I did kind of get that vibe, actually. I have always had a bit of a love/hate feeling towards JT (and their flight sim side), Obviously not the developers or coal face but their management side. I mentioned the piggy backing on huge amounts of Kuju content for their TSC routes but more recently we had the farce of the Met Line where you had to buy the route and required stock separately. That practice also seems to have spilled over on to some of their other TSC content where additional purchases are required to run all the scenarios.
I think ultimately players don't want to have to change between timetables for variety. We want 1 varied timetable for the route. It's silly to have some things visible on some timetables, and some only on others - unless of course it is a newer improved timetable, such as BKL, CCL, GWE eventually etc. Development companies should collaborate to allow this - ultimately they are contributing to the same game, published by the same company.
You know, JT and SHG are competing with each other. Both are in competition to produce 3rd party content for TSW. Makes sense JT would be hesitant to allow their competitor to modify their content.
Whilst yes there is some degree of competition, there is also a degree of complimentary products which benefit from co-operation. Take Blackpool Branches as an example. Rivet and DTG both allowed their products to be used as layers (Rivet also allowed JT to layer in the Pacer on WCL). Would Blackpool Branches have been the success it was had it just have been the Pacer? The answer is of course no. 3rd parties shouldn’t be able to cherry pick when to collaborate depending if it suits them, it’s got to be a 2 way street or the whole thing is at risk of falling down.
Exactly this, particularly as it’s all channeled through DTG as part of the TSW “brand” for publication,
Although they are, they shouldn't, because this should, in theory, be a friendly community where the developers cooperate to deliver high-quality content. It's a niche playerbase aftetall. Part of this is like that because TSW5 doesn't have a significant competitor.
Yes and no. There's "allowing it to layer in" and then there's "come fiddle with the code of our timetable." Two different things. One is parking your car on your neighbor's driveway. The other is letting your neighbor fiddle around with the engine and take it for a spin. I can see why they'd want to keep things in house.
The timetable doesn't now because the 86 isn't in game. You don't know what the future holds. Why do you NEED it desperately in a timetable that doesn't need it (didn't pull the War Wagons in real life) You literally have a timetable with it in it that is NEXT to it on the screen in game. It's no more work on your part to click on the JT timetable and use the 86. Self-imposed hardship.
The problem isn't that clicking a button to choose a timetable is too much work. The problem is that neither of the two timetables is as good as one unified one would be: if you play the Cargo Line timetable, you will get inaccurate AI traffic (87s where there should be 86s), and if you play the default timetable, you will get no Cargo Line AI traffic at all.
So you get what you have now. When it's released. When the 86 doesn't exist. Couldn't JT just then toggle the 86 to sub in for the 87 anywhere it's found? I don't believe it's adding the 86 specifically TO the timetable in addition. They're just allowing you to use it on some routes the 87 is doing. That's something JT could do that wouldn't involve changing any timetable. Just allow the 86 to replace the 87 anywhere it's found in game. (which would mean the London-Euston route, etc too) So this issue is bigger than just SHG's one pack isn't it?
As the Class 86 hasn't been released yet there's a lot of assumptions being made here. 1. Specific paths in the JT Timetable will be allocated to the Class 86 if I've read the info correctly. 2. If Skyhook create a timetable bug, having used the JT TT then they could theoretically render the whole JT route unusable. 3. If JT or Skyhook modify their TT in the future it could have repercussions on the others DLC. 4. It would be up to DTG to request use of the Class 86 from JT for use in other routes, JT cannot modify how other DLC subs work. 5. There are community TT that exist that will probably utilise the 86 (as a sub) like the OTS WCMLs TT. 6. JT still aim to add the 86/87 into their Blackpool Branches DLC at a later stage. 7. It's possible that adding even more layers to an existing route, Military to WCML might create performance issues with the route, which is something that the original DLC creator and DTG as the publisher would aim to avoid.
It's been stated many times that the 86 won't have any extra paths, they are being subbed in to cross country services.
Of course they should. They're separate companies working on separate projects. Whether they collaborate or share, and on what terms, is a business decision between them.
I guess I thought that DTG had more control over content published under their brand name, including this kind of collaboration. I guess I was wrong. I wonder if this applies just to JT because of their size and history with DTG or are all 3rd parties in complete charge of their content.
My understanding is that 3rd parties have free reign over what they want to do (as in, DTG can't tell them to make a certain route or train, or only create routes in a certain era), the main barrier being they can't publish it themselves through TSW, so has to be approved by DTG first.
