Route Extensions Vs. Remasters

Short (if you don't want to read the full post):

Make your vote in regard to the question. Read the definitions clearly, and then cast your vote. I adapted the definitions DTG did in the February survery to be more clear and distinctive between them two, but also adding new information raised in recent threads, with 2 recent examples.

Definitions:

Route Extension:
(Example LIRR 2.0) - A paid upgrade/standalone DLC for a route (estimated to have the same price of a new route DLC) containing:

- Vast improvements/prolongation to the tracks of the route, giving more track mileage to run on (the actual extension/s),
- A new improved timetable and new service layers
- New scenery
- TOD4 lighting
- New gameplay elements
- A new loco

Route Remaster:
(Example West Somerset Railway/Dresden Nahverkehr TSW4 remaster) - A free update for an existing route containing:

- Updated or potentially new scenery
- Improved or potentially new timetable with new service layers
- TOD4 lighting
- Not necessarily, but maybe including a short route extension
- Not necessarily, but maybe including new gameplay elements
- No new loco

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long:
So this poll is an offshoot of several concerns and circumstances discovered in other threads leading me to doubt the results of one particular question in the February survey (for me personally, the most important one in it) being somehow distorted.

First of all the question I mean was the one asking for which type of new content the player would like to see most in the future done by DTG.

We had these possibilities, and it was single choice:


Now my concerns:

Concern Nr. 1 - "Clear Definitions to make a legit decision":

As shown in the replies to my thread to When Do We Get Modular Routes?, many users seem to not have understood the description to Modular Routes and what actually that would be.

Another thing I have encountered yesterday is that a remastered route does not mean it has no route extension. It could have one, but in comparison to a route extension a minor one. However, there is not a clear distinction between two stating this quite major difference.

Concern Nr. 2. - "New information since February Survey":

In the LIRR Commuter - Why Did They Make A New Route thread on page 2, Matt said that they highly would consider doing extensions only with a new loco coming with it. This is very reasonable and logic, however this is an important information missing in the description and in favor of a route extension.

Concern Nr. 3. - "Options which are not intended to be realized by DTG" / also being somehow new information as listed at point 2.

For the Poll option "Expert loco", Matt said that DTG wouldn't consider doing expert locos on their own, as it consumes way too much time and efforts, and they rather would want to go ahead making locos and routes in a quantity most players are shall be satisfied with.

For the poll option - "Modular routes" we got to know yesterday in this post that also this were never be a topic, which really was planned to be realized (also because of its technical hurdles to cross ever).

However at least my personal opinion is that, poll options like expert locos and modular routes, which clearly was never meant to be realized shouldn't be categorized and classified in the same way as route extensions and route remasters, which clearly are possible and even have been realized yet.

Concern Nr. 4 - "Unequal poll options":

I think that even if expert locos and modular routes done by DTG had been a real topic to vote for, it's kind of weird to compare these with route remasters or extensions. Although all of them would cost money, time and effort to create, A clear vote between remasters and extensions is better way to focus purely on the route aspect.


To come to an end finally, I think all of these things kind of distorted the results of this particular question in the survey. So that's why I wanted to get people voting for this - at least for me personally very very important - question again and get clearer and more undistorted results for it.

And to assure complete independance and no influence from my part, I will astain from the poll at least for the next 14 days. Thus I will also not be able to see the results and give feedback related to that.

Thanks for your reading and participating.

 

I don't think this poll makes much sense tbh. Some routes would benefit from additional track and a new train, while others are already a complete package and don't need anything but some scenery improvements and a new timetable. You can't say one option is "better" than the other in general.

 

Agree completely, but exactly this is what DTG did in the February survey. They gave us only one single choice to vote for and this completely independent of the context of which routes are in question and which not. Yet, they probably will use the results of that question for their future decisions.

To be honest, I think this also is a bit weird and incorrect, but I just try to improve on what DTG did with this question and get better results.

