Wcml South - Not Good Enough

I'm not sure why DTG haven't put Rivet in the corner with the safety scissors and glitter with their track record let alone for a flagship route

 

Could I say that it's a mistake to compare WCMLS to SB. They really are apples and oranges.

SB is a mostly straight, single track route with fairly simple track work and runs through a semi-rural landscape for much of its length. It doesn't really have any new rolling stock, and has a sparse timetable with almost no passing AI, just a few well-planned meets.

WCMLS, in the other hand, has a minimum 4-track layout which, like BML, has extensive track work running through a suburban cityscape. It has a couple of new trains with a much busier timetable and much more AI traffic.

Both routes have a number of issues but very different problems to be sure. So comparing and contrasting them is not a fruitful exercise in my opinion. They both need serious remedial work. Whether it will be forthcoming no-one knows, but history is not on our side in either case.
.

 

As I said in an earlier post I have chopped and changed on my purchase option. Every time I watch the WCML stream I keep going back to the TSW5 Free core. The route is so bland and lacks any character. It is too clean, too new, the tracks as if they were laid a week ago, no litter, no maintenance and no life.

No doubt Frankfurt will rub our noses in it.

I'll check out the Youtube videos from early access next week

 

I mean everybody keeps saying rivet made the route. Was wondering if there are any tell tail signs in the preview.

 

What I will say is, DTG don't make timetables the way that one has been made.

 

I see. I'm hoping the timetable is better than what people are saying. The dc lines are the reason I bought deluxe with wcml.

I hope dtg clarify before early access otherwise we will be shafted.

 

this is a really good point.

last years uk flagship release (ECML) was an almost 1:1 accurate representation of the real life timetable, with even Hull Trains, Lumo and Grand Central services represented using LNER stock

not only that but a full Class 158 timetable between GRA and PBO, along with full Class 158 AI at Doncaster (for Lincoln), Newark (for Lincoln), Grantham (for Nott'm and Skegness) and Peterborough (for Lincoln), alongside full AI timetable for Class 700 at PBO and full AI timetable using Class 323 at Doncaster..

And that's not even getting started on the many freight services, RHTT services and others, it was and still is just full of life.. and in fact if it wasn't for the simple fact i wish it was Peterborough to York, and not just Doncaster, i would say the ECML is about as close to a 10/10 modern-era route in the entire TSW history.

i mean if it runs on that section of the ECML, it was included (i must say whoever created the ECML timetable, which i believe was Joethefish but happy to be corrected if not, did an incredible job on that one!)

which makes the fact this new tsw5 release feeling like a big step backwards timetable-wise a real surprise,

 

It’s abit of a shame that things like the RHTT & ROG37 have already been forgotten, at the very least the 37 can be seen quite regularly on the southern end. The 08 should have been featured too as one of the TMD’s has a couple that are usually out & about.

There are obviously a couple of people at least at DTG who know how important timetables are, they’re the meat & potatoes of DLC’s. I don’t get why, in their own words “the most requested route in TSW”, is in the current state that it is.

 

As Fawx said, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc.

DTG built San Bernardino and the quality shows. WCMLS, on the other hand, bears more than a passing resemblance to Fife Circle, very obviously so. DTG did not build WCMLS, I’m very confident of that.

 

As mentioned if we only look back to last year with DTG layering the 158, 47, and 323 as AI, and a pretty 1:1 timetable on the ECML, it would be a huge step backwards for them to release one of the TSW5 routes in such a shoddy condition... The WCML is definitely not DTGs work. A disastrous move on DTGs behalf by allowing it if so...

 

I hope when DTG put out more info next week they answer this question and put the speculation to bed. It’s not for purposes of a witch-hunt nor throwing another studio under the bus, but there is no getting around the fact that a proper balls up has been made of a much anticipated and looked forward to route which is clearly going to impact the game’s standing. IMHO it’s only fair to tell the people buying the product which dev studio is responsible for it.

The fact that the question hasn’t been answered so far speaks volumes to me.

