After my excitement this morning after seeing the Clinchfield presentation and the disappointment I felt on Friday after seeing the Arosa presentation, a question has come to my mind: If DTG had built Arosa and Rivet had built Clinchfield, would we have seen the routes as they were presented to us? Would they be the same or at least similar? I come to the conclusion that no, if we take into account that this will be DTG's 22nd route in TSW and Rivet's is number 2. It would be unfair to ask Rivet for the same result because the difference in experience between the two is very big. But I'm going to go a bit further by taking something positive out of all this, and that is that perhaps today it is easier to appreciate that DTG has progressed adequately, let me explain: Many times here we are very critical of DTG (in a way I think justified in many cases) but sometimes, in this day to day life it can be easy to ignore the progress and the effort they have made over time as a studio because we are slowly seeing the result. It is like when, for example, an overweight person starts to do sport and take more care of their diet. If you see this person every day, you don't appreciate the change in their body so much, but if after a year you suddenly compare this person with a photo from before they started to change their habits, you will undoubtedly be much more surprised by their physical change. Well, here we come to the two routes we have been shown within two days of each other. This coincidence perhaps makes more noticeable the progression that DTG has had over time, not only in what is the route itself, but in the whole concept that is around, the "ecosystem" where it develops (schedules, services, scenarios). Now when comparing these two routes we can realize the progression they have had over time and how much they have improved their product. And the effort is paying off, of course it is. Rivet has a long way to go to reach that level. What I sense is that as they can't build the amount of routes that DTG does, it will be difficult for them to catch up one day and they may always be a few steps behind, time will tell. I'm sure the well-founded criticisms that are made help DTG to improve because they read them and take note of it. TSW is their creation and they are going to make it grow and get better and better. I don't know, I might have got out of bed today very positive and I'm being too optimistic but I think TSW has a great future ahead of it. I would like to know your opinion on this, especially from the veterans because they will have a more hindsight vision than me. Keep in mind that I came to TSW just 2 years ago and I do not come from TS.
I am enjoying TSW2 a lot more now as it seems to be improving with time. The dev team do seem to want to improve things and we often see patches come along after time. I am a Train sim veteran having started with early software which was very basic but was all that was available at the time. Where we are now compared to where we have been is a different universe. That said there is always room for improvement. One frustration I have personally is seeing different software have strengths and wishing that someone could produce something that combines all positives. EG Zusi 3 Strengths - Fantastic Operational variations, lots of rolling stock and Large timetables. Zusi 3 Weakness - Mainly German Documentation, Hard learning curve and dated graphics. TS20** Strengths - Huge amount of content both paid for and community developed. Been supported and improved over the years by DTG. TS20** Weakness - Dated graphics (Not terrible with mods and tweaks) Dispatching/Signalling tends to be poor, no timetable type modes. TSW2 Strengths - Great Graphics, Service mode is fantastic. Good immersion with regard to train functions and set ups. TSW2 Weaknesses - No editor. This has been explained well and I understand why but its a weakness in my eyes none the less and appreciate that some scenario and livery creation can take place. The above is my own opinion and others may agree or disagree. I also do railway modelling and its important to realise that can be universal ie- I can run my Heljan and Dapol locos on my Peco track. In train simming each item of rolling stock has to be built in to whichever Simulation its for, that takes time and in TSW2 I believe thats a lot of time. DTG are still supporting the scene with their products which get my support if its something that I believe I will enjoy. Credit where credit is due without DTG well we wouldnt be here....
I can’t help but feel that it lack of experience is the issue with Arosa, then the ‘Partner Program’ is going to struggle somewhat unless 3rd parties are able to call on DTG’s expertise as part of the process. It may be that that happened in this case (we don’t know) but something is clearly not right. The yawning chasm in scenery quality between the next two releases is there for all to see yet. We all need Rivet to succeed as the game needs more 3rd party developers to diversify the content and up the number of releases. It’s no good if third parties are churning out sub par DLC because they don’t have the experience! Whatever happens, DTG can’t do it all on their own & as Sam and Matt point out regularly, there are only so many hours in a day. We’ve always known DTG had routes like CRR in them but all too often the consistency of quality has been all over the place. Let’s just revel in the fact that this looks to be a very good one, and hope the upward trend keeps on. Consistency and gradual improvement are all I, for one, ask for.
