Upcoming Release Lirr Commuter: New York - Long Beach, Hempstead & Hicksville

And a new train

 

I don't know if it's useful for comparison purposes, but for example, the game Gran Turismo 7 never had a damage system that could be demonstrated on cars, because car manufacturers don't want their cars destroyed in this specific game, so the producer has to follow the scratch this condition, otherwise you lose the right for the brand to be displayed in the game.

I understand that the same thing must happen in TSW4, where some operators must impose this, why would some clueless person in real life try to do this? Particularly when I drive a train, I don't like to force it to derail, exceed the speed limit or anything like that, I like to be a perfectionist...

 

Railroads view game licensing as advertising for their brand. Never forget that. The only reason they even bother with the videogame industry is because they think it will make them more visible to the public, and in a positive way. MTA is not incurring the rather considerable time and expense involved because they want to make gamers' lives better; they are pursuing their own interests. Those include, among other things (1) not cooperating in a "how to steal a train" tutorial, and (2) not feeding the "MTA Demolition Derby" YouTube channel.

 

Well, for my part, I even argued and thought about to make a suggestion in the Suggestion Forum to enhance crash experience, not ending the game so soon - seeing actually "what happened" if done wrong. But now since I know more about the severe problems attached, I don't see that this is realistically to come.

Now the other one is arguing about ending the game even earlier. I completely disagree to that.

I think for the best player experience of all, the game should end as less and rare as possible. It's already too much and early for my personal taste in its current state.

Nothing more frustrating than really enjoying a nice session, being in it for 40 minutes, and then suddenly because of a tiny bit of mistake, it's all gone. Is this realistic? No. But at the end of the day, it's a game we can purchase on Steam we talk about, not a real life enviromment.
And I think as there might be some players who absolutely want a simulator to avoid any failures, which couldn't be made in real life because of varius reason, however there are also a lot of player who just enjoy playing and doing whatever they can with the game. And this even includes triggering failure and crashes.

After all, Please never let the game end when or even preventing exceeding a speed limit!!! That would be an absolute no-go for me personally in any future TSW iteration.

 

I agree with my friend. A SPAD ends the game, it's a serious penalty, which forces you to restart the entire journey if you don't save. But I would really like there to be a "Check-Point" save so that we are not penalized so much, or some penalty that does not end the journey but rather that we pay attention to what we did and avoid it as much as possible to maintain fidelity as close to reality as possible. .

 

Yes, I miss that hardly in TSW, too. One thing I do is do a save game every once in a while to assure that if I passed a signal or did something wrong, I can easily go back and redo the section. Forza Horizon has something like a Rewind button where the car can spawns backwards its path again. That probably would be not possible to be done in Unreal Engine.

But just an auto-save game functionality after you have passed a certain marker / or just saving the game on a regular interval would be nice.

There could be a huge reduction of Action Points for example, losing a medal. That would be okay to me. I'm so thankful that passing a red light does not end the game anymore in TSW4. This was really horiffic before. Just being in on a long session and - boom - you're out of the game just because you missed braking at the right spot.

 

I fully understand this. However, how is the perception so different in the automobile industry for a game like Forza Horizon which uses real brands and you can indeed crash and demolish cars even of different types of a brand beyond all limits in there?

I think the railway companies should at least consider that other brands (and even entire industries) also do not seem to have a big problem with it.

 

Because the carmakers don't drive (and wreck) the cars. TOCs do. Note that the concerns here are coming from the operator, MTA, not from Kawasaki or Budd.

 

But the game is already checking if a crash or derailment should happen. It's not like it's impossible to have all those checks still be present and just not have the visual simulation of the train coming off the rails.

Sure, crashing ends the game. But there's enough before that happens for there to be plenty of crash videos on Youtube.

 

That doesn't make it any less redicilous, that a graphically and physically bad as well as inaccurate representation of an accident has such consequences. Especially since it's the end user who does it, not even the game creators themself.

Does that mean that if I decide to make a worringly graphicly mod, which both official and unofficial editor give me the tools for, that too can have some serious aftermath ?

 

DTG Matt , I see that certain features are also removed from the M7, but the M7 was already released with LIRR 1.0. Are we allowed to use the older version of the M7 on LIRR2.0, or will this update wipe out the original version?

