I'm not sure that proves anything. TSC has been out in the wild for a decade- sure, Amtrak (in my example), could send DTG a cease and desist and force them to remove all of their content from sale, but that doesn't do anything to remove all the content that's already in users hands and maybe Amtrak doesn't want to completely kill the relationship, so they instead make those demands on DTG's shiny, new TSW products. Btw it can be positive pressure just as much as negative- DTG say Amtrak are consistently one of their most supportive partners- allowing research visits and providing documentation, etc-maybe that's the cost of their support? Now expand that example across each and every TOC they have to negotiate with....and it's really quite a process. Like i said though, it doesn't really matter- this could be totally wrong and there's no editor a totally different reason- the end result is the same.
No, but they could withdraw permission for future TSC DLC. And that's not even counting cases like Avanti which were licensed for TSC after the release of TSW. And it has always puzzled me that if crashes are supposedly this big problem with licensors, why does DTG keep them in TSW?
what’s worse is that even during the annual surveys, the editor is always included in the suggestion part of the survey but never gets added in the game
But again, the law is the law. They can’t have it both ways. I’m not, and have never been a lawyer, although I have studied some aspects of law throughout my working life. In this instance I’m a consumer, a consumer who struggles to see how on the Train Sim side of things AP, JT, ATS and many more are able to ultimately provide products using real world branding / logos. Equally, I struggle to see how every single product released for MSFS is able to use literally every facet of a real world product, from buildings to ships, vehicle design, liveries branding and so on. These don’t come as a free ‘branding patch’ either. These products can be purchased not only through a developers own store but through the Microsoft Marketplace. There is absolutely no way on this earth these developers have permission to use these logos but they do so. ‘The Bus’ which I referenced in another thread is another UE4 game, with an in-built editor, that also has real world branding on buildings etc as well as company branding on buses etc. No one is suing them, no one is kicking up a stink, no company is telling them they can use their branding on an in-game vehicle but not on a uniform shirt. This has always been my whole point on this. There is one law and it applies equally to everyone. As far as I can see where TSW is concerned DTG seem to be the outliers here, not the other way around. Are they the exception that proves the rule, or are they cautious to a ludicrous degree and unnecessarily hurting their business in the process? I’d say the game’s development is definitely being compromised as they’ve recently put out feelers about having unbranded routes and rolling stock. Again, what is to stop them doing that then a third party selling livery packs through an in-game store as is also the case in MSFS? Those same livery packs work on consoles as they work on PC. An editor/SDK would allow people to do the same thing through a store built into TSW and bingo, more revenue for DTG. Everyone wins. As I keep repeating, the law is the law and if it’s completely fine for Microsoft to do it then there is absolutely no reason at all that DTG couldn’t do the same. What I’ve said above is fact, not opinion, and not something DTG have said trotted out parrot fashion. Convince me why it’s wrong…
What's stopping them now? Get in touch with DTG and you can do exactly that. See Rivet's livery pack for example.
It’s not quite the same thing. The equivalent to what’s available in MSFS would be every available HST livery in a pack from all the different TOC’s. The MSFS packs tend to be all different liveries for a specific aircraft type.
Worst thing is that we who would like an editor are stuck with TSC , dated graphics and a lack of TSW features such as timetable mode. The fact they won't give us a timetable editor for TSW is particularly frustrating, the ability to create new timetables is what is needed not the desire to mess with already produced ones.
Wouldn't that be something nice! Even without a full track creation editor, imagine a user created well made timetable on a route using other sets of trains to give the environment a different flavour.
Well scenario editor and timetable editor (we dont have just that timing data generator done yet, but if you start your timetable with 1st service then you can drive the whole 24h timetable ) is included in Unofficial Editor for a year... so are you back to TSW ? Wonder how many of you already tryed that Unofficial Editor because we dont really see increase of user creations Yes, you cant build the route yet there... at least not the tracks but you can already start working on the scenery for your route and then in later version of the editor you will be even able to build a tracks. Here im getting scenery ready for one czech route:
I am impressed. If the community gets a working track editor in place even unofficially then this will breathe new life and quality into TSW (at least on PC). Good luck with your project and hopefully with better scenery tools you will have a nice route built someday.
