I think it’s safe to say we all share this negative opinion on TSW. Routes are too short. It’s so disconcerting to have an awesome route you’re really enjoying, to have it cut short. I have this misconception now that routes are able to exceed past the optimal mileage/KM that DTG, and other third parties won’t go beyond. They just choose not to. I’ve just recently started playing an amazing, very detailed driving simulator called Fernus Coachbus Simulator, with a Thrustmaster wheel. This game features Germany, Czech Republic, Belgium, France, Switchland, Demark and Poland. With over 50,000 KM to drive and explore. I’m unsure if every town is accounted for in these countries, but the scale of this game blew me away. One journey took me over 4 hours to drive, which I did over a few days. If a simulator is able to achieve 50,000km plus of a highly detailed driving sim, than why do TSW routes not exceed a certain distance. I can’t imagine Aerosoft’s game engine is that much different from Dovetails. Is it laziness on DTG’s behalf or are they under pressure from Focus Entertainment to knock as much content as they can.
Also Gen 8 console must add to this issue... I am surprised they didn't bin Gen 8 with the release of TSW4. I do admit it is one thing about TSW that does let it down. London to Brighton is one of the only routes with an 'end to end' feel to it. It concerns me going forward that we will only get small portions of routes compared to the TSC equivalents... We need a UK equivalent of Kassel - Wurzburg with a good run... Like London to Birmingham. But knowing TSW if it did happen we'd only get to Milton Keynes or Rugby at best!
Like someone already mentioned and we already know the answer to. Would DTG develop a route between 6-9 months…
DTG business side is investment and return, maybe they may see it as positive or negative such a thing, which one that is I don’t know, so I would leave it as a maybe.
If they had an unlimited budget and time, they could but they don't. Tools aren't good enough to do most of the work so the devs don't have to add much manually. There's also complexity of the actual scenery and track.
High speed routes definitely need to be longer so you can actually feel like you've made some distance. ECML was a step in the right direction for that. 80 miles plus varied service patterns make it feel longer than it actually is. Commuter routes, however, are better off being shorter, but they should at least be end to end or, if that's too long (depending on the route in question), at least ending at a logical point rather than what feels like nowhere.
I, for one, don't. The only routes I feel are too short are High Speed ones because they're typically only half-hour runs with one station in the middle (KWG, LGV..) or *speed up, wait, stop* (GWE, SKA..) Commuter and Regional lines are ones I don't mind being short. The 40-60 mile range is the Goldilocks zone for them, IMO.
I can see both sides of the argument, particularly with route building experience in other sims. However got to admit if I see another < 20 mile UK modern EMU route I will just scream and leave it on the shelf (unless it was something substantially different like a non ATO tube line). We need more routes like ECML (for the UK) and fewer Glossop’s or Goblin lines. Either that or DTG need to start thinking how they can create routes and then extend them, or some sort of modular system like Run 8. I was playing SimRail again last night and, yes I still have reservations about the MP and lackadaisical SP game, but there’s no denying being able to drop in anywhere on something like 400km of route miles I think it is now, with more to come, is bloody marvellous. And that’s not 400km of barebones MSTS style route building either, numerous complex railway locations and stations, detailed scenery, superb lighting effects and numerous train types. And all that for the price of one DTG route DLC (plus the ET22 cargo pack if you choose to buy it). Now I don’t know what the business arrangements with Simkol are, but it seems they can produce far more than DTG for a fraction of the price and still make money. Maybe it’s time for DTG to find cheaper office premises, replace the PR staff with route and train builders then start working on something equivalent to Warsaw to Katowice (and numerous offshoots) for TSW.
Imagine they spent 3+ years making a big network only for it to fail? You have to also think about whether something makes financial sense, would it be worth potentially taking a break from other types of content so work on 1 massive project? Smaller routes make so they can hopefully produce multiple types of content in a year, German Highspeed, British commuter and American freight for example. If they put all their resources into one massive network in Britain for example it would only really cater to 1 demographic, leaving everyone else behind, imagine what this would be like we had no 3rd parties to fill the space with content.
It has been mentioned before but if DTG simply "opened up" more of the routes they have already released then that would add a great amount of playability to the game. Look at Glossop. Open up the whole of Piccadilly and the Stockport lines. Use the four tracked lines on the way to Guide Bridge. Bring in the various sidings scattered throughout the route. Add more local passenger services. Do all of this and then, shock-horror, you suddenly find out that you have a 'new' route. No more than a couple of days work.
