There's a difference: despite being the same stopping patterns, you are either driving one towards Portsmouth, or one towards Southampton.
Try some of the peak time Brighton services using the 387. They have some different stopping patterns. The other good thing about BML is it has plenty of services which experience signal checks, so I find that generates interest and variety too. If you’re on PC you can try trainsimcz’s brilliant mod, which puts the 800 onto the route, with a load of additional services with stopping patterns which don’t exist in the original timetable.
There's plenty of good criticism on this thread, and I think we all want DTG to pay attention to what we're saying but the simple fact is that they never will. For the simple reason that we're gonna buy whatever they put out anyway. Money is the only thing they really pay attention to, so as long as we keep giving it to them there's no incentive for them to put more effort into their products. For what it's worth, and I'm probably an outlier here, I'm somewhat happy with TSW. Most of my problems with the game are quite minor in the grand scheme of things- I wish the Azuma sounded better, I wish the 377 wouldn't spawn with end gangway doors stuck open etc etc. The most complex thing that I want fixed is the steam physics for Scotsman and even then I'm not losing sleep over it. I will say though, if another sim came along for console that was even slightly better than TSW I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. Problem is no one else seems to make British train simulators, and hardly any come to console either.
Yeah, I will agree with being mostly happy with TSW. My only real gripes are quality/bugs. If they could just spend 6 months polishing some of the super annoying minor issues that add up, I would be completely happy with it.
Precisely why I started this thread to project from DTG's viewpoint what their focused resolutions should be rather than getting into wishlist or the merits of BML over BCC. An interesting discussion nonetheless.
With the current Road Map format, everything is the opposite of everything. Every month (excluding the month of January which will be without Road Map) everything starts from scratch (0-3 months...) and, furthermore, the addons are postponed, brought forward or made to disappear. So totally useless. DTG could very well avoid getting stuck in similar situations. Rather, it should develop (and quickly) the publisher of Formation Editor. Otherwise it is false advertising.
It means that the Road Map is not stable, but subject to continuous change. Therefore it has no scientific value.
It's not for a science paper or report, so it doesn't need to have scientific value. It's purpose is to give a general overview of what can be expected in the near future. Which it fulfils.
A roadmap is never set in stone, it is a prediction of where one wants to go, not the exact route … outside factors will influence the path that is taken. Just like 5 and 10 years plans, they are, at best, a prediction based on current information tempered by best guesses of those outside factors that are rarely accurate so become more a fictional desired state if it was a perfect world. As you can tell, never a fan of 5/10 years plans….
Going to add for my most important TSW resolution suggestion to be, “make the long term problems be a thing of the past” let’s not be needing to bring up the same for this time next year
So using your arguments, basically every route in tsw is boring to you because they have the same stopping pattern that happens in real life? Most tsw base routes don't have a lot of variation bt default even with multiple rolling stock. I wonder how the real drivers much feel.
TSW is largely enjoyable but it could still be better. We have seen this year what certain 3rd party developers can do when putting a little more care and detail into a release. Simple things like guards whistles, livery variations and even basic stuff like making sure there's no trees clipping through the cab really do make a huge difference. It can be frustrating at times because you pick up on things that could be better, but as a player rather than a developer your near powerless to make those improvements happen. What I would like to see DTG doing is taking more inspiration from the community and 3rd parties and visibly incorporating better features into new releases with more time spent perfecting new content pre-release rather than post-release.
I'm in that group. I'm very interested in UK railways. But that's not enough to counteract my passion for North American content. Neither sector is very inspiring at the moment. Yes, that's actually a bit of a pain. Takes a lot longer to start for me. That infamous green bar moves ever more slowly it seems. And what was its purpose?
Great point! SEHS and Dresden-Riesa do this really well.... We need more routes, that take full advantage of existing rolling stock and licenses.
It depends which stock you choose to utilise. Yes, you could do another 3rd rail route and include an Electrostar, the 700 and a new train, but there's plenty of other stock already in TSW which has run on multiple other routes. BPO is brilliant partly because you can see/drive a host of different locos and units, which already existed in TSW.
