network, Kiel to Hannover, etc. LGV Rhone-Alpes is just under 200 miles long. Of course the kings of route length are the Western Main Lines with all extensions which is more than 250 miles, and the 400 mile East and West Coast Main Line merges.
Still say you could be arguing this on the thread created for it... DTG lists the file size of "North Trans-Penine" as 3.3 GB and the nearly identical game in TSC "Huddersfield" as 722 MB. Same length (43 miles), same route... takes 4.6 times as much space for TSW. A 400+ mile route in TSW would take over 30 GB. That's not a minor consideration when many console players have 500GB of space. Consider that the game itself core is about 36 GB. Not to mention if they want to download other routes.... Basically you're asking for something ten times average size for TSW. Already people have more than 20% of their console drive filled with TSW... All of those add up, with many "average" sized games of similar sizes. Basically what I'm saying is your "small DLC" is the size of a whole game by itself. Now, I don't know what developer time it takes to create that much more program, don't know if it scales or not... but simply doing 10 times as many miles is going to mean 10 times the work, so therefore 10 times the cost. That's TEN routes worth of work. For one network. That's a HUGE amount of work on one project that you HOPE will sell well (at ten times the cost) Now there ARE ways around this I've seen OTHER games do. Cloud streaming for Microsoft Flight Simulator for example, or "unlocking" bits of a larger map with DLC. However, we're working with what we have here, and that would require them developing whole new systems and in some cases new business models to do any of that. Going with what we already have in game, a single route that size is 4-5 times as much work to create (if measured in programming size) and would quickly balloon well above the acceptable player budget of $30-$50 for a DLC. CAN it be done? Sure it could. Would it sell? This is where we ran into debate on the other thread. A few people say they'd pay "any price" but weren't willing to back it up. Market research by DTG shows no, people won't pay more than $50 for a DLC. And if it takes 10 times the cost to make it, no one is going to sell it for a loss. But if you already have it in TSC...do you "NEED" it in TSW? You don't "need" any video game realistically. It's not like food and water. You WANT it. That's an entirely different thing. And will you PAY for it? Would you pay $300 for it? If you would...then tell DTG that and put your money down. Get a large number of people willing to shell out that money, "crowdfund" for it in some way (pre-orders through DTG) and show them you are willing to put your money where your keyboard is. If you're NOT willing to do that....then they will keep ignoring the tiny minority who don't pay the bills.
Saw a flix train at Hamburg Hbf last year, was packed, Taurus type loco and IC stock of some kind. I couldn't get on as I was on an Interrail and was heading for Westerland for some 218 action.
Given it’s a budget operation, surprised they didn’t dust off some old UIC corridor stock or Silberlinge with the dreadful plastic leatherette seats!
There's quite a bit of flawed logic regarding the size of the route. Route length =/= file size. The track is just data and will not affect the size much if at all. It is entirely down to the assets, which is what most of the storage is used up by. Most routes have duplicate generic assets that are the same as other routes. This goes for both TS and TSW. The 'house 1' asset, as an example, would be in every UK route. If it was 20mb, that would be an extra 20mb for the same asset in each route, filling up storage. In TS, there is the European Loco and Asset Pack which includes default assets and are used between routes, effectively meaning that routes like the GWML only include the route itself and little to to no assets or trains. If DTG moved to an equivalent of it for TSW, the only files that would be needed to would be the trains, scenario and trackwork, plus route-specific assets like stations and landmarks. This would significantly reduce file sizes. As longer routes only require few route specific assets (towns and countryside always use the same assets) there would in theory be little difference in file size between Northern Transpennine and a 200 mile long route. As for the difference in file size between NTP in TS and TSW the answer is simple - TS assets have smaller file sizes.
You wanted an answer and you got it. Yes, as I said we can "theorycraft" and play the "what if" game. What if TSW went to a new graphics engine? What if they used cloud streaming? What if they changed their assets? (On the last point, people are already complaining there's "too much cut and paste of the same assets" so increasing that standardization might not be a good idea. Just witness the many discussions on this forum about differences in stations and churches. Having more "standardized" ones would meet with shrill cries of "ruins the immersion" and it's "not accurate!") In the end, you asked why they can't put more TSC directly into TSW. The answer is they aren't the same game and there are limitations. Choices have consequences. Maybe by the time we get to TSW 9, things will be entirely different.
