Is It Time To End Backward Compatibility?

Honestly, at this point I really have to question why we keep dragging every single old route and loco into every new version of TSW. Each new release brings features and systems the old DLC will never support, yet we still pretend everything should magically fit together.

Maybe it’s time to say it clearly: TSW generations should be separated.
TSW2 content stays in TSW2.
TSW3 content stays in TSW3.
And so on.

Then every new version could finally deliver content actually built for that version’s tech — better visuals, physics, audio, systems, performance — without being held hostage by a five-year-old route that can’t even use the new features.

Because right now we end up with the worst of both worlds:

old DLC that can’t benefit from new gameplay,

new DLC limited because everything has to remain compatible with the past.


TSW6 is the perfect example: all the “new features” only work on the brand-new trains and routes. So why bother importing old DLC if they can’t use any of it? What’s the point?

And honestly, if DTG ever wants to take performance optimisation seriously, they have to stop pretending backward compatibility is sacred. You can’t overhaul the core engine when everything has to remain compatible forever. Drop the legacy ballast and you can finally fix the foundations.

 

What are your thoughts on this ?

 

The problem with this is that there's cross polination between routes and rolling stock across versions. EG Class 52 comes in what, TSW1 or 2? But is available for a service on Riveria with TSW6. Meanwhile in other direction TSW5 added the 801 which is then used in Cathcart Cricle from I think TSW2? So you need a plan for this...

 

Truly up there with some of the most horrific takes I've seen on the forums.

 

from the point of view of combining the resources of the routes and trains/locos, each with the generation of the TSW in which the route/loco was produced/released, it makes perfect sense
there's only one problem: layers
that's why my vote was "no"

 

Simply, no. I mean the annual re-releases of TSW are a largely cosmetic PITA anyway, losing content would make it more untenable.

The average user with half a brain is more than capable of curating out any content they don’t want to carry over.

Only time this becomes a thing is if TSW gets replaced by something completely new, in which case probably none of the existing content will carry forward.

 

Ending the yearly release would be a better suggestion and all content gets updated in one, single version of TSW. It also looks better in our Steam, PS and Xbox libraries rather than having 6 copies of the same game. The TS Classic update model is better for the community, but the TSW "new" game model is better for DTG as it puts TSW back on the front store page at the cost of tedium.

The other issue is not in backwards compatibility itself either but how DTG rerelease rolling stock already in the game. We have multiple variants of an EWS Class 66, ideally we should only have one EWS 66 that gets updated with new features over time, the only valid reason to release another Class 66 is it being a different subclass or livery. Same goes any other stock that has multiple versions right now.

I do hope that whatever TSW's successor ends up being that they take the lessons of the issues in TSW's development and apply them in the next generation sim.

 

That would end layering and substitution of existing rolling stock onto new routes which is a big pull factor for many people that buy all the routes, including me. If they release a completely new game on a new engine, similar to the jump from TSC to TSW then I might accept it for one year, otherwise it's a big red no from me.

 

Absolutely not. I still play the oldest routes, including SPG, the very first and I don't want to resurrect TSW 2020 to keep them alive.

 

TSW is built entirely upon different pieces of content interacting. Not bringing over old content goes entirely against this and creates a less complete experience. Imagine Brum Crewe without the Pendolino's because the train was left in tsw5, for example.

 

Absolutely not. This would be horrible in the sense that certain layers become unattainable because not all trains come from the same TSW version.

 

This argument doesn't even make sense. How did the TSW6 routes suffer from "remaining compatible with the past"? (I mean TSW6 is pretty bad and definitely not worth its own iteration, but how is this associated with backwards compatibility?)

 

world’s dumbest suggestion, like half the best stuff is older content or uses older content

 

I entered and immediately voted based on thinking it was meant to be with older generation consoles.

Then I actually read it.

LMAO tf is your problem obviously no

 

I'm going to assume that the handful of people who voted " yes " are relatively new to the game and don't own any of the older titles.

