Alan Thompson Simulation Route Discussion/speculation Thread

As Matt said on his charity stream consoles have nothing to do wirh route length. They could make a 300 mile route just fine for consoles.

The problem is time/cost to make the route at some point its not financially viable unless you are willing to pay £65 for a route.

Judging how people are complaining about a £4 increase in these forums I doubt it would sell as much as you would think.

But if ATS wants to spend the time and cost to extend to Crewe they could. But with all the issues they are having just getting this route out it probably would cost them more than its worth

 

You are aware that, without the console market, there would very likely be no TSW. Or is your head in the sand?

 

Can we stop with this "PC is better" stuff.

Getting boring now. TSW needs the console market to even have a chance, it's the whole reason it exists in the first place.

Cutting off that revenue would mean less DLC and even shorter route lengths. Possibly even higher prices as well.

 

As I said before if DTG ever created a route such as London Euston to Birmingham New Street. I would pay £65, as long as quality is there (and I know DTG would if they were to ever do a route such as) I would, for a player like me I like to say I am serious and love those type of routes. 300 mile routes not realistic you would need the save game option, also a Driver for a UK TOC ain't won't be driving that far without a driver changeover.
It isn't fair that British High Speed gets neglected due to people complaining about the increases, like £4 come on!
We have lots of commuter routes. Need that Balance we do. I should be speaking about this on another forum.

 

Thing is though. YOU might, but will everyone else? I wouldn't, because I'm not hugely interested in London - Birmingham.
At what point do you price too many people out of it that it's not worth it?

 

So we are all meant to bend down for those who aren't willing pay for a route because of the length and price?

 

Same question could be said for the flip side of your point, why should everyone bend just because you want to pay more for stuff.....

 

Atm we have More Commuter than High Speed. That was my point.

 

Of course the irony in all of this, is that it was Alan who originally said UE was a bad choice for a train simulator, now all these years later & it looks like he’s been proven right.

For one reason or another, DTG & the third parties seem to really struggle to pull logical lengths for alot of their content.

Alderly Edge is just a nonsense place to end this route. Willesden is a nonsense place to end NLL, the new Cardiff has no real route within it & is just odd bits of shuttle runs thrown together. Mainlines get cut off or started at daft locations.

I’m not throwing digs at the devs with the above, but in my opinion, shackling TSW to UE is the real issue.

 

I think the problem is though is they still need to make money.

 

I would pay more for a longer route but I accept I'm likely in the minority.

I uninstalled TSC a few months ago thinking it would be for good.

I have reinstalled it and am spending more time on it than TSW at the moment.

Even I am getting bored, particularly of the UK content. Most of it seems to be modern electric routes which are quite short. They have their place but variety for me is important. I'm thankful that JT and TSG exist.

I'm looking forward to the Cardiff route as it isn't a modern electric route.

 

I’ve been saying this for months unfortunately….

 

Yet TSG can bring us the delightful Mittenwaldbahn and a quite unique loco! ATS have to make do with recycling the 323 and the truncated NLL apparently has a 378 aliased to the existing Electrostar sounds. It's not so much that UE is holding them back, just seems where the UK is concerned they are running out of ideas and the talent to build it.

 

Consoles definitely aren't the reason Crewe is missing here.

 

Of course JT have shown they can work outside the norm too, but there is obviously a genuine struggle happening somewhere. All these odd end points aren’t just a case of ‘logical end point’ & I doubt any dev can truthfully say they’re satisfied with routes ending a stone’s throw from something that is genuinely logical.

 

DTG is clearly walking a tightrope between logical length/quality and revenue stream and they seem to have come down on the side of the latter.

Taking a chance on longer routes, quality builds, steam and US freight doesn't seem to be in their current business plan unfortunately.

The recent F59PHR shows that they can make a quality product, though we don't know if this was all in-house, although in the end perhaps this doesn't matter.

We have to hope that TSW gets better and fulfills the potential that was there in the beginning and still exists somewhere.

 

I'd pay £129.99 for the entire Greater Anglia area if it came with 720,745,755, East Midlands 158s, Great Northern 387s, Thameslink 700s as AI, plus on non-passenger services 66 and 86-hauled Freightliner services and a railhead treatment train timetable that covers the entire network.

It's pie in the sky stuff right now but perhaps as DTG grows and TSW income grows they may be able to have a separate team that works on long-tail projects. While the other team continues to put out the normal shorter routes, networks and concentrates on traction too.

I suspect it would need a doubling of their current TSW resources which is expensive. So for the time being we just have to hope that Incredible Trains moves North and East or Making Tracks make a surprise return to making train sim DLC after a 17 year hiatus.