 

Simply put if DTG cannot do as the licensor requests than no route can made or published.

 

Yeah, that's true. For a car related game there is nothing like a operating brand in the middle, who want a bad reputation attached. But I think at least the TOCs should consider that there are brands out there (actual manufacturer) who do not seem to have an issue with that their brands got used in games this way and also could say "No, I don't want my brand to be depicted in a denigrated way" but don't do so. And this is not just the case for a few exceptions as rather almost the entire industry including brands like Ford, Mercedes, Ferrari, BMW, Bentley, Volkswagen, Audi, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan or Lamborghini and the list goes on and on and on.

If I were in conversation with them, I would pull that argument. Not sure whether it will work, but at least it could raise some doubts about a 100% negation.

 

Even the auto industry has limits. For example you will see branded cars in a racing game where there is probably a good marketing proposition for them but you never see branded cars in a game like GTA where you can run over pedestrians and shoot at cops.

And even in Forza Horizon there is explicitly empty cities with no pedestrians, and the damage models are relatively tame (full speed into a wall gives you liked a dented hood and cracked windshield).

Branding in games like TSW seems to be a bit more specific and demanding on a case by case basis. I remember reading somewhere (I can't remember if it was TSW or a flight sim) that one company didn't even want dirty/weathered equipment so everything needed to look like it was just cleaned.

A railway company is more risk averse and won't always see the direct marketing advantage to a video game so best not give them reasons to say no.

 

Does that mean freeware user generated content needs to obey to license policies as well in the same way companies/developer have to?

And apart of creations with the PC Edtior, does this also count for the Livery Editor? When for example somebody does a livery of an operator, and the operator showed its disagreement. Then DTG takes this creation down? Isn't there any freedom to the users provided anymore?

I mean it's the users who do the modification sharing it for free, not the developer making profit with it. Shouldn't this make a difference in copyright law?

Not that I would argue against your team (sorry if it sounded like that but this wasn't meant in this way). I'm just not part of it, therefore can't know how your team and the operators do argue and debate behind the curtains about licenses.

 

If freeware is licensed it would need to follow whatever agreement they make. If it is unlicensed (which a lot of freeware stuff is), they are technically breaking copyright rules and are at the mercy of the company IF the company decides to come after them. In the flight sim world a lot of freeware stuff is unlicensed and living in a grey legal area of "ok we will do it until someone complains".

Not sure if that happens often but at one time (90s-00s) American Airlines was notoriously strict about that and would threaten lawsuits against any MS Flight Sim freeware sites that had American Airlines branded liveries available. They also legally went after anyone who tried doing a virtual airline for AA. So for many years AA basically didn't exist in Flight Sim. You could easily download United or Continental but that was because they just didn't care enough to take any action, not because they had officially allowed it. Nowadays AA must have changed their policy because you can get their planes in games but at the end of the day it is up to them.

Another thing that will make a big difference between whether or not a company takes legal action is monetization. If some joe blow creates a livery for something using copyrighted logos and posts it for free on a website, the company is not likely to really spend much time and money tracking it down unless its somehow used in a way that makes them look bad. But if they find out a legitimate company is using their logos in a product that they are selling and making money on, they are DEFINITELY going to get their lawyers involved. That is why paid content is always licensed and usually has specific terms in that licence about how the logos and branding are used. In some cases they might want a piece of the profit too, I am not sure how it works for TSW (they could also see it as a marketing partnership where they don't necessarily want to be paid).

This stuff is probably part of the reason that if you crash in MSFS the game basically just freezes and restarts, like running a signal in TSW. There aren't theatrical explosions or pieces falling off planes. Airlines likely wouldn't like that. MS had planned to add it in 2002 but removed the feature when 9/11 happened.

There has also been hysteria in the past (especially 9/11 era) around flight simulator being used for nefarious purposes.

Simcident Report: 9/11 And The War On Flight Sim - A Look At Moral Outrage And Simming In The Wake Of The September 11th Attacks - FSNews

Even though 9/11 had nothing to do with trains, the railways went even more haywire as far as paranoia and security after that and started getting way more strict on spotters and photographers and I would imagine some of the paranoia with sims is a carry over from that. And then specifically in some North American cities recently (like NYC) you've got problems with morons train surfing and getting into cabs.