 

My take on the survey was extensions are DLC for DLC, similar to some extensions for TSC. You have to own the base route first to be able to play the extension - similar to how some loco DLCs are tied to certain routes.

Remasters can either be paid or free, depending on the extend of work involved.

 

But just like with the recent LIRR extension, you don't need to own the first route to be able to play the upgraded and extended route DLC. It was only relevant for the 20% discount (Steam only and not for console players if I recall correctly) if you own the previous version.

So both are two independant DLCs, which also can be acquired independently.

Not sure about that. West Somerset Railway is a free upgrade. Not sure whether the DRA remaster that came with TSW4 could be considered "free". Needs more clarity by DTG, but as far as I understood a remaster moreover should be free.

 

But does LIRR count as an extension or a remaster with an extension? The survey description says "being able to purchase additional add-ons that add distance and running time to your existing favourite routes" which in my mind means DLC for DLC.

If the original route is removed from sale and replaced by an upgraded version, then I would consider that a remaster.

The survey question was regarding types of new content - which would be DLCs and therefore generally paid for. Route upgrades like WSR were passion projects not aimed at making money so therefore were a lucky bonus. Although I agree the survey could have been less vague in places, it can't be too good if you're getting feedback from players when the answers are easily open to misinterpretation.

 

This might be heresy, but one advantage of a subscription model is that extensions and upgrades will keep players engaged and consequently there is less of a need to rush brand new DLC on an aggressive schedule.

 

I think you are confusing matters by redefining 'route extension' to mean LIRRC, when the survey clearly meant doing something like London to Peterborough to extend the existing Peterborough to Doncaster experience.

LIRRC actually fits perfectly within the survey's definition of 'route remaster'.

 

You really cant pick one or the other because it would depend on the original route and weather or not DTG could extend the route within their development timeline.

 

No brainer really - extensions would be my preference, though wouldn't turn down a complementary remaster either.

 

I read it as that this "additional add-ons to purchase that add distance and running time" are the actual route extensions DLCs, which can be purchased separately and are not something like a free upgrade to the old DLC like a remaster suggests me to be.

I see it in the way that a "remastered route" does not has any separate extended version. A remaster is the good old DLC, being enhanced to modern standards by for example TOD4 and other scenery enhancements. For a remastered route, there will be no separate DLC the old DLC gets substituted with.

That is a valid point. However, there is also a second matter of importance to count apart from actual producing new content to get money in exchange, Work. Work is also very important and especially for DTG with in comparison to other companies less available developers and those who are there being always stressed out and occupied, having problems getting even features in the game or improving these which where made as a selling point for the game. Some of those, still are not in game.

If you take this into account, the question could be seen as asking for which type of new content, they should spent their capacities and ressources on. And that's how I see it.

I think it's rather the opposite. LIRRC perfectly fits the description of a route extension, being another purchasable add-on, also with a rather long route extension to Long Beach to add mileage in comparison to the old route. A remaster - contrary to an extension - shall be a route upgrade with no severe track extensions. Otherwise, it would be a route extension.

The exact differences between extension and remasters in regard to the amount of extensions are unclear, due to the inprecise descriptions. But that's just my interpretation of it, the other is yours.

I think DTG should shine more light into what they meant and what they didn't.

Anyways, I still think the results of the original poll in the February survey is completely useless. And the more, the longer we debate about what the definitions meant here.

 

Hard to decide.

Regarding extensions: I'd rather see completely new routes than the same route but polished and extended. For me, who's more into always having different experiences (always drive a new route, a new loco), extensions don't look that interesting to me. Sure, there are routes where i'd say an extension would be great, e.g. Ruhr Sieg Nord with the route extended all the way to Siegen. But I'd already be more than happy to just have RSN in TOD4, a bit more dense scenery and vegetation and a new timetable. I'd be more than satisfied with that, because this already is able to give me a completely new experience without a single metre of new track.

