Having a manual fireman option allows more control, as unlike the AI fireman you can pre-empt when you need coal and water based on driving style and route profile. Yes it can be slightly distracting in TSC at first, but once you get the hang of it firing the loco manually and driving at the same time is quite achievable and usually makes things easier as your boiler pressure, water and coal levels are how you need them. You can get power at the right moments and minimise hearing the safety valves constantly going off when not under power. Manual fireman doesn't necessarily imply you're going to be click and drag shovelling each piece of coal all the time, you can simply click on the firebox doors and the injector valves when you need those inputs, the game can do the rest. It needn't be too complicated.
I definitely want to see manual firing in TSW, it’s an extra element of gameplay and gives you finer control over the boiler pressure. It’s great fun! Something in similar vein to TS Classic’s manual firing would work well with simplified options to turn firing and water on/off using steam shift on controller or the more advanced method of managing the firebox door and injectors by pointing at the cab controls, similar to a Bossman Games add-on. I don’t understand the reason of those saying don’t add it to the game. Those who don’t want to use it, can just turn it to automatic in settings and drive like they do now. It’s an extra option for those who want a more advanced steam experience and it works perfectly well in TSC.
I've been playing a lot of the Riviera Line in the 50s route for TSC recently, it was made by DTG themselves 7 years ago. Unfortunately if you compare it to where we are with steam simulation in TSW at the moment, it's miles ahead from what I can perceive as a player doing all the firing/injector work manually. Managing fire and water levels is a fundamental part of operating a steam train, I'm not going to buy any more steam routes until TSW has at least caught up with where TSC was 7 years ago. Just to balance things out I will point out that I prefer TSW for driving anything else but when it comes to steam, no sorry.
I think its important to realise with steam simulation they've had to develop it on Simugraph and I'm guessing its nowhere near the same as implementing it in TSC? Hopefully they'll improve with it because I really want them to get it right! Especially as a console player who hasn't really got access to anything else as of yet
Well, unless I'm looking at something else, Simugraph is just what they've called a particular blueprint in their Unreal Engine 4 environment. They can do what they want with it. They could even create a different blueprint or set of code for steam locos, and maybe that's exactly what they've done. Either way I'm not sure how it could ever be a restriction. It'd be like any game (or simulator) out there being limited to one set of physics.
No, not really. It's like the difference between a driving simulator that uses vector physics (e.g. Forza Motorsport) and one that uses arcade physics (Forza Horizon). TSC uses arcade physics: all black boxes. Simugraph aspires to simulate each process that goes on in the train and all the physical forces at work on every car, often every bogie. Now, as always with simulations, GIGO; but Simugraph is vastly more ambitious and at least potentially far more accurate, if implemented properly. But that comes at a huge cost in complexity.
You've missed my point, because maybe I didn't convey it properly (although I didn't say anything about arcade versus simulation), which is that Simugraph isn't something they're forced to use or, if they do use it, would be limited by for the steam locos, because it's their code, i.e. they can change Simugraph for the steam trains with a new branch of it, or they can have a new, separate area of code or blueprint in UE4 that they don't call "Simugraph" for the steam trains. There's no technical reason why Simugraph would somehow cause issues for the steam DLCs, which is what was suggested in the comment I was replying to. They could suddenly introduce simulated car driving or flying to the game and they wouldn't face issues trying to force it through their Simugraph, because they would simply have separate sections of code to handle those physics for those vehicles. Same with steam locos.
What I meant with my comment was that perhaps they haven't had enough time to figure out how to make that simulation the best it can be just yet. They've had a lot of experience with Diesels and other traction so it might take them some more time to hone in on that sweet spot with steam where the simulation, physics and stuff can be with simugraph before getting to stuff like manual firing and messing with it even more. I don't know how the coding differs to TSC but in the engines (Game not loco/unit) I doubt that the process is identical between TSC and TSW. I mean we've heard that TSC third partys need time to get to grips with simugraph and tools before being able to make routes.
What do you think a black box is? It's not magic, it's just something hardcoded into the game and not accessible to addon developers. It also has nothing to do with whether something has "arcade physics" or not. Under the hood the actual calculations being made in TSC and TSW may be fairly similar, just done in different ways. Simugraph only has what the developers bother to code. And IIRC the basic simulation in TSC is decent enough if you put the right numbers in, and with scripting you can replace a lot of it if you want to.