 

With the way layers work this would almost ruin the experience for people who own most DLC with the service counts on many newer routes. No thank you.

 

Or are accidental and didn't read the thread and automatically assumed it meant ditching 8th gen

 

Yeah from the title that was my impression, then I read it and was like wtf why tho.

 

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Layering would cease to work properly. If they stop this, they would also need to stop annual releases otherwise they'd lose a large portion of the player base I'd say.

 

Isn't one appeal of a new route is that an older train/route can enhance the new one by providing layers or substitutions?

 

No way, I'd lose most of the rolling stock I want to use...

 

No as the DLC are needed for layers.. older routes should get a little TLC for new releases of the existing core!

IMO, With new design techniques being used as with the metro rivals game, on how they build scenery with open source data, and the way they are creating tunnels etc, should it prove to be a big performance changer, well better then in TSW, then its time for it to be implemented into TSW itself or for TSW to end and move on to the next generation of TS that supports it....

 

If DTG just included all the trains in the route, so layering is not needed anymore, then it could be a yes. I hate the layering system, as it force you to buy routes you actually not want to play, but only want to have them for some traffic on other routes. This can even be only AI traffic. Good example is Dresden - Leipzig, for the Leipzig S-bahn trains you need the oldest German route ever, which route is broken, the trains sounds like .... and PIS is not even working on Dresden - Leipzig. So I like to see more complete routes, with all trains included, so you don't have to buy routes you don't want, however I don't see this happening. But with the layering as it is now, I vote for a big no.

 

My thoughts are that, as first posts on a forum go, yours is a doozy and no mistake. One might even wonder if it was deliberately so.

You say that "every new version could finally deliver content actually built for that version’s tech — better visuals, physics, audio, systems, performance" without explaining how that's possible. TSW6 is still fundamentally the same game and tech as TSW5 (and 4, and 3, and 2 etc.), and if TSW6 had been released on its own without prior DLC being able to come in then it wouldn't magically look/perform better.

And your assertion that "new DLC [is] limited because everything has to remain compatible with the past" simply isn't true either, new DLC is limited only by what the current core allows it to do. This has been demonstrated quite clearly with the Birmingham to Crewe route, where console players are experiencing blurry textures due to the way the core handles memory.

Your premise would make more sense if we were talking about a hypothetical new train sim based on, say, UE5, but we're some way off that becoming more than speculation.

 

This post should be a example of what not to post on the forums as your first message

 

( Tin Foil Hat)
Or maybe DTG are trying to assess public opinion.

 

Backwards compatibility also gives us multiple versions of the same item of rolling stock. Whilst some people think this is a problem it is actually one of the best things about the sim as it enables you to put more than one 'model' in a formation and then add a separate livery to each one in Scenario Editor.

Admittable you can only do this using mods but it is great to be able to see something like this in Scenarios.

For example 4 x CL08s with each one coming from a different route meaning Scenario Editor will let you place a different community livery on each one.


Or an 'interesting' CL101 rake passing by again with 4 different liveries in the same rake.


This can only be done with backwards compatibility and utilising the benefit of having multiple versions of the same item of rolling stock in game.

 

But we need backward compatible content to enable one of the strongest features of the game in “layers”. This is one of TSW’s best features by far.
I don’t want to have to install every single version of TSW just to drive a blast from the past, ye Gods it takes up enough space on my HD already.
A big no from me.

 

No

 

I'm not sure whether I'm more incredulous at the original question itself, or the fact that at time of writing 14 people voted "Yes" to preventing older content being used on later versions of the game! Unbelievable....

 

I think the 14 who voted yes are either completely new to TSW or didn't understand the OP's post correctly.

I voted NO!

 

Me! I haven't long woken up and not had my coffee yet! But quickly changed it to no. Getting rid of the older locos/routes will cause issues with layers on other routes.

