Discussion in 'PC Discussion' started by Anthony Pecoraro, Feb 10, 2020.
Here is an interesting video that shows what goes into make realistic simulation games.
Excellent idea for a thread!
My two take-aways are:
1. DTG claim that feedback is very important to them, especially the very active community on the Forums
2. I was already fairly sure that there is no point in making an editor for TSW because it is such a huge step up from TS202x. It is just far too involved. Now I am certain. TS202x has an existing editor for people that want to splash their creativity onto a canvas, build routes/locos/scenarios/etc,. for personal enjoyment, etc. Or even to sell/swap. TSW will hopefully stay well out of this area, and have a focus on continuing to improve the simulation, and to develop into a fully-fledged, professionally produced software title. I hope they reach their destination.
Thanks for posting this, Anthony! Although the video will probably draw some negative comments, I'm happy to be able to start the discussion on a positive note.
P.s.: Okay, someone got in ahead of me.
Wow great video! I’m glad you found this and posted it on here. I always enjoy when they give a peek into what goes on behind the scenes and it gives more insight into what they are thinking! Thanks for sharing!
I didn’t find it actually. Matt posted it on Discord.
We hope people like you will stay well outside the TSW.
We hope people who don’t have anything nice to say stay well out of TSW as well. Be nice to one another please.
I make it a point of principle to be as nice as possible to other users, whatever their views. I think I have only ever given a "downvote" once, in all the time that I have been here, and that was to someone that was being exceptionally abusive to other users.
Some of my views are unpopular. And if people put a good constructive case contrary to my views, then I will, without doubt, consider changing my views. And... I sometimes do change my view. I put a very high value on such interactions.
The differences between Fishing Sim World and TSW are really depressing.
I have a hard time understanding your statement. What exactly is depressing about them? The only thing depressing here are certain forum users and these kinds of posts, as far as i can see. I beg to be corrected if i am wrong. Cheers
In terms of creating a new route then I can fully understand your view even if I don't necessarily agree. Personally I have no intention of ever being involved in such an endeavour however it's not as if DTG are the only ones familiar with UE4.
Creating scenarios, and even more to the point playing scenarios created by others with more creative ideas is a completely different matter. Whilst it may be more complex than TSxx I don't think it will beyond the capability of a decent number of TSW users to make TSW far more interesting than it is currently.
Creating a scenario in TSW looks to be much easier than in TS.
Okay, thanks for this. Yes - I agree about the routes - I guess that a 30 mile (50km) route would need to have an absolute minimum of 300 UE tiles (for a straight line route, with a 500m view either side...., with 512m x 512m tiles, if that is what they use). You'd need quite a bit of kit, literally racks and racks of very high end servers to hold all of that in pre-compilation.
So it's presumably all about rolling stock and skins, and scenarios for existing routes.... But when it comes to rolling stock, the quality in TSW is really quite superb (in my view). I am very sure that there are quite a few people that can build TSW assets for UE, perhaps even hundreds of people. And I note that they might all use this Forum, so their views might well be disproportionately represented here. But there are hundreds of thousands of TSW players, and if DTG's resources are limited, then I would, personally, rather the focus being placed on the hundreds of thousands (and hopefully millions).
I am just trying to understand what an Editor for TSW is actually for. And why it is so important to have one in addition to the one in TS202x.
And I really struggle to understand why DTG themselves can't make TSW better, with more creative routes/scenarios.
And finally, when you look at the current UI for TSW, which is basically just a launcher, I really struggle to understand how they are going to be able to make a publicly available, feature rich, but user friendly Editor.... Why can't they fix TSW first?
It totally blows my mind, as small as my mind probably is. ;-)
You're probably insulting a lot of very capable and talented people with that statement. Third parties made a lot of leaps forwards in development with TS2020, leaps forward which DTG then adopted. Not to mention that members of DTG staff as well as people like AP who work with DTG on TSW started out as third party developers on TS2020. Where do you think the Innovation and next generation of devs come from if TSW has no Public Editor?
Great video thanks for sharing that in the forum enjoyed it.
Okay. Thank you - it is not my intetntion to cause any offence at all. I am just trying to understand. I think the key thing that I don't understand is the structure of content creation. So I would ask this simple question:
Q1. How many people, in your estimation, would actually use an Editor for TSW, productively (and/or even recreationally)?
To answer your question - I would say DTG, or the entire UE creating community of developers (generally).