Steam physics have apparently been abandoned at the Peak Forest level, per a dev on Discord that worked on them. No interest internally in pursuing it because PF sold poorly and there's no plan to do more steam content. (FS was a one-off that uses the broken 4F physics model) I agree that it needs to be looked at but I think someone needs to start from scratch. We need to have a basic model that doesn't necessarily simulate every single atom of steam but does work all the controls in a meaningful way - even if that means making some simplifications of the physics. It's possible because ultimately I believe most of us would be satisfied with something that worked approximately like the Victory Works or BMG models from TSC. I haven't played Maintalbahn (waiting for a steep sale) but I am really concerned with the number of short (25 miles or less), one-unit-based routes with repetitive gameplay (Glossop, Goblin) that appear to be all that the DTG first-party crew are turning out at the moment. We need to be seeing much more interesting routes with a variety of gameplay - Blackpool worked really well on this basis, and so do most of the other routes that ranked highly in the recent World Cup event. But at the moment the only routes being announced look more like the bottom half of the rankings. What about Hope Valley for instance? It's 42 miles, would need one additional unit (Northern 195), the excellent EMT 158 could layer on, and there would be plenty of scope for follow-up gameplay packs with the Class 20 at the cement sidings and then something from TPE as a loco pack if all was going well. It's just one example but DTG don't seem interested in doing any routes that most players are really interested in or will keep playing beyond 4-5 hours. Please give us some variety back in our routes!
That's true, and it's something I'd love to see, although there wouldn't be as much stock as if it were set in some other areas. If they went for the mid-90s they could include a 4-CEP or similar with the route, and run it alongside the 465. There'd then be a handful of existing diesels which could appear - the 33, 47 and maybe a couple of others. I'm not an expert on the Southern so others will know better which diesels appeared on the region at that time.
Well that is particularly worrying both given the state they have been left in and the prospects for any more period routes. Yet steam traction goes from strength to strength in TSC. The reason PFR probably sold poorly is that it went from nowhere to nowhere, when it should have been Derby to Manchester. Not to mention the incomplete timetable. The route itself is lovely - maybe the forthcoming Class 104 will revitalise its fortunes.
That´s interesting.... so "Steam freaks" will be better settled in TS Classic. As i argued in another thread, TSC is seeing new players coming in anyway...
That would be incredibly disheartening. Surely abandoning steam traction completely can’t be the answer TSW is heading for. Sadly, it would explain the lack of communication and Scotsman being based on the 4F also makes sense (both seem to have an inexhaustible supply of steam).
I have to chime in with the steam physics. Its such an important part of the game and the actual route for PFR was really well done imo (apart from the odd hill that wasn't finished) and the lacking timetable. But DTG have seemed to go completely silent on the matter. The state of the scotsman is just downright awful and the 4F has such a great soundset at slow speed but neither ever run out of boiler pressure and the 4F outperforms the 8F. It takes no skill to drive them. I think the Jubilee and the 8F are better especially with the damper settings from the steam thread (the best thing to come out of steam so far imo reading that thread, keep it up guys). Its just such a disappointment. The WSR timetable and update looks amazing but whats the point if you're going along at 25 with the safeties blaring and and no way of reducing the pressure? Unless (and I've mentioned it before) steam has been done purposefully like this to appeal to wider audiences. Which it shouldn't be. If I want an easy to drive 1 handle experience I load up a modern route. Steam should be a learning curve to drive even without manual firing. The only real fix/patch I can recall for PFR is the lowering of the 4F safeties?
Just another small thought while I'm thinking. DTG have a habit of saying things don't sell? Like apparently BR blue doesn't sell. But JT did it properly and its up there as best route in TSW history IMO with one of the cleanest releases? It's almost like attention to detail and doing the small things is what the community wants
I mean logically to me, the steam route didn't sell well, because steam isn't modeled well. Maybe people just want a good simulation/product? So saying you aren't going to fix the steam simulation, because steam didn't sell well in a bad state, is a bad take.
I think they did quite a bit of BR at the time and people wanted change and not another BR route, to say they didn’t sell I don’t believe, personally I like a bit of BR just not all of the time. unless they want to base it of how well DLotGW was taken… that’s a bad comparison to make to say the least. I mean they also made the class 31, 20, NTP heavy freight pack for routes what didn’t sell well… yea that doesn’t happen if they didn’t sell well. You couldn’t use that content on any other routes at that time aswell.
I think I’ve driven steam trains in TSW for no more than an hour and I’ve never driven the Flying Scotsman. If that’s true of most TSW players, I can understand why DTG might not pursue it further. I just don’t think they work particularly well in a simulator type situation and the current physics, noisy steam venting and poor steam graphics do little to attract me to them in game.
Its a weird one because those routes TVL and NTP are still up there in some of the highest rated routes. DLotGW was a test wasn't it tbf? And I understand why DTG took some flack for it. As you basically had to own all of the diesel content to unlock the layers anyway which was silly because on stream they said it was for people who didn't have any BR blue.