 

DTG should consider re-evaluating, updating and adding new trains to existing routes (old and otherwise).
Ok, clearly and unquestionably for paid.
A profit with less work.
I can't believe that upgrading a route to ToD4 is like starting from scratch.
And then what do we do with dozens of routes?
Why does almost every train have to be paired with a route?
At least DTG could think about selling the trains even if they are not combined with the routes. A little sparkle, please.
Why do I have to buy a corresponding (horrible) route to have a train like the DB BR 642?
I like trains, the rest is a side dish.
Let's improve those that are there.

 

That would be something for a new poll.

Route extensions/remasters Vs. New Routes: Which would you pick?

To be honest, and as I said before, I don't really understand why DTG is asking for one way or the other here, either. But it's all due to limited ressources I guess. I assume the developers creating the routes can't work on both, work on a remaster/extension or new route at the same time. However, this would be a completely new question, but I guess the same applies for the battle between remasters and extensions. There is only one point where they can spent their work on. Hence the question in the survey, this whole thread is based upon.

I think DTG also should take one factor into account in the discussion of "Extensions Vs. Remasters". The time it needs for each of those, which I think to be very different. For a route extension, you need to do lots of stuff more - under some circumstances even change the entire signal system from scratch - while when you just simply uprade a route to TOD4 and do some scenery enhancements like applying new and enhanced vegetation I don't think that it would take the same amount of time, either.

However, there still seems to be problems with that thinking. Otherwise I would raise the question, why not simply update way more routes to simply TOD4 and that's it?

If I get you correctly, Isn't this what an improved timetable intends to do? Get some rolling stock released in the mean time onto the route? Or do you mean to update the trains themselves, too?

Proven business strategy I guess. It seems to work because people who are not primarily interested in the route buy the route DLC nonetheless, just because of the train. And the other way around, selling a loco alone maybe wouldn't be as interesting for people as getting a route with it.

And I'm okay with that.

My bigger problem is why we can't get more routes and attached trains with it into the game asap.

 

Here is the comparison between LIRR 1.0 to LIRR 2.0 trackwise. The new Long Beach branch adds a lot of mileage. Not saying that it couldn't be extended any further, but already this should count as a pretty good route extension. Therefore I would say it's a route extension rather than a remaster.

Also since the M9 comes with it and linking back to Matt's comments that a major point for doing extensions like that was that it came with a new train and that they really only would consider doing extensions, with at least one added loco, I would clearly say that LIRR 2.0/LIRR Commuter is a route extension.

LIRR 1.0


LIRR 2.0 / LIRR Commuter

 

There's no denying LIRR was extended - but the way the survey describes extensions is as having add-ons for routes that specifically add new track (i.e. DLC for DLC). You would have to own the base route first, then you could have the option of buying extension 'A', extension 'B' etc. which is why it says "across numerous products". DTG have done this before numerous times in TSC but not yet in TSW.

LIRR is just one product, the new and upgraded version replacing the original. The new Long Beach branch is not sold as an additional DLC for the base route, therefore although the route was extended - it was not sold as an extension (if that makes sense ).

 

I think your understanding is wrong that it would mean that, because extensions or better said "mergers" like that can happen in Train Sim Classic yes, but not in Train Sim World (which is the game I talk about). It's a different game engine between them two.

The only thing which is possible is extending the base map and then sell it as an "extended DLC" for Train Sim World, but not having a different DLC "attached" to the original one being an extension.

Matt stated it several times that mergers in the way you describe are not possible in TSW. Please read the posts carefully than you'll see what I mean. (Sorry Matt, that I have to quote you again and again)

This is the answer to the black screen idea, having two individual route DLCs and then using a black screen pause to transmit the train ride form DLC A to DLC B.

Sources: here and here

 

I am not referring to route mergers between two independent routes with overlapping locations - but add-ons for routes that add new track and scenery, relying on you owning the base route for it to work. Which is exactly what Matt says: "i.e. if you build A->B and later decide to extend to C, just go in, add the lidar for those bits, lay the track, fix it all up and now you have A->C. What you can't really do is make B->C as a new route and have it then dynamically merged".