 

Well it is the turn of Frankfurt to face the public next Wednesday.

I have to say it's great to see you, Fawx and Bescot on this thread. I should image you are putting a game plan together between you.

Your joint work on Fife was well appreciated.

 

Is it still a witch-hunt if we've found a boiling cauldron and a cupboard full of broomsticks?

 

I'm calling this fairly convincing proof- you know your timetables.

Subcontracting happens, but nobody's forcing DTG to hire any particular contractor?

Why use someone whose reputation is, to be kind, less than good?

Why on the TSW5 flagship route, of all places?

DTG's timetables since TSW4 launch have been pretty darn good IMO, Fife and now this one are the only real stinkers.

What could they have in common? Hmmm...

 

Could just be a broomstick salesman making some soup?

 

If that’s one of the collectibles then that’s a pretty big giveaway

Barring the obvious issues that exist with the core (sweeping statement but we know what it means) DTG’s post TSW4 content has been almost universally very good. Everything they’ve trailed for the future also looks great, particularly the GWE revamp.

WCMLS is so very obviously not of the same standard, but it does share many of the hallmarks of Fife Circle.

 

I assume even if they don’t answer the question the answer will be easy enough to find in the credits section of the route manual?

 

A cleaner AND a cook?? Youre hired!

 

Yeah, I fell for all the glitter and shiney stuff including a suspension system with TSW4 and what I got wasn't so shiney. Fool me once....!

 

Here's food for thought:

WCML and SB were both built by DTG. But, because of the many complaints about US stuff being left behind so to speak, they put more effort into SB to appease those customers. The side effect: WCML is not up to standard, and this time was the one they neglected.

 

Nods as good as wink to a blind horse!

 

Could be, and would speak again to poor project management- is there not sufficient staff? If not, why not? If there is enough staff, why aren't dev resources being allocated properly?

 

Even though the current state the route is in isn't really acceptable, I'm still hopeful that most of the issues will be fixed, as it is a core route, and several issues on the TSW4 ECML were fixed.
I'm still trying to remain positive, as I really like the line in real life, and the TSW counterpart could still reflect that. Better late than never, I suppose.

 

It's fair to assume from what DTG have said so far that there will be 'minimal changes' (read: no changes) from what was on the live stream. So any improvement will only happen when the first patch is downloaded to our PCs. Anything before then (including the phrase "firm commitment" is just a useless word salad of promises left unfulfilled.

The errors are there for all to see, the test now is the speed and quality of the fix to sort this mess out.

 

If it is a rivet route, hopefully it's not like Fife circle where the first patch completely broke the train running sounds and they still remain broken to this day, many months later.

 

Or the 150/2, which remains broken after years.

 

The one thing I find funny is, there was a comment on a thread recently that said "if people were not told something was a Rivet product they wouldn't be able to tell the difference"... Yet in this instance, me and others in the TSW community have spotted the the hallmarks and poor standards straight away...

I know it is a terrible thing to say, but I think it would be a perfect scenario for DTG to throw Rivet under the bus if our suspicions turn out to be true. And DTG have a lot of questions to answer themselves on why they would trust them with such a large and complex project for TSW5.

I just hope DTG acknowledge this and take the WCML in-house and fix and improve it themselves as it's the only way forward to bring it upto tolerable standard.

 

Rivet have been a subcontractor for DTG for a very long time and will have worked on a lot of the DTG content in TSW, as well as their own content. It really doesn’t matter how much of an involvement they have had with WCML because the route is a DTG route and all criticism should be aimed at DTG. And don’t do something as silly as calling for DTG not to use Rivet. You will be ignored in the same way you would ignore someone who called for you to switch barbers because they think your hairstyle is rubbish. We are only one step from demanding to know the names of the individuals who made the scenery so we can have a pop at them on their facebook pages. It’s getting silly. DTG is who you buy the route from, and you can say you don’t like it, point out its failings, but don’t be asking for them to out Rivet as the culprits for some dodgy scenery or whatever. It could have been Skyhook or another company that we don’t even know the name of. It doesn’t matter. It’s a DTG route. They can work out how to improve things without us calling for the heads of dodgy devs on a stick.