 

You're misunderstanding the problems with the console versions of routes. Length has never been the issue. It is almost always scenery density and the timetable. A base PS4 could run East Coastway very well because it had a bare timetable with basic scenery. But when the routes started to get more demanding, DTG didn't or couldn't adapt the routes well enough to run well on the PS4 and Xbox One. Meanwhile, the PS5 and Series X seem to run modern routes fine. DTG already lowered the resolution for the PS4 and Xbox One versions below 1080p, gave up on a 30fps target and decreased the draw distance to an unacceptable level, but did not make separate versions of the routes which could have allowed for the older consoles to run them.

Performance on the PS4 and Xbox One is an issue that DTG should have nipped in the bud years ago, but didn't. Blaming the 'bloody consoles' for the route not going to Crewe is a bit silly, quite frankly. There is a very good reason why it didn't go to Crewe, but I'm not at liberty to explain it.

 

Sorry what do you mean you’re not at Liberty to explain it and whatever it means, Why? Why can’t us community get a reason for these odd terminating route points. I assume you’re affiliated with ATS?

 

As I often day it's time to start wondering if TSW can be pushed further or it's time for something new. If the routes get shorter again though I doubt many will shell out. Euston to Watford Jcn and be greatful. You have been warned....

 

The cost of Crewe station asset could have been one reason. Every unique station has a dev cost. Not saying the decision is right or wrong.

 

I think the problem is DTG are trying to throw too many bottles at once by trying to release too many DLC's within a certain timeframe. If there was no such thing called a 'deadline' then I can imagine us having the full Edinburgh to Kings Cross route by now, but of course a former employer from EA Sports has taken over DTG turning this game into a 'banking simulator'. I don't seem to remember a time the top executives apart from Matt are train enthusiasts in general.

 

Yes, I used to work for ATS and did some scenery work on the route. I can't talk about the development of the route because of the NDA, so any information on the route will have to come from official channels.

It took more than a decade to get a complete ECML in TS, and it has big issues despite the time it took to finally happen.

 

Lmao Imagine if it was Euston to Watford. ahaha. I be crying. But yep need a new competitor it feels like

 

I get what your saying but this is what developers are qualified to do right? Do things we can't do. You have the technology right at your feet so then bloody use it to your advantage. I wish I could put the time and effort into being some future developer, I keep thinking about it but when I did creative media, my god it fried my brain to pieces. I might go into sometime in the future.

 

Ah thanks mate! I assume you ain't with ATS anymore since you said 'used to'

 

Train wreck of a thread.

Fingers crossed a release date is announced soon.

Roll on the roadmap so people can fight over something else.

 

No one asked for you to Join in unless you came to contribute. It was a discussion, no fighting at all so god knows what your definition of it is.

 

Which would be a huge problem for a train simulator, no? Most train journeys involve trains starting, passing through & ending at a large station.

I don’t really think that is the issue though, since you would only need to have Crewe loaded in separate to any other station in this instance. Manchester Airport or Piccadilly on the other hand both likely exist on tiles in which other stations exist & at the very least, Piccadilly would have a bigger footprint than Crewe.

 

I took it to mean development cost, as opposed to performance/memory cost though

 

Yes they are qualified but it still takes DTG 4-6 months to make a route with multiple teams.

3rd parties take a year or more.

The Mildmay line for example is only 12 miles but Johannes has been working on it for a about a year.

So it takes alot of time to build a route in UE, alot more than a TSC route, which is why they are longer than TSW.

Until they find a way to simplify/automate the process they will be far a few for longer routes.

Once you have to pay staff for the extra work that goes into it you going to end up pricing it out of peoples range.

There is a reason the question about how long you like a session or or play a session is always on the survey.

And most likely that is where they figure out the majority can't play for 2-3 hours at a time. Unless they can fix the save game feature.

 

Fingers crossed that this route will use TfW vehicles if Cardiff gets released before this it would be nice to add this to the timetable

 

No one asked anyone to join, It's a public forum, also ironic that I guess you assumed I was talking about you? No need to be so defensive/ offensive, I've just caught up from the last several pages.

Between the constant bickering over route length and legal disputes, it'll be nice to see this route released and discussed on what it is and not on speculation. As I said, hopefully the next roadmap announces something, which is a relevant contribution, unlike telling people they aren't wanted here? Poor show....

 

Hopefully we get some more news, yeah. Particularly in regards to where they are with it. Not expecting a release date for a few months though.

 

UE is fine for a train simulator. The issue is people were expecting a TSC style of making content with the editor and the reality is that will never happen no matter what game engine you use unless you build one from the ground up. Which a custom engine would cost ££££ and just isn't worth it considering UE does a fine job. UE has its downfalls but so does every other engine. Pros and Cons of everything. The reality is, its game development and requires a lot of training/skill. The possibilities of what you can do with UE are a lot and a lot more than TSC. The issue is the learning curve but I'm sure over more years people will come to grips with the tools. Reality is, you have to start somewhere and if that means a small first route to learn the tools then that is what it is.

