No Priority For Third Parties To Work With Tsw

During last nights livestream Q&A, I was very disappointed to hear that there were no priorities to make it easier for third parties to have access to the editor, to start creating content for TSW.

DTG said themselves that the current process is a very long, complicated and tedious process for third parties to apply to work on TSW content. In other words, it just isn’t working out. The only thing they said is that they may work on making the application process easier, but only AFTER they’ve fixed the save game bug issue. That of which is a very complicated process in itself, which means it won’t be fixed anytime soon by the sounds of it.

If I heard correctly, there were several third parties wanting to work on content for TSW, but it seems there is very little to no progress on this.

It begs the question as to why DTG made it such a complicated process in the first place. It’s no wonder why after all these years we’ve still barely any third parties working on TSW, but this shows why this is the case. It seems DTG like to keep TSW very close to their chest, whilst severely limiting the content potential produced for the game.

TSW is crying out for new content. DTG is really shooting themselves in the foot here.

 

Are JT still “getting used to” working on TSW, it’s very quiet of that front and when was it announced they were on board, around Christmas…?

 

I am actually glad they don't have as many people working on TSW. With only three, now four third party devs, it's easy to overlook what they do and keep it in check. And that already isn't working. Rivet, BR187, the GP9 facing the wrong direction on the most famous curve in american railroad history...

And now imagine all of that times ten! It would also render things like save game fixing from hard as hell to absolutely impossible, as there would be more and more devs adding their code to the game.

It would turn all the issues people have with TSW's quality to new extremes.

So them wanting to open the gates after they made the base game better is a huge plus in my book.

 

I mean with all the core issues that are still plaguing the game. Some of which won't see any fixes like stuttering, perhaps not having more third parties is a good thing for the time being. Some of the third party content already available are in absolute shambles anyways.

Let DTG fix this game up before adding more people to add their own code and hopefully by then the quality issues will be improved.

 

A very good decision! A working game with less DLC will always be better than a broken game with many DLC. And tackling the game's core issues before selling more content (which then might not work because of the missing fixes) should be seen as a good move, and not be criticized.

 

One might argue that fixing the save game issue should have taken priority over something like a new UI. Which was more game breaking when the decision was taken?

Had all of these various features been fixed, implemented and working for the release of TSW3 there might have been an element of legitimacy in calling it a new game. As it is TSW2.1 is just another poorly disguised annual cash grab.

Whoever heard of a new release chopping major features that existed in a previous version, working or not? Just think for a minute how positive everyone would have been had one of the USP’s for TSW3 been a fully working save game function. Even if it had only worked on the new routes initially it would have been a real positive but no, in DTG’s world they release a ‘new’ game with the longest routes yet seen and remove the ability to save your game completely.

Fixing the save game is the right thing to do but it is ludicrous that it’s still broken 5 years in, and that TSW3 has released with it removed because of this.

 

I don't see how access to the editor is the Engineering team's responsibility?

 

How long has/will bakerloo timetable languished? Enough time for many of us to furnish the palms to the tune of tsw3

 

UE is free for all (know how, non commercial use oc) nothing about DTG but EPIC. What's the story?

 

DTG: "It's complicated" ™

 

You made a good point. This because i barely saw a developer creating the same loco version if the first has been screwed up by an other dev.

 

At this point im thinking about leaving TSW behind and looking back into a DTG Train Simulator once they start fresh, new canvas, clean code...

 

Never thought I would say it, but I gave TSW2 another shot when reading about TSW3 and being active in this forum.. and I have actually enjoyed it for the last couple of days, though there are bound to be bugs it has come a long way since I decided to uninstall it a year or so ago.
TSW3 will have to wait though, I don't mind the save game issue since I usually have the time to finish a service when I play, but I do agree with what others are saying here: fixing bugs in the core game has to have priority over third party addons.

 

The engineering team are the ones who directly look after the code base of the game engine - thus are the ones responsible for providing a build (generated exe) of the editor to the third parties with the necessary features.

It's been said before DTG had to rewrite parts of unreal to support a train simulator so they are using a completely custom version of UE4. Anybody can go grab UE4, but without the DTG version people can only get so far with the toolset. That's at least part of the story, the other logistics I can't answer.

 

And why would they need to provide a special one to third parties? I presume DTG isn't waiting on the engineering team to fix saves before they start work on DLC.