TSW is evolving. That's for sure. Some elements that we perceive as errors are treated by DTG as conscious decisions, compromises. It is certainly pleasant for them to listen to praise, and even manage to meet praises among the audience, and then it is nice for us, because they are pleased. But this is just an illusion. The truth is, even if we all had pigeons of heart, praise their mistakes and forgive everything - we wouldn't buy a bad product. Lots of people stand up for Rivet, and I understand them. But this will not change their position - the same people will vote with their wallets and buy CRR, despite all their sympathies. Sometimes I timidly suggest that tasks such as building the routes and trains at once is too much for a small studio. These companies are taking a conscious 'risk', and while sympathetic, it's all about money. Of course, I envy such a job and would like to starve to death sweeping the station platforms, but I don't believe, that the whole DTG, Rivet, TSG, Skyhook - they are just naive altruists, although they are most certainly passionate. Once again we get a combination of this type: IOW-HMA. DTG-others. This is not a coincidence, you should not believe it. There is also no malice, and perhaps only subconscious competition. There is definitely some pretty roundabout explanation. Flight simulators, train simulators, other simulators - these are a very demanding group of recipients. Very. Today we praise DTG. They deserved. After the premiere, we will find a few bugs and it will stop being so funny. Rivet should not feel honored by our righteous anger. They have to wipe their tears and draw conclusions. We wouldn't get such a CRR from Rivet. They do not have adequate resources. These are much bigger projects than IOW, Arosa. Paradoxically (mountain landscape), Arosa can be the hardest of it all. They chose so. UEngine is not the right tool for this, and it never will be. Matt said something about breaking the illusions when the horizon is the only limit. They failed. Sad but true. 22 routes is a good lesson. Maybe it's worth learning from others. BR PS bite off more than one can chew - something like that. forgive me my google translate grammarly eng \o/
It has been said repeatedly that even if there were no licensing issues in the way, DTG still wouldn't release the route editor to the public simply because it's insanely difficult to use. The TS20xx editor is a paint-by-numbers kit by comparison. We may be seeing evidence of that before us- the learning curve is extremely steep, and Rivet are only partway up it. OTOH, they are clearly in full mastery of the loco and rolling stock tools: The Ge 4/4 II is spectacular.
Yes. I would prefer that companies of this type made locomotives, rolling stock, liveries, sound packs - I would be happy to pay for such improvements.
This is where previous sims benefitted from having a public editor. People could cut their teeth and learn the ropes by jumping in and basically messing around in the sandbox. If you were able to "git gud" enough, then advance on to doing commercial work. It was a very useful apprenticeship, but as we know that doesn't exist with TSW/2. We also don't know what commercial or contractual time limits Rivet may have agreed to in terms of delivering the route by a certain date, though if that was a factor, then the old cliché of don't agree to what you can't achieve ought to have applied!
Exactly, and this makes me wonder. I was very keen to buy Arosa and it is essential that Rivet has good sales figures so that they can continue to make routes and learn, it has to be profitable for them. So should I buy Arosa to support them even though I have been disappointed by what I have seen? On the one hand it will seem wrong to pay the same price for a brilliant result like Clinchfield as for a more discreet result like Arosa. But on the other hand it seems to me that I will be doing the right thing by supporting Rivet and that in the future we can all benefit from having more external developers in TSW, as you rightly say. I don't know what I will do in the end.
What a great reflection, thank you for sharing it and let me say that contributions like yours and those of many other users make this forum a very pleasant place to read.
The ground problem is that we speak more about DTG than their games. But that shows a reality. The customer doesn't know really in Which direction they are going to. What is their focus / goal / expectations. For me always the same they sell DLCs as much as they can even if they are are finished at 95-90% They are bugs ? Ok np I wait that the customer cries, I make a patch and the customer is happy. Exactly the same for TS. Even worse because they make offer the same mistakes since 5-10 years. (Frankfurt dlc with signal bugs for example) There is too much potential... But reality is sad.
I have been playing simulators from Dovetail Games since the end of 2014, and in the past, the routes weren't given as much effort as they are today. Great progress can also be seen in track construction, but only since TSW. It was a disaster at TS. Errors were not fixed at the time of the TS. Dresden Riesa was now the first German route from DTG which was updated after the Release In TSW 2, DTG could not do any bug fixes, because bug fixes cost a lot of money (quality control). But they fix Bugs because otherwise players say "DTG has learned nothing from the past" In my opinion, you can see very clearly that DTG wants to be better. And you can also see that the Route Builder's getting better than the past. The feedback is reliably passed on to the responsible team. DTG just keeps getting better, from Route to Route.
It would definitely be worth supporting them IF they state a willingness take on board feedback and do not churn out a succession of cookie cutter bland routes. After much deliberation I ended up buying Isle of Wight, not because I particularly wanted it, but rather to show my appreciation of Rivet Games dipping their toes in the water with TSW.
