Should Rivet Stick To ‘assisting’ With Route Building?

This is a simulation game i'm sure many of the locomotive are not 100% like there counterparts in the real world.

 

That's not a justification for giving a diesel-hydraulic diesel-electric physics (a mistake they have repeated with the class 150). This is not a little nitpick like complaining that the Class 166 is a little bit too sprightly compared to RL.

Perhaps you would be cool with a BR 143 having BR 406 driving physics?

 

This is more about reusing game data they have stored on there pc file library and there inability to go out and sorce the correct data to do the job right,something dtg is also guilty of.

 

It's more than that; it's a failure to understand the basic engineering of the loco. There is all the difference in the world between powering the axles with traction motors, and with a torque converter and crown gears.

 

How is that possible if the 204 is Rivet's first loco

 

I can see them being a good third party.

 

Didn't rivet games get there db br 204 data from the file on hand,I had heard they also built a db br 204 for TS before this.

The early picture that was used in the store was the TS version of the db br 204,only later did the picture get updated to show the tsw version.

 

SHINO BAZ I'm not one of those who cry about every single bug. Bugs are okay. No software is bugfree. But the physics of the 204 are not just "not good", they are not in the slightest way like the original loco. The way power is applied to the loco is completely wrong done. I think Matt explained that in a stream once and somewhere here in the Forum Maik Goltz also explained what went wrong with the 204.

It's a beautiful 3D model and I still can enjoy driving it. But it is reeally unrealistically behaving. But you know what? It's okay. It was their very first loco in TSW. Their first own content for TSW. It's not an excuse but makes me think of this like the very first step.

 

I'm surprised the db br 363 doesn't get a equal amount of flack i would say it's far more less realistic then the db br 204,heck just getting the thing to move let alone stop is a nightmare everytime i try to drive it,the db br 204 is easy by comparison.

 

Exactly. Neither one should be easy to drive!

 

Isn't it the point though, that the 363 is realistically that difficult to drive and uses lapped brakes? The fact that these 204 issues are so well known makes for pretty sad reading, it doesn't bode well as this is quite an old loco but there is clearly no appetite to fix it up. Maybe in time some of the modders will be able to get to grips with simugraph too.

 

Today i made a midnight "construction" run with loaded turbots and the new 37 up to minehead in a snow storm.

Have to say they created both new wagons nice and its even possible to open the side doors. Sounds of them are also good.

From this point rivet is welcome to do more nice wagons. Even maybe sell as separate dlc.
They could use existing locos and add new freight layers to ntp or tvl for example. Like another freight pack with focused on wagons.

 

Personally voted yes;

I my opinion, it personally comes down towards their attitude towards the consumer generally. Its not been the best especially when their work is 'criticised'. And for that i can't see that drive to make products the best they can be for the consumer.

I've always said that Rivet deliver fantastically on vehicle design/modelling, that's where they're really strong as a developer and personally should be much more involved in DTG route releases; we can see what can be done, just look at Cathcart.

But when it comes to their own route releases, they deliver great in some areas (vehicle modelling/models in general) and fail appallingly in *most* (such as vehicle physics & sounds, Simugraph and general route scenery).

Twisting the question slightly.... where's DTG 'assisting' with Rivets 'lack' of ability/experience in the areas that Rivet dont deliver great in? Wouldn't that solve some of the fundamental issues/flaws?

And yes, i appreciate that Rivet are in the 'early days' of development with TSW, but three routes in i would of thought that there would of been this understanding on where the help is needed, to deliver 'solid' products to the community?


Meanwhile, I'll await Rivet to put some effort into fixing the 150/2....

 

According to arch-modder TheShotte, it can't be done. Simugraph data in the game files is all in the form of binary gibberish, and can't be monkeyed with without possessing a proprietary decompiler.

 

The 363 is quite accurate as far as I can tell without having ever driven a real one. You can find videos online showing what a nightmare it is to stop a train with a 363 (which makes sense given what a tiny, lightweight loco the 363 is). The fact of the matter is the the 363 and 204 are polar opposites in TSW - the 363 is one of the best done locos, the 204 one of the worst (though the 3D model is beautiful, I‘ll give Rivet that).

 

The other big problem with Rivet is aftercare: they pump out buggy and barely playable products and leave them there. The 204 has the wrong transmission and it won't be fixed, IOW took ages to get to the state it is in now and the train is still slipping. Arosa still has the messed up timetable, and as a bonus, since rush hour the train jumps forward when starting. No word from Rivet, other then empty marketing speak. No fixes, and Arosa is almost a year old. Still unplayable.

I can understand needing time to learn stuff, but you can't bill clients for such sub-par exercises. As somebody once said, that is just taking the PIS...

 

That's because the 204 has the wrong transmission. The 363 is the correct one.

