Longer Routes Or Route Extensions

Which one has more priority to you (Shorter routes with guaranteed extensions >50 miles) or Longer Routes from the jump (<70+ miles)?

 

still expecting trenton to philadelphia... i think they already got amazing routes not enough, but not scarce also.
adding some miles will be amazing, for example, avignon to lille.

 

If longer routes relate to poorer execution of said routes in either content or scenery (Cajon Pass and Trenton for example) then I would say no to longer routes.

No comments on extensions.

 

Clearly extensions, devs should get paid for quality work & effort.

This of course needs planning ahead in route creation (timetable), still can see for example an eastcoastway extenstion to ashford, plugged with southeastern high speed

 

I voted extensions because I feel that each section will be detailed due to it's own development time being given, as opposed to the rushed messes we see now. I'd also vote that way expecting that each addition would be it's own complete DLC, with scenarios etc, so that you'd be able to own each extension on it's own if you desire. However I know that for now at least, that's nothing more than a pipe dream.

 

Extensions are not an option and will not happen in the foreseeable future, maybe with the rare exception of summer releases because those are sold as a 3 route bundle and DTG can make most people pay for it to get the other 2 routes.

 

Route extensions because this will make some TSW route like their TSC counterparts like RSN NEC Trenton New Brunswick New York Penn which were Ruhr Sieg Strecke Hagen Finnentrop Siegen and NEC 30th Street Philly Trenton New Brunswick New York Penn Station.

 

At this point I voted extensions. Frankly I want to hear solutions from DTG in this regard, not problems. They bought into this particular game engine and the adaptation for route building, so get a coder working on how the software can deliver extensions.

UK alone has several routes that would benefit from extending, GWE frequently comes up as does TVL. If Run 8 with a small part time development team can seamlessly merge several sub routes to give over 500 miles of contiguous driving from Fresno to Seligman or LA, then why can a large software house like DTG not come up with an answer.

 

Technical considerations aside, there is a logistical problem with extensions. AFAIK some (all?) console platforms don't allow DLC for DLC, so the TSC approach (see TGV and its extensions for example) is not an option. Loco add-ons skirt this fine line as without their home route you can only use them in scenario planner (or as layers). About the only option is to re-issue a DLC in the manner of SEHS, which sees no additional revenue for those that already owned it. Doubtless if they added say 30 odd miles to GWE and made it a "new" product which didn't recognise prior ownership, the forum would be up in arms at having to pay again for the old route + 30 miles (and rightly so)

Likely the only way to provide "extensions" to comply with cosole policy would be to produce the "extension" as a new wholly contained route, which would recognise that you already had the home route and bolt on to it (however that might be achieved)

 

Wait I’m confused about the DLC for DLC thing?

 

While i heared "extensions" are not profitable, maxbe its worth a try that extended route sections are available individually. This way a player can choose which section(s) he wants to plug. With the benefit sonebody with less time just goes with one section, somebody with a hardcore expectations can ploug 2 - 3 sections.

Im sure a good timetable planning in dtgs dlc creations would make this possible.

 

Like I said, it's an issue for DTG to resolve having embarked on this particular avenue of route creation and distribution on multiple platforms, but five years in having a catalogue of routes which are crying out to be extended. I would certainly have no hesitation in buying a reissued GWE with extension to Oxford and the Thames branches, or TVL with Boulby and Bishop Auckland added. Here is me, the customer, £30 waiting. I want to hear solutions not problems and certainly not excuses from the audience for why things cannot change.

 

Absolutely great take there Vern. I agree, so many routes have been crying out for extensions, and every time someone brings it up, it is quickly shut down by forum members

 

As an example. GWE could be extended from Reading to Bristol or Oxford
If Reading to Oxford was released, but required Paddington to Reading to work this new DLC would need the old one to work, so be a DLC for the PAD-RDG DLC

It's one of the reasons DTG stated was an issue back in the day. Mainly because lets say only 50% of players have London to Reading, and only 50% of those who have that DLC want RDG-OXF. This would mean the market is essentially only 25% of the player base

The other issue :
If you have an existing route, then make another DLC which extends from it, and some of the runs that go from PAD-RDG then continue to OXF what happens with the ticks / golds / stars that were earned previously? Do players just get them or do they have to run all those runs again (effectively losing all the previous stars) or do we then have two or three separate timetables, one for the original DLC, and one for the extended version (or even original, extended and DLC standalone... ie three)
What happens if you extend again? Do you have six timetables and awards...?

