With the release of the new Frankfurt S-bahn route, it is disappointing (but understandable) that consoles have had their timetable reduced. From what I understand, one of the big problems comes down to the lack of memory. EMUs like the ICE-3 seem to use a lot of it. I was thinking of ways to try and solve this problem. What if rolling stock had "memory light" versions? What I mean is, these locomotives and EMUs would look relatively normal on the outside, but the interiors would be gutted out. I would think that this would reduce the memory footprint. I'm not sure if something like this is already implemented in the game. Players might not be able to board or drive these "memory light" trains, but I think it would be better than having an empty timetable. Thoughts? Would you be okay with filling a timetable with non-drivable, "memory light" trains, in order to keep it looking busy?
This is quite similar to what I was thinking, but there is another potential workaround dtg could look at: optimising the game properly so it doesn’t crash as soon as I want to see a variety of trains
The only way to have timetables be busier on console is having sensible route choices in the first place - namely not having Frankfurt Hbf not once, but twice in TSW 5. There are so many other routes which could still be very busy and exciting.
I think DTG should concentrate more on the core of the game the train simulation. All the other nice graphic and ballast things lead to an exploding data consumption, that even PC can't handle in the future.
Exactly. And im the past they showes, that they could do it. For instance they brought Sand Patch to consoles in 2020. A thing a lot of people including DTG said it wouldn't possible. Sure with the optimization they could some scenery like trees and do, but they kept the pure core of that route the train simulation.
Wouldn’t what I suggested be optimization of the game? If not, then what would be? Sorry, I’m not a game developer, so I’m not sure exactly what people mean by optimization. I was thinking that, by having AI trains with simplified interiors, it would reduce their memory usage without negatively effecting the player experience too much. Especially for trains you zoom pass at hundreds of kilometers per hour.
I see where you are coming from - but I am really not sure about this. It would be very obvious if you were in free roam as a passenger for example, and it could also be a slippery slope to being locked in the drivers seat with no see through coach windows etc. if you know what I mean. Core performance improvements are really all that will fix the game
I'm not sure a 'memory lite' version would necessarily help particularly much, it would have to be loaded in-addition to the full fat version you're driving, so could actually be an extra strain on the memory in some cases. As those versions would be a new asset, that would also increase the file size of add-ons, and be another asset to be maintained. It would also be another complication in development, further the difference between console and PC versions of the game and would impact the free roam capability of the game (what happens when you leave your train and try to get on the 'lite' version in the other platform?). Plus there's the whole issue of retroactively doing this for the whole DLC catalogue which is very unlikely. I can see why on the surface it could seem a good idea, but it could very easily turn one headache into several more. I'm no expert, but I suspect finding efficiencies in the core is a much more realistic goal and something that is absolutely essential before even considering 'lite' models of trains.
Didn't they try something like this once (I think it was the original Long Island) and player feedback was basically "never again"?
Not sure - I used to do a fair bit of wondering around stations while loading passengers and never specifically noticed gutted trains
'Optimisation' is not some magic wand that you wave and suddenly the game is better. Optimisation requires doing tricks and taking shortcuts to provide 90% of the experience for 50% of the cost. Creating simplified scenic rolling stock is a perfect example of an optimisation trick and you reject it. Optimisation comes at a cost.
Then why have most other companies got it right? It’s not as if dtg are a new business with a very tight budget- it’s fine to admit that your a pc player, there usually the ones with less idea of the console experience. Thats not a dig at you or anyone on pc, but to really understand how badly this game needs optimising then I suggest investing hundreds of pounds into dlc on console before saying that’s it’s not worth there effort to try and fix the game
No one's saying optimisation is simple and easy. But things such as simplified rolling stock isn't the answer, all that does is make the experience for the console user worse. Which then creates a divide between console and PC players.
Different games, different needs, different techniques. Matt's gone into great detail on the specific challenges TSW presents and the reasons.
