PC Immersion Factor In Trainsimworld

There are three things in TSW (pc) that reduce the immersion factor of my experience in the Simulator:
1) External views jumps around (zooms in and out rapidly) when passing AI trains, going under bridges, passing signal posts, etc.
2) Down the line in a scenario, after stopping at the second or third station, loading passengers and closing the train doors, your train refuses to power up and start moving, resulting in one not being able to proceed with a scenario. For example in the Long Island Railroad Suburban Sunset scenario this behavior occurs when I am ready to depart from the third station along the line. It will be highly appreciated if someone in the community could advise me how they overcame this issue.
3) There is a feeling that you operate your trains though ghost towns and cities as there are no motor vehicles driving along highways and streets, only static cars and trucks in parking areas and next to streets.

 

I'm experiencing the power loss issue as well but generally in the US freight services... we're running that down in another thread now and a few people are looking at it a bit closer.

And no disagreement here about the ghost towns. This is one of the disadvantages of the screenshot competition they run is that you become painfully aware of exactly how lacking the world actually is as you try to capture their theme. I go over a 12 lane highway in New York and there isn't a single vehicle on it. Pretty uninspiring.

Other thread is here: https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/interesting-bug-back-to-the-power-loss-bug.13740/

 

It seems that by not installing clutter and background such as moving cars and more people and removing detail is allowing this game to play on more systems. When TSW HH was first released the ballast was actually 3 dimensional. That went away in the first week when people complained there systems could not handle it and froze and crashed.

 

I'd also add cab sway and sounds to the list. Trains are always rock solid on the track no matter what switches or turns you cross at what speed, no matter whether the track is jointed or not.

 

I'd like to see more options for graphics settings so those with high end PCs can enjoy better graphics. I understand wanting the ability to run on more systems and platforms, but don't punish the ones that spent the money for good hardware.

 

If I could upvote this an unlimited amount of times, I would.

I mentioned this subject on the discord server and Matt’s reply was “Many people don’t have a high end, gaming PC so we want to make it fair for everyone” or something along those lines.

I’m sorry to state the obvious but isn’t this the reason we have graphical options and the need for SLIDERS. I haven’t spent XXX amount of money on my PC to then find out the game will be ‘dumbed down’.

I feel like TSW’s engine is far from its full potential and is being limited by weaker systems.

My assumption is once third party’s get on the TSW scene, that is when we’ll see a massive improvement in AI and the ghost towns will hopefully be a thing of the past.

Until then, DTG will always limit the full potential (just look at how awfully quiet LIRR is).
Also, don’t get me started on ‘optimisations’ aka removing scenery and rolling stock from yards. I just love seeing all those lines and yards empty of stock..

 

Many gamers sadly play this on a laptop because they're lazy or kids who want it badly but never invest in the future. I am staying on the fence as I personally am unhappy with DTG.

 

LT586 why is it ‘lazy’ to run on a laptop? I’ve a gaming laptop and while I understand that a PC has advantages, like cooling, but from what I’ve seen of specs people have my machine is probably a powerful as most. Many people have a practical need to have a laptop. Mine I’m in a country where it’s difficult (or at least very expensive) to get the latest hardware so therefore I need to import. Shipping costs therefore become a big part of the equation.

As for kids only being able to afford laptops (plus of course the option of consoles) if that brings them to the game then I think that’s positive and certainly not ‘sad’.

I do agree with the comments that it’s unfortunate that DTG and Matt P. consider dumbing down a ‘fairness’ thing. In the past with simulation games when they were released it often wasn’t possible to use all of the sliders to the right as there wasn’t the hardware to support it. The concept that over time hardware would improve to allow an even better gaming experience seemed to be to be sensible forward thinking.

I’d suggest this isn’t fairness, it’s the desire for DTG to support multiple platforms. As I think Digital Draftsman said some time ago that approach would only result in having a game design driven by the platform with the lowest capabilities. So, DTG have made a conscious decision not to focus game design around higher end hardware and will no doubt find themselves with a dilemma in the future as hardware becomes ever more capable ( whether PC or Console) as they have to decide whether current ‘legacy’ platforms remains the benchmark or whether some older hardware will no longer be supported.

