Roadmap Update 24th November 2020

Don't forget the errors on the old content. The roadmap appears to be very focused on fixing scenarios and services, which is pretty logical, but many routes still have signaling errors. Some of the train systems / features, even if not critical for gameplay, are not fully working after migration to TSW2. Also the level crossings are missing in the lists which are a important topic as now they are silent and static. I have reported quite a big list of such topics myself hoping to help you to identify them.

Cheers

 

I can back this. Just tried it and it worked like a charm. No idea why DTG doesn‘t mention that it‘s fixed now.

 

For what it’s worth my experience moving from an Xbox One S to the new Xbox series X is that audio issues are almost gone. Does this suggests that the extra memory is a factor? If it is then the work to get the layers working possibly may help? Time will tell.

 

Yeah, epspessially the 280 km/h thing, it's 230km/h, people

 

One thing I was asking myself how the layers investigation is going.

 

This might be debatable because Br 420 is mostly an S-Bahn unit and S-Bahn on HMA is already pretty packed which might indicate 420 only substituting for 423.

 

. No, I can't agree with you, because price will be the same. I prefer to get longer roat instead shorter one for the same money. This is fair and absolutely clear, isn't it?

 

Well, I can pretty much say that; "it ain't gonna happen. No matter how many times you spam the same request. It's the Devs choice on how to make the route and how long it'll be depending on their time spent working on it (The same as any other routes for TSW in the past). It is what it is."
But, if you gonna disagree with what I said, then all I can say is, STOP, it's getting annoying now.

 

I'm running TSW2 with 16GB of RAM and an RTX2060. This is way more than the recommended requirements for TSW2...

 

The Arosa Line, Hamburg-Lubeck & Class 465 have also all moved up from in planning to production without the label....not a big issue I suppose, but annoys those here with OCD

 

Sounds like we might get a roadmap update tomorrow as well, to correct today's

 

DB BR 101 for HRR only? I think that this loco and IC-carriages should appear on other routes as well (also upcoming), it's kind of a backbone of german long-distance trains isn't it?

 

People power did this as well as the sun thing. It is definitely worth piping up and letting them know what’s what if something seems wrong.

The live stream was very encouraging in that regard, as well as being funny with the whole internal communication thing. The only thing I was a bit dismayed about was the slight playing down of core improvements. I think they are more urgently required than they were making out as so much relies on them. We certainly can’t wait until the next yearly update to have the poor performance improved. It needs a little more than the small incremental improvements Adam was referring to that happen with every update.

Sam’s secret mission is getting more intriguing with every stream.

 

It probably will sub in for services on other routes but for the purposes of the roadmap, they tie it to the route it requires to work (and which have official scenarios made for it)

 

Actually, it does bug me that the DB BR 101 is now tied to HRR. Whats the reasoning behind that? If it was going to be used for substitution anyways, why not tie it into SKA which is a base route for TSW2 that everyone has, instead of a preserved collection route thats a separate purchase?

It accomplishes the same thing, but now for those of us who don't own HRR, the new DB BR 101 effectively costs around ~$50 because we have to buy the route as well. If I have to be honest, that entirely just put me off from even buying the loco.

This simple move appears nothing more than a cash grab in my eyes. There is no other good reason for the switch if the loco can be used in both routes anyways. Why not tie it to the one thats available to everyone?

 

Well the 101 (IC services) don't run on SKA. So that's one of the reasons that I could think of

 

Which is true irl, but hasn't there been instances where they deviated from the irl timetable in the sake of gameplay? I was under the impression this would be the case....but now that poses another question. Will the DB BR 101 not be used in SKA's timetable service mode at all?

In the end, the decision to tie it to HRR instead of SKA is still a deal breaker. I was really looking forward to this DLC, but now I suppose I'll have to wait for a sale or pass up on it altogether. This problem with tying locos to certain routes is seriously starting to impact our choices

 

This deliberate move appears to be the exact result of listening to the community feedback given about how the DB BR 101 does not run on the Köln-Aachen line. While HRR is not my favourite line, I recognise that it is actually a realistic choice to put the Intercity trains on.

 

Surely not everyone will be pleased with this decision, but it was quite vocal here on the forums that the 101 did not belong on SKA. It is a good thing that they listen to community requests though.
Now HRR being one of my favorite routes this is a double win for me personally. Now I hope for an extra layer of IC services on appropriate German routes like HMA - and for DTG to fix the layer issue so that console players benefit from it as well.

 

Oh thanks. I didn't notice, because I usually just scout the roadmap for the labels. (The UP arrow or the NEW star). It's sloppy these labels were forgotten. Especially since the roadmap is supposed to be all about communicating...

Good find though. Good to know these projects have moved up a step.

 

I might've been a bit too quick to judgement, and while the switch makes sense in terms of realism, its still a bit of a disappointment.

