With the demise of UKTrainsim, I believe we are in a new era of Train Sim World. I believe in the next 24 months development of routes for TSW3/4 will double or triple. Just a hunch. I think demand is growing steadily and TSC classic routes will have to come into TSW. For example, West Coast Main Line over Shap. GEML Ipswich. Western Lines of Scotland. ECML too. With TSW I think ECML will be better as I didn't like the route so much in TSC. Also a route editor and multiplayer will be more likely as well. Some German routes have been made for TSW that were in TSC. Hamburg Lubeck for example. I am hoping for the Berlin Leipzig route. That was very well crafted! I can no longer enjoy the TSC style interaction with the cab. It has to be TSW now. I wish they could be ported straight to TSW... ROFL....
I think you’d be better off posting in off-topic or suggestions. The majority of your posts are wild off hand speculation. No idea where you got the idea that UkTrainSim shutting down = more TSW development. The conversation has already been had and it’s got nothing to do with TSW.
Wouldn't that mean that developers would have to be able to develop content for TSW independently like TSC?, which they (currently at least) can't do?
UKTS closing is not the end of the world, sites come and go all the time. I have already taken one of my routes and reworked it for Steam Workshop, though sadly that means removing any objects from outside the Steam hosted DLC legacy range. So no station name boards and anything from Phorum Peninsula had to be kicked out as DTG removed the DLC for new customers. I certainly don’t think it will be the catalyst to bring out a route editor for TSW. It is clearly not part of DTG’s business plan for the game and would come with numerous issues. For a hobby route builder, how do you convert and test your route not just on PC but both generations of the XBox and PS? How do you access distribution? PC could be via Steam Workshop but for the consoles not so easy. No I firmly believe TSW will remain closed architecture so far as the great unwashed are concerned, with DTG drip feeding the small routes they seem to think we want (as opposed to what we really, really want!). They can’t even give us a half decent scenario editor so parochial are they about keeping things in house.
TBH TSC community created content is a maze. Trying to get the average community created route working means having to find dependencies all over the internet, including paid sites or sites that no longer exist. So there's advantages to TSWs close architecture. That isn't to say a route editor with a creator's club-alike sharing system wouldn't have benefits. It's mainly the way TSC routes depend on external assets that's bringing challenges.
Absolutely this. I downloaded a so called freeware route hosted by one of the independent payware providers. The requirements were ridiculous, many of which required visiting third party sites which might or might not be secure. Even looking at a few routes I started in the TSC editor then semi abandoned I have loads of providers and products ticked. Is it reasonable to expect a potential end user to own all of those? No, not really. So other than (maybe) updating my previous routes from UKTS for the Workshop, I pretty much do all of my route building in Trainz these days.
A good question I feel more community creators should ask themselves. I've created quite a few scenarios for TSC back in the days, and I always tried to keep the required DLC low, often relying on the old (but easily obtainable) loco & assets packs.
No new era. This site was run by Matt Peddlesden's father. Unfortunately the costs were increasing and too few people were willing to subscribe for only 3 pounds a month. That mentality to want everything for free... And yes, the search for assets can be tedious, but remember, the developer charges you nothing. So that little work is in your own interest. The more you have, the bigger your asset library and the fewer you need to download for the next route. If filehosters take down their content, you can't blame the route author. Take it or leave it
No thanks. I want to play with trains, not with Windows. I can blame the route author for making downloads dependend on a filehoster. I hosted my scenarios on Steam Workshop and I'd say that's a pretty reliable host, easy to use as well. An intentional choice, so as many people as posisble could enjoy the work I created.
No issues here and enjoying awesome freeware routes :P Again, you can't blame the route author if the author of the assets he's using chose a filehoster that closed a few years later, which nobody could know at that time. It's all free stuff and the authors don't owe us anything. People expect to get everything delivered on a silver plate without doing nothing themselves any more these days, hardly knowing basic PC maintenance stuff or file management. Again, if you want the easy one-click stuff, accept to stay with restricted content. I don't.
Glad you do. You spent time and effort in getting it work, so enjoy your stuff. Wrong. Any filehoster can go offline, some are more likely to go offline than others. I can blame a route author for depending on third party assets in the first place. Relying on multiple only increases the chances of at least part of the assets not being available. It's a decision made by the author and there certainly can be a wrong decision. True, but in the end, do authors share their stuff for themselves, or do they like other people to enjoy their stuff as well? All I wish is that authors ask themselves questions before they decide to rely on (too many) dependencies. After all, the more dependencies your stuff has, the less people will actaully be able to enjoy it.
Yes, but again you're expecting something from someone. I've gone the other way, contacting authors, helping them to cut down the list of required assets which for example made problems with workshop. Find solutions - don't moan - be an active part of the community, not just a leecher
I think what this thread demonstrates and really not in the correct area (needs to be in TSC where the issue has been raised before), is that DTG need to consider relaxing the Workshop requirements so at least custom assets created by the route author can be shared. Yes that opens the door to possible plagiarism or unauthorised uploads but that can always be dealt with through a reporting and adjudication service. DRS, although the route editor is not yet ready for prime time as there is no easy way to build real world routes (no DEM, no mapping overlay or markers and bloody nodes everywhere) has no such restriction on what can be included in the route package.
It'd also open the door to people uploading malicious software, so I think disallowing it is partly to protect people. It would also mean the system would need moderation (which costs money). And in the end, it'd only help those routes who do not rely on assets made by other parties (which are often copyrighted, I suppose). The player base of DRS is tiny compared to that of TSW. Such a tiny playerbase is easier to moderate, and malpractice is less likely. I'd be curious to see what problems DRS will run into with their policy once they gain more players. It's useful as an experiment. It's also relevant for TSW, as a public editor is a much requested feature. Personally I much prefer a more closed but easy to use environment, such as the Creator's Club. Yes I know it's very limited, but using it is as simple as subscribe and play. That's a huge advantage, IMO.
There is no algorithm to check for distribution licensing of assets, which a company like Steam MUST guarantee - you could upload stolen assets you've redirected to another asset folder by changing the paths in the blueprints. That's one of the reasons Steam Workshop cannot allow asset uploads. If your route needs custom assets, well find a good mod hoster. ShareMods is pretty good imho.