Just that routes like LIRR, DRA, WSR and SEHS didn't have these extensions as extra DLCs, they were integrated into the base route replacing the original as an upgrade - which much better fits the description of a remaster.

 

First of all, I want to say that I've read through the description as stated in the February survey another time and now understand better what you mean. The wording is extremely bad stated and leads to the confusion you're in at the moment. Without to offend DTG JD, but I think he as someone who isn't really involved with the matter of creating routes mixed up some things here and he maybe used a wording with the same thoughts in mind as you now, ending up in a faulty and incorrect description for route extensions, although funny enough it could be seen as correct in a different point of view.

Basically what need to be understood first is that this idea to have the base map first and then acquire something like extension DLCs for it (like in ETS2 and ATS) is simply not possible in the way routes are created in Unreal Engine.

Why is this not possible?

The landscape and scenery kind of builds a strong and fixed unit in the end (even if separate tiles are loaded via level streaming) and depends on many factors and parameter, which cannot be shared between different DLCs in a way that an attached DLC would work.

I cannot have route part A, built B. on it and then cut route part B. out and sell it as standalone extension DLC for route part A. Also the much more utopical way of having route part A, built part B. individually in a different route project and then later find a way to glue them together is not possible.

It simply doesn't work that way in Unreal Engine.

For the matter we talk about, having two separate DLCs and then glue them dynamically together, both could be seen as the same in theory.

Matt's explanation might also not be the best one to describe it for the unknown, but I get what he means with it. What is of most importance of his statement for this conversation is the last sentence and the thing I talk about since various posts. You can't make a new route of B to C and then dynamically merge it with A to B.

That's the reason why extension DLCs like you describe do not and will never exist for TSW.

Yes, all of these routes didn't have extensions as extra DLCs, because of the exact reason Matt and I stated. It's not possible.

The only thing which is really, really, really bad here is the wording used in the description inside of the Survey, which unfortunately suggests something else.

 

Which makes sense if so. I know they are different game engines, but some extensions in TSC give you a separate route with the extension attached - requiring you to own the original for the assets to be visible. E.g. like in the original North Wales Coastal. Other examples have pre-laid track in the base route for the extensions with no scenery, with the extension DLC 'unlocking' those scenery assets. Take JT's MML network for example. There could be workarounds like these to make it work. I don't think they would ask a question and describe it in such a way if it were impossible to implement.

Ideally we need some official clarification as to what routes like LIRR, SEHS, DRA and WSR each fall under.

 

I laugh because I remember many saying “they’ll never extend any routes” when we were saying this with GWR, an HST needs a long run, and a class 800. High speed in two stops is pointless. Then Main Spessart Bahn turned up and it was like wow a little longer route, the Victoria to Brighton and the East Coastway. Brilliant.

So to see extensions great, its taken 4 versions of TSW but hopefully it can stay as V4 and improve on content already created. I think SimUK said it best that it should be one update for the entire addons for TSW not the method they currently use. Which no one had / has addressed until SimUK mentioned it

 

What about the results of the question in the February survey? If the results are really taken into account and do have an impact on future development, but being based upon wrong assumptions or inclarity on the participants side, I think we would need a new poll or something like that with a correct description to either option (what you understand of it) and in a manner being comparable.

Would this be possible? Or do you see this poll I created here as a sufficient substitution to consider the final results of it?

 

Thanks for the clarification Matt. Going by that we already have 3 extensions (LIRR, SEHS and DRA) and 1 remaster (WSR).

 

DRA was a remaster for TSW4. The Meissen extension came out shortly after the base route, it just hadn’t been publicized before.

 

It's a bit confusing. Doesn't LIRR qualify as a remastering, in that signalling and timetable ( and some scenic aspects ) were revamped in addition to the extra mileage and new train? It certainly looks and plays like a " reimagining of the original concept " to this player.

