...and it is an utterly massive shame that such is the case. Creators Club, and with that both Livery Designer and Scenario Planner, are the only opportunity the community has to directly impact the game. Whilst Livery Designer could do with many improvements, mainly when it comes to text/numbers, but I'm not here to talk about that, because with time, patience, and skill, Livery Designer can create some nearly life-like liveries. Instead, I'm here to talk about Scenario Planner. Scenario Planner in TSW often earns the unfortunate branding amongst the community as "Quick Drive 2.0" - which I don't think is entirely fair - as you do get some half decent scenarios regardless of the extreme limitations. Today, I'm going to look at what needs to be done to improve this neglected part of the game. Grab a cup of tea and get comfortable, because this is going to be another long essay-like thread. What does TSW do Right? The existing TSW Scenario Planner only really gets two things right. Off the Rails mode, and Livery selection. Off the Rails mode is, as most will know, the setting that allows any train to run anywhere, regardless of electrification, or if it is plausible for the train to be there. This came from launch in TSW2 and was made much more convenient on TSW3 as it now presents itself to you, rather than you having to go and find it yourself. Livery Selection is the only other thing Scenario Planner really does right. Unlike Timetable Mode, you are able to select the liveries for your locomotives and coaches/wagons seperately, and this also allows you to select multiple coach/wagon liveries for a bit of variety. Whilst it is still somewhat restrictive, especially on multiple-set MUs, it's a start. The only thing that really needs upgrading in this regard, I would suggest, would be, say in a 2+2 unit, to be able to have a different livery on each train within the joined unit. So, what does it need? The list of things that should be improved are a very long one, so I'm going to hone in on the ones that fall under these categories: 1. Are mentioned in the communities often. 2. Are simple QoL features. 3. Are blatantly obvious. Let's start. Consist Editor The Consist Editor is undoubtedly the most commonly mentioned "wishlisted" feature for SP2.0, with multiple threads running for it, and it being mentioned in many others. The Consist Editor in Train Sim Classic is the clearest example. The TSC Editor allows the player to select any carriage from any train they own, and mix it with any other that works with it. So, if the two carriages or wagons are incompatible in terms of couplers, or whatnot, then they wouldn't work together. The Consist Editor would give the possible to play around with what we have in TSW and mould them into unique consists for scenarios. Want a 363 hauling a 143+Dostos? Sure thing! Want a 2-car Class 166, to imitate a 165? Sure! Want a 8-car Class 395? It's yours! It makes the possibilities virtually endless for the player, as it means they are not restricted to working with prototypical/realistic formations. It is one of TSC's biggest plus-sides, in terms of community content, and it needs to be imitated. I would also make the case that you should be able to select a different livery on every module in your consist. For example, you could be dragging a haul of Mk 2 coaches, all with a mix of liveries, bound for scrap, or whatever reason you want to put on it. More Paths More Paths into Platforms, Yards, Depots and Sidings are, in no uncertain terms, necessary. If it exists, we should be able to use it. Every platform that physically connects to the rest of the route, every depot track, as many sidings as possible, etc. Okay, maybe not quite every one of those, but the vast majority. It's fairly frustrating to have stations like Glasgow Central and London Victoria where, despite having loads of platforms, you can only use a handful. Routes like Brighton Mainline and the German Mainlines are quite frustrating to this end, as it's hard to fill out the route with AI with only a handful of spawn points that work for what you're trying to do. I would also make the case that, if Portal Services (see below) are added, then platforms and other spawn points should be usable, even if they don't connect with the rest of the route, for the sake of AI/Static Stock (See Below) It should also be possible to do abnormal moves, such as Neilston - Newton on the Cathcart Circle. Consecutive Services Consecutive Services are another thing that needs to be possible. By this, I mean you set a service, let's say from Pollokshields East to Newton, at 17:35. Your player service leaves Glasgow Central, also bound for Newton, at 17:30. This is a sound idea, as it means you are chasing yellows and reds, especially if fast enough to catch the service ahead of you. However, when that service reaches Newton, it's stuck there forever. It's done it's service for the scenario and you won't see it again. This is a horrible thing to have, particularly on linear routes with limited platforms available at your terminus, as it means that you're unable to put any AI ahead of your own train, if it terminates at/before your own terminus. This means that the vast majority of scenarios are just green-light runs, with only a handful, on certain routes, able to make for an interesting driving experience. What I would suggest that is done to combat this is, after setting up a