From a game dev perspective, I find the actual production process in UE far better than TSC so no he wasn't proven right at all. If he was then we would have no content at all in TSW outside of what DTG produce.

 

Also the whole consoles limiting content is just not true. It actually enables us as developers to think bigger because well, theres money in the console market, lets not pretend there isn't. The support for consoles becomes a balancing act because you have to make sure your content is built without heaps loads of technical debt which again comes back to third parties needing to learn not to build as if it was TSC and that is where all the learning curves are. Again, this is game development after all, it isn't an easy gig haha

 

I just don’t agree that this engine was the correct choice for TSW. After almost a decade we still get routes that are cut short of meaningful journeys, presumably because the amount of effort needed to do so outstrips the value for a developer. By meaningful journeys, I’m not saying every route needs to be an intercity 150 mile project, but in ATS’ circumstance it’s a 17 mile run to a reasonable end point.

JT have proven that UE can work to an extent (length/route scope yes, but even they can’t get past the inherent stuttering), however they are doing so with a much longer production time.

IMO either UE prevents developers/publishers from achieving proper routes, or TSW as a product has a mindset of ‘we just don’t want to give players better route scope’.

 

So if UE is not the right choice then what is? The stuttering will likely be technical debt problem which can be resolved with the right knowledge, that tech debt might lie in the core game which then DTG would need to sort. Fundamently the ATS dev team, me included had to learn UE from the ground up hence the shorter route. Game engine doesn't prevent anyone from making long routes, money does. Longer a route, more expensive it can be to make but in essence the idea is it can also make more money. Stuttering does improve as well the more you run a route and only re-appears after an update which i believe is to do shaders needing to re-cache.

I believe UE was likely chosen in the first place because the UI is much friendlier to use and theres a lot of people out there with UE knowledge, after all a very popular engine but just like anything it has its downfalls.

 

The editor is hard work to learn at first, which I think puts off the majority of folks who dabble in it. Unfortunately this is leading to very few freeware routes being produced, which is a shame. Those who become competent with UE will most likely go the payware way with DTGs help, which is fair enough. We've had so many excellent freeware routes in TSC (Wales and Borders,Cresston, SWW etc), I have a feeling those days are never going to be seen again, with this sim anyway.

 

Never say never, I always see a lot of people learning the public editor at the moment and even some routes being made so who knows. Whether they go freeware or not who knows but ultimately I don't see another sim matching the TSC freeware content market ever really just due to the way tech has moved forward

 

Why couldn't they bring the TSC stuff to TSW routes? I do want to get into development I just need to put money into new parts which I plan to do in the future. Like I was playing TSC WCML South Yesterday and the Scenery and that are really good and love the fact the traffic is there. As someone said CK95 I don't expect 150 mile High speed routes but the truth is UK high speed is neglected, Euston to BHM would of been reasonable but again I don't know how it works. But UE does sound hard but hence why I want to learn it so I can put myself info developers shoes.

 

The boot has to fit. Some people want 30 minute runs, others an hour or full length. The one thing I find though is some stopping services once done then lose appeal. Especially as TSW is mainly green lights all the way. I guess the only thing that matters is they sell now.

 

Good point, I was speaking to Matt on one of the DTG streams about the Random Events thing they did on the survey and he did say he was testing them and it is quite difficult. Which is great, having that will add so much immersion just hopefully get it right. But I really want runs which could add unexpected twists where you have to think and slow down. I make a different thread for that.

 

I could only compare UE against other modern train sims using different engines of course. Ultimately my point isn’t UE itself being good or bad, it’s about it fitting the commercial prospect for TSW. It seems the more progress made with content scope, the shorter the route has to be. Go back in time to 3-5 years ago where we had a kind of sweet spot in routes, but overall less features. Now we have more features but less milage (again though I stress it isn’t about milage, it’s about scope).

Personally I don’t mind if a route is 10 miles or 70, but if the 10 mile route is cut 2 miles short of where it actually ends IRL, then it’s a huge let down. For a 70 mile route, if it starts & ends in 2 random places it’s a pointless journey for me.

Technical debt probably sums up my whole point, if that debt can’t be paid then the interest just keeps mounting up & we get less & less scope each year - something which is quite the reality.

Yes but using UE is a crux of that financial burden no? More engine complexity = more time needed to develop.