 

Although I still stand by my earlier statement, I would be very happy with TSW with the current level of graphics if DTG would just fix the problems with it. Sadly the graphics are likely better than any other Train Sim out there. If you know of one please let me know!

 

4) Along the route you only meet M7 LIRR trains (LIRR dlc) or 99.99% of ACS-64 and 00.01% of freight trains in transit (NEC dlc) and all with the same composition (same number of wagons, same livery, same locomotive, etc). And imo it is not too realistic. And it's the reason why as general work I still prefer the GWE line.
RSN and WSR are the bests like artistical and technical work.
I hope for a locomotives pack to add at the different dlcs (same services and number of trains x route but different or random locomotives for our train and also for the ai trains).

 

The biggest issue is its already confirmed that loco add-on packs will do nothing to increase the density of traffic in service mode, its not possible for these add-ons apparently to add more services, they can only replace existing service locos .

This to me is a major oversight and disappointment and one i hope they address. In my opinion scenarios are a one hit wounder for my money id be fleshing out the service mode as it should and could offer unlimited replay value, however until such time as they correct the ability for new add-ons to increase density in service mode this mode is destined to be a ghost town simulator.

 

To be fair the last studio update did say they were starting to look at providing an interface to change/replace the service mode timetable. OTOH I can't see such a change becoming functional much before mid-year at the very earliest and that's assuming that DTG don't find some reason why it's not feasible after all.

 

My fear with this is just like the weather system i as the user have to set this all up each time. It might just be my preference but i would rather see service mode take into account applicable DLC for the route i am playing and populate it accordingly with additional services.

There are challenges with a more dynamic approach for sure, and i don't expect it to happen any time soon however i don't wish to change or replace services i wish to add additional services and that's the key, there system already automatically swaps in and out applicable locos that's fine, but in my view a loco DLC should be able to insert its portion of the timetable into existing service modes on applicable routes . Simply swapping out a service does nothing to increase the traffic density is my point.

 

Yeah the fact that additional DLCs swap out existing services rather than adding to them isn’t really appealing.

I’d happily purchase extra content if it meant more services and variation but it simply replacing services which already exist.

Ideally I’d like it where train DLC adds to the service mode to not only increase the services but it also adds variation and makes it look more busy.

I don’t like how we can only have one set service mode and not be able to do anything with it or have additional service modes.

I hope this can be solved as I’d love to see a proper, busy (main) line, which I’ve still yet to see in TSW.

 

It should be an option for those with killer systems. Why dumb a game down for those with crappy PCs or consoles?

 

DTG has this thing for making everything ‘fair’ for all systems and does not believe in sliders, which slightly annoys me as I can not use the full potential of my gaming PC.

Most companies would start at the top, on max quality/density/scenery, not somewhere in the middle.

If your system/console can’t handle the game, then that’s your problem. Don’t hold back on the graphics and other things just because it won’t play well on weaker systems.

What’s that’s thing called again, oh yeah, *GRAPHICS OPTIONS* and *SLIDERS*. Stop playing around DTG and let users customise their graphical experience, stop choosing for us...

 

I think part of the explanation would be, why would someone pay £45 for "the same software" on a PS4 or Xbox when for the same amount on a PC you can get a greatly enhanced version for similar cost AND the ability to create routes and scenarios
So either DTG would have to cut the cost on consoles, or "annoy" all of these "younger people" who prefer or only have a console rather than a gaming PC

 

That's not an explanation... it's not even a very good excuse. It IS the same game. The fact that someone with LOVE hardware can't run it as well as someone with great hardware doesn't mean it's not the same game, it means they have not got the same hardware.

I've not even bought TSW yet, so didn't realise that you can't configure the graphics options. That's terrible. In fact.. puts me off buying it if I'm honest. (You listening DTG?)

Why not design a game that absolutely pushes the limits of what is possible graphically, then offer slider options for taming it a bit if you have an older PC or a console?

