Hello - i would like to suggest that route DLC downloads are split in two packages. So they still are tied together and are sold as one DLC. But you can download and install rolling stock and route as separate packages. There are several routes I only keep installed as I need the rolling stock to sub into other routes. But the routes where the rolling stock belongs to I never play. It's basically just a waste of space. Just using S-Bahn Zentralschweiz as a random example. I never drive on that route but for S-Bahn Vorarlberg I want to have the Flirt installed. It's different for everybody but I drive only on 3-4 routes with all other routes only installed for locos and other rolling stock. If there were two packages I just could have the rolling stock installed. It is possible with separate loco DLCs - it works to use them without "their" route so I would assume it's possible for the rolling stock that is part of the route.
Any loco DLCs introduced after TSW3 (including those released for it), are no longer tied to a route. Any released before then need the route they were made for. Which they really could do with removing that limitation and forcing people to buy routes they don't want, probably requires updating them all though which they're obviously unwilling to do.
I know about that (loco DLCs not tied to route anymore) but thats not what i meant. I don't mean locos which are separately sold. I mean the locos that come with the route itself. As a different example to above: The BR Class 801 came with the ECML route. I would like to be able to install just the 801 but not the route, as I only need the 801 for the Fife Circle timetable.
Agree with OP. There are routes I no longer play but end up having to keep installed as the locos which layer elsewhere are all in the same pak file.
This would be good for the costumer indeed (at least in the regard to less occupied storage space), however likely to provide more issues for the developer regarding testing, bug fixing and distribution. A short overview: Each DLC (route or loco) is contained of one single pak file, in which the actual content plugins reside. For example, this is the folder structure of the TS2Prototype-WindowsNoEditor-FrankfurtFulda.pak file. "FrankfurtFulda" is the plugin/folder for the route itself. Each individual vehicle plugin contained in the DLC resides in the pak individually. Now if we move these individual rolling stock plugins out of the comprehensive pak file and give each of them its own pak, it would not only mean we clutter up the DLC folder with tons of individual plugins (which is just a minor asthetic issue for now), but even more problematic would require that each individual pak file would need to be cooked and paked individually, always checked that it is working fine and mounted properly on its own (which would add a huge amount of work), let alone the added difficulties in setting up the references between each pak file. If only one pak is not mounting, the system brakes and it could cause issues on all of the others. Now coming to the part of the distribution, I'm not even sure whether more than one or maybe up to a certain amount of pak files can be installed with one DLC on every distribution platform. But even if it would work, what if some errors happening at the download process? What's about the verification process for several paks? Would that be possible? And if yes, would it require significantly longer time or even special steps to be taken? All of these things you need to consider as a developer, because problems may always occur at some point. For these reasons, its better for Dovetail not to separate each rolling stock into single pak files. However, I'm also someone who says the organisation system needs an overhaul in the way rolling stock, which is identical used in several DLCs (without any route-related modification), like for example the freight wagons, better should be implemented in the core instead of implementing them in each DLC new. However again here, better not to, because thinking of the reason above, creation, testing and distribution might be easier/or potentially not cause as many problems, as sourcing the location of the used rolling stock out of the DLC.
That's very insightful RobertSchulz -- maybe not every bit of rolling stock would need to be separate, lets says we'd just have two pak-files instead of one, one for the route and one for the rolling stock. This would enable the option to save disk space but would not make cooking, checking and all that too complicated.
