Discussion in 'Route Suggestions & Proposals' started by leslovessarah, May 27, 2019.
Any possibilities of full routes being implemented into the game instead of part routes?
How about a 100 GB DLC ? Or more expensive? Full routes will take too much time!
What would be interesting is merging routes though. If they're based around the same time like LIRR and NEC then it would be nice to see the DLC become an extension to a route to make service mode feel more alive with more AI traffic and stock. The UI would stay as it is however if you owned NEC when LIRR was released the player would just see both maps as one in the spawn walking and service selection screen (somewhere on the screen a message could be displayed letting the player know that parts of the route they're seeing are in other DLCs/routes they've purchased like "You're seeing services for North East Corridor and Long Island Railroad Here"). Service mode and loco selection screen would show you the stock over both service modes for LIRR and NEC no matter which one you chose and services across both service modes would appear in the list if a loco was used on both DLCs. Maybe have an icon next to locomotives that are part of other DLCs service mode too to let the player know they're actually going to be using a service mode for a part of that route that is in another one of their purchased DLC? Full routes as one DLC would take too much time and cost too much.
That sounds doable.
To be honest merging routes and service modes unless the UI got some kind of remake might end up looking disorganized but it would be nice. For me it's just because it would make service mode more alive with more variety however they're managing that through their substitution method at the moment, and also just having the option to go for a longer drive - especially in trains that travel express and at high speeds. I'd rather have two merged routes with lots of detail rather than a long route for the same price with less detail for express high speed.
MTA NYC Subway Trains would be amazing on TSW perfect for the game lots of stations at and Routes ain’t that long to begin with they look long on and far on the map but we got lot of different lines I think people would love it the Map diagram below in the link https://images.app.goo.gl/XJLPXF9RsyqpbzBVA
Automatically merging routes is not possible because it requires a good amount of human effort like removing double tracks, removing double scenery and connecting both of these routes.
Completely agree with you.
The Strasburg Railroad. Their entire line is 4.5 miles. They mostly operate steam powered excursion trains frequently. The also operations diesel and steam powered revenue freight service for the local farmers to NS exchange.
The WSR is a full route.
I think long distance full routes will be unlikely for a long time due to the time involved.
As others have said I would rather a well detailed shorter route than a long generic looking route.
I'm really surprised that this hasn't happened yet. It's such an obvious enhancement. Why else would they release two routes that use the exact same station and yard?
Maybe there is some sort of technical issues preventing it.
I made this a while back and it does not look like merging NEC and LIRR would result in a sensible route.
It's roughly 65 miles of tracks but that's about it.
Not sure what you mean by that. It's supposed to be Train Sim World not Train Sim Sensible Route.
Since they already went to the trouble to release the same geographic area twice, the free-roam nature of service mode practically demands they be combined in some way. (With AI mixing at the very minimum.)
What probably would have helped here is if TSW did it somewhat like Zusi 3, another train driving simulator, aimed rather toward the professional market. It has one single continuous world (by concept, there are gaps still) that is divided into lots and lots of what they call modules. Like a miniature railway pretty much. Modules of different sizes dependeing on their complexity. Wherever a rail line crosses a module boundary, it is stated internally which module this line leads into next. Translated to TSW, that could look somewhat like that:
On the left you see a random network of rail lines, red squares are stations, different colors mean different route DLCs. Let's say "Black" is the first one to get installed on a particular player's device. It would install all of the modules that route consists of. Plus vehicles of course. Next, said player goes to buy the "Green" DLC. It would install its modules like before, except this time it would notice that the one in the middle, that also is required for Black (Let's call that module Bigtown Central), already exists. And that's how it goes on and on. Switching from one DLC to the other would be completely seamless. You'd see trains from all DLCs using a particular module, loading of the next ones would be done upon switching to another service or merely approaching another module boundary.
The only limitation this has is when different DLC are set in different time periods, in this case you might have a module "Bigtown Central 2017" and "Bigtown Central 1980", and all other modules as well of course.
Another possibility this would open is, if for example in reality there are also trains that go from the southern end of Orange, via the Blue to the Northeastern branch of Green. These would be possible to implement by releasing a pack of timetables, plus the required new vehicles perhaps - if the player owns the Orange, Blue and Green DLCs.
The trouble of course is, this would have had to be implemented at the very beginning of TSW development most likely. Whether it is, I don't know. But seeing how LIRR and NEC both come with their own Penn station I guess it wasn't.
TSW actually seems to do it pretty much like that as far as vehicles go. Two DLCs coming with a DoSto cabcar? Ah never mind, just add a few extra destinations to the on-board computer.
Very good approach. I hope that sort of thing is on the long-range list of features.
This really belongs in Baseless Speculation, but to me it seems like they may have approached it like you mention and found some technical hurdles that made it not workable. That is the most logical explanation for all the work required to make two
Penn Stations when they could have focused on two separate regions this early in the game's development.
I'm hoping they are still working on eventually combining the routes or issuing editable versions so we can do it ourselves with the editor. (The latter idea perhaps being the much bigger technical challenge...)
Technically you're right of course, but then again, if TSW routes were made up of modules, I guess we would have heard of that.
Anyway, we're slowly diverting away from the "longer routes" to the "connected routes" topic. My bad, I gues...
If they release the DM30AC’s Locomotive for the Lirr then I picture the oyster bay or perhaps the Port Jefferson Branch being released onto Train sim world.
I would love to see the lirr Huntington Branch or maybe it could extend to Port Jefferson. But if they extend it from Hicksville to Huntington I would buy it.
I get the point you want more LIRR. But you post the same thing in nearly all the forms. It gets annoying.
We HAVE. Matt has said several times about map tile loading and that concept is similar to the ones mentioned above, but that doesn't mean that you can load x tile from y route and x tile from z route and they will still work, depends on the coords of these things being done correctly from the beginning
A lot of the issues of merging routes in TSx has been because people have used different mapping or coord systems, for example Cardiff Central on the SWML route from DTG is apparently quite accurate, but the Cardiff Central in JustTrains Western Mainlines is a long way out in height, latitude and longitude, so to get the routes to marry up is a lot of processing.
If TSW can reuse these tiles then great, it allows for a hell of a lot of flexibility, not only route merging but era swapping etc as map tiles could be subbed out, but I don't know if that's even in the thoughts of the devs, let alone part of the dev path
Separate names with a comma.