While I am impressed by the unofficial editor, the lack of tracklaying, the prospect of rebuying all the DLC I own and the fact it will never be as feature-complete as the official tools are reasons why I couldn't come back solely to use it.
There's a tutorial to know how build/place scenery Or paint terrain...? Like the others that's show how to download the editor and open the resources?
Just use youtube, there is tons of tutorials how to work with UE4. Editor is based on UE4 so all that is the same.
Doing stuff like scenario was couple of times showed by DTG in their videos, when i learned how to do stuff for TSW i used their first Preview editor stream. In one other stream they showed the BP stuff for scenario. And somewhere on this forum there is already thread called Unofficial editor v0.3 where you can find some informations.
If making scenarios was easy, where are they? Where do I go to download some cool scenarios to play, after I completed the ones that came with the game?
What about here: https://www.trainsimcommunity.com/mods/c3-train-sim-world/c100-pak-file-scenarios Because you dont know where to look doesnt mean they dont exist. And nobody wrote that is easy to make them. If you read my other posts you can see there that for good scenarios you need to know BP logic too.
I have just one more point to make about why the comparison to TSC is not really worthwhile. The official editor that ships with TSC only allows users to build routes and scenarios using assets they already own and cannot modify without additional toolsets. Now in TSW, the only editor that DTG has at this moment is the full integrated Unreal editor (which we've seen). This editor in theory could be used to create or modify assets that would be subject to licensing. Now it would be conceivable that restricting users from doing that easily would be required by some license holders, and that the effort needed to comply is just too much for DTG to tie up resources in. It may not even be possible without support from Unreal devs as well. We can't know for sure but it's certainly a different beast than what TSC offered. But it doesn't really matter anyway, as like I said before TSW is a different product and what DTG allowed in TSC need not necessarily have any relevance to new agreements for using 3rd party property in TSW. All it would take is for one such party to say they don't want their stuff to be used outside of the already offered gameplay to make the task of releasing a public editor implausible. And it would be very believable for that to happen even with a license holder whom DTG had previous agreements with for TSC. It's entirely possible for them to have changed their minds when DTG reached out to them for TSW.
Even if it's true that they can't do a editor because of Unreal and/or other licensing agreements that still leaves two questions that I really don't ever see asked. Why didn't they factor that in when picking UE4, and/or why did they sign agreement with a company which gimps their game so hard? They seemingly had the public editor in the works for a while, which indicates it either wasn't a issue, or that they didn't know it was. If that was the case then it means they did a piss poor job vetting their engine and/or licensing deals. And if you believe they knew before hand when signing whatever deal they made then it suggests they little regard for keeping promises to their customers. Simple fact is I really don't see a scenario where DTG looks good from this editor ordeal.
Im gonna start with the editor for the purpose of extending the paths & sidings of routes. Would this be possible with your editor? I came across few path extension mods, but not sure how they were made.
I am fairly certain that the way Unreal works means that having access to the editor doesn't just mean you can edit existing files, because they have been processed in some fashion.
Ok this is one hell of a subject but I still think I want to voice an opinion, which is that I believe it's a matter of accessiblity. You can probably tell than in the last decade or so, the definition of what is considered a simulator game has changed drastically. We went from something that si trying to replicate real world operation and let the user study things in order to do it properly, to something that is designed to give the "feel" of the final result while requiring minimal effort, patience or understanding (also known as giving instant satisfaction). Now here comes the tricky part. DTG was always trying to silence and appeal to people who were upset, for any reason, and going as far as eliminating quirks of prototypical operation or completely discarding options because they aren't immediately intuitive. Having something that takes time or research to understand just isn't allowed. Once you have that, I think it's easy to see why we don't have a proper editor SDK. There is a whole bunch of people who are on that dream hill and who want to create TSW content, however proper development tools just need the research and effort to be able to use them. DTG might in that case get a lot of people complaining about feeling "left out" or just complaining about accessibility of these power-user tools, which can't really be changed. Having good documentation only gets you so far in this case. Last bit is about platform parity. PC always gets the best and rawest experience when it comes to mods and for that reason, console users would also feel treated like second-grade players in this. One last thing about software. Tools can be accessible, powerful and reasonably quick to make. However you can only pick 2 of these traits. DTG is clearly going for accessiblity and quick development while leaving out almost any power while professional tools favor power and development speed over accessibility. I hope I got the point across and that it was useful.