Exactly, so that's my point: the issue with the steam implementation in a nutshell is that they haven't figured it all out yet, rather than "with steam simulation they've had to develop it on Simugraph", because Simugraph isn't an immutable platform they've been forced to develop the steam DLCs on; it's simply what they've called a section of their code base for the train physics, and they've either adapted Simugraph for steam or instead written a new, separate part of the core code for steam physics that they could call something else (Steamygraph). Anyway, it doesn't really matter. Development is complicated, challenging, throws up daily challenges and unexpected bugs, and that's what's important to realise when waiting for improvements and fixes to arrive
It's all essentially floating point calculations, in the end, just different ones, in varying degrees of complexity
You're all arguing over something that, basically, shouldn't matter to yourselves, based on supposition and assumption on things you don't know (even though I have tried to explain it in the past, but, I'll grant, I barely understand some of it myself so perhaps i've done a poor job). Simply put, none of you are wrong. Everything you want to do in the sim is the right thing to want to do. Nobody wants to play the game wrong, if you want a good AI fireman, great, if you think the only way is manual firing - great. Let's stop just getting frustrated with each other i'm sure it's not the way any of you really want to spend your time As to when we'll get there, I don't know. We intended to bring a totally new Firing component to deliver much better physics sim with Peak but its transpired to be over complicated and doesn't work so we are going with what we have plus improvements. Better than it was, not where we want it to be. It took us a good 4-5 implementations of Diesel Electric to get that right and i'm confident we'll get to a really good place with Steam too. I've been absolutely having a blast thrashing around on Crewe "testing" my fixes (ahem) - though I really should rather keep an eye on train speed limits and the ability of the train (particularly unfitted...) to stop, ahem. Matt.
Exactly. I wasn't sure why people are arguing over AI vs manual. All it proves is why games usually have gameplay options, to give players a choice for their style of play. Anyway, Matt, I'm sure you have better things to do on a Sunday night, yourself
I think we slightly misunderstood each other there! Thats exactly what I was meaning to imply. I think that got a little lost in the technical side of things lol Both yourself and Matt are spot on there and I can't wait to see where dtg end up taking steam!
Its almost like the railways introduced those speed limits and ratings for freight for a reason Then again you could take the approach of "Speed limits are more like guidelines than actual rules"
Why does it feel and sound like we are only receiving a small fraction of overdue updates to SOS just so Peak Forest will work correctly? Shouldn’t getting existing routes correct and functioning correctly as promised and marketed as be top of the list. How much longer do we need to wait for the Fireman to have coal on the end of his shovel? As one small example? Once again very frustrated as a consumer
Was just wondering if the new video clip of the 4F now circulating was taken before or after the fixes were incorporated? If after then they still have a serious problem with safety valve noise level.
Before, I think - the fix went into Crewe first and only late in the day made it into Peak so quite possibly not there. Preview stream soon so you can hear for yourselves. Beta team have been noting their much more relaxed ears though.
Hi could you explain what you mean by the loaded freight with the 8F on the road map in scenario planner please as loaded services are still empty
Once we release the update, loaded services will be loaded. The update has not launched yet, hence you are not seeing it.
DTG JD DTG Matt are there any updates on these outstanding issues on SoS? blood and custard coaches not in timetable mode conflat containers not showing in timetable mode AI trains not having cuffing sounds or smoke/steam like player train does
Anyhow some food for thought on Peak Forest, in light of the Manchester to Glossop route announcement. It has been intimated that reskinning and slightly altering the Class 45 to add an authentic diesel layer was put in the too difficult basket. Ditto a Class 101 with green paint job and new interior, so it looks like we are left with nothing to represent the Buxton locals. What effort is required to turn a Mark One TSO into a RMB buffet car? Yet they can find artist time to reskin and redo the Class 323 into Northern colours. Go figure…
Think we addressed these all in the Roadmap stream. Being looked at, but won't make this release. First couple are due to performance concerns (ongoing optimisation needs to happen first up), and the AI trains I believe we're working on, but didn't quite make the cut this time around.
Ah was that in the Q&A section of the stream? I missed part that as I fell asleep (food coma lol) and not had the chance to go back and watch it. Hopefully they'll make one of the upcoming patches in the downtime. Thanks JD.
Hey there, you can find the roadmap vod here, I've added timestamps. This link brings you directly to the Q&A section.
Is SD70ACE DPU dynamic braking problem gonna be solved in this bundle patch? (when using automatic brake trimming - rear dpu sd70ace is loosing dynamic braking, bailing off doesn't work in this case)
Since manual firing was promised for tsw2, I would assume so. It'll be a case of porting it over which might take a really long time
Im second to this. Mixing SD70ACe and ES44C4 makes controlling the train's speed a bit difficult since SD70ACe's banking comm did not take over the DP units braking input.
Glad to hear from others that the wheel slip at higher speeds is sounding like it’s fixed up. Definitely giving this route another run sometime today to see the changes and stuff. Appreciate the updates coming through DTG.