But it sounds like, from your description, that DTG are really just a sort of post-box, with loose(ish) 2nd party relationships, that maybe just happen to have a bit of IP, and are not really anything that I would understand to be a software house. If that is the case (and maybe that is how TS202x developed), then that would explain quite a lot.... and I don't mean that in any negatve sense at all - I think that would be absolutely fine for collaborative community projects on the PC.
First I just want to make it clear that i don't work for DTG nor do I have any inside knowledge. What follows is what I've gathered from various streams and posts that Matt's been involved in plus some speculation on my part.
Why do we need another editor? - TSW was built on UE4 whereas TSxx was built using different software. This means the TSxx editor can't edit UE4 assets used by TSW. TSW needs to be edited with a customised UE4 editor incorporating the TSW specific additions and modifications made by DTG.
Why can't we just use the TSW editor that DTG created? - The UE4 editor is designed to work with uncooked assets. The TSW uncooked assets are not only far larger than the cooked assets that are downloaded to our systems but they also represent the intellectual property (IP) of DTG which has cost them a lot to acquire. Consequently DTG doesn't want to give away its IP for free.
What's DTG's solution to this? - The plan is further modify the existing TSW editor so that it can work with some or all of the cooked assets used in TSW. I believe the idea was to allow us to access those cooked assets but not to modify them.
Who would use this new TSW editor? - It would be available for use by both third party companies and TSW users. I suspect there would probably be additional requirements for those selling their products commercially but as I understand it this wouldn't affect ordinary users.
Why isn't this new TSW editor already available? - I suspect creating this new TSW editor was more challenging than originally anticipated. According to DTG it's currently in a private beta. When this private beta started and how long it will last is unknown but at some point it's planned to have an open beta. This open beta won't happen until DTG is broadly happy with the new TSW editor and has also created various tutorials and documentation to explain to users how to use the new TSW editor.
What will we be able to do with the new TSW editor? - When Matt did his editor stream he stated that DTG would be prioritising the creation of scenarios with route creation coming later. Whether that is still the plan is unknown.
He wants us to be be able to do the same thing that they do. We will be able to make trains, rolling stock, routes with timetables, and scenarios.
Thanks for this - this is extremely helpful. I have now had a nice long hot bath and a think, and I think that I have reached the point where I have understood enough, and, well...., at least enough to not probe this 'Editor' matter any further... except to say... that I personally find it bizarre that, with respect to the text quoted above, that TSW, as an existing published product, is not suitably prioritised for decent tutorial functionality and documentation.
Thinking it through, I have come to the conclusion that DTG deserves a great deal of thanks (from me, at any rate), simply for bringing the fabulous TSW content to the PS4, even in its current form (which is woefully substandard for the PS4 - brilliant content, but horrific structure). If this had not happened, then I would not have seen it at all (long story...). To get to that point, with TS202x as the base structure, must have involved considerable blood, sweat, tears, hair pulling, clothes ripping and general gnashing of teeth. It's a great achievement, and I hope that they (make the right decisions going forward to) build on that success. I think it is going to be very very difficult road...
I suspect that the blood, sweat, tears, hair pulling, clothes ripping and general gnashing of teeth continues unabated, and will do so for quite some time... I hope that it settles down one day, and I suspect that will be the day when it is clearer that TSW has matured into something very very different from TS202x (and that this will be no bad thing.....).
Don't worry, we're all learning!
I would say as many as currently use the TS2020 route/scenario/asset editors. Yes UE4/TSW is more work than TS2020 in many regards, however, if you've managed to learn to do something in TS2020, with time you're perfectly capable of learning to do the same in UE4/TSW. The only difference will be content taking longer to produce, but either way, within a year I think the number of DLCs released for TSW would double. You have to remember that the majority of TS2020 DLC on Steam is produced by third parties, not DTG themselves, and even the ones DTG produce themselves, if you look at the credits there will often be third parties involved. DTG lay the foundations, but what's built on top is very much a product of the Train Simming community.
I have lots of scenic assets ready to go for UE4 which I produced with the intent of creating a couple of routes for TSW; If I had access to the Editor tomorrow I could produce a route within a year to make use of existing rollingstock, so that's one extra DLC you wouldn't otherwise have. I also have various items of rollingstock which I stopped developing when DTG started missing the release dates.