The definition of a simulator might have changed as far as DTG goes, but they are in a minority of one. Pretty much every other proper simulator out there (and 3rd party developers for Train Sim Classic) are utilising modern tech to strive for unparalleled realism. DTG did with TSW when it first came out (remember being able to open the engine compartment on SPG and start the engine that way?) but that has long since fallen by the wayside. TSW isn’t a simulator, it’s a game. No simulator worth its salt would have you running round like an idiot putting high vis jackets on bears, collecting haggis or opening bagpipes.
Its eye candy with mixed physics. After trying to drive the 406 on Riesa to Dresden in the dark last night and giving up half way as there is a lighting problem and the constant procession of sub standard DLC with one train I am once again hovering over the uninstall button. The new German stuff looks different but I am now nervous DTG will release a new bild and wreck those routes too. Very unhappy with the direction of the simulator, the lack of tools shuts us all out the bugs and era choices just make it worse. Back to Zusi I think and rebuild my TSC collection.....
That's somewhat unfair to my mind. I absolutely get what you mean, but hear me out. If anything that requires research is not allowed, then how come we have PZB and LZB on trains? The only way to get your head around those is to do research. Same thing with the brake modes G/P/R. No way to understand them unless you invest the time to do so. I do agree with your general sentiment though. If one wants to contrast 'simulators' and 'games', then TSW sits somewhat in the middle whereas something like Zusi is definitely at the 'simulator' end. As a trade-off, none of the 'simulators' look nearly as good or immersive (personal opinion) as TSW.
I was thinking more about things you are required to interact with in order to do something. Safety systems are kinda out of sight in this regard because you can drive without them but if there was for example a loco with really obscure driving mechanics, I doubt we would see it like that. Other thing is core features like the infamous loco-swaping, which I believe was denied because not every combination would give a good experience. This opinion comes from DCS (yes, I'm a big fan) where every plane has some kind of shortcoming or feature that makes it unique even in the most basic operation.
Just wanna add something. While it was always DTG's policy in case of withdrawn licenses to create a new Steam depot using unbranded/rebranded versions for future customers - keeping the old depot for download, there was one occasion where they removed a branding from a DLC - for everyone, even people that already had the DLC. It was TSC's Arosa Line. Just a small update removing an SBB logo from Chur station. I protested to no avail but found a way to get the texture back.
Someone mentioned Simrail; I’d be very surprised if they ever produce a public editor because they seem to have cottoned on to the $$$ like DTG. They are already working on a console version, and holding the editor hostage for the use of approved developers only is the next logical step.
What are you talking about ? SimRail will soon add to the game another loco for free... yeah man for FREE (cant remember when DTG add free loco into their TSW). More they just let users to buy BR 363 like a standalone loco DLC and then they bundle that loco in blue color with some other DLC. For SimRail editors... devs announced that editors will come 3 - 6 months after final version release in 3 phases... maybe you dont notice but the game is still in Early Acess and its not final product yet. First will be scenario editor then trains and last one route. And if i can compare DTG and SimKol then SimKol is actually listen community and they are trying to add even stuff which were not promised but community want them there (while DTG keep removing stuff and adding stuff which nobody asked for Sure they want to send editor to the other devs first which they have more experience, why they should care about editor now and fixing users problems with the editor when they are busy with finishing the game.
I think I stumbled upon that repository before, and didn't find anything for me. I like US Freight, and the only such PAK is the sandbox for CJP. I'm sure it's not easy to make appealing scenarios, and I would love to see more player-created content, since DTG are not forthcoming with more "New Journeys" DLCs.
Consider me chastened friend ! I sincerely hope it will be successful, it will surely give DTG some healthy competition.