 

That’s the thing about “fire and forget”, you need to get it right first time.

 

If you've got two separate companies working independently it's going to mean more dlc for players, personally I think the quality is fine apart from bugs. I'd rather see two + routes being built separately than one being extra detailed (isn't there a dlc limit? More detailed scenery would mean bigger sizes)

 

If as appears to be the case, Rivet struggle with open space routes set in hilly or mountain country, for their next piece focus on a built up urban maybe even underground route so getting distant scenery right is not such an issue.

 

I will give Rivet some time. They did some very nice mountain routes for TS like Bernina Line and Engadine Line.

 

London commuter really shouldn't be a benchmark for creating realistic content...

 

As far as I am concerned, no one has ever been blindly forced in to buying most products these days, there are plenty of stream previews and you tube videos out there, they are there for a reason, plus you will find most of the answers to your questions there also, everything is on show, nothing is hidden, faults and all, it's up to you to watch them to your advantage. If you are still unsure, read the reviews on steam, it's fairly easy to figure out who the trolls are and who is being unreasonable, if you are still unsure, buy the product from steam only, that way you can request a refund, but never keep it assuming the product will be fixed at a later stage, you can always buy it again later, and if you are still not happy, fair enough, ask for a refund, it really is that simple. If you follow this process, you shouldn't be disappointed and waste your time and money. If I buy a new TV etc, I do my research, I read the reviews, it's no different.

Putting all this blame on the developer is not really fair, and dose nobody any good, most of us have been into different train sims long enough to know that each developer have there own standards, based on they're own experience, and what they can achieve with the software, everything that is made is not going to be to our liking, they make these products to suit the majority, not certain individuals who know more how something works or looks like the back of their hand. This is a game, it's meant to be fun, and nothing more, based loosely on real life routes and stock.

 

If you think its nobody's business either buy it or don't. Ask yourself this question.
Do you have a route/area of interest that you hope TSW represents in the future?
If so, would you be happy for a smaller studio to take that likely only (if not for a long time) chance to represent your favourite route, then to later point towards lack of time and resources, when its not done particularly well.
Small note to add, the route is priced the same as all the others btw.

 

Let me repeat what I wrote on Steam forums:

"I decided to buy the route knowing its strong and weak parts. And I wanted to give them some credit. The thing that bothers me is broken physics after 4.26 update that Rivet is not willing to fix. Instead they prefer to develop new addons. Seriously - don't get me wrong I'm not talking about new features or something. This is major game braking problem IMHO. I like how the Cornwall route finally came out (especially with added layers) but I'm not going to buy it because I'm afraid that after next core update it will also be broken like Arosa. I belived in Rivet very much (I thought TSW need 3rd parties like nothing else). I bought their every product till IOW and nothing more. I have plenty other things to play with.
Sorry but I don't trust Rivet any more"

So as you can see this is not a problem of not knowing the route state at the moment of purchase. Sorry but at this point I cannot enjoy product I paid for and used to enjoy earlier.

 

Well I think it's worth ignoring Cornwall's flaws on it's own, and compare it to the other rivet routes/DLC, for a truer picture.

- 204 - I can't comment.

- Island Line/Isle of Wight:
It overall was far from the worst route ever, the stations and the scenery are good, and - whilst it has it's rough areas - it's not all that bad for a small team jumping from TS to TSW.

The 483 could have been far better, however many of it's issues were ironed out (that's bugs and such) with the 1938 TS.

- Arosa Linie:
Ok, the Scenery and Timetable is poor. (Sorry, the scenery is good in close up areas, however the mountains are literally horrible) As are the loco's sounds, and the mountains (did I say that already? ).

It's actually quite a shame, because Arosa really had so much potential to be a beautiful route in a new country.

Sadly, that clearly was'nt to be.

- 1938 London Underground Stock:

This is where the upward curve begins.

Firstly, most of the 483s issues have been ironed out with this DLC. People can choose to complain about this being 'reused' but, if that's a problem, to to the DfT and tell them off for allowing NSE to turn the '38 into 483s back when they moved to the Island Line. It's the same thing, but in reverse.

It's not great in terms of sounds, however, overall whilst it's far from the best, the 1938 tube stock wasn't terrible either.

- West Cornwall Local:

This is where that upward curve gets a lot steeper.

The Model for the 150 is (despite the inaccuracies, such as a GWR livery on a poster, St. Erth being on the map twice, Inaccuracies in the cab, etc.) a very good one. The sounds are far from the worst in TSW - and further from the worst that Rivet have pulled out. The physics are undefendable from my (lack of) knowledge of 150s, to be fair.

Scenery-wise the route is very nice, rivalling many Dovetail routes, the custom cliffs and the much more pleasant looking water both add to the beauty of the route.