Just adding the Long Beach branch was an extension. Maybe future branches or a Main Line extension could be done without remastering the entire network.

 

Finding a correct classification is a bit weird though, because many characteristics of either a remaster or extension got mixed and intertwined.

I think the best to keep a clear head is to just go by the wording and don't get confused by its characteristics. Just by the wording,
a "remaster" suggests to enhance something old and make it better, while on the other side an "extension" says to prolong the tracks.

However, and this is the actual weird and confusing thing in this case, and just going by the descriptions in the February survey, a remaster also can have prolonged/extended tracks and an extension also can have an enhancement/upgrade of the scenery and other parts of the environment.

For me personally, the main difference between them two is that an "extension" provides a significant route prolongation/extension to the old route, coming with a new loco and with regard to these two premises also has an respective price tag (assumably in the amount of a new DLC) while the remaster focuses on improvements to the old route only, and because of that - in comparison to building a new loco and reworking the route system to extend it significantly (with maybe a necessary overhaul of the complete signal system then) - less work spent on the project and therefore is more likely to be a free rather than a paid upgrade.


Coming back to the main idea of the whole thread and why I created the poll.

How are we going to change the results of this question in the February survey now from being somehow distorted to be moreover undistorted? If the results are really took into consideration for future development decisions, I think the poll would need to be redone.

Or are we going to agree all that DTG shouldn't evaluate these results and we just ditch the complete Remaster vs. Extension nonsense and look for each and every route whether either a paid extension or a free remaster does make sense?

And coming back to one of the concerns raised in this thread before, how much would it actually take DTG to just do a TOD4 lighting remaster to old routes? Wouldn't it take a lot less amount of time to simply do that and therefore could be done to much more routes that potentially could have an extensive extension or remaster (including lots of other stuff like new timetable, added trains, renewed scenery and whatnot else)?

 

IMHO TOD4 and bridge/tunnel reverb should be the minimum upgrade all routes receive, even going back to GWE, RT and SPG. That should be Level One and complimentary too, no cost to end user. Level Two might embrace some more cosmetic changes, better foliage the kind of thing that was done for WSR and again probably free to existing customers. Level Three would encompass One and Two but also include some sort of extension, possibly a new train (that could even be Level Four) with a new timetable and be sold as an upgraded version of the original.

 

I prefer Remasters but If Dresden is considered a remaster I'm not voting for remasters. Remasters should bring routes up to spec with current routes. Dresden did not get that treatment. To me Dresden is just an update.

 

DTG Matt
We Need the DB Stadler Kiss Train for Hamburg Lübeck as Expansion for a new Timetable DLC for the Current Era

 

I don't think they want to extend that route right now. afraid the 218 will be TOD3 lighting or the route will get a TOD4 upgrade. the KISS is definetely missing in the german routes. including the austrian ones if more westbahn track is coming. it would be a welcome addition to the amount of dosto's we see now. but I expect one loco dlc is enough. I don't see them releasing that and after that an extension with another loco. how much I want it though. that blue one is from NAH.SH and I don't think there's a license for it. I'd love a DB red one though so we at least have the KISS

 

I voted extensions, pretty sure I did in the survey aswell, might aswell see more substance come with such things, though it varies per route how much really would benefit, there is also quite a chunk of extensions I would like to see, and that number most likely will continue to rise per usual route release.

edit: not a vote against remasters, they’re great, just a vote more for extension.

 

From the survey - Extension option - we haven’t had an example of that yet. Remaster option - that perfectly describes what LIRR2 is.
This poll is asking a different question of paid versus free and isn’t asking the same thing as the survey.

 

I described in posts above why the description to "route extensions" DTG JD stated in the survey, seems to be a bit false. As Matt and I said, it's not possible to sell additional addon's (as stated in the extension description in the survey) and attach them like in the puzzle principle to the base map like in ETS/ATS. Maybe it is possible in TSC, but not in TSW. Didn't happen, will never happen.