I can think of nothing worse than building a killer gaming rig and not having software ring its neck... and don't under-estimate how many people out there would think nothing of dropping a couple of RTX2080s into a rig to play with everything maxed out at 4k.

I think no graphics options is a TERRIBLE idea.

 

Why DTG would adopt such logic is beyond me sorry. Look at any AAA title recently offers more advanced PC settings , its accepted and common knowledge at this point that if you want the highest frame rate and highest graphical fidelity that is what the PC offers.

With the above logic are people who game on console exclusively now up in arms that Battlefield 5 users on PC can enable Ray Tracing ? The latest Call of Duty for example made considerable strides to separate the PC and Console version in terms of taking advantage of what the PC could offer. First party titles from Microsoft such as Forza Horizons 3, 4 Sea of Thieves ect all take full advantage of what the PC platform offers over consoles.
Its utterly flawed stance if that is in fact what DTG has adopted and also one sided, its OK to "annoy" your PC user base but not the console user base ? end of the day eye candy is just that , its not a feature, its not game-play changing ... whats next we cap the frame rate at 30 for PC users because not everyone can achieve 60+ fps.

UE4 engine is very scalable (https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Engine/Performance/Scalability/ScalabilityReference) in this regards so no matter what political correct message was given on this id bet my money on these changes are nothing more than a knee jerk quick fix in response to community complaints around performance.

 

There are scalable graphics options in TSW. I think the issue is that ‘Ultra’ is not Ultra enough.

 

Thank god for that.... the thought of no ability to max out AA settings etc makes me shudder. I hate jaggy edges and shimmering distant details.. which is common when gaming at higher resolutions with LOVE AA settings.

In what way are they not ultra enough if you don't mind me asking?

 

I believe (although it’s so long ago I can’t be sure) that in a bid to improve frame rate, the developers have removed scenery and reduced some of the more complex models that were hitting FPS. There was a change to the lighting technique too which really helped FPS.

On ‘Ultra’ settings there are issues with the AA when stationary, the draw distance (both rail and trackside), the amount of AI traffic, the world around the railway being a bit ‘sparse’ (that’s me being generous) and so on. I’m sure others will be able to flesh that out a bit. That said, with some engine.ini tweaks I think it looks pretty good to be honest.

 

No plans to buy it just yet. Having fun with TS2019 and not got my money's worth from it yet. I'm waiting for more content for TSW before I jump aboard.

 

I believe this is true, but MOSTLY on consoles where the inference was that lower capability meant more moaning.
Personally I don't know why they didn't just put adjustable values in and let people decide for themselves how many issues they want to put up with
And I'm someone who plays TS1 on a G4 Core i5 on the lowest settings at a limited 15fps

Some people are willing to put up with things, some are willing to put money where their mouth is.

 

I hope once the editor is out it will provide the community with an opportunity to show DFG what their own platform is capable of without pandering to those who can't let go of their Windows XP rig.

I'll be watching that twitch stream later today to see whether or not it's something that I'll be able to work with... I've done some mission editing etc in other titles and though never awesome at it understood it enough to at least create a "busier" world to roam around in. My hopes are that members of the community will develop "base" worlds that incorporate more activity so that others can build scenarios with those templates as opposed to the offensively naked backdrop DFG provides to us.

It won't resolve the graphical limitations- but if you have more to look at outside the cab then you have less time to nitpick over the really fine details. If I go over a bridge crossing a 12 lane highway in NY and see a car I may be distracted enough that I don't notice grass growing 50 feet ahead of the cab.

 

On the editor I understand why people want it. However with 40 mile routes and limited variation in rolling stock I’m not sure it’s goung to be a huge game changer immediatedly. One of the reasons the TS1 editor is so popular is the vast diversity of rolling stock and routes. For TSW it’s going to take a while.

As for the community showing DTG what can be done again that might be limited. If denser scenery and more AI traffic is an issue in TSW now it’ll likely be the same when the community uses the editor. Now if the community builds more efficient assets (not normally what the community makes it’s principal focus) that would help. Equally those with more powerful rigs might gain some advantage, but that might present issues in sharing content to those who don’t. It’s almost as if DTG have a complexity baseline what’s the community standard going to be?