service, and choosing it's train - on the page that you name it, you get the option to 'Continue as...', with this then offering a selection of existing services from the station in question (which would force that other service to use the exact same train), or create a whole new service, which would have to start in the same location. Portal Services To a similar end, services should be able to access as many off-map portals as possible. Of course, the use of a portal would have to make it an AI-only service. Service Priority The creator should be able to designate what services take priority over others, mainly for Railtour scenarios, were regular services would take priority. As it stands, the player usually gets to race on ahead, which is just wrong. This wouldn't suit every scenario, of course, so the option needs to be there. Arrival and Departure Times An option to determine the arrivals and departures of your train at whatever stations/points you so choose would be a helpful way to both force players into trying to keep to time, and also allow you to tighten the timetable up a bit. Also, tying in with the point of 'Priority', this would allow you to set waiting times whilst another train passes you. This would helpful on any future routes with passing loops. Service Simulation This is a bit more of a wish than a request/talking point. But the ability to simulate a scenario, to identify points where the timetable fails to work properly, and (ideally), to estimate the time it takes to do both the service and the time between stations, would make a huge difference to the Scenario Planner, I think. This would also be helpful for Arrival/Departure Times, as it allows the player to timetable based on how the scenario would play out. Quality of Life Improvements Static Stock Players should be able to designate AI services as 'Static' - so they spawn in but don't go anywhere. Perhaps only allow this if it's spawned in somewhere that doesn't block the path of any route or whatnot. Service Limit Abandon the Service limit. I understand that performance could be fragile in a scenario but it's incredibly restrictive. Or, alternatively, bump it up to 50 or so. PIS Screens Massive immersion boost if they worked properly. Creators Club: Editing Page Okay, this isn't directly to do with Scenario Planner, but surely when we got to edit a page on a Creators Club upload, we shouldn't have to redo the thing from scratch? Conclusion This was a shorter one than I expected, but, this list is not really a suggestion, but more a list of things that I think, in the main, are doable for DTG when it comes to improving Scenario Planner. Now it turns to you. What would you say needs to be done with Scenario Planner to improve it. Anything else to add to this list? Add it, or vote in the poll. As always, Thanks for Reading, and have a nice day.
Custom timetable mode would be great. Letting us open up and copy the existing timetable and then change consists, start times or other variables would be great. You know, like an actual editor would be able to do.
I’d add the ability to show custom texts and/or the new interactable NPCs. Maybe it’s because I don’t have a TSC background, but what I’m really looking for in a scenario is a unique experience - ideally linked to a narrative. Examples of what I mean are for instance the storm scenario on RSN, the train stuck in snow on SoS, Magnet for Trouble on SMH, Chinley Gala on PFR, … I’d love if the creative minds of the community could add scenarios like that.
If you are PC user then you can do all that already with unofficial editor for more then a year Big problem is that people are lazy to learn something new. DTG already showed couple times how to work with their official editor (creating formations, scenarios, timetable) and its similar with unofficial editor. There is even some tutorials on youtube from me and some other users. You dont have to wait for DTG till they finally release version 2.0 which suppose to be released already with their Rush Hour update. Sure after that your new very great looking scenario is only for PC users but it is still better then nothing. If you are console user then yeah to bad you have to wait for DTG to do something with it.
There is a very vague and simple priority system already in place. Services placed first will have priority over services placed later and ‘passenger’ services will have priority over those marked ‘freight’. You can use this to manipulate the dispatcher into sending trains ahead of you in some places and giving you some adverse signals. But as you rightly pointed out, the dispatcher often prioritises the player and will hold fast express trains even if you are driving a little freight. The route is also set by whatever train arrives at a junction first. This makes it impossible to create situations where a train passes another in a loop as what actually happens is the faster train stops on the mainline and waits for the slow train to leave the loop ahead which is very frustrating and makes paths that go through loops absolutely pointless. I would like to be given a route map where you physically select waypoints for trains. This way you can choose wherever you want as long as the signalling allows and you can see exactly where your train will be going. Some paths for high speed services randomly go into loops and sidings which obviously is not realistic at all if it’s for no reason.
