So this is been bugging me and that is that on routes like lgv, southeastern high, Bakerloo line and on a lesser extent Canadian national Oakville subdivision. But why do they do this because it makes it so they can’t layer trains in the future onto those tracks, and example of this is in marseille there’s a branch line that goes left but it’s not on the map and there’s even a track that the tgv goes on but that is not on the map.
They are tracks that cannot be used by the player, however, AI services can still use them. It's actually handy that you can't see every piece of track on the map in my opinion, the map is barely readable as it is.
Not totally correct. On SEH and Bakerloo for example the tracks are modelled as scenery, they are not actually implemented as tracks, hence they cannot be used and also don’t show up on the map.
On southeastern high speed the tracks that are not on the map connect to you so they should still be usable.
Because of the Oakville Fiasco, a legend of the year 2020 now long forgotten. If I may direct your attention to this thread and several like it, perhaps you will see why. To make a long story short, people where not happy when they found out that the massive map of industries shown off in a preview stream turned out to be nothing more than useless scenery not visible to the player. All of the X's indicate a section of track shown on the original route map that are completely inaccessible: Since then, DTG has been more cautious with how they advertise the scope of their products. Cheers
Because at the time, the map showed every bit of track that'd been laid. They laid the track and presumably (I don't have Oakville) not the scenery (although probably intended to), so it showed up on the map - there's some sidings on Tees Valley locked behind invisible walls too, but it was Oakville that proved the problem. Soon afterwards they introduced track that is like normal track, except it doesn't show on the map.
I am fine with yard you can’t go to you, but I don’t like it when they don’t put it on the map because the map is supposed to show all the track.
And obviously on the map the track will disappear eventually but in the case of Oakville you can literally see the track it should still be on the map.
You asked why the tracks aren't shown on the map, and you got your answer. Whether they should be shown is a different discussion. I would argue they should not be shown because they: Serve no gameplay purpose Needlessly clutter the already cumbersome map Further, these tracks often have no (or very poor) scenery, like the Oakville industries, and would never be used by a future DLC. They simply exist as distant scenery. Cheers
In my opinion I would keep it because in the case of st.pancras They make it so they can’t layer trains in the future but that’s just my opinion.
I don't know if you've ever peeked around the entrance of St. Pancras but it is quite bare. There is also no telling whether the platforms are set up for passengers, whether the signals work, whether the catenary works, etc. There are many more things preventing a DLC from using the other St. Pancras tracks than them simply being invisible on the map. Cheers
This is the last thing but they could have the rest of St. pancras like the south eastern part of London Victoria. That’s all
But unlike SE at Victoria, they don't have the rolling stock, and St. Pancras is practically a 3D cardboard box of a model, it's quite low quality. Plus, I don't imagine it would the hardest thing in the world to retrofit a Portal to a track - I'd think it's be near enough the same as any other one.
I’m saying if they get the rolling stock in the future if they get the rolling stock, and like se in London Victoria you can’t go there.
The WCML(?) Tracks on Bakerloo are real tracks, and are theoretically useable. In the 4.23 Version i made a scenario running over these, even the Yard before Wembley is made entirely out of real track. The signalling doesnt work correctly though. https://rail-sim.de/forum/filebase/entry/6840-southern-service-on-the-wcml/ The only real scenery tracks i am aware of are at the surface Level of Leipzig hbf. Most other tracks are real, even if they are not on the map.
The map in game shows usable track for players and what I'll call "principal AI" so it's track you can drive on, or where AI that will interact with you possibly in some fashion will drive on. AI that's scenic or track that's "there but not in a drivable format" (so the WCML South on Bakerloo for example) isn't even actually a track, just scenery made to look like it In the end, if they showed "all railway track" within the map view there'd be a hell of a lot of track that isn't even connected, but which you can see from the player view (the C2C lines in Essex on SEHS for example) And as stated above, we don't have the assets to populate much of the "off route" lines and may well never do
They did it to optimise the game, as having more tracks as scenery is less demanding than actual tracks.
You can now once again see where all the diverging lines etc are even if you will never get to drive on them but some maps still have them missing because of the policy at the time the routes were made. As an example, SEHS has track that crosses the playable track that the AI trains use to drive off the map and they weren’t shown on the map although they would be useful to see, but it seems now that DTG have gone back to showing such tracks on the maps like in London Commuter so all is good with the world again. From Oakville onwards for a while the cuts to what was shown were taken too far, even to the point that Bakerloo had areas of track that the player could walk on not being shown on the map. It seems to have gone back to what is useful to the player because those extra bits of track, especially diverging lines, being shown give some context to the map given the lack of labelling.