One car on your 12 lane highway might help a little in immersion but a 12 lane highway populated with cars might be more of an ask. Going forward those who build the most efficient assets rather than those who build the most beautiful assets might be the new TSW Editor heros.

 

Not sure you're quite latching on to my sarcasm since 1 car is a 100000000000000000% increase in the amount of cars currently on that road- as an example. Additionally, they choose a bare bones theme to accommodate people who use an abacus as a gaming rig so the rest of us with calculator watches can suffer.

 

Gascan sarcasm or not you have to understand this is very much a niche hobby. If you then start raising the hardware specs, or start to favor those with hi-end rigs (again a niche) commercially you’re unlikely to succeed. Most commercial companies have to aim at some mid spot for their baseline. The hardware price of entry into the game shouldn’t be say $5,000.

Personally I thought games like FSX got it more right than wrong. The basic game ran on some fairly modest kit. If you wanted more immersion, dynamic weather, traffic, complex aircraft, denser scenery then it needed more robust kit. There were several levels - and price points - that you could enjoy the game at. However that model was based around a PC architecture and didn’t have the distraction of other platforms like consoles. Even that model got severely disrupted when 64 bit arrived and emphasized the short comings of the 32 bit base product.

 

Dude. The ENTIRE conversation I was responding to is about providing some graphic level throttling so people with high end rigs aren't punished on account of those who don't. If not throttling then the modding community swooping in and adding the content that DFG won't from pandering to the lowest common denominator.

 

Gascan apologies for contributing to your forum. Perhaps you could be a little less condescending about those who for whatever reason don’t have a rig as powerful as you?

 

To be fair I think Gascan’s point is a valid one. I don’t think he’s suggesting that TSW should be so out of this world that only the best rigs can run it, but that there should be a sliding scale to account for all types of PCs.

That’s hardly a unique concept.

There is no doubt that what we have now is somewhat less than when the game first came out.

 

No one asked for the baseline hardware requirements to be raised.
All i was saying and this whole thread is regarding is that the now low, medium high & ultra settings all share the SAME setting on items like track draw, tree lod, shadow draw and so on. What exactly is wrong with a View Distance slider for example ?

Allowing users the option to extended the render distance on these types of items back to the pre patched values does not raises the baseline requirements. Its about allowing the choice and flexibility that is inherently one of the greatest strengths of gaming on PC, Its also about exposing more options to control the current values that require users to edit ini files currently.
It works both ways, more options and control over such settings allows for both high end values for those who want them but also lower values for those seeking better performance.

 

On the flight simulator front I gather the general idea used to be that MS released a product where it was pretty much imposible to run it with the sliders at max initially unless the user has a seriously expensive system. As PC processors and graphics cards increased in power then by the time the next release came out a few years later a reasonable proportion of the user populaton had systems capable at running at max sliders. Rinse and repeat.

Dovetail seem to be targeting a far lower bar at release, presumably in an attempt to improve the the amount of people capable of running the product. The trouble is there doesn't appear much reward for those running pokier systems other than higher FPS. I notice that users of Xbox One X aren't happy that DTG apparently have no interest in producing a version of TSW that takes advantage of the better capability of those systems.

 

Just for the record, I've been running this simulator since it first became a reality, have driven numerous tutorials, scenarios, and sessions, and have never experienced this power loss issue. My system has improved from barely meeting minimum specs to rising somewhat above them, so it's neither under-powered nor overloaded.

 

ASRGT i understand what you’re saying. However presumably DTG didn’t leave the sliders out by oversight, having a constant setting was part of their game plan. We can guess why that might have been and we can also speculate if that was or wasn’t a good decision (perhaps the latter).

What I would imagine is that once you’ve made the decision NOT to include sliders adding them back in afterwards is more complex than just having them in there to begin with.

There’s also an argument that DTG made it clear that TSW was going to be available in multiple platforms that might have been a hint that this sort of situation might exist particularly as there was no reference to the ability for a user to set their own graphic quality.