The whole ordeal of tying locos to routes just causes a big headache. Had it been a standalone that didn't depend on other DLCs, I would've gone and purchased it. But I, among plenty of other customers, do not own every single route, so it just makes the price of acquiring the one loco unnecessarily steep, because you have to purchase both the route AND the loco. What if you don't want that route in particular, just the loco to use it as a substitution in other places? Im essentially paying close to $50 when i just wanted a $20 loco. It feels like a waste, and for no good reason. I hope they find a way to separate the dependencies and make those loco DLCs a proper standalone module.

 

I fully understand the issue, it is... Let's call it unlucky. TSG (the german third party creator) mentioned once that their locos need to be tied to a route that comes with at least 3 scenarios for it. The scenarios might be one reason for why the locos come for a certain route. You could leave scenarios out of those dlc, but that would also lower the value of said dlc. Personally I want my scenarios as they offer the most deviation from your routine services. Also I kinda doubt that DTG would change their business model with the locos, especially since third party developers were told that this is mandatory.

 

Slightly off topic but watching the replay of the stream from last night, Sam mentioned that one TOC asked DTG if they could be in the game. I'd love to know who that was, I'm wondering if it's a TOC we've yet to see or one which has already been released..?

 

Scenarios should have little to do with it. Just look at how Train Simulator did it. Most loco DLCs have a number of scenarios, usually for one route but sometimes for a few routes. These scenarios obviously only work when you have these routes. But you could use the loco in any other game mode on any other route without owning specifici routes.

I suggest they do the same for TSW.

 

Apologies for my noob-question, but what's a "TOC"?

 

That might've been a reference to MBTA (Boston commuter) who supposedly once expressed an interest on Twitter to be featured in TSW. Someone could probably find the tweet itself, I have only heard about it.

 

found it https://twitter.com/MBTA_CR/status/1265717943280775178

 

Then why can I not use the BR423 as a substitution for the 422 on SKA? The 423 runs there IRL, not the 422 but because it is in the Munchen configuration they decided to use the wrong train instead

 

I wonder what time the updated Road Map will be released? Judging from the stream, there are a lot of missing/incorrectly placed items.

 

Train Operating Company.

 

The "fix" to Powering America is to remove part of the scenario. Disappointing that DTG would rather delete content as opposed to improving it.

 

What did they delete?

 

This is still all tinkering around the edges, fixing scenarios etc.

When will be see some tangible and real improvements to the base game? Almost 4 years and we still have ludicrously short shadow draw distance, messed up lighting, trains lit independently of their surroundings, AA flicker when stationary etc. Then there are the passengers. And the sound.

The stuff being rectified is undoubtably important, but I’m dismayed that the fundamental problems that are holding this game back are not being addressed. In fact, they don’t currently look like they enter DTG’s thinking at all. To be absolutely clear, whilst these problems exist features like Mastery are not remotely relevant and should not be a priority.

Please tell me/us this isn’t so and that someone is actually addressing these core problems...

 

u can drive it with scenario designer, but ik what u mean

 

Agreed, there's some issues in the core engine, affecting all routes. AA flicker also often makes signals in the distance appear flashing, while they're not. Also have you seen how ridiculous trees look in a snow environtment? They are completely white, until you approach them and get close, when snow suddenly fades away and makes room for the tree natural brown color. And then there's the weather effects, like having extremely good visability during rain (as if it were a clear sky), the sun reflection during a cloudy day, and many other oddities in lighting effects in different weather circumstances.

As for mastery, I personally think this should have no priority at all. Especially when DTG Live keeps forgetting my login details so frequently.

 

Mastery never worked for me in TSW2020, I know it did for some but either way, like you said, it's not a priority.

 

No you cannot. That's the whole point. You *NEED* that one route.

 

It worked for me, but it as it was only introduced way after TSW's launch, I suddenly had to redo all kinds of tutorials to progress through mastery. I mean... who thinks that's a good game design? And even now with TSW2, I bet most of us already have done the tutorials or scenarios (or be like me and skip the tutorials because you've already done them in TSW2020 and still know how to drive the train). I hope DTG doesn't make the same mistake again and require tutorials to be redone again in order to progress through mastery.

Not that I care much about mastery anyways. Or action points. Or medals.

 

You’re absolutely right. I’ll wager that Mastery will cause more issues and work long term than the benefits it will bring. I’d also bet the kitchen sink that it ‘can’t read your gameplay thus far so you’ll need to start from scratch again’.

I have to log in to Dovetail Live at least once a week at the minute. That doesn’t bode well.

The point stands that in the grand scheme of things, Mastery is an example of something that is not needed, on the whole probably not wanted, and ultimately a waste of development time and resource.

 

While many of just probably just use TSW to drive trains, apparently DTG seems to think there's an audience which like things like mastery, action points, medal and all kind of progression/reward systems. Those systems are a common sights in many games these days, although I still think they're somewhat out of place in a simulator. Although none of these systems are preventing me to just enjoy driving trains (especially since I've learned to ignore the pressure from being bound to a timetable), personally I think resources are better spent developing other things...