 

Gotta call shenanigans on this. Harlem was a Day One purchase for me and I was one of the first to report the issue of AI trains being stuck on the route and not moving, regardless of following cab lights or not. This effect was reproduced numerous times over, including traveling well under the posted safety limits and waiting behind the AI train (without crashing into it!) for well over half an hour.

Maybe we're talking about two completely separate issues, in which case I apologize. But there was definitely a AI bug on Harlem at one point.

 

Two separate issues. Stuck trains is one thing (that happens on a lot of routes), but specifically the problem with Harlem was that the real life safety systems allow the trains to occupy the same block, where the one coming behind would be warned to slow down very slow and then approach the other train to stop right behind it at the platform. With the safety systems off that doesn't work at all, people would get no warning until they saw the train in front of them at which point it is too late and they hit it.

Harlem is one of the few routes that is basically unplayable without safety systems even though you can turn them off.

 

Agree whit this way in case of accidentally SPAD

 

Thanks for your input and for conversing with the community it is very much appreciated Matt.

 

For any NJT MNRR LIRR and MBTA, safety systems must be active if you don't want to SPAD or crash into the back of another train

 

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that DTG's words and DTG's actions don't line up, because if crashes etc. were an issue they would be removed.

You are severely oversimplifying a complex issue.
And I also note that you are quite happy to work with developers who commercially benefit from their use of unlicensed IP...

 

Well, good to know !

I'm just negatively surprised that between you, DTG, the community, the train manufacturer and the TOC it only needs one bad boy to have licences revoked or changed. Is that even worth it ? I bet I can find pictures of all trains in TSW in a crashed state, with a simple google search. But when they fly into the sky, unharmed, after hitting a buffer, THAT's to much to bear for the TOC or manufacturer ? What a weird world.

EDIT: The article about 9/11 and Microsoft linked above of course shows that damage can be done when things go out of hand, but, if I understand it correctly, Microsoft got into bad publicity for "teaching the terrorists" by providing such detailed simulation software. Something DTG does with all their games, no matter if you can crash them or not. I am specifically talking about the act of running into buffers or having the trains fall off the rails, which is so spectacularly undetailed and outright silly that I can just scratch my head at why that would cause any negative impact for anyone involved.

 

Since we can't have better crashes and the game ends anyway as soon as the train derails, I see a reason in this question, too.

If TSW only provides the start of a crash, then immediately ends the game, why even having the start of it in thr game, if this is causing so many trouble with licenses?

I would like to have the session not ending once crashed but if we can't have that either and the start even cause so many license troubles, it would make sense to get rid of it.

Either all (a complete crash) or nothing at all would make sense. But not just doing the start/halfway of it causing license issues still.

 

If it made a difference and was put to a vote, I'd vote for no crash animations period. I'm pretty sure most of us train sim enthusiasts are doing everything in our power to avoid them anyway, no sense in potentially losing out on licenses because some random kid wants to play Johnny Knoxville in a video game.

 

But then we'd miss out on the fun physics glitches like gently increasing the throttle a notch from standing, and the train launching a quarter of a mile directly vertically into the air, spinning. Something I am pretty sure would be quite a feat to replicate in real life.

 

Never really understood the crash behavior, either. It's completely weird.

 

It neatly communicates in a somewhat cartoonish manner, the manner in which you messed up, causing the service to end. It's a useful bit of visual feedback vs a simple fade to black. Ideally it's something you never see, but it's there if you somehow manage to mess up that badly, or if the game bugs out and the physics model decides to randomly replicate Potters Bar 2182A, just to keep you on your toes and remind you that sometimes poor track maintenance will get you no matter how perfectly you drive.

 

But you can just say via text "Overturned due to high speed" or whatever. It's not like the service failure messages don't have a tendency to be vague and unhelpful...

 

Why is crashing such a big issue all of a sudden?
Can we drop this topic, if a big wig from the MTA was to see these comments they will never do another license again.

its ridiculous that this even has to be said.

 

I'm sure we'll see layers for Amtrak and NJ Transit at Penn Station and Sunnyside Yard. It would be extremely disappointing if we don't and there's no excuse not to. With the layers, I could forgive not adding Grand Central.

 

Unfortunately, no third track for main line. Matt mentioned on the roadmap stream that this version is set in 2021 before construction of the third track was complete.