- - - - - -

Whilst Rivet are far behind the standards that Dovetail are (clearly) aiming for, and ahead of Skyhook (so far), I don't think it's fair to say Rivet shouldn't make routes. They're improving. And it doesn't have to be perfect to be an improvement.


However, I would also like to see them continuing 2nd party work with Dovetail, for the better of everyone.

 

Can't really agree about the 1938 stock. Visually very good but sounds way off and some weird physics issues.
For WCL, the 150 has been done to death in the other thread. However as regards the route itself, again just too much wrong to accept Rivet are learning. You don't put out a UK route for a state of the art 2021 sim minus most of the lineside fencing. You don't plaster trees and cut off stumps everywhere to disguise the lack of distant scenery. You check the gradient profile and certainly don't end up with mainline stations on a 1 in 60 gradient. Last and maybe least, you check station signage doesn't start place names with a lower case letter, as is visibly apparent on the Up platform at Truro by the footbridge.

 

trainsimplayer
No, they are not improving. The 204 had the wrong transmission, and so does the 150. No upward trend.

As for Arosa, you forgot to mention that the train is undriveable. It leaps forward when you start. Since we are talking about starting from a standstill, both IOW and the 1938 stock show slipping in the hud when starting.

The exact same problems keep repeating over the years. Definitely no upward trend here.

 

Ok, that's one category which I did not say improved. However, most other categories have improved.

No point cherry-picking one aspect of something, when the rest is clear to see.

 

I knew it! That’s what all computing is to me anyway

 

Well, these are important aspects, at least for me. Way more important than distant scenery.
If the train in a train sim is wrong, all the rest doesn't really matter.

 

I think saying Rivet should stop making routes is unfair. They are getting better. I think WCL on the whole is a pretty good route definitely their best so far in my opinion, and they're only going to get better.

I think the main reason why Rivet should keep making routes is that it sends out a really bad message for TSW2 on the whole. There already aren't enough third party developers for the game, potential partners for the future are only gonna be put off by DTG completely removing a lot of a developer's creative freedom. I still want Rivet making routes because it means more routes. As I said, I genuinely think WCL is a pretty good route, possibly in my top 5 for TSW2. Who knows what other stuff they can make in the future.

 

For me, with Train SIM World being a Simulator, physics are my number one priority. If I wasn't bothered about correct physics, then I'd play an arcade game.

Clearly Rivet are still struggling in this department.

Do I want Rivet to improve?
Of course.
How can they improve?
Keep learning, ask for help if need be, and learn from your past mistakes.
What I don't like about Rivet:
- No commitment to fix wonky physics for their past/current DLCs, which renders it, in my opinion, unplayable.

I can get over questionable scenery and sounds, PROVIDING the physics are correct. The fact that the 150 sets off like a rocket is just totally immersion breaking for me.

 

A lot of people are saying that and I don't really see it? I tend to put it in around notch 2-3 first, then after a while notch 5, then 7, and yeah it definitely feels a little too quick off the mark but I definitely don't find it immersion breaking personally.

 

So what about the almost complete lack of lineside fencing, overuse of trees, laughable level crossings, gradients all over the place..?

 

To be fair, is it really cherry-picking to single out train physics in a train simulator? I have to agree with fabristunt and londonmidland on this:

Physics are essential to a train sim and Rivet have quite the terrible track record in this regard. To clarify, I do not support the notion of telling (or forcing) Rivet to stop developing their own content, but I see a concerning lack of learning where physics are concerned.

 

Perhaps cherry-picking was a poor choice of words.

I do agree that the physics are poor (to be fair, the 150 I usually drive in North 1-4, maybe 5, so I hardly see the 6th and 7th, so it feels decent to me), however across the board Rivet's improving.

Arosa, for example, the most prominent issue was the mountains, and the lack of trees.

I'm still not a fan of Rivet's, not yet, however I do think they're getting better.

However, physics and sound do need to improve massively in the next release.

 

I thought gradients being all over the place was part of the route. I'm aware that the route has quite a few steep gradients in real life so I assumed this was normal.

As for the scenery, I'm not the best at noticing stuff like that, especially if it's a route I've never been on before. I never noticed the lack of fencing and to be honest it doesn't really bother me, same for the level crossings. They're gone in the blink of an eye anyway. As long as what's directly in front of the cab looks fine enough I probably won't notice anything wrong.

 

I hadn't noticed the lack of fencing, maybe because we don't have much of it in the US. But the trees were rather too much. I kept searching in vain for meadows and villages and water. It almost felt like Clinchfield at times, like being in a canyon.

I did notice the strange placement of grade crossing bells where it just looked like a sheep track, and where you would have expected just a whistle board, of which I saw none. The terrain was very up and down, but I assumed that was how it is in reality.