 

And even if you got handed over a working and connected editor, you would need a year or more to actually produce something usable. The learning curve is not a curve, it's more a vertical straight line ( won't say it's a wall, but for most people it is ... not comparable to TSC in most aspects).

 

I don't see how the engineering team producing a somewhat separate editor would mean that third parties wouldn't have to sign agreements...

 

I wonder how MSFS did it so the have tons of 3rd party devs onboard since the beginning...

 

By having a easy to get hold of SDK?

 

The fact that they have to share the same systems means they have to sign agreements about the use of DTG's computer systems. As an example, they don't have a separate piece of software that they have on their own computers in their own firm, they have to login to DTG and use the DTG systems remotely. Any time you are logging into someone else's system you have to sign all manner of agreements.

 

I don't think DTG and the player base have the same understanding of the word 'priority' especially with broken stuff. But somehow DTG think a revamped UI is a priority and was even portrayed in the stream as some sort of fantastic vital piece of the game. For me if DTG is 'selling' this new UI so highly then you can bet it will be lacking in other areas.

As has been said before DTG even looked at a UI change as their priority it should have been the 'save game' issue and other outstanding fixes. Mind you imo they should of left TSW3 alone completely and concentrated on the fixes of TSW2, you know, like we thought they were doing

 

we have skyhook, Rivit and TSG already producing stuff, and Just Trains working on it, so there are not too bad a selection of third party developers at work, and I have not sufficiently driven the add ons I already have, so a little enforced holiday from getting any new ones is not necessarily too bad a thing.

Also, although some things take longer to resolve than we would wish at least problems are being worked on in TSW, unlike TSC where just about everything has been released with broken scenarios, and ev ever many support tickets' you submit, or however many comments you make on the forums, absolutely nothing is done to fix them.

 

Personally it looks a lot more user friendly

 

Holy headlights, JD!! You just might be the first DTG person to utter those words.
That gives me added confidence that you guys will be attack dogs with the save game and it will be fixed sooner rather than later.
Add me to the " buy " column.

 

Just think, this save game thing has been an issue before I’d imagine you’d ever heard the words DTG or TSW

It’s great it’s finally being addressed, it’s just a shame it comes after TSW3, not as a headline feature within it. When it’s done, can you ensure that draw distance, distant lighting and depth of field is next on the agenda please?!

 

Also, we've seen how the first route released by a 3rd party can sometimes need a bit of improvement, and the developers can need their hand holding a bit over it. Do we really want DTG trying to guide a dozen new 3rd party devs through creating routes at once, or Adam's team trying to do the first-pass-after-release on a dozen new releases from different 3rd parties that weren't quite up to speed when they released the routes?

These things take time.

 

Yeah I can see that but you said that a lot of work has gone into it I would say 'needless work' as imo priorities should have been TSW2 and fixes like we were told a while ago. I'm not blaming you JD but how does that install confidence in DTG's product when they say one thing and then do something which isn't needed at this time. I'm still not sure why TSW2 could not handle these updates.

 

Only if the minimum requirements are changed to an i9 CPU with an RTX 4000-series graphics card

 

That’s the easy way out I guess. If this can’t be sorted out once and for all then I fear that UE4 is not a suitable engine for a train simulator. This draw distance issue will continue to hamper this game until it’s made good.

To be fair, other than the far distant scenery, which is still awful, with the ini tweaks I’m using I’d say Rivet got it right with their last release. I’m not sure what they did that was different but it looks pretty ok.

 

Its clear now that the engine base and code base can not be fixed, otherwise we would have seasons in scenario planer in TSW3 but its still always June...which is a joke for a 2022/2023 game.
Only reason we are still stuck with June can be that there is something broken deep inside the code. Something that cant be fixed without starting fresh, possibly with a better engine.

 

The active third parties have been thorn under the bus already fairly frequently. I think there is enough content, but the problem is lack of variety. I would like to see at least few Dutch routes, more Swiss narrow gauge, some German historic routes and so on. But about 6 DLC per year is already more than I can pay and play.

 

The reason is rather simple: there has been no user interface created for selecting it in scenario planner. You can change the season, weather, set the exact date just fine with a couple of chained commands at the scenario start while using UE4 Unlocker.

 

I couldn't agree more, even in the various route introductions they say you can drive trains from around the world, but right now the "world" is fairly small and a dutch route or two would be very welcome.