This is part of the issue of extensions, commercial and technical

 

I would be happy to pay for re-worked and extended routes like GWE, TVL, NTP, ECW, DRA etc.

 

I think modular needs adding to the option list so you can build whay you want

 

i would love to see both im a huge fan of long routes and high speed trains so ECML/WCML are must also more of NEC Would love to see the extra 33miles added to NY-Trenton and go to philly

 

I would like the expansion of the existing railway routes with new lines, or the connection of two DLCs.

 

I would like to see both, certaintly some routes feel like there is a lot more potential, especially ones where you can't finish a journey as the route stopped in the middle of it.

I would like to see some longer routes too, shorter routes can be very effective too and sometimes length doesn't equate to "game play".

 

I totally agree, it’s not always long routes, but with some routes to really enjoy them they have to be long, take NY- Trenton or GWE to enjoy routes like those they’ve got to have some length to them, compared to BCC or the Glossop Line they are better off being short

 

Modular, linkable routes.

 

Need modular, linkable timetables and modular linkable achievements / medals

 

I would love to see more route extensions. I know technically SEHS was almost essentially a brand-new route, but extended in length from the original if that makes sense. But just think how much new gameplay/loco DLC this has generated with the 700, 37 ROG, a plethora of brand-new services for existing locos like the 465, 395 and 66 etc plus a lot more AI traffic in general compared with the initial TSW 2 SEHS iteration.

There are so many existing TSW routes that are worth being extended, such as:
- BML - ECW - GWE - MSB - SKA - HMA - DRA - LIRR etc

As already mentioned in this thread, would love to see more modular routes - mainly so we can use more existing content to avoid lifeless, empty routes and/or timetables.

 

This is how I hope DTG go about it. You can't sell the same route twice, and modular may not be technically possible, but extending a route opens-up avenues for additional income, by selling new loco and gameplay DLC. SEHS is a great example of this.

 

Yes. This is the only way to be sure you don't end up selling something that is only usable when you already own an existing DLC. They solved it for standalone Loco DLCs, now they need to work on modular timetables. If they upgrade the LIRR, it should become part of the NY-Trenton for players who own both.

 

This is a perfect take. There are games in unreal engine that have map expansions that add new parts of a map that wasn’t previously there before so it can be done and after more than half a decade, DTG should not be giving more excuses but working on solutions.

I would argue the lack of extensions or expanding previous routes has led to the issue of unrealistic layers being added onto routes which clearly has divided players although that's a hole DTG dug themselves since rather than build on older content, the DTG flywheel keeps spinning from one dlc in one location to another DLC in a different location leading to major stations being empty

 

Surely the argument would be the lack of loco or unit assets has led to unrealistic layers?
Almost all the things which are unrealistic is either because they don't have the correct assets, or they've added things to the timetable which were a one off?

 

Or in the case of the Ruhr, three or four routes within a relative stone's throw of each other but ne'er shall they meet.

 

Yes the lack of locos is another issue as well which I should've mentioned although I did say expanding routes which also doesn't mean make them longer per se but adding more content within a route but not adding fictional trains just for the sake of doing so

 

My issue on this is that until we have the assets that can do those moves, anything they add will be "fictional".
I've advocated for ages that they put out a loco pack of just sprinter classes... Would populate half of Britain for the last 3 decades in one way or another
Same with Pacers, we've got the class 43, give us a 60 a 70 and either a 31, 25 or both and there's the backbone of freight since who knows when (someone will know when)

Then, no matter what routes they want to make, we can already put some semi decent traction on those routes doing semi decent gameplay

 

Now that would have been a sensible long term business plan, but never mind we are getting Glossop... (Well I suppose they have reused the 323).

 

What I don’t understand is when we were getting BML and ECW, everyone complained about us getting the same electrostatic third rail DLC?

 

In a pure summer spirit, TSW franchise is like Lou Bega's "Mambo number 5" song.
"A little bit of ..., a little bit of ..., a little bit of ... in my life".

With the core platform changing so frequently, it's impossible to introduce modularity and extend the routes I feel.
It is one of the reasons why DLSS can't be implemented either, the lack of standardisation and the release of DLCs based on spontaneous decisions.
Unless these change, one must take TSW for what it is or look elsewhere. There is little point in hoping that big, core changes will happen. Whenever anything is introduced is mainly because internally somebody wanted it and not so much because it comes as a natural progression and evolution of the product.
But, our passion for trains fuels this hope and I can't blame you for it.