 

I am super excited for the release of LIRR 2.0. Definitely looking forward to trying out the LIRR M9 EMU, updated M7, and seeing how this route has been updated, along with the extension of the LIRR to Long Beach. Definitely a day 1 buy for me. As Cactusjuice contributed to this route, I know hands down this will be awesome. I am sure at some point, we may see the LIRR diesels as a separate DLC, or maybe even another branch to further complete the LIRR network. With the inclusion of Morris Park yard, who knows if there will be some hopper cars or freight roaming around the route.

 

completely agree that is a massive sacrifice, how the game takes crashing and speeding at the minute is the best system, dumbing either down further I think would hurt the freedom and functionality of the game, not too mention how complicated some of those systems to detect upcoming crashes would be and how often they could cause unintended issues.

and I don’t think the kinda game TSW is needs the crashes to be simulated more, it’s not that kinda game, the games purpose on that front is it can happen but to always avoid it and not go for that.

 

Well, obviously the ones that brought up this topic were noone else than DTG and MTA themselves with this LIRR release (as you can read in the OP) and if you read through Matt's answers above you can see why it apparently is such a big issue for them. So, it 's more than reasonable to talk and debate about if crashes even are thing which keep licensors refraining their licenses, don't you think?

By the way, what does "drop this topic" mean for you? Getting rid of crashes?

 

It means "this is a stupid pointless tangent, about one place where the game is fine as it is, let's go back to discussing LIRR instead of imagining ways to make the game worse"

 

Reading Matt’s explanation and skimming through the responses so far. Fully understand the situation and IMHO TSW is a bit of a wrong side failure anyway compared to TSC where you always start with safety systems on. Though I’m not sure how accurate the LIRR is on that platform in regards to signalling and cab systems, never bought it. Are LIRR even aware of it, let alone approved it?

Mind the irony with the LIRR stance, is that you can still run into the back of a standing train at 15 MPH if you got distracted or were so minded. And TSW normally triggers the game over derailment lurch at around 5MPH. Then there’s nothing to stop someone dropping in another third rail unit or diesel train via Off The Rails and going hell for leather as the signalling won’t have any effect even if AWS or PZB was switched on.

Seems to me LIRR very hard to work with and I can imagine one or two thoughts of why are we bothering, went through the team’s heads at times.

And DTG Matt I would agree that the current depiction of crashes or derailments in game is very tactfully done. We don’t want Railroad Tycoon or HMMSIM style implementation where trains simply pass through each other. MSFS also does this in MP where planes conflict on the taxi or runway. Nor the Run 8 system where both trains simply vanish, as happened to me the other day when I sideswiped doing some switching. Most frustrating. At the end of the day, if people want extreme crash graphics they should go off and play Derail Valley. When I’m simulating a train drive, the purpose is actually to get to your destination safely, not drive recklessly. Which is why the silly Mastery in Goblin and earlier Cathcart where you need to exceed the line speed by a significant amount is rather incongruous.

 

How do you think the game decides whether or you crash at the moment?

 

It's strange. You can blast along the WSR at 50 MPH and other than not getting any AP, there are no consequences. Yet a rough shunt at 4.5 MPH or 6.5 km/h results in the message that you derailed the train, preceded by the lurch graphic.

Anyhow, part of me is now warming to the possibility of getting this. For those that know, how does the M9 sound IRL? Is it a traditional DC EMU sound like the M3 or the rather screechy tone of the existing M7?

Part of me is also thinking that not only will a purchase maybe encourage route extensions, could a positive outcome maybe influence MTA into a rethink over their access policy to DTG for the New York Subway, which many of us want to see in game?

 

I guess the correct superelevation is now also more important than ever before.

Could Lukas show us the math he uses to calculate the perfect superelevation dependent upon Vmax in the PC Editor Forum?

Also the topic about adjusting easements correctly, dependent upon superelevation and Vmax.

Would be super helpful.

 

So are you saying that the simulation is such that trains are kept on the track by the same physics that do so in real life?

And in any case, certainly it would be possible to instantly cut to a black screen when a derailment is detected...

 

Is that a yes?

 

Meaning you, in the cab, physically see the effects of the vehicle coming off the rails as the game detects via the physics that it has indeed happened.


See, the clue is in the "Sim" part of the name.