Even without the layering issue, Diesel Legends was a fundamentally flawed DLC down to the conceptual level. It's a DLC formed entirely of stock included in other packs with scenarios and a timetable for a route set decades too late for there to be any believability. They were pushing the timeline with the power station on RSN, but Diesel Legends takes the cake by decades. I made a joke post a few years ago about a newspaper called the 'Legend of the Great Western' because of it reusing articles from past issues, and Matt Peddlesden replied 'good burn'. I think that in DTG there was an understanding that content like Diesel Legends wasn't what was wanted, which probably explains why they haven't pulled the same stunt again.
Going to try and abstract the steam discussion into a fresh thread as this is a matter which is not only important to many of us, but requires some sort of official confirmation from the EP or PR guys.
Absolutely. I remember when Peak Forest was announced virtually everyone asked the same question: “can we have some diesels on it, please?” It wasn’t that people disliked the era, or disliked steam - it was just that everyone knew that the steam physics was awful, so they wanted something realistic they could run on the route. DTG replied with a firm ‘no’, so most people didn’t buy the route. Many months later, it’s taken a 3rd party to come in, recognise the problem and plan a diesel add-on pack for Peak Forest. I suspect it will boost sales of the route significantly. If DTG fixed the steam physics, they’d see a sudden surge of interest in steam routes - current and future.
I mean I still love Sprit of Steam and Peak forest, even with the bad steam physics. I just enjoy the aesthetics of steam engines. I'd love it to be more realistic though, especially with actually needing to refuel coal and water.
If I'm being completely honest, if I buy a new steam locomotive (with its route or on its own), I do it for AI. I never intend to drive them. I just like seeing them.
The 4F arguable behaves as it should, it is not overpowered it will only happily sustain about 600hp at the rail which is about what it should do. It burns the right amount of coal, and generates the right amount of steam for that amount of coal. What it doesn't do is lie to you like the Jubilee and 8F do. On the Jubilee/8F the cutoff indicator is woefully incorrect, what the indicator shows is way off what the cutoff of the valve gear actually is set at. Indicator : Actual 75% = 78.2% 57% = 73.3% 38.5% = 65% 18% = 45.5% 0% = 13.8% Now the 4F indicator isn't entirely correct I will admit but its a fair bit closer 75% = 71% 56% = 61% 37% = 41% 18% = 23.6% 0% = 11% Funnily enough The Jubilee and 8F both seem to rather like around 20% cutoff... which is actually 50% cutoff... which strangley is what the 4F also tolerates. So in essence.... they are all really driven the same more or less. Now truthfully I don't know why they like 45% cutoff so much... they just do for some reason. Should they be like that... no probably not. However in the end the way they all behave is actually more or less the same... The 4F starts a bit warm admittedly which doesn't help the blowing off, but the 8F/Jubilee once warmed up really do go like the clappers. The reason why even a small adjustment in cutoff around 18% has such a massive impact on how the Jubilee/8F behaves is simply down to the fact around that region the actual cutoff changes very rapidly.
The steam locos still don’t visibly consume coal and water from the tender and there is no control or management of either the fire or boiler levels.
Could you explain why the indicated position and simulated position are so far off? I’d have assumed that 50% indicated cut off is actually 50% cut off.
Its a mistake to put it simply. In essence what you have is as follows. The reverser has an input of lets just -1 to 1 which is the linear position, however if you ever looked at the sector plate on the reverser on the Jubilee the increment gaps get smaller as the closer it gets to midgear, its not even increments up to 75% cutoff. So in this case the input value is put through a curve which transposes so that the output value which you see matches up with the sector plate on the reverser. This is also the value which is displayed to the player. However the mistake comes when this output value is then inputted into simugraph. The output value displayed is then converted to a -1 to 1 value. This is then passed into a further curve which defines the actual physical cutoff of the valve in simugraph. Unfortunately the curve it is applied to is actually similar but not the same curve that the reverser output curve was calculated from... as such it ends up basically double accounting for the increments getting closer as it gets closer to midgear and causing the indicated cutoff for the player to differ quite drastically from the actual cutoff the valve is simulated in simugraph.
So all the work before SOS ever released to get simugraph to work for steam traction and it is still completely off? Wow. Is it the case that the manual firing can't be released until the player sees real values? Because, if you don't know what is actually happening in the simugraph then you can't possibly judge what to do, right? I seem to recall we were told they were developing steam well before anything was released, they spent ages doing the simugraph stuff and now after 2 routes we realise it is in this state. Gosh...