I started producing the GMD-1, which would actually be perfect for the upcoming Oakville DLC, though I intended it for a prairie branchline:
I did all the groundwork for it, I collected hundreds of photographs and videos of the inside and outside. I got my hands on a whole host of offical EMD technical drawings. I made a deal with someone who produces DCC sound for model railways to use their recordings for it. Somewhere I have several spreadsheets of calculations for the pneumatic, electrical and mechanical systems. I've also got a model of the cylindrical grain cars somewhere as well as an ALCO slug unit.
I was really excited and enthusiastic about developing for TSW. Then DTG missed the Editor release date in 2017 and after a few months I gave up. Now it's all sitting on an old hard drive somewhere.
Yes - I think that you are right! And if this is something that would interest you, then I encourage you to give it a go..., if you don't do it already....!
Also - I just wanted to say thanks for creating the thread. I learned a great deal, and that would not have happened if you did not post the video and create the discussion. So thank you...!
Thanks.. I have to say that my personal view on the Editor (for TSW) hasn't changed. My view could change, in certain circumstances, but I doubt they will transpire (it would have to be of exceptionally high quality, and coupled with a highly advanced management system). I don't say this to be controversial or difficult, it is just my view (which has a fairly deeply thought-out reasoning behind it). I am not saying that an Editor won't be delivered - I am just saying that I don't think that I would agree that it should be, as a completely public tool.
However, that is not to say that I don't completely sympathise with anyone in the content creating community, if they had been given the impression that they should press ahead and develop for TSW, and specifically for use with a forthcoming TSW Editor, where that tool isn't delivered on time, or if there is any doubt that it will be delivered at all. That is, in my view, totally unconsionable. Certainty is critical. They should* provide you with a firm release date, or provide a firm indication of no release (if that is the case). I don't know if they think that they owe you anything, per se, but the one thing that they definitely owe you is to not waste your time - and such a hell of a lot of it.
NB: I am fully aware of how much effort it takes to build professional 3D models, design and source artwork, obtain sounds samples and source imaging, write scripts, go through legal clearances, and everything else that it take to build out a multi-tile simulation, deploy it all, and manage it, whether that is in UE, or on other platforms. I am not trying to blow my own trumpet - just trying to save you some time...! ;-)
For what it's worth, I quite like your model. If you texture it, then I think it would look really very cool if you put unstressed textures on the row of side inspection doors, and a very slightly stretched/twisted texture for the surrounding body side, to give the doors a stiffer reinforced look, and the body a very slightly twisted/distressed look along the length (even if you are modelling a brand new loco). It should pick out very nicely in UE, if it gets deployed.
Anyway.... What I didn't understand was just how disparate the structure was with TS202x. Now I get it. And this has possibly been translated to TSW... Wow. Like, crikey, wow, crikey, wow. LOL.... Thank you - you have saved me a great deal of time and head/wall banging interaction. ;-)
*sorry to Dmitri - I have used that word again, but "should" is perfectly fair here, methinks....... ooops... ;-)
You say the development tools shouldn't be public; Out of interest, seeing as MSTS, Trainz and TS2020 were all released with public developer tools, in what way do you think that the public developer tools were detrimental to those simulators?
Have you seen the editor stream?
In no way at all. I'd say that the editing tools were all core features for each of those products, that were initially designed for personal use, for people to lliterally build digital versions of their own dream model railways. To the extent that they became developer tools, especially for TS202x, and facilitated a market, which then went well beyond community development, I would again say that they were not detrimental at all. They drove (and still drive) an explosion of creativity and variety of assets, for people to Share And Enjoy, and use at their own risk.
None of the products that you mention were then ported to the now very much wider console market.
The explosion of creativity and variety is absolutely fantastic when there is a common understanding that the quality (and price, should enthusiasts choose to charge each other for their efforts) is also subject to considerable variation. This is not a criticism of anyone's quality of work, as some of the products (AP, for example), are obviously of exceptionally high quality. But very many (and I hesitate to use the word "countless", just in case anyone thinks that I literally mean the word "three") are not at a professional standard, and nor were they ever intended or expected to be).
When you try to push a product like TSW, as a consolidated product, that is meant to be fit for purpose, to the console market, any sort of variation from a base set of standards is intolerable, because the expectations from that market place are completely different. They expect everything to work, flawlessly, all of the time. They expect ease of use. They generally expect to get a large amount of quality content at, within reason, a realistically affordable price, and a price that they can forget about paying when the console goes through a re-generation.