It seems like DTGs fluttering about licenses maked them limiting the players ability to randomize the game, especially livery, physic and failures, accidents etc... This is first time I have such feeling about game developer. But they try keep us on leash.
Consist designer is pretty much needed, especially since it could entertain people until the next release, which then would allow DTG and the 3rd party developers to put mir time in the content they create
As a minimum we need access to the spawn and takeout portals. A consist editor and the silly length restrictions removed, within reason. Ultimately we need something akin to the TSC or MSTS activity editors. The icing on the cake is full access to the tools to create our own player timetables. The availability of the third party tool is noted but DTG need to be providing an approved and official built in method of creating our own timetables and activities.
I am happy with another plea for Scenario-Planner 2.0 There is much more wrong with scenario planner. Just compare it to what you can do with the TSC Classic editor. I did a reverse engineering on the .sav file that stores scenarios and it has a number of flaws. The most important is, that you can select only one instruction type for a service, which is set at the service level. You can choose between passenger stop and just stop. No coupling, go via, loading cargo, fuelling, instructions or annotations and other guidance, and so on. The data-model does not allow this. The way begin and end-points of services are modelled are very primitive. Portals would be helpful and you should be able to set priorities for trains. So there is a lot to do, probably more important than just a consist editor. I would recommend to implement a good data-model first, which supports what we really need. Afterwards DTG can implement new features in small steps. It may be we need a good 2D map first. In principle you can design and implement a scenario in 2D completely, except for adding scenario dependent scenery elements.
This. This simply must be the next feature, as a driver in reality, you’d be keeping to a timetable so only makes sense for this to be simulated. When I used to play TSC, I’d would just create all my own services in the timetable editor, using Realtime Trains to make sure it was the timetable and AI services were as accurate as possible. But it’s far too time consuming, which is why TSW has the edge. This is something that is lacking in TSW. Timetable mode / Service mode is something that will always elevate TSW over TSC, it’s truly “plug and play” or “jump in and go” however you want to say it! One of the criticisms we see is lack of services at time, well hand it over to the players, allow us to create realistic services with a proper timetable! The lack of arrival / departure times, is why I don’t touch Scenario Planner and don’t intend to, until that feature is implemented. And even though I’ll regret saying this, as I absolutely hate them being used in Timetable mode, is I would settle for Auto/Computer generated timings, if it meant it was easier to bring the feature to us.
For me the biggest and most urgent need is the ability to turn off layers in the timetable. Especially now DTG are moving more to gameplay focus then prototyical. I dont play SEHS right now because of the ridiculousness of TGV & ICE layers. And it seems more of these layers are going to get added to more and more routes.
100% agree! I don't use the scenario planner because I don't feel there's any real challenge which for me leaves it feeling somewhat lack lustre.
Really like the idea for scenario simulator, theirs a lot of times I’ve avoided trying to make a decent scenario out of the need to continuously keep checking (by driving sometimes an 1 hour or longer) what’s working and what times things need to set up what I want doing. I also think it’s important to keep the distinction between scenario and timetable for this scenario planner (for things such as continuation once complete), and hopefully get to the point of a separate system for timetable creations in the future.
It becomes a timetable when it's a 24hr job. Continuation services are nessacary to have trains get out of the player's way (eg at a terminus with limited platforms).
It'll probably be released around the same time the route construction tools get released... *cough* Kind regards, Dave
Or have them despawn. Even Trainz has a simple command that allows you to delete a train from the map once its finished the run.
seems like a good upgrade to have trains go from A to B to C rather than the current A to B, or perhaps also a head for off world portal option.
I’d like at least to have finer control of the start time for AI services. Being able to set this to 1 minute intervals rather than the current 5 should surely be fairly easy to implement.
I think one of the main things that I really wish to be implemented in the starting/ending point selection is the in-game map. Notice how station platforms are a cyan colour, freight sidings are yellow, and a few mainline start points are blue? I think being able to select one of these points beforehand would be a great feature in an update such as this. Another thing is being able to control switches that can't normally be changed by the player. Basically the same as manual switches but they can be switched in the map whilst in the scenario. Even then, if there is no consist editor, we have a chance to shunt around and make our own in yards with signaller-controlled switches.