And I think resources are better spent in improving the things that aren't working properly, instead of adding new features. While I know PIS are a much requested feature, I didn't think it'd be one of the first things the preservation team would pick up, considering the huge number of reported problems of all kinds of nature.

 

Oh actually I liked mastery in TSW, I am a sucker for unlockables by progression.
But I'll be damned, if they are unable to count my progress from before the mastery implementation, they will never hear the end of it...

 

It’s what they did last time, so be warned. That is the precedent.

As someone who likes this aspect of the game then, would you prefer they continue spending valuable development resource on it at this stage, or would they be better off with all hands on deck to optimise the game, and have it start to push modern tech a but more?

We’re seeing DX12, the AMD 5 series CPU’s and Big Navi GPU’s, Nvidia 3000 series GPU’s and Next-Gen consoles appearing yet TSW is rooted in fulfilling a technological brief from 5-10 years ago. It’s not even utilising what it has at it’s disposal from the previous 1 or 2 generations of tech. Ray-Tracing, both software and hardware, is now a realistic goal. Not only does TSW not touch anything as advanced as that, it has shadows that only fill around a third of the image ahead of you (and only come into detail as you approach them) leaving the rest of the landscape bathed in bright, unadulterated, shadowless daylight. It doesn’t even use ambient occlusion.

We have to start moving on from this, yet if this roadmap is to be believed this aspect of development doesn’t even feature.

 

Don't forget that these features may not require the same amount of work to develop, and even require the same people to develop them. Even when they bring the mastery development to a halt, doesn't mean they suddenly have the recources to pick up other stuff.

I'm no expert on this kind of tech, but I think TSW shouldn't always rely purely on the newest tech available. You'll want some sort of backwards compatibility. But obviously, use new tech when available and when it also works on slightly older machines.

So far the road map doesn't seem to list any core feature or fix. Everything on the roadmap is tied to a specific route or loco.

 

First of all, while I was lucky enough to buy into TSW after mastery was a thing, I know of the precedent. It will be interesting to see if they can get it working properly, otherwise there is no point to implement it at all in my opinion.

That being said, it is a bit unfair to try and persuade people to deter from action points, medals, achievements and mastery or what not because you don't seem it important yourself. It is the same with the console argument - "no PC can't have that because we don't have it and they said everything would be for everyone".
Sure you can say you don't like/need it but the people who do still have a right to these things, especially since they are already implemented as of release (of TSW2 anyway).
And apart from that I don't know if the same people who are working on the fixes for your issues are the ones responsible for mastery. Usually not every employee is a jack of all trades...

 

I think you’re missing my point. PC tech is what it is, what I’m saying is that TSW is not pushing tech from 1 or 2 generations ago, never mind what is becoming available now.

Last Gen PC technology is capable of far more than TSW currently demands of it. There is plenty of headroom to sort these issues with lighting, shadows, flickers, stutters etc. What dismays me is that if you go on the roadmap alone, as Sam says we must, DTG clearly don’t see there’s a problem. Presumably they are happy with the visuals as they stand. That is a little depressing.

This game is crying out for scalable options, as you see in MSFS2020. That game can push even the highest end PC until it is on it’s knees, but can also be played by someone with a very old, low-spec machine. It truly caters for everyone, whereas DTG seem to aim TSW somewhere above the lowest common denominator but slightly below the middle ground. You only have to look at the recommended spec to see that. I firmly believe they should be pushing the envelope a bit more. Even if we’re not talking RayTracing they MUST be able to do better than the current offering.

 

I agree I don't have HRR and have no intention of buying it, plus the IC's run on all major lines in Germany. The 101 should realistically add layers to HMA, RRO, and HRR.
In this particular case, I believe this shouldn't be a route-specific add-on, it should be a standalone add-on, if the 101 adds layers to those routes. It would suck to buy a whole other route I'm not really interested in, to buy an add-on that ends up adding much need IC layers to other german routes.
The solution is to make loco add-ons separate from routes, which I really hope will happen.

 

The people who work on Mastery are not the same people who work on the main game. It's done by the DTL people.

 

But to be fair the same applies for the 182 taurus, the 146 from MSB and the 142, 155 and 185 from RSN, these add to basically everything... I know it is the same issue at base, but then again back then no one seemed to be majorly upset about it...
Or maybe I have the wrong impression

 

I agree. Every loco dlc should be a standalone dlc

 

With off the rails stand-alone locos makes sense, and I know Matt P commented in a stream that they would like to be able to do that. I wonder how much of a re-write to the code it would require. Maybe they could create a new "route" in the code which is a dummy and then they can add loco dlcs to that "route", you can never play the "route" itself but the locos are available for substutions/layers/off the rail scenarios.

As we get further into TSW2 and further away from TSW2020 issuing new loco DLCs that are TSW2 only but rely on a TSW2020 route becomes more problematic I would think, the gap between the tech on the route and that on the loco would only increase.

A cyncial view though would be that requiring Koln-Aachen means only the base-game of TSW2 is needed, but requiring HRR requires the base game plus a route DLC...I hope that isn't why it changed.