I would love to see it happen one day. One of the things which brings me back to classic if I have a good 3 hours to play I love playing one long route rather than 3 or 4 shorter ones.
I don't mind routes being shorter, but what I don't like are routes being cut off at illogical points. ECML is a prime example of this. The route should have went onwards to York. Both Peterborough and York do serve as crew change points in reality so it makes sense! GWE, another prime example. Again, the route should have went onwards to Oxford or Didcot at the very least with a handful of shorter branches to go with it. If a route has to be on the shorter side, then I at least want the full route end to end with a few branch lines to go with it if applicable. Birmingham Cross City and Cathcart Circle are good examples of this. You get the full real life route and they are non linear to make up for the shorter distance, that's fine. That's how it should be.
The thing that bugs me with TSW is that theres no sort of compromise. Id be happy if it was like: LONG end to end routes had no branches but logical end points and short regional / commuter routes had plenty of branches. Releasing something as simple and boring as the Goblin should be a crime
Why is goblin bad beyond its short? Its quite an enjoyable route with loads of detail. It might have less mileage but IMO way more to look at than ECML for example. Its also still a 40 minute service which is still a decent length. Not to mention its cheaper than a normal DLC. Is niddertalbahn bad cause its short too? I agree we should get routes with more branches if we wont get long routes but dont get this hate for a really good DLC. It does what it says on the tin and it looks better than 99% of routes
Boring is very subjective. I very much enjoy the Goblin. If you dont like short commuter lines then you shouldnt buy it. Doesnt mean they should stop making them as people do enjoy it.
Goblin amused me for about two trips each way and that was it. Glossop only marginally better. TSW ends up filled with these one trick short routes that never end up getting revisited and it has now got to the stage where I feel what’s the point adding more of the same.
Boring is very subjective. Sitting at high speed, with very little interaction for an hour is far less interesting to me than a 40 minute stopping service which covers a fraction of the distance. I certainly wouldn't want the ECML services to be twice as long. Some of the routes I play most often are the ones that were slated at launch for being "too short" and I feel much happier committing to doing those services in a single sitting. For me, having a small network, with a variety of trains and service patterns, like we have on Blackpool, is the optimum, and I suspect that a majority of the more casual userbase would agree.
I have to agree that I'm firmly in the camp of "longer routes are boring". The routes I play tend to be the shorter contained routes, while I rarely play GWE or ECML because sitting at 125mph for x time is just rather dull.
I think adding in branch lines would make routes better like E to G branchlines were missed out there that would of made the route longer and enjoyable for some
That’s why I’m hoping these community projects kick off and become a norm. The chap who’s creating the Southeastern network has definitely captured my attention.
I very much enjoy commuter routes. BCC its my most played. I very much enjoy BCC. Its got everything I want, 3 destinations, varying stop patterns what more could I ask for? Goblin is all the same Barking RS < > Gospel Oak. At least glossop had something a little more interesting about it, even if it didn't work properly.
I’ve never had a chance to play SimRail, as all my time is invested in TSW and other sims. I will give it a shot I think. 400km of track “drop in anywhere”. Now that’s something special right there. It’s similar to Fernbus Coachbus Simulator which I’m playing at the moment. Spawning in at over 100+ cities across 7 countries. That’s why I wish TSW could be so much more. I’m hoping on day Microsoft get back into making Train sims again, and give us a MS flight sim scale train sim game. They’re the kings of the skies, they could one day become the kings of the rails too.
I'm pretty new to the game and so far got a bit of a mix of routes to try different things. I like the busier content over say the ECML. The issue with ECML is the lack of variety. It is just run the Azuma up and down. I know there are some layers with added content, like the 158, but you need the content to get those layers. If we get a longer fast route, something like Kings Cross to Peterborough would be better or Euston to Birmingham. So you've a mix of stopping services and fast services. That ECML section (for me) is just ... dull. I definitely think DTG (and third parties) need to look at routes they can populate. Glossop is a local-ish route to me that I use a few times a year, so I quite like it. But, it is missing so much. Piccadilly being empty for a start. No other local services on the sections of the route that should be such as Manchester to Guide Bridge services that then go on towards Sheffield. Yes, it needs the stock, but if the stock hasn't been made should the route be made? JT and Skyhook could deffo look at doing a Northern Pacer and 158 respectively for those routes.