Overall, I found the route playable but a bit dull and drab. Not what I was expecting, scenery wise.

 

According to the stream last Friday, Rivet said they had to rely on old photos to make this route, because of Covid and lockdowns, they were unable to visit various place along that route, the rest they had to figure out in they're heads what the route may of looked like back then. If they don't have a clear picture, you are going to fill the rest of the scenery with trees and the odd building I guess. Maybe this route wasn't the right route to do at this time.

Matt seemed to be very happy with the route, he even said that this is the best train simulator in the world, so maybe he has a better understanding why the route is the way it is, and excepts it for what it is despite all it's faults.

 

The line is steeply graded but not through stations and not, AFAIR, up to 1.8% or around 1 in 60. It looks to me like they have followed the DEM data rather than consult the actual gradient profile. The same mistake Kuju made all those years ago with Marias Pass in MSTS. Lineside fencing is an essential safety requirement by law along UK routes and would certainly not be missing from a main line railway. I accept Covid may have limited research a bit, but it’s not like we don’t have Google Earth, Streetview and various cab ride videos available these days for reference. As regards what Matt said, well he’s hardly likely to do the dirty washing in public, nor diss a product which they were probably relying on as a nice little earner in the run up to Christmas!

 

I don't buy the lack of reference argument at all. There are specific hard to research areas done extremely well (gardens next to St Ives station). Up with the best TSW has to offer. Others such as major points of interest, St Ives harbour, which is big enough to contain a harbour masters house, a light house and a car park is reduced to two planks hovering over the sea. Penzance (title destination of the dlc for which there is vast amounts of reference from the 1990s) apart from the station has been done really shoddily. No landmarks, no effort for a townscape, no attempt at the Church or Market building, What would it have taken to model or get close to a Church and a dome top landmark then build up the area surrounding with shop assets. Instead we get large areas filled with trees. You would do well to find any foliage at all Harbour side at Penzance. I quite like the beach and the water, but the sea defences, those rocks placed in an obvious repetitive manner. All the effort to create a custom station, then repeating layers of vine asset draped on the retaining wall. Its a line I and others have used in the past, applies to this route as much as any, its rushed and simply not finished. To not commit to improving this route going forward is scandalous in my opinion.

 

Personally I think they should stick to being a second party so they can learn and then try again to make a route. They know how to model train but that's about it. Physics on their trains are not realistic. Sounds are off, and the distant scenery on WCL and Arosa are not great. Cathcart Circle is a nice route with only night time lighting issues and the 314 sounding too quiet.

There have been some saying that they'll continue to support rivet buy buying $30 Dlcs to help them on their learning curve. That baffles my mind and this mindset is the problem. Due to the fact that companies will know people will buy regardless the condition, this is how companies like Rivet and DTG release routes in this condition. If people didn't buy then they would have to make changes to not have these releases happen again. This mindset is always in the video game industry. Nobody would buy a brand new car for example from a company that's known to make unreliable cars just break down just because they are a new company. I wish this mindset in the video game industry would change

 

From what I’ve seen during past experiences, Rivet will deliver one ‘small’ patch, which could take several months to come out, and then completely ’forget’ about the DLC as they’re already working on the next one. Rivet even said themselves don’t expect any substantial changes.

It’s a rinse and repeat process. Simple as.

 

Hopefully this will buck the trend due to its potential for more dlc and popularity despite its obvious flaws.

 

I have voted 'Yes' mainly for their comments on the Cornwall stream. DTG and Rivet were patting themselves on the back how the sea looks much better, which it does but when someone asked were they going to update IOW they were told NO.

Perhaps it is me but when you just ignore and refuse to update your past DLC's I think why should I continue to buy from this company. I know they are a small outfit which is why I think they need the umbrella of DTG. DTG can 'fix' their routes. The class 38 is lovely looking untill you get inside. The green is totally wrong and there are videos proving this, surely they can look on youtube no?

No doubt they can produce nice looking Loco's (outside at least) but fail in some of the physics and sound and this is where DTG could step in rather than wait untill it is released. Although regarding sound I wish AP were able to do all the sound in Rivet and DTG (mixing as well).

 

At the very least I hope DTG and Rivet are taking notice of this thread. Surely they should see the discontent and the results of the poll and realise things need to change.

 

Sure, they'll "take notice", we'll get a roadmap stream with platitudes of "we have to do better" then the same quality DLC will continue to be delivered.

 

The real route gets as steep as 1:51 in places (1:44 for a couple of chains on the St Ives branch), although I can't see any stations on sections steeper than ~1:100.

 

I work very hard for my pittance and I refuse to support mediocre products, and I voted yes, they have strengths to be sure but are very lacking in others, if they do not aspire to be the best then I am not helping them achieve a poor 4th.