So, I am tempted to ask the question again...:
Q2. Why is it so important to have a public Editor for TSW, in addition to the one in TS202x.....?
And whatever your answer is to that, my next question is going to be, for anything that is pushed to PS4/5, XBox, Nintendo Switch, Android, or whatever....:
Q999. Who on earth is going to set a standard for the content output, monitor compliance, carry out Quality Control and Quality Assurance, complete an ongoing structured testing process, and have enough control over the content to ensure that any new, existing and future problems can be fixed?
And the answer, so far, is DTG. But I now realise that, given the structure of how content is created, that this an almost impossible task for them to do effectively, because it would amount to a duplication in effort when content is outside of their control, and this is probably also why the core launcher is so defective, because they simply don't have enough time to attend to it.
All that said, I am still utterly amazed, and really very appreciative of the fact that TSW came to market at all. But if they want to multiply their sales of TSW, on the console market, by a factor of ten, then they'll need to ensure that TSW, going forward, doesn't perpetuate the structure of TS202x (within TSW).
It's not that TS202x on PC is not good enough. It's just different.
Very good, excellent prayer.
Better than Cicero.
To the original video:
I do understand DTG's decision to do fewer things with a great level of accuracy. It cleary shows that the dev team is very passionate about what they are doing. However I do not agree with the "too much realism" statement because at least for me, sim games are about the learning curve and about the achievement of finally being able to do something in a realistic way.
To synthetic.angel :
Decision whether or not to port a game to another platform has very little to do with mods and parity of content. On the other hand, it has a lot to do with it's internal structure and dependencies. All the games that you've mentioned use Directx 9 as their rendering API which is part of Windows (or can be installed separately). This means that they won't natively run on any other platform.
Why is it so important to have a public Editor for TSW, in addition to the one in TS202x.....?
It's important to make sure that people can customise their game and change things they don't like and implement things that they would like but don't have at the moment.
Who on earth is going to set a standard for the content output, monitor compliance, carry out Quality Control and Quality Assurance, complete an ongoing structured testing process, and have enough control over the content to ensure that any new, existing and future problems can be fixed?
No one. Third party content (even free) should never be curated or checked if it's good enough. That's up to you to decide. When you download something, you either like it and use it or don't like it and throw it away. It's that simple. Of course in case of paid content you have trailers and showcases to help you decide if you like it or not.
This is fine for TS202x on PC.
This might even be fine for TSW on PC.
This is completely unacceptable for TSW on PS4.
You say console players expect everything to work flawlessly, but DTG don't do this with TSW. Look at NTP, the Class 47 is broken on the console version and has been for months, DTG don't seem to have any interest in addressing the issue. Mastery is broken and has been for months. The last release, SCW, was knowingly released with broken signalling. DTG are appalling when it comes to QA. It makes me chuckle because of all TS2020 developers DTG are by far the worst at QA. The standard of third party DLC is generally much higher than that which DTG produce. So if you want a product that is fit for purpose you're much more likely to get it from a third party developer than DTG.
In terms of DLC for console, all DLC would have to be sold through DTG, so DTG would be the arbitors of quality and standards. If developers do not wish to comply then their content will be availble on PC only. I can't see why developers wouldn't wish to comply, as from a developer's perspective, the standards for PC and console are equally as high.
Of course of this is largely irrelevent as the public Editor is effectively cancelled.
The MP36 will be released along with an update for ECW that addresses the signal issues.
That's good, but they still knew about the issues before release, so they should have been fixed before or at least day one patched like the sounds on the Class 31. But still, what about the Class 47 and Mastery? Those issues predate the ECW signalling.
So you work at DTG and know that the Editor is cancelled? Are you repeating that to yourself everytime before you go to sleep?
The rumours I've heard from people in the closed beta are that they're using the in-house version of the Editor, not a beta version of the public Editor.
Yeah, so.... I would be completely tolerant of quality issues with external DLC on PC, for TS202x, some of which is free. I might be tolerant of quality issues with DLC on PC, for TSW, but it would open up a heck of a lot of questions for me if such material found itself only on PC, but not on console.... (and, by the way, that would include the Editor itself, in the very least, as a feature for personal use).