I'm all for longer routes but don't we need to have a perfect performance on the "short" routes we have now first? I was looking at a comparison video about F1 cockpit views. Okay these are very short tracks but I noticed that popping trees were already solved there on PS2. TSW still not hits a smooth performance on these "smaller" routes
It's not the length of the route, it's what is ON it. Quality vs quantity. Niddertalbahn, WSR, Oakville, Tees Valley...they're not long but they are full of stuff and look good. I don't feel they are crazy short. We always want "more" but that's a human thing. We ALWAYS want more. On the other hand, Cajon Pass feels SUPER LONG driving it because of the lack of scenery and grade speeds. It's not "bad", but it feels arduously long and that's only 85 miles (I think that's the longest in the game right now? Longest of the ones I have anyway...) Bottom line to me is this... if it takes similar development time to make long, empty routes or short, full routes (and they sell for a similar amount in the store) then just imagine how much long, full routes would be. Imagine... double? Triple? They have to make their development costs back, so expect the cost to rise (and also the download size of MANY GB) It's also a huge risk in case people end up NOT liking it.... I can't really blame DTG or 3rd parties for focusing on the same "range" of work and risk. If that "sweet spot" of say $30-$40 for a route is considered workable, then it'd be a HUGE risk to invest say 2-3 times as much in a route that MIGHT succeed... or not. Also, the time involved means it takes a lot longer to release that route (which people complain about) and at best you get the same return on investment at the end. So... release 3 of the current routes.... or 1 "super route"? Unless that route is going to sell a LOT more or cost a LOT more then it just doesn't make sense from their perspective. I COULD see that becoming a thing if they had a preorder system, charged more and had guaranteed buy-in on a specific route. Make a pitch to a developer, be specific, get backers to defray the development cost, and get in cheap when it's released? Like a GoFundMe project? Let's say for example the community picking a "long North American freight line" of say 250 miles (400km) Pick the route, have devs estimate a fair development cost, set a target, get "donations" to get it started, and anyone who donated can get a discounted copy for free when it releases. The rest pay for the route full price. Alternately, a "high quality" route of maybe 75 miles (120km) would be an option. This keeps price to about 3 times normal, and development time to about 3 times normal. The up front investment gets the ball rolling, pays the initial costs when no revenue is being generated on the project, and shows a general level of interest in the project. The problem is that a line that long that is AS DETAILED as the very short routes is expensive. If it's 3 times as long AND 3 times as detailed that's 9-10 times as expensive to make. I think that's cost prohibitive. Who would pay $300 for a route, even if it did have a few locos with it? So, it'd be one or the other.... super-Cajon or super-Niddertalbahn. Or... a middle-route of say double length and mixed quality? It all comes down to return on investment and not being able to spend 9+ months on a route without money coming in.
A Go-Fund project is a good idea or raising the price by double. If we was to get a whole network, say for example Southeastern covering over 200 miles of track with X amount of stations, lines and a variety of locos, than I’d happily pay the price. I would like to see DTG experiment one day.
Wrong game engine, Unity would have been far more sensible. 500km drivable route miles in Simrail with editors coming that probably will not need a degree in quantum physics to use. Evidence of that can be seen in Diesel RailCar Sim built on Unity, which has had timetable and route editors almost right from the start.
Just to add for people moaning about small routes... There is nothing wrong with small routes, the GOBLIN and Bakerloo Line for example are superb and are a niche of their own. There is a time and place for them, just like there are for long distance routes, so I would like to make that distinction. I'm not asking for DT to stop making short routes, I'm just asking that when they do make bigger routes give them a bit of length. ECML is a good start... The thing for me is when I hear about a InterCity route, I get excited, but, when it's only 40 or so miles it just feels underwhelming. A good example of this is Boston Sprinter which I believe is just over 40 miles... Just as you're picking up pace in the Accela Express within half hour you've practically finished the route. Anything that has fast InterCity running services should be a decent length. And as I've said in my previous posts, it's about time we seriously start leaving Gen 8 consoles in the past as they are really holding consoles players experience potential back. I'm not a fan of the 'Go Fund Me' type arrangement, it makes it seem like a charity and I'm sure DT don't want that image either...
Yes, I would agree. I love Cathcart and that's only 20mi, but not a huge fanatic of Glossop Line and that's not too far off. On the flipside, I enjoy SEHS2 and it's 80 or so miles; whereas I can't say I enjoy KWG which is closer to 100[?] As you say - absolutely about quality and what's on the route. But in a purely length-based discussion- assuming linearity - I'd stick with my "40-60mi Goldilocks zone" - not too short, not too long. Factoring in everything else - that would go out of the window.