TSW on the current Unreal engine is getting on for 8 years old. In the end one day a decision has to be made to move forward and leave old content/platforms in the past....
I'm not sure if you're replying to me or not, since I didn't ask any questions, I was just pointing out that the way of calculating file sizes was incorrect. As far as the copying and pasting of assets goes, every town and field in TSW uses the same assets time and time again, as does TS and every other train simulator. Having one version of each of those assets in a main content pack would prevent duplicate files from clogging up players' storage. Additionally I have designed a concept for a server system that would reduce file sizes even further, although I'm planning to use the system myself in games that I make and would like to potentially patent the system in the future so I won't talk about it publicly. Considering TSW was announced in 2014 we may well be on the ninth or tenth year of development.
Not duplicating assets is a fine idea. Some of it is already done by TSW I believe. However, it's the unique assets that drives up development time and file space. On the other hand people LIKE having unique assets that are "recognizable" such as landmarks (ex. a cathedral unique to that city/town) and as "new" (ex. a different car that's not on the other routes) Yes you can save some space and time by simply using them again, but I don't think the savings are as great as you'd think. Still, it is an option to consider. TSW players are much less (on average) to "fiddle around" with downloading extras and such. They are very "plug and play" by comparison, so to avoid having a TON of complains about "my route isn't working" (because one asset or pack wasn't downloaded that the route uses), in TSW it would make sense to make it part of the TSW core game. The most popular routes often have a lot of "unique" assets (especially era specific) so that's still a lot of work to avoid being labelled negatively by the customer base. Yes, you CAN just copy/paste a ton of the exact same houses, but that gets called out quick and ridiculed by the playerbase, limiting it's usage. Now you COULD make a really long route (as we've discussed before on the other thread...hint hint) but people think it's "boring" and "uncreative" to do so. I'm not sure TSC could ever be compatible with consoles as an answer, because of the higher level of "modding" needed to get a lot of it to work. As I said, TSW is very "plug and play" and that's a huge draw. That's what makes it work on consoles too. TSC solutions that make it less so may be impractical. The shared assets from the core game is an interesting one that could save a little bit of game space...if developers use them. Depending on the route though, they may just not be suitable (wrong plants for the environment, wrong houses for the country, wrong cars, wrong era, etc)
I think you've misunderstood me somewhat. The solution is to have generic assets shared between routes, with only route-specific ones such as landmarks and stations included when downloading routes. The overwhelming majority of assets in any route are generic ones that can be placed in one content package.
Sorry I thought you understood. While yes "many" of the assets are shared, the "majority" aren't really as universal as claimed. I agreed that it was a good idea. We just disagree on how much it would save and where that pack would reside. If it's integral to the route working (as say a basic "house type 3" would be or "tree type 7") then it would have to be included in the core game to preserve the seamless "plug and play" functionality. Further, there ARE common assets, but many things you THINK are common wouldn't actually fit every other map. Yes, many "British 2020" features would fit "British 2020" maps, but not other ears, or American or German ones. How many assets can really be shared between say 1958 Spirit of Steam map and the 2020s Cajon Pass? Different year, different trains, different environment, different houses, different cars, different stations, etc. Yes, if you want common elements between British routes yes, many of the trees would look similar among other British areas. However, even then SOME people will still find reason to complain that this specific tree "is not native to that area" or that "there aren't that many pine trees near X train station in real life." So, YES it could cut some route size a bit, it's not AS useful across TSW as a whole. The German pack makes sense because there are SO many routes in Germany in the same time periods with the same rolling stock. For those routes, it could save a lot of space. In others (like Sherman Hill or Cajon Pass or the French LGV) not so much.