But the quality issues you describe, regarding DLC on TSW, are exactly the issues that console players find completely unacceptable...! I think that we are in violent agreement.... ;-)
I think that my summary view is that all of the content for TSW, (and especially on console), should probably be developed in-house. And third party developers could continue to develop for TS202x, and they could contribute as 2nd party on TSW (as they do now). When I say "in-house" that doesn't necessarily mean literally - but the IP for any content should become modifiable (or rectifiable...), by DTG themselves, say, five years after publication, or at any point in the future, just in case the infrastructure changes (say, an upgraded UE).....
....I don't know, but maybe they have this already sorted that out contractually, but it doesn't look like it, because the Class 47 is still very broken (well, most people think it is, but I actually quite like it as it is...). And all of the routes are broken, with respect to trophies/achievements, for example, which I personally think should have been fixed before "Mastery" was introduced.
There is an alternative, which is to make it clear to PS4/XBox players (and Sony and Microsoft), that the stuff being pushed out on the console stores is not expected to have any QA/QC, and that there are no effective mechanisms for addressing quality concerns regarding broken DLC. That would be fine. Just make it clear, and make it prominently clear in an extremely hyperbolic fashion, to match the other marketing material.
So you say that your belief is based upon “rumours” from people that have allegedly used an unfinished piece of software somewhere at a certain point in time? And how did you do come up with the cancelled part? I really want to hear it from you as i still can’t figure out the plot holes in this story.
Honestly I think most of this argument makes very little sense. There are already console games that have user-created levels - Mario Maker is one popular, recent example. People are clearly prepared to accept that the user-created levels may be some combination of broken/low-quality, and this is covered by a rating system. In TS-terms this would essentially be the equivalent of TS1's workshop scenarios/levels and it'd be clearly marked as coming from a third party.
Doesn't matter. For things like DIY rolling-stock the amateur efforts are never going to get anywhere near a console. Clearly the console version will be less easily modable than the PC one. Who cares?
The real value in allowing amateurs/hobbyists to mess around with creating content is that some fraction of the amateur makers go on to produce professional content later. As I think other people have pointed out before, a lot of the really impressive features of TS1 (for example the more advanced steam engine modelling, I think the more advanced braking system for US locos) were initially introduced by third-parties who were less constrained by time and more prepared to experiment. Similar features were then adopted in DTG products since they saw the demand/viability. Obviously some of the existing TS1 third-parties can/will transfer over to TSW, but that pool is clearly limited, and no new third-party developers will undoubtedly be our loss.
While I share your cynicism about the editor, I'm not sure that rumour is hugely informative or surprising. Certainly with TS1 the internal and external tools were supposed to be the same, and I gather that was the (basic) plan for TSW. Obviously there's the "cooked content" complication (which may or may not be solvable...), but I don't think that rumour tells us all that much about the status of the editor.
Digital Draftsman If you would put all your motivation and effort on writing here to the forums into building a completely new train simulator that fits all your needs and expectations, that would make much more sense than repeadly telling us here again and again how bad DTG is from your sight. The latter doesnt help much. Really. And i'm wondering what you already expect from having the editor when you constantly telling us that DTG is bad. You may can produce content, but you may not be able or allowed to sell it then. Could be that you need DTG for selling your products? I would have thought about that possible "problem".
I think you've made some very good points, most of which I'd agree with. Although I wasn't aware that Mario Maker allowed you to sell user-created levels to each other? Are you sure that's correct....?
More constructively... I have no problem, in principle, with free user-created content floating around, assuming that it can't be made in a way that breaks a platform's OS (or even the hardware...!), or breaches personal safety/security. And I assume that's all containable in your Mario Maker example, but it might be trickier to manage for other software.
I have absolutely no problem with users being able to access an in-built Editor and design their own scenarios with existing QA'd DLC, and, indeed, with the latest OSD route, including its apparently expansive switching/exchange yards (I am tempted to say "endlessly infiinite" to use DTG-speak), would be a good route for such a user-feature to run wild on, for personal use (on TSW).
I think it's fabulous that there has been so much creativity and innovation over the last ten years, and that users have been able to build and share content with each other, and I don't even have a problem with them charging each other for it.... on TS202x.
And I have no problem with all of this continuing, with TS202x... on PC, and no doubt it will.
Many thanks! That is high praise, although I think Cicero's approach to philosophy would help more than any amount of praying. ;-)
Your apology is accepted. Grazie.
No - I don't believe Mario Maker allows you to sell content (although I don't actually have it). My point about Mario-maker was only really relevant to a limited range of free content distributed through something like the Steam Workshop. (And I agree, the new switching route could potentially be a place where new scenarios could be a big bonus.)
