Ditto here… I7 4770 with 24Gb RAM, all mechanical hard drives and a GTX 1650 4Gb GPU. It still runs most games quite happily though below spec for a few newer titles such as Bus Bound, MSFS 2024 and Roadcraft. Plans to replace it currently on hold following the rapid spike in hardware prices, though still toying with putting a RTX 3050 in there if I can be confident the CPU won’t bottleneck it.
Console vs PC isn’t the issue though. It’s making the appropriate updates for the textures so that console isn’t impacted by them due to how memory usage works on both the console and UE4. This also will help those with lower end PCs for performance. Plenty of other games do this and run fine on both. MSFS, NBA 2k, and Cyberpunk come to mind. Having separate versions would cause significantly more issues on both console AND PC and end up probably causing more bugs due to the need to update and test 2 different versions.
It makes one think that the planned large-scale patch, which threatens to eliminate blurry textures, will simply worsen the textures on PC, since one version of the game .
The way Alan was talking on the DTG live stream last night, it sounds like ATS are planning to release multiple class 90 DLC packs over time. He also mentioned a class 60 and class 91. Not sure if that was a hint of future projects.
Quite a lot of us are from before it was put on gamepass, hell I owned the original version game for console where it was just called train sim world (a few years later turning into 2020)
I think console versions were more of a DTG shareholder and investor choice, than a developer one. More platforms = more sales.
I dont get why some players are still complaining. Especially since some of us are here for years now and by that time should have learned that DTGs attitude regarding their core issues simply haven't changed. And why should they change ? Stuff is getting sold regardless, cashing in enough revenue so the business can continue. Pretty much since their rush hour release the discussions are basically the same. Especially on performance. Its right to criticise a bad product, please dont get me wrong here, but sometimes its better to stay away from stuff that constantly frustrates you. Its my personal opinion of course and im aware that there isn't really a solid competition out there so i feel as ever for the die hard train fans just want to have a good experience. I've stayed away for a long time now, came back for Liberec - Stara Paka Route, and got absolutely what i expected : a(nother) superb DLC developed by a third party that is plaqued by DTGs unwillingness to fix the core. Like i said, nothing has changed in that regard.
I was happy with the way things were before. Yes, there are bugs, and some are fixed in mods, and others are corrected over time. But now the situation with simplified textures is completely out of bounds.
PC players having to suffer due to console players again. Console players should just go play the Thomas the Tank game
Have to admit, my enthusiasm for this has dropped, quite heavily! I'll wait to see if/when what mods become available to see if it gets layered onto other routes, otherwise going to be a sale purchase in the future when initially was a nailed on day 1 when it was first announced
Right let's get this back on topic please. Don't want the mods to lock another thread because 2 people want to start measuring argument....
How does the future of this loco look? I'm a bit confused on how this loco fits into the UK cargo collection. I have so many Cargo line DLC already, and this loco will only feature on one route with the standard cargo wagons? Will the C90 become the default loco for cargo lines in the UK where suitable, or will all future cargo lines DLC still feature the 66?
It will need its own layer in every timetable, only thing it will ever be able to substitute for are other electric freight services of the appropriate era. Hopefully those layers will take advantage of the cargo line packs, but given how the UK third party devs seem to dislike using each others’ content, it’s not something I’m expecting.
It’s more like they don’t want to force people to buy extra content for normal gameplay hence in the class 90 case it uses slightly updated standard wagons instead of cargo line 3
I dont know how to explain it properly, but surely DTG need to start putting their feet down on the third party developer situation and draw a line in the sand - "you want to make TSW content, share your toys" Not saying that Firefly need to share their secrets on optimisation, or AABS share their light emmisives for buttons/screens. But surely having any TPD being able to use any other "TSW DLC" in their route can only be a net positive... If the Class 90 was included as a layer in the AABS timetables for example there would be more reasons for people to buy it and it would probably get more sales... likewise if the Class 20 from the CL Nuclear pack was available in more timetables than its own (with 4 services lol) it may have been able to get some more sales.. I dont know, im pretty dumb with this business stuff but to me it seems a really stupid idea to keep letting every developer have their stuff in isolation from the other developers stuff.. why not just let each of them have their own "TSW" game at this point... thats what its becoming, all of these separated timetables make the game feel disjointed
It doesn’t seem inconceivable to me that anyone interested in a freight locomotive, would also have interest in cargo line packs, especially given how many routes those layer onto already. Wagons are also substitutable, meaning the layer wouldn’t have additional dependencies if they didn’t want it to be one.
That makes sense to a point, if using the Vol.3 FCA spines would mean the 90 needs the Cargo Line vol.3 then leaving it with the FKA spines means that a DLC isnt locked behind a DLC. but it could and *should* still be in the same timetable as the other stock is - we dont realllllyyyyy need 5 WCML South timetables, id argue that 1 would do, or if you MUST have a separate timetable from the default one, then have DTG's one and a TPD one
The explanation so far makes me put this loco on my maybe-when-it-gets-more-content list. They should indeed make third party developers play nice. I don't know how the royalties work with the DLC but I guess if someone uses your loco you get a piece of cake?
I think it has been said quite a few times now that the majority of TSW players are on a console nowadays, with a fairly decent portion still on the 8th gen too. So it is always a little funny to me when PC players decide that TSW would be better off if the console kiddies just went away.... it would be a fairly safe bet that if that were to happen, TSW would likely go away too. not imediately but without all that $$ coming in there wouldnt be nearly as much content available or being made. in my opinion of course.
i cant recall which third party was speaking on this, maybe it was an ambassador (likely TSD) but if i recall correctly, if a TPD makes a DLC then the royalty share is them and DTG (and maybe the platform) but if they use another developers thing then they have to also give them a royalty share.. for EG: if ATS were to make a route that used Northern stock and included their Class 323 then it would be just DTG as publisher who gets a split. If ATS were to make a route that uses Northern stock and used Skyhooks Class 158 but remixed to a NT Class 158, then DTG and Skyhook would get a split. I dont know if this is the same for something like the Class 87 railtour on MAC as ATS didnt *do* anything with the train but just have it apear in the timetable as a layer. I *think* if it is using another developes stock then they get a split, but if it just apears in the timetable as a separate DLC/layer i dont think there is a royalty share.. if that makes sense at all lol