 

I respect what you're saying but I disagree.

No one is demanding that individual people are called out, and no one wants peoples individual names, and no one ever will. That is a very exaggerated example... The jist of it is, this particular developer has a reputation for poor quality work. Why would a company even consider using them for something so complex as the WCML and for a new flagship route? Them (Rivet), as a company, have a track record of very shoddy and poor quality work.

More disappointingly, if it is proven, that DTG have ignored the communities historic feedback and very vocal criticism of Rivets work and outsourced the work to them, allowing this shoddy work to take place right under their nose and allowing it to be released with barely any quality control in place, then questions within the company definitely need to be asked, and moving forward this should not be allowed to happen. There is nothing wrong with outsourcing work, but (and again, if proven), to hand a very complex project to a company with an evident track record of poor quality work, was completely irresponsible on DTG behalf. DTG are solely responsible for potentially (if proven) allowing the WCML route to be released in the current state it is, and having this in the state it is as a TSW5 launch route, is a shambles.

Players are annoyed at the companies and not the individuals, and people can clearly make the distinction between the two.

 

I think I have got to the bottom of the 350 formation situation. I re-watched the preview, and it looked like services on the fast line (Birmingham New Street, Crewe), had 8 coaches, and services on the slow line (Milton Keynes Central, Tring) have 4. The other 350 variants must be added, or the numbers of other variants added to the 350/1 until the new variants can be made.

 

For one thing we dont only get /4s and /1s on the BML and that ECR to MKC service is more realistic/adds more realism to that said service and route. And then are able to hop on to the WCML and drive the /2s on to MKC/WFJ which makes more sense before you know you suddenly have a pantograph out of nowhere.

 

The only benefit would be a rarely seen pantograph and different numbers. That's it.

Too much work for too little gain.

 

suppose so? Though with the success (can it be said as that? I have heard from a lot others that the route is good/decent due to its busy-ness) of the route, I dont think it will be on the piority list of remasters.

 

I was wondering whether panto-less 350s might be used as AI 450s around Clapham. That would make "The Junction" a more interesting spot.
Otherwise, most of us North of the River types hardly notice which sub-class of the original 377s we're on so adding /2s to the BML seems like a low-priority if the BML is updated.

 

This is all conjecture, so why are you working yourself up into such a lather about it? If DTG had directly hired all of the Rivet staff and got them to do this route, would that make any difference to your feelings? DTG can hire or subcontract to whoever they like, within the law of course, and it's got nothing to do with you or me. This is equally true of feedback: it's great that they ask for it but they don't have to listen. The only control we ultimately have is whether or not we choose to spend our money on the products they produce. I know people hate hearing that but it's the truth. If you ultimately spend your money on TSW content, then live with your choice. You of course have a right to be unhappy with it - and if it's not fit for purpose, then you have recourse in the law (in the UK anyway) - but no one is forcing you to spend your money on this stuff.

 

It would definitely make it feel busier, although they'd presumably have to be unbranded SWR or maybe Stagecoach/whoever owns the South West Trains brand would be willing to license that but I doubt DTG would be willing to pay and tbh that would be wholly understandable. For PC editor timetable mods though where licensing isn't an issue it seems like a good idea assuming portals are set up on that side of Clapham.

 

This Rivet thing is starting to become like Roswell. If your car misfires because there is a problem with the ECU made by Bosch or Denso, you don't go out of your way to contact them and complain? No, you walk your ass around to the front of your car and you look at the badge on the front of it and you contact whoevers name or badge it is, Ford, VW, Skoda, BMW etc. From where I am standing, this has DTG in big bold lettering on it, makes zero difference about the parts or who was involved, DTG are 100% responsible to quality control it, period!! Stop trying to divert the blame off DTG, they signed their name to it, their problem.