Just take the compliment,
I note with pleasure that you have a strong sense of humor. Fortunately I too have a sense of humor.
So when I read your posts, they fill my day in a good mood (as well as laughter) ...
I think we can all agree that the console market comes with a certain expectation of polish beyond that of the indie PC simulation space. (Indeed, I'd argue DTG should raise their QA standards even higher.) But the reason everyone's so hung about the Editor is that the ability to mod and play third-party content has been a core feature of every PC simulation game ever released, from Microsoft Train Simulator to X-Plane to Euro Truck Simulator. It's the curated DLC approach embraced by Dovetail that is highly unusual - look to the flight simulation market, for example, and you'll find not a walled garden but a bazaar, a healthy ecosystem of independent developers producing and selling their own content for the big sims. Locking down the entire experience to the point where I can't create my own scenario, or even modify the service mode timetable, would be unthinkable in any other simulation market because it so severely hobbles the game's value proposition.
If Dovetail intends Train Sim World to take up the mantle of "the next generation of train simulation," custom content is a necessity. At least for the PC platform.
I think you are probably 100% right, with respect to the PC platform. And everything that you ask for is already provided in TS202x.
PCs will, of course, become more and more powerful and have better and better cooling systems.... TS202x content will no doubt get better. You already have your full value proposition - you have everything that you want (presumably...?), right now, with TS202x. It isn't going away. The current version of Windows is the last ever version of Windows, according to Microsoft. So you do have TS202x available to you, and the freedoms you desire, in perpetuity.
If a very successful and very high quality train simulation title emerges in the console market (say, a future version of TSW), with high quality (QA'd & QC'd) standardised curated content, then this is not going to impact your ability to do anything with TS202x on the PC. However, It might generate a massive amount of cash that helps to support TS202x, in perpetuity. And it would do that, even if TSW also happened to be available on PC. With or without developer tools.
But with all that said, I do thank you for recognising my main point. I am seeking quality for TSW, in the long term (and immediately would also be nice...!). And frankly, the content end (rolling stock) isn't the main problem. It's the accesibility. And the ability to retain TSW players on console. Because the way that the content is presented and introduced is utterly atrocious, when compared to other console titles.
So was this a hint around 9:57 in the video for what's to come in TSW?
Well, I'll boot up Railworks for the occasional Surfliner or Racetrack run, but otherwise, if I'm playing a Dovetail train simulator, it's probably going to be TSW. I'm as much a sucker for good graphics as the next guy. TSW's performance is also significantly better, thanks to its modern graphics engine, and I do enjoy playing with its more interactive rolling stock.
Perhaps Editor-adjacent emotions would not be running so high had Dovetail not marketed TSW as a full simulator, with editor tools and third-party content in the works - if it had been named, say, "Dovetail Games Train Driver" instead of "Train Sim World." Nobody is demanding the ability to import planes into X-Plane Mobile, but people would be justifiably upset if X-Plane 12 switched to a brand-new engine and baked all game data into an encrypted, unmodifiable, binary archive, hmm?
The bottom line is that we all want TSW to succeed. So in summary, the question becomes: Does Dovetail focus on the console market, hopefully while learning from and improving their DLC releases, or do they cater to the core PC crowd and focus on building out a fully featured simulator? Train simulation is a business, not a democracy, so I won't begrudge them for doing what they feel is best for their bottom line. Still, as a consumer, I intend to value TSW for what it is: a niche, somewhat mediocre game that features real-world trains. I'll delay my next American DLC purchase until there's a deep sale. Meanwhile, I'll preorder the new Microsoft Flight Simulator - which has been confirmed to be a simulation-first product with third-party content and an SDK - for full price, no questions asked.
By the way, I was wondering if you could expand upon what you said here:
I'm assuming you don't just mean "improve the QA," which we repeat ad nauseam on this forum; you also criticized the "structure" of TSW a few posts back. Do you believe their advertising is ineffective? Their communication? Their general exposure on the Xbox and Playstation stores?
I think this footage first appeared in promotional videos around the time of WSR's release, so it doesn't tell you much about current projects.
The Pannier tank would be a logical choice for a first step into the world of steam. It would enable TSW to break the time barrier and bring us routes from the 1950s for example. I like BR diesels but would love to experience railways in the periods before I was born. It would also give me a reason to revisit the West Somerset, it is after all, primarily a steam heritage line.
Separate names with a comma.