Maybe this is fixable, or perhaps the constant setting is part of TSW’s DNA and the community is basically stuck with it?

 

I was able to replicate it on video and another user was able to as well. It's covered in the thread on the subject in the link provided in the post you quoted. So- thanks for playing but I'm not sure what your point is.

 

While “slider” options would be nice, you have a lot of options in the .ini files. So have adjusted TSW on my two rigs with statisfactory results.

One problem with “clutter” on service mode is that mode does not allow for static consists - all rail cars and locomotives are the same as the player locomotive. On Scenarios - you can have static assets . I am sure as more 3rd party developers and enthusiasts get their hands on the tools we will see things change.

 

My point is precisely what I wrote before -- I didn't claim that others haven't had whatever they're complaining about, just that I haven't experienced it. Punto e basta!

 

By the way, those seeking immersion should give the diesels in the new Penines route a try. They'll be too busy driving to notice what they claim is missing (and that, if included, would probably reduce performance, thus giving them a new nit to pick -- Oh! I get it now.

 

Immersion killers:

1. Objective complete audio
2. Completely innacurate door unlocking on HST, 47, 45, 33 and 101
   
3. Lack of ambient sounds
4. Lack of road traffic
5. Lack of AI on busy routes such as GWE
6. Signalling and routing innacuracies (no double yellows, clean greens over speed restricted junctions, stopping services routed on to fast lines etc)
7. No random incidents or delays as per the real railway

But overall I really like where the game is going. Just wish it was a bit more of a case of where this 'sim' is going.

 

Completely agree with all the points you posted above. I’ll add one more to the list:
- Working announcements and passenger information displays.

What my New Years resolution is for DTG/TSW is more in the way of improvements and features, as well as far less bugs, and less of constantly rushing broken DLC out, leaving the older stuff forgotten about and left buggy and broken.

 

Excellent suggestion. Would love to have it if you get stopped at a signal and have to get out and talk to the signalman too.

Happy New Year

 

I bought TWS when it first came out, thinking it was the legitimate successor of Train Simulator, but I was wrong. I guess the shift to UE only allowed them port TWS to consoles, which means more money for DTG, but less of a simulation for us.

So what is the future then? Will TS continue, will TSW continue? What should I focus on (PC only here)?

 

I think your question will be answered when the full release of the editor is here. Pretty much all the content for TS is developed by 3rd parties now with Dovetail publishing them, until the editor arrives, those developers have no choice which platform they make content for. I'm curious to see if there is a switch by the end of the year for developers to TSW, (assuming the editor is here in full by September at the latest, which is by no means guaranteed).

 

Nick_Brad I've asked the question before about why 3rd Party developers need the Editor. DTG produce content without ‘the editor’ and presumably 3rd party developers could as well. End users (‘us’) need ‘the editor’.

One thing that hasn’t been talked about is distribution. Currently 3rd party developers with TS1 can sell outside the DTG/Steam system. Think Just Trains or Armstrong Powerhouse and many others. The DTG/Steam set up may widen the audience for products but the revenue is decreased to the third party through the not insignificant fees. Will Third Parties be able to sell without having DTG as distributors? That might be possible on PCs, but on consoles? Will third parties need to support all platforms or could they, for example, just produce PC only editions? Is it commercially profitable to produce third party content and have to pay so much to the Publisher and distribution channels? After all producing TrainSim third party software hasn’t to date been a home run to making a fortune.

Then again there’s been comment on here that TSW sales to date haven’t been stellar. Presumably third parties will want to see a big enough existing community before plunging into TSW development.

In the past DTG seem to have preferred a structure where they ‘control’ the product, having everything running through them at least as Publishers. With TS1 they inherited a situation where third party developers already existed outside of that model. Now, as they own TSW they can set whatever rules they want in how they ‘license’ TSW to developers. To put that simply I don’t think you can just set up as a third party and market TSW content. You need some form of agreement with DTG to be doing so.

People see third party developers coming in as being critical for TSW going forward and I think that’s true. However the question is how attractive that opportunity is going to be for existing TS1 third party developers. If nothing else it’s a risk - DTG themselves have said that producing content is labor intensive.