 

No ones forcing me to buy it, so you are correct. But what is frustrating, is it would seem such a backwards move in the evolution of the game. Every series has a level of progression in terms of standards and immersion, so to do the opposite of that is a move in the opposite direction for standards.

DTG can hire who they want, but hiring a company with a history of poor quality products isn't fantastic idea. And if Rivet staff were taken on by DTG I guarantee they'd flourish and be able to bring their work upto a better standard. But at the end of the day DTG have signed this off so the buck stops at them regardless of who made the route.

As I've said in the end of my other posts, DTG are the ones that have a lot of questions to answer for allowing this type of thing to happen regardless of who made it. Although we do need to acknowledge who actually made it to make sure it never happens again and so standards don't fall if any other routes are outsourced.

 

No, it is not your responsiblity or job to track down who did what. DTG's name is on the front of it and it is down to them to quality control their own product and manage it. Our job is to give DTG feedback on their product, so they can address the issues however they see fit. (Or not)

 

Ultimately DTG commissioned this dlc so it matters not whether Rivet built it or not. It is not being sold directly by Rivet so the blame for this is squarely in DTG’s court…I just cannot understand why it was signed off…clearly sub standard going by previously released content!

 

Not only substandard, but support nonexistent, essentially Rivet produces abandon ware.

 

It's not the first Sub standard WCML South DTG have signed off. I suspect the dev time ran out and the powers that be said its got to be released. They hope enough of the wow day one crowd will bite as will yes I hope there is a patch crowd.

 

I doubt very much that the leak helped. We know of one area of possible fallout - the LNW licence - but how many other fires had to be put out that involved unexpected changes to the code/assets? Also, with the leak likely to have come from a beta tester, which would have caused major distractions and trust issues, how much testing ended up happening in the latter stages?

 

I wish the route were longer like ts classic. Yes a lot of man power but flipping heck would be a dream to have it. Thank God we have 3rd parties like JT who make up for it

 

People tend to miss the obvious here. In one breath they say it'd take too many man-hours to produce a longer route, then in the next they point out 3rd party devs who are doing exactly that, apparently without issue.
DTG are all about churning out DLC. I've no problem with that but let's not pretend it's not what it is..

 

Exactly that. Even if the routes came in installments, and were built upon bit by bit I would buy it. Mainly because I want something long that will last me and entertain me for hours. Really don't care if it's 5 hours long the route. Saves money as well as I can occupy myself with one for a while.

 

Well - I believe it is not that easy. JT produces one route a year ... I don't think that DTG could afford that. Secondly: The longer it takes to build a route, the more expansive it is going to get. So there has to be a sweetspot of production length and affordability.
Having said that: The argument against the London portion of the ECML was the same as for the short WCML. Time and complexety.
But I think there could be a way around.
Man if they could solve the route connection problem, they could sell them part by part. So instead of wasting time and manpower on the silly suspension thing (there I said it, it's silly) or on the route hopping feature, they could have opened a way to profit from shorter route segments. These would be the improvements I wish they would invest in. They built short routes anyway ...

 

Yep I just long for a first party route truly end to end. No ifs or buts. I think Matt said its something to do with the tools to build the routes.

 

Now to be fair, R***t are at their best with the Swiss narrow gauge routes, and I deliberately took a trip on Bernina Line this morning just to remind myself that they do have talent. Just not for UK routes unfortunately. Saying that, the 2022 Island Line is a pretty good effort. If they are to have a continuing future with TSW however, they should stick to what they do best and keep away from UK content until they have the internal expertise to pull it off successfully.

 

If there is one thing I want from the future of TSW is to see the likes of ECML and the WCML extended. Both routes can be added to in any version of the game. I do not think for a moment that you could run a single trip from Glasgow to London because of PC and Console limitations . However it could be done in stages and therefore driven in stages by linking timetables.
JT version of WCML is set in the 80's so there will be no conflict. I'll still be buying it regardless.