I have worked as a developer for TSW. The majority of assets are the same between routes, sometimes with very minor variations. Up to 5% of a route's asset are specific to that route only, the rest can be used on anything else in the same country and era. Often it would be less. Not many, which is why TS had separate European and American asset packs. Just to show examples of them in effect, I've picked two routes from the Rail Simulator days where the usage of the EU and US loco and asset packs was most common. Railworks 3 LegacyRouteOP includes the GWML route, skyboxes and a few assets, plus the manuals. 161MiB Railworks 3 LegacyScenariosOP includes the scenarios for GWML only. 5MiB The European Loco and Asset Pack: 3GiB Railworks 3 LegacyRouteCP contains the Cajon Pass route, a few assets, the manuals, and some scenarios. 271MiB Railworks 3 LegacyScenariosCP contains the rest of the scenarios. 4MiB US Loco and Asset Pack: 1.3GiB Railworks 3 LegacyAssetsFoliage contains some foliage assets and is used by both routes. 62MiB Note that the assets in the route depots are lighting assets, almost certainly a remnant of the lighting upgrade in TS2012. Regardless, there is a significant difference in size between the route itself and the assets. I'm not sure that many people care, and developers would be sensible to ignore them.
Assets may technically not be shared, but DTG sure do love putting European trucks all over the NA maps (Though its slowly going away from that)
Looking at the NA routes in TSC some of them could fit in TSW like Tehachapi , The West Palm Miami route although theyd have to just have CSX freight and Amtrak since no Tri Rail license but they do have un branded tri rail looking train to replicte servives ..Theres the BNSF racetrack Auroura to Chicago has BNSF and unbranded Metra scheme F40 and bilevels .Saluda route would fit into TSW ..Csx Hanover sub..the origional Feather River Route would prob fit could do WP and modern UP operations there are prob a few others ..the Mountain sub would nt unless they just did Cumberland to Grafton which would be near the length of the Kassel route in TSW 3
Now here’s a strange thing comparing TSC to TSW. Just grabbed the Surselva and Engadin route in the sale, along with the Ge6/6 additional green reskin. Blown away by the route detail and the Ge is a joy to look at and drive, lovely cab, great sound if maybe a tad overpowered. Imagine my surprise to see that all these products were made by our old TSW nemesis - Rivet. So if they can do such a marvellous job in TSC, how come they are so hopeless when it comes to TSW?
Maybe people need to overcome their O.C.D come out of their shell and accept un branded trains in TSW to get some what would be great routes for NA freight and passenger also come out of the 1 handled EMU DMU rut t.Theres lots of awesome types of trains out there in this world broaden your horizons dont have a 1 track mind..Variety is the spice of life as the saying go
I'm good with unbranded stuff. MUCH of the forum? Not so much. Also some of the inaccuracies and "fudge" factor that gets things "close enough" in TSC. They clutch their pearls in TSW... so I think TSW is held to a much higher detail standard than TSC.
Licensing also gives them access to the train if the operators are nice enough. Let's say it's a brand new train never been done before. If they don't have a license, then they don't have the permission to attach microphones and take photos of every angle. Licenses also allow the operator to give feedback to make a train better. Without a license, it's much harder to create good content
TSC has far less graphics details, it does not have a timetable with hundreds to thousands of trains. That makes a big difference in development costs (I think at least). The trains have far more detailed cabs and passenger coaches. In TSW you can walk around in stations, in TSC you cannot. TSW has a layer system to increase variety of rolling stock. In TSC you cannot do this. We tend to take all this for granted, but it is not. There is a lot of good engineering work behind it.
Because DTG makes more of a profit the least amount of work they can get away with selling, as long as the flock continues to buy the stuff. Simples.
Build a route that's 50 miles long with a 29.99 price tag. Or a 100 mile route with a 29.99 price tag. What's the logical option? Given the choice, how many of you would double your production cost when there's no need too? The train simulator editor is easy, a child can use it. Tsw on the other hand there's a lot more too it.
Having just ventured into the TSC realm I’m surprised by how expensive everything is, especially when buying those enhancement mod packs. I don’t know where I got the notion TSC is cheaper
You’re saying a child could build a new route from the ground up to include signalling and complex junctions and yards? There is obviously a lot if work involved in TS routes, they are not that much cheaper.