 

Going forward how are routes going to be chosen? Will they be brand new routes or will they be the TSW2 routes just 'upgraded'?

 

How about Sherman Hill revamped with new lighting and track 3?

 

This is the problem as I see it. DTG is telling us how TSW3 is separate from TSW2 and all our routes from TSW2 will carry over to TSW3. So what is going to be their DLC policy.

Will it just be old routes just updated with the new lighting or whatever? And how will they charge for that? Will people who have the old route get the new updated one for free like SEHS, SOS etc is now at the moment? If so where are DTG going to make money?

Or will they make brand new routes? If so why didn't they leave the old routes in TSW2 so TSW3 would not be infected with the bugs from TSW2? My guess is that their is no difference between the two games and everything in TSW3 could of been applied to TSW2 but they saw a profit to be had imo.

 

Of course everything in TSW3 could have been patched into TSW2. Same engine.

 

You may or may not be right about the patching, but you need to think about economics - DTG needs a revenue stream and the amount of work put into TSW3 could not be monetised (i.e. return on investment) by simply updating the core of TSW2 - and so would not have been done. Which would you prefer - TSW2 as-is or TSW3, hopefully with issues like Save fixed. And by the way, I have no axe to grind here - I have not yet made a buy decision.

 

I would prefer TSW2 with issues like save fixed. They could generate income by producing and selling DLCs.

Remember when it was said that the time after SOS is going to be spent fixing TSW2?

Now we are told the save issue might be fixed after TSW3 release ... remind me in 6 months. I would not be surprised if its still not fixed then

 

TSW 3 IS quite literally TSW 2. In other words, it’s just a TSW 2.2.

The only reason they branded it as TSW 3 is for marketing purposes, to attract new players in. They used to do this every year with Train Simulator.

For anyone who genuinely thinks this is a brand new game, you’re honestly being made a fool. All it is, is a few core changes under the hood. Everything else remains exactly the same, including all the bugs and shortcoming which came with TSW 2.

 

I liked reading this. I still would like it left in but I'm happy to hear that it's a very high priority and they have their best people on it

 

The problem is, we have heard this all before from DTG.

I would have more faith if there was a clear roadmap (sorry!) through the process with a cast iron guarantee that if things are still not fixed after a certain amount of time, the original save process will be reinstated. I would like to think (ballpark figure) three months at the maximum.

And the irony is I have not had a signalling "redout" save game load failure for some time now and even longer since I had one where the next instruction (as per top left of the screen) has failed to restore. So I still don't really see the problem of keeping the old system in place from the get go in TSW3, unless of course more is going on and code changes to arrive at the new version are making it more unreliable. However the chances of DTG admitting to it should that be the case, are probably remote.

 

They used to be doing this only in the time of TSW: CSX Heavy Haul, TSW & TSW2020. They are no longer doing the same thing anymore. For example I could buy Railworks more than 10 years ago and still buy any newly released routes right now without buying any yearly editions in between, as the original game was getting core updates and recently got renamed to Train Simulator Classic. Since Train Sim World 2 they are basically re-releasing the game and if you want to get an update to the core and any new DLCs, you basically need to buy it again, whether you are or aren't interested in the included with it routes.

 

TSW3 is TSW2 and everything in TSW3 could have been put in TSW2 in fact it had been. Perhaps someone can correct me on this, but Rivet tried to put Lightning in there recent IOW DLC but DTG in their 'wisdom' told them to take it out because it might trigger some people and there was no toggle to turn the Lightning off. Looking at TSW3's startup screen doesn't it feature Lightning? Also is there a toggle in TSW3 to turn the lightning off? I heard there wasn't but am not sure if so I'd love to hear the excuse.

TSW3 could have easily been more fairer imo by having routes which people want. The UK for example, I wonder how many people sighed when they first said it was SEHS? People wanted a new route not in the South East. The core updates should have been free and they could of charged for the Training Centre for those that wanted it. Also I think your routes carrying over from TSW2 to TSW3 will not work, hopefully someone can confirm this.

 

Me for one.

Not only that but they sat silent for several days while a large number of people got quite excited that it might be WCML over Shap, part of the ECML or the North Wales Coast. So it was almost like they blew a very big raspberry at the UK route market when the reveal came.

 

Totally agree, it is like they want the UK market to be less popular with seems very odd for a games company.