I just had a bit of wheelslip with the 8F at speed… 50mph, 35% cutoff and 55% regulator. Weather conditions wet but shouldn’t really be happening. Went away when I backed the cutoff to 30% and dropped the regulator a bit. The really good news, is I was able to get the Northampton to Edge Hill out of Basford Hall, through the Indie Lines and now rattling along towards Winsford with no SPAD termination. And it’s lovely not to have that safety valve blasting out my ears. DTG Matt , looks like you cracked it, bud. My pre order for PF remains firmly in. (But please give us a green 45 and buffet car soon as… ).
Hello? Has anybody mentioned about AI locos not having any chuff sounds? Is this being fixed, can we have an update please?! Especially that you are due to release ANOTHER product, whilst the current 'beta' SOS locos don't have AI sounds.
DTG JD your company advertised SOS with a mixture of blood and custard and marron coaches. How the heck has it take you over a year to fix something that was falsely advertised? I'm sick of the excuses your company constantly churn out. You should be providing an ETA for this fix, you could say it's impatience. Alternatively, you could think that the customer (myself), has lost faith in all the promises and the companies profit focus, which is leading to a decrease in quality of your later DLC releases. Please give the consumer a timeframe!
It was mentioned in one of the streams, roadmap or peak forest i forgot, that ai sounds are being looked at. Didn't mention when it will come out, etc
It's a nice update. It is hard to comment on the realism of the physics. My impression is that it is very hard now to get the boiler pressure lower than what you need. The Jubilee has a lot more trouble to start moving (wheelslip if you open the regulator by 15%, start of with 3-5% and once it is moving open it a bit further) There is a big difference in brake behaviour of the Jubilee and the 8F. With the 8F the vacuum returns to 21 very fast. Is this intentional? For both engines I have a lot of trouble to get them up to speed, they accelerate very slow. With the Jubilee I was 7-8 minutes behind schedule of a full length semi-express run. This is a lot. Despite that I got gold for this run.
That's weird, because i'm comparing my express run from Crewe-Liverpool, and then i watch some YouTube videos on other people run on the same service (The Manxman) and their videos are TSW2 one, i found no different in acceleration or achieved/attained speed at specific part of the route.
Well I must say I am utterly Chuffed (pun intended) to bits that those two pesky wagons that were lodged on the buffer in Edge Hill, Edge Hill Yard have finally been taken care of and scrapped. At last I've completed it. Many thanks to the Boffins at DTG for fixing it.
As someone who has fired many times. I found the updated steam physics to actually make things worst, its far more unrealistic now. Usually play on manual no problems and able to control the pressure well and safety's well, now its all over the place and unrealistic. The blower still lowers or holds steam rather than raises when required. Dampers raise more steam when fully closed than when open. Its now far too easy to raise steam even with all the broken features. I really don't get who is making the decisions on what it should be like, feels like needs a rework from the beginning.
8F seems way OP to me as well, having now had a chance to use it more after the patches. Hooked up to the failed train in Really Reliable Rescue and it accelerated like a Class 87!
Yes, the ejectors for releasing the brake have now become to totally u/s. The vacuum brake is now broken. I could release the vacuum brake in 2 seconds when it should take around 20-40 seconds. I was playing before the patch and it was working as a real life vacuum and steam locomotive. DTG please reverse these physics changes Or.... Just have options: Novice driver/arcade style not real physics Medium level driver and in between Novice and expert. Expert driver. and real physics
I think having an option might be too much work. That means having to build 3 separate blueprints to match each of the physics options.
Can you substantiate what you're seeing with examples? I haven't found any issues. Takes a minute or two to release the brakes on a jubilee with coaches. Takes a minute or two to release the brakes on an 8F with a fitted freight train. Takes almost no time to release the brakes on a light engine, or an 8F with an unfitted freight train. Matt.
I’ve had no issues with the brakes. Just because the gauge in the locomotive says released dosent mean the rest of the train has yet. If you have an unfitted train then all you have to wait for is the locomotive brake which will just take a few seconds.
DTG Matt I don't want to hijack a thread, but while you're here and just reminded me of something, I started Cajon Pass a few weeks ago. Did the tutorial learning about the brakes, and it took quite a while for the freight train to come to a stop during the tutorial chapter, so I overshot the marker by some distance, which I fully expected on a freight train and it set it apart from the passenger trains. But I then followed it up with the first proper run in journey mode, and I started to apply the same brakes way in advance, but it seemingly brought the train to a stop really quickly compared to the tutorial round the training centre track. I presume there's a reason for that difference in stopping power, if you can think back to the tutorial versus the first run you get in journey mode? Then I'll let this get back on topic