Therefore we can't know exactly how DTG is classifying a remaster or an extension, and if LIRR 2.0 should be seen as a remaster or extension.

Kind of agree in the way that I can't 100% be sure what the company meant here exactly (since I'm obviously no part of it). However exactly this is the reason why this thread even exists. Because the descriptions either were too unclear or didn't even make sense, so the only thing I'm trying to do is get better results in the ways which are possible and the knowledge which is available to me.

I would be in for either for the plan that DTG is doing the poll twice and explaining exactly what they meant so that people can exactly vote for the thing they want or do not take results of the question in the survery into account for future business decisions.

 

I've not voted on the poll as both the WSR remaster and LIRR remake are both great upgrades to two of the older routes in TSW. I'd love to see all of the older TSW2020 routes eventually receive either a remaster or remake.

For example, I'd happily buy an NTP remake with the Calder Valley line between Manchester & Leeds added, Pennines redone with LIDAR tech and a BR Class 56 added. While Tees Valley got the remaster treatment to touch up the scenery, TOD4 and a busier TT.

 

Fair point. And I would say I agree to this. You absolutely con astain from the poll if you feel unsure or not agree. However, I'm not sure whether we could astain from this question in the survey. If I remember correctly, a participant had to answer either one of those 4 options (Route extensions, Modular routes, Expert locos or Route remasters) before continueing with the survey, so at least there you couldn't vote with refusing to vote. You had to take one option.

I personally would love an enhancement of all old routes as well, but as the question in the survey suggests, DTG can only focus on one of those at the same time. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to chose one way or the other. And this without even knowing what was really meant there.

 

LIRR 2 is extension and Remaster is WSR to what I know/see

 

Maybe calling it "LIRR2 " indicates that we consider it to be a remake or " remaster ".

 

I know the pieces fit
'Cause I watched them tumble down
No fault, none to blame
It doesn't mean I don't desire
To point the finger, blame the other
Watch the temple topple over
To bring the pieces back together
Rediscover communication

 

I did not expect Tool lyrics in a TSW thread wow

 

Now I'm just wondering when DTG will make another trip to Caltrain to give Peninsula Corridor the LIRR2 treatment and add in their Stadler KISS EMU's (After they enter service of course)

 

Dresden-Riesa is absolutely my favourite DB route and an extension to Leipzig + makeover would really do it justice à la SEHS. Here’s hoping it will be part of a future summer route pack.

 

Neither tbh. But if I had to choose, it'd be extensions, as long as they at least double the route length.

I will never pay full price for an update

 

LIRR: The Director's Cut

 

That would be rather more than the LIRR treatment! The new Long Island kept all the original trackage and stations, just facelifted the assets, added some more, upgraded lighting and (crucially) revamped signaling and redid the timetable. But to bring Caltrain into the near-future KISS era would mean electrifying the whole thing- as well as replacing much of the manmade scenery, since the whole corridor has seen a lot of development since 2018. In other words, the same issues as a GWE-with-800s.

 

For concern 3. Matt wasn't lying since the expert loco is being made by a 3rd party and not DTG. As he said they wouldn't consider doing it alone. Not that it won't be done by someone else.


Personally I would like to see more connected routes with a common station

Like ECW and BML. LIRR and NYT. Scotrail Express and Fife Circle, RRO and RSN, DRA and Tharandter Ramp, MSB and Maintahlbahn and the upcoming San Bernardino and Antelope Valley.

 

I'm happy with anything that extends or remasters a route. I think SEHS was great however I guess DTG have to be conscious not to devalue existing products?

 

What do you mean with devalue an existing product?

As fas as I understood, remasters are free upgrades to the actual route (so it should be an increase in value) and in case of a paid upgrade, the old DLC will be replaced/took off the stores and the new one will be available from this moment onwards.

People can't purchase the old one anymore, yet owners can still download it.

Do you mean that you want that DTG keep the old unextended version maintained?

 

Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly are crying out to have extra routes added to them.