 

Why not both? Short routes needs to be very detailed and realistic or cheap. Longer routes should be more expensive or have less details and poor environment. If the route is very poppular in needs the extension(s). Some existing routes in TSW needs branch line extention, some needs length extension, some needs to be reworked from 0. If the quality of the new DLC's will be great then I don't care what exectly it will be - a new one or extension.

 

Electrostar... and there's the issue. The third rail plastic boxes were already in game on the SEHS so this didn't bring a different driving (or really, visual) experience.
At least with the networkers and 700s they're different visually and in how the cab looks. Electrostars classes are very similar (obviously)

 

I understand, but honestly I preferred that way of route production, probably the closest we came to modular routes

 

Glossop is a small route and probably because of its small size it seems to work pretty well, I think this idea of paying £20 for a route that uses existing rolling stock is quire a clever one, the class 158 is ripe for this sort of DLC I feel, speaking of the 158 I'd like to see more than the current one route using it too. I'd like to see routes of 50-60 miles aswell though but ideally with routes that start from existing terminuses, so new street services or routes starting from MML stations maybe.

 

This is fine, but the game is called "TRAIN Sim World", not Electrostar simulator...

I mean I live in Kent and am totally bored with the plethora of Electrostars we have here. Honestly between those, the Javelins and 700s we have little else to brighten our days

 

Its technical impossible to extend existing Routes after its first release.

Don´t forget: DTG didn´t extend the same existing Southeastern High Speed for TSW3. They copy the Route from TSW2, extend the Route and released it for TSW3. It WILL NEVER happen that an existing Route for TSW will be extended.

....Unless they copy the Route and sell this again as copied and expanded DLC.

The timetable runs are a fixed part of the routes and technically cannot be loaded by missing DLC (if you don't own part of a route expansion, for example). On the other hand, only those trains can run in a route extension that are included there and not those that existed before, because the trains from the original part do not know where to go.

Please members, stop asking for Route Extensions...they can´t do it!!!

 

Nope. Totally possible
Doesn't mean it's easy or wouldn't have impact on other things that the game currently does but there's nothing stopping DTG from adding track, signals and timetables to existing routes, or having some means of tying routes together using portals or other means to "move the player" between existing DLC
They could also have dynamically made timetables which look at what DLC are on the machine, where the start and end of a run is and form the timetable appropriately. Again, not EASY, but doable (technically)

 

Route extensions are doable, DTG just don’t want to do it

 

That is true, but instead of Electrostars, They should have moved on to thameslink, implemented it into the game, so after some kind of thameslink route was implemented, you’d be able to go up north from London, so there would have been modularity along with different rolling stock, e.g Thameslink to Bedford THEN you can include EMT and maybe Bedford to Leicester or Derby, and then continue on, that way you have modularity

 

And thats the Problem: The Timetables aren´t dynamically and must be always have a fixed start and end point for the Game Engine. If you don´t own a "Part B" of a - -> Part A - Part B - Part C - Part D<- Route, this will Crash the Game.

 

As it stands...
We're discussing possibilities here so if they change the way pathing works then it's totally possible to do

As an example, if they made things similar to how realtimetrains reports over junctions and platforms (so each lead in has the possible lead outs listed so you know where you can go from and to at any given junction) then the only restriction would be that the junction or platform has to exist, which is easily identified by DLC or some other database mechanism within the player's installation

Again, not easy, but doable

 

Yeah, that would work (and be moving away from the one region / one unit that "living within Kent" gives us)
Similarly if they went West from Brighton, Three Bridges, Gatwick etc, but then we'd need all of the SWR units starting to be built (and some would still call that third rail hell tbf)

 

Yes, so honestly I wouldn’t mind routes from the same region if there’s any form of modularity as you said

 

I don’t see why they can’t redo GWE in the present era and run it to, say Bristol or Oxford/Newbury, updating the graphics, adding OHLE and IET trains and sell it as a separate product. Maybe they could add Elizabeth Line trains either as AI or driveable as far as Paddington.
It’s effectively what Rivet did with IOW albeit on a smaller scale and sold as a Loco DLC rather than a route.
I would buy it.

 

Because tomorrow, today is already yesterday. Making a present route would commit the devs to constantly keeping track with real world changes and updating it. That would be a job for modders. You just have to choose a year.

Long Routes - DTG say Nah, players don't like long runs, preferring casual play
Extensions - DTG say Definitely NOT!
Glossop's what you get

 

I can see why people WOULD mind... too much of the same doesn't increase playability or interest, and Kent has very little going for it in terms of either
Loads more to do elsewhere in the country

 

Yep, can’t make everyone happy