This line is a favourite of mine as DTGs community team loves to float it too, but A) it’s a pretty poor idea to tell customers ‘yeah the performance isn’t great on your first experience with the content but it gets better after a few goes’, B) Just implement shader compiling prior to gameplay? C) Consoles already get pre-compiled shading & aren’t much better off for stuttering.

Again we just come back to was UE really the best choice? DTG have said multiple times they’ve basically ended up with a custom build of UE with the changes they’ve had to make to it, which leads to less familiarity. You mention using UE has the benefit of experienced devs, yet every time a new studio enters development we hear about how it’s taken them so long to do something because they’ve had to get used to the engine & it’s led to cuts in content.

UE has consistently proven through TSWs life time that it can’t deliver a smooth driving experience. Devs are unable to produce enough of a route that meets logical termini without compromising financial viability. Lighting is apparently so complex that making underground routes nearly broke DTG & at the same time gives TSW the horrid over-contrasted, washed out look it has.

Unreal is great for making a world within it, then getting it to where you want to be over time, but the way TSW works where every route is essentially its own world, is really not suited to it. You can’t as a developer be expected to create whole new worlds every 6 or so months, you just end up with a buggy unfinished & under realised product.

I’m not attacking (at least not meaning to) anyone here other than the idea that UE is the best choice for what TSW is trying to do. I’m sure if you took a good amount of time to build up one region within one instance, that UE would deliver presumably the greatest train sim there ever was, however the reverse of that being make a small area as quickly as possible doesn’t quite yield what I’d call a creative success.

Back to one of your original points of people expecting the same development turn out as TSC, I don’t agree customers have that expectation, but rather the publishers do. Unreal projects need time & polish. When you go into to UE with the mindset of we’ll get this done quickly & cheaply, you get undercooked results.

 

Way to go pal, did you not read my full post? I said that consoles are bringing in money through the more casual gamer market.

Indeed, I was responding to someone asking why so many routes seem to have "random" start/end points.

Well that is good to know, however if routes are having to be nerfed to keep PS4/XBO players happy that is not really fair on everyone else, surely a time comes when DTG has to say "ok we are not supporting the older consoles anymore". I also know that it is not the consoles that are why it is not going to Crewe, more of a general "this is why routes are cut short".

 

The problem is ultimately what game engine would really be fit then? The answer is a fully custom engine which would cost too much money and would be even harder to learn. TSC has a worse learning curve in some areas. You could go another game engine like Unity but again you are then stuck with the same issue of devs having to learn to a industry level experience. Unfortunately the mindset is well I can develop content for TSC, I will do the same for TSW then realise what is involved and either push through or give up. No other game engine would change that.

If a studio struggles to then develop a route for TSW then in reality you need to spend the time properly learning the tools, something that should really be done before comissioning a project and spending money on it or produce a shorter route to nail the tools and build a good quality product then future projects you expand. JT did this and it has worked out well for them

 

I know you were talking hypothetically But Greater Anglia is never coming to TSW according to what Matt said on the charity stream at the weekend. Anglia are simply not interested at all…bizarre really when you consider that the Flirt has been done by ATS in TSC!

 

I don't understand why these TOC's are so funny about the licences.

 

How hard is it to say Yes as long as you go by there terms and conditions

 

I suppose this conversation will have happened back before TSW, though another engine being more expensive or taking time to learn doesn’t mean that UE was the best choice for what DTG said they wanted to do, this train of thought just means it was the cheapest. I suppose this again is proven by the fact that TSW now isn’t what DTG said they wanted to do.

Very early on it was made known that the idea of TSW was to get away from some of the development issues they were locked into with TSC, particularly not being able to make meaningful changes to the game engine to fix issues or add features - though TSW seems to also suffer the same problem with underlying core issues that aren’t being fixed & limitations in place preventing development in several areas.

JT really blew the socks off anything that TSW had seen before. They came along with their first foray including multiple destinations, custom assets, excellent general quality & a relatively great bit of rolling stock.

TSG again come into that same bracket with their work.

As I said, if a studio needs to start small then I’m all for it, if it needs to reuse rolling stock then I have no issue at all, but the silly decisions on where to end routes are a real issue. No one else is going to come along now & give us Crewe to Manchester in the modern era, the same for Richmond to Stratford. The only hope we get left with is for one day someone to go back & rebuild it, such as was done with SEHS. I personally don’t see third parties doing that.

There are so many black holes in the routes on TSW, which have been cut so close to a desirable end point that no one else can reasonably be expected to go back & finish the job.

Ultimately that’s what leads to my above views. If TSW can’t produce something simple such as Crewe to Manchester, or Stratford to Richmond & on the other end of the scale can’t handle a relatively sensible intercity line such as Euston to Birmingham, then it’s hardly a technical success of a train simulator.