Personally I think that third party developers will provide content. Whether they’re the TSW1 third party developers that we know and love, or even specialist train ‘experts’, might be more of a question.

 

What do you think they use to create content? UE4-Editor and the thing you reference as 'the editor' which is a add-on for the UE4-Editor.
They have that internally since the beginning. And its a bunch of helpers to make work simpler.
Also we will need that plugin because it will add the ability to load TSW specific assets in cooked form. <- Thats the big work they do to get it public. They themselves don't need it, since the have the uncooked assets.
They have already outsourced some work to 3rd party developers as seen here: https://live.dovetailgames.com/live/live/articles/article/meshtools-train-sim-world

They talked about it in the Stream about the editor. You get a UE4-Package file when you cook your stuff. There for sure will be a license agreement that will tell you what you can do with it. Most likely free distribution will not be limited.
Selling your content may only be possible with involvement of DTG either giving you a license to sell your content on your own or through them on whatever terms they choose.

 

Sintbert you seem to be misunderstanding my post. Firstly try separating in your mind the concept of an editor for players and what a third party commercial entity needs.

I am fully aware of what DTG is using which is the whole point of my post. Third party companies shouldn’t need to wait for the (as you call it) add-on Editor. They can use what DTG use. So, as I was suggesting to Nick_Brad is the release of the add on editor something that the 3rd parties need - couldn’t there already be third party content (other than what DTG has delegated to third parties themselves)?

On the issue of distribution again you seem to be mixing the concept of third party developers and players who develop their own content. I used examples of such developers in my post and I also said that developers would need to license from TSW.

I’ve always considered third party developers to be for commercial gain entities like Just Trains and Armstrong Powerhouse. Players who develop content such as routes and assets and post them to the Workshop I don’t see as third party developers (perhaps I’m alone in that). There are some exceptions who straddle the line like the excellent Vulcan productions with their for sale Deltic yet lots of free goodies.

I personally don’t buy into a concept that the reason we’ve not seen content from someone like Just Trains yet isn’t because the add on editor hasn’t been released. A commercial company could be working on content, in agreement with DTG, without that add-on. The fact that we’ve not seen anything yet is either more strategy on DTGs part or commercial third parties being cautious about getting involved. Or both.

 

What I gathered from the various studio updates and the stream is that 2nd party developers (2PD) work on stuff outsourced to them by DTG and where necessary access the uncooked data. It's possible that most work so far for 2PD has been developing standalone items such as engines, carriages and unique scenery that DTG has then imported into the DLC and configured to work with TSW so there hasn't been much need for 2PD to access uncooked data.

Third party developers will only be able to access cooked data from what I can tell; the same as ordinary users. That's why they need to wait for the add-on editor and the associated documentation defining the various configurable properties i.e. what I would call the SDK in flightsims.

 

SamYeager270 thanks. So that would suggest that 3rd Party developers would have exactly the same restrictions as ordinary ones.

Maybe I'm being slow about uncooked and cooked data. But let's say that a third party developer didn't want to access existing DTG work, couldn't they develop a completely new route (or loco) using the same tools as DTG - ergo they wouldn't need the 'add on' editor?

Or is the concept of existing cooked assets so fundamental to developing anything at all that for any third party developer they need to have access to them - and thence the 'add on' editor is the only route (or at least viable one).

My thought is that under TS1 the playing field between 3rd party developers and DTG was a fairly even one (even if the 64 bit upgrade caught a few by surprise) but that in the future that situation might not continue with TSW?

 

Think of it in terms of TS2019.

Uncooked is the .IGS and .PNG files, common files types, they are kept in the Source folder. Cooked is the .GeoPcDx and .TgPcDx file types, bespoke to TS2019, they are kept in the asset folder. You can edit a PNG with any image editor, you can't edit a TgPcDx file with any image editor, you have to decompile it first using the tools DTG provide.

Could you create a new route in TS2019 without using the built-in TS2019 World and Scenario Editors? Not in any practical way. Same goes for TSW.

Basically, no TSW Editor, no Third Party addons.