SEHS kinda gets by being so long with having a lot of crossover. Once you make a corridor, then anything crossing the corridor (or paralleling it) is essentially already developed since you have to go a bit out to the sides anyway. On a related note, that's why I think something like the "London Underground" or an intracity setup would be doable in more depth. In the former case, "underground" there's no scenery, just tunnels. Nothing to build between stations to "see" , close or far. For aboveground, you can do parallel tracks at lower additional cost as you go, so a "grid" or "loop" (like in Oakville or lesser extent Blackpool) would mean less work to "fill in" the middle. You can reuse central stations, mostly the same assets (one station is actually a LOT like another on the Tube or in NYC) I really don't care for those sorts of routes myself being a rural freight oriented player, but a LOT of people buy the commuter routes in DTG so it must have a following. Even just adding on to a network like the London Underground over time would be a neat project. I know it's the opposite of the "longer routes" topic, but I think it highlights the challenges of those routes and why they're bound to be more expensive and time intensive compared to a smaller, less linear route. What WOULD people be willing to pay for what length route to what level of detail? Edit: I was wrong before, the longest I can see in game is Wurzburg at 116 miles. Although I still say I really like what they managed with SEHS...albeit it's really sort of 3 overlapping routes instead of one long one....
I think they're probably not far from the optimum here already. I don't often want much longer routes, and wouldn't pay more (I usually wait for sales anyway), so I can't see much value in them making routes longer, only to charge more.
I agree on the high speed routes. I don't agree that shorter routes are automatically bad. For me it depends on the running time. Example is Bakerloo line. It's short but isn't over in a minute. I believe in the upcoming future artificial intelligence could play a big role in this. Imagine that you could AI use Google maps for example in combination with other reference material to create a realistic and long route. I think it's possible later on.
I think it's the time needed I suppose to answer it outright but hopefully we get longer stuff. I would rather have a longer route if it was worth a great cost rather than keep having to pay for smaller routes etc
Not me. There’s a small number of routes where I might favor different starting/end points but I’m not in favor of excessively long services either. Around 40 minutes is usually my sweet spot.
Yes, I agree with that. I personally like anywhere from 45mins to 1 hour on routes, but any longer than that’s what the save button is used for. What about a network of lines? Wouldn’t you want more freedom in your gameplay. You’re happy with A to B routes?
That's a different question but still relevant. Do we count ALL of the lines together, or just the overall length? I suppose for high speed routes that's gonna need to be linear to get to high speeds, but personally I don't care for high speed and would rather more variety and branch lines for variety. As I said, I'd rather do Oakville or SE High speed rather than something long line LGV or Cajon. Having said that... I haven't heard anyone complaining about needing "longer routes" bringing up Cajon Pass or Antelope. They are long and linear like Sherman Hill. The first is 85 miles, the other two 76 miles. The second two take a good 90 minutes end to end and Cajon with it's grades takes over 2-2.5 hours. I rarely have over 1.5 to 2 hours to do on one sitting (and save is kinda wonky) so more than that for me wouldn't be practical. Those SEEM a pretty good choice for people looking for "longer routes".... what do you think of those that already exist? I mean... for UK routes there's still SE High Speed... and the Wurzberg is 116 miles. When you say "longer routes".... just HOW long are you talking? And do you mean mileage or time? (The more grades and curves, the longer it takes)
I’d rather have a short to medium sized route with lots of variety than a long Highspeed route, something like Southeastern hits pretty much every target, variety of services, variety in trains, size of the route is pretty good.
I mean length in terms of complete routes, instead of selling us a 60% route. A full network too. Example: SEHS, why stop at Ashford International or Faversham and carry on to Margate or Ramsgate, cover more of Kent. If another sim is able to achieve 50,000km of freedom to drive anywhere from A-B, but a Train sim can only offer me 50 miles, then that’s a concern for me. I think AI will play a bit part in route building in the future though and will cut precious dev time.
I play MSFS, and those are some long flights average is probably 3 to 4 hours. Usually I play TSW because it doesn't take that long to do a route. I'm not against a long route with 3 hours of driving from point A to B. But I'm pretty sure I won't play it as often as I only do 1 or maybe 2 flights a week at most. Now if your talking total track on a multi route network that would be right up my alley. Multiple start and stop locations but services no longer than an hour to get from point to point. Example the PC editor London Overground network would be right up my alley. I just want more network lines like DRA, SEHS, LIRR, Fife Circle, MML. Ones that are not just point A to B.
Guarantee if they decide to start making longer routes, another post will be made complaining about the subsequent lack of releases.