 

Hi everyone,
I admit I haven’t read all your replies, but I have to say I didn’t expect this kind of reception from the TSW community as a new member.

My original post was simply a question I wanted to ask, and even if I understand it may have come across as clumsy or even provocative to some, I wasn’t expecting this level of hostility — even though I had been warned about the reputation of this community and this forum.

Good luck to the DTG team and developers, you’re definitely going to need it.

 

so we don’t have to go back to the older versions to play a game what has only got some rather niche new features and essentially dlc, also to build up the collection, not much of train sim if the game only has about 9 routes max, there’s no reason to abandon certain routes just because a newer route has some new stuff added to it and the only reason the old one doesn’t is because income comes from selling more things not building up already sold items

As much as volumetric clouds and guard mode and announcements are great I'm not expecting them to implement into a game what could expand to well over 200 routes if it continues every new thing they come up with at release if ever, I can understand the reality of that

see top quote ^^

…GWE and rapid transit for example does not hold back WCML Milton from having guard mode etc…

not true same answer as above ^

sure would be great if they could have a small team or so who implements this slowly but having the old dlc on the newest verison is not about making sure routes like rapid transit get guard mode etc, it’s more to do with being able to use its train, access it’s content on the game as it’s still the same game underneath just the route lacks features as expected to routes released about 6 years after it.

Abandoning content every year or in general for the sake it doesn’t have new features will make this game feel empty and severely limit features of both old and new routes as your essentially capping the mileage of routes in each version and the number of trains in each verison, this severely degrades the value of each verison and its respective dlc’s future potential, continuing sales and features.

 

I voted yes because I always side with the underdog.
Come on, Toro, Juve steals.

 

I would be forgetting which version of TSW I needed to launch to play a certain route!

The main reason this wouldn't be good is that it would ruin the layering system.

 

also if you like bug fixes, having older content still attached to the new stops them just considering every route entirely abandoned after every year as this yearly game cycle would allow if not for preservation. Doesn’t guarantee fixes but doesn’t provide a general consensus of its old it’s not gonna ever happen

 

gotta admit that’s an even worse position than a yes vote

 

Ermmmm... No.

Although there are a few stupid suggestions that deserve to never see the light of day again.

 

In an ideal world, l would love DTG to find a version that is reliable and perfect. Then keep to it, without the tedious task of transferring all our content over every Autumn. I am sure this sudden influx of content into a new game causes a lot of the problems!

 

for that to happen they're would need to be a better alternative for refreshing interest in the game than the current one.

 

Exactly, by "releasing a new game" every year it keeps TSW high on the charts as it were for sales, probably the gaming equivalent of a musician buying a few thousand copies of their latest single...

 

Maybe OP meant to say "hey isn't using older trains as layers really awesome, I'm so happy I can do that"

 

I think because it's a 'new' game it also gets a chance to go to the top of the 'top 5' or 'top 10' lists. Iirc TSW6 was in the top 10 played games on Steam for a while.

Couldn't do that 3 years later for TSW4 so easy simple easy, opp here's a brand new game

 

For TSW as it currently stands, backwards compatibility is a great thing as far as Old routes and locos. Leaving the 8th console generation behind will be a good thing, it's about time.

If TSW ever does go to UE5, you'll likely get your wish as far as backwards compatibility as Old routes and such would have to be redone to fit UE5. But that might be an issue for TSW9 or 10.

 

Yay for empty timetables with one or two different trainsets. No thanks.

 

I have to say I don't agree with OP's suggestion and I don't really think the old DLC's "holding back" other content, but I don't really agree with labeling the guy as a troll. Are they ill-informed or underthinking things? Maybe, but then so are most people pushing for UE5, is it fair to call them trolls too?

I see the term tossed around a lot in railfan circles a weird amount for some reason. And frankly my boomer mother probably has a better understanding of the word than those here do, which is scary if you know how old people are about modern slang!