Discussion in 'Dovetail Live Article Discussion' started by TrainSim-James, Sep 1, 2020.
Update for what?
TSW 2. The next lot of preserved routes are due plus bug fixes.
Oh right. I knew more preserved content was due but wasn’t aware of any bug fixes being released alongside it. Probably relatively minor ones mind you.
DTG Protagonist pointed out that bug fixes were coming within the next 7-10 days and then revealed today that the phase 2 preserved collection release was expected this week. I’m assuming both will come together, but if not, very close to each other. Scenario editor is mentioned with a warning that existing scenarios will be lost during the update.
I'm sure I read on here that scenario's would only be lost on consoles, so is this also going to affect us PC users too? If so, I'll have to jot down the details of the scenario's I've created ready to redo in the next update.
I’m not sure. Probably worth noting things down just in case.
PC users may be able to restore saves after the update if you copy them to another location now before the update and restore them after: See here https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/important-next-update-affects-scenario-planner-saves.26651/
What's the point in having some sort of roadmap when nothing in reality is changed, after a correspondence with support when trying to report a bug, I finally opened my eyes and saw for myself what others tried to tell me: DTG has no intention to fix bugs, they have the exact same attitude as previously reported, so I have no doubt this "transparency" will pass.
After enough mails from DTG using circle argumentation trying to blame obvious bugs on customers they at least lost me as a customer, I won't be buying another game or dlc branded DTG, though I currently own all three train simulators I won't be expanding my collection with anything that pay you guys directly or by royalties.
But they are fixing bugs right now? There will be an update in approximately a couple days, they have already addressed some of the crashes and more. You should wait until we have the patch notes, and maybe even until next Tuesday, when we get the next update on the roadmap.
Then you can see what has been fixed since the last roadmap and which other issues they have on priority. Maybe there will be something that has bothered you.
Bug fixes are on the road map.
I really do think though that there should be somewhere on the forum where the community managers are recording the bugs we’ve reported to:
a) show that they have been seen & acknowledged
b) centralise all known reported bugs in one thread, that only the community managers can edit.
That will give me more faith that even though most bugs aren’t on the roadmap (because they’re not yet being worked) the team is aware of all the bugs reported.
I think not having this is resulting in the same bug being reported multiple times, and is causing some resentment in the community.
This has been mentioned in another thread along with merging posts. I think this is something they're looking at improving (if not I hope they are now!). I believe it was also mentioned that some bugs that have been reported and fixed, weren't on the roadmap (simply because it wasn't updated on update day). I personally would like to see a slightly more frequent update to the roadmap in the short term (until preserved is sorted) as it is usually expected that bugs will come up quickly after a new release and which is already proving to be the case. Then perhaps going back to fortnightly updates where the focus will be more on new content/improvements etc. But either way there needs to be some sort of clear communication of what has/hasn't been reported. Some issues could get missed whilst other issues could get reported and seen a dozen times and I agree this is what is causing some resentment and frustration.
It's good that some bugs are involved on roadmap, but that can be good for more complicated problems that need more investigations and deeper/complex fixing of it's source.
If there is some graphic glich (like floating trees on SPG), wrong speed limit sing, error in service name/description text, SD40-2 NY3b chains on crosswalk, AC4400CW NY2 gauge lights..., there will be good to be ensured that it is acknowledged, and puted on the fixlist.
If Adams team is/will there as content administrator they can care about even smaler problems. Developers can be focused on new things ...
So many people are giving DTG so much unnecessary grief over this roadmap and bug fixing. Just because your bug isn’t on there, doesn’t mean they don’t know about it.
They have stated their priorities clearly numerous times:
1) Make sure the game works for everyone on all platforms.
2) Make sure all tutorials, scenarios and timetable services are playable and can be finished.
3) Make sure all trophchievements can be obtained and at the point they’re meant to be.
4) Everything else.
So if your bug is not on the roadmap, chill out, it doesn’t mean they won’t ever fix it, it just means they haven’t started looking at it *yet*. Let’s not forget that a large amount of their resources are currently focused on bringing preserved collection up to spec because everyone here demanded it when TSW2 was announced as a new stand-alone title. Once that’s done they’ll have a boat load more people that can address issues and bugs.
In the meantime, having a post where all reported bugs are detailed is not an unreasonable request. As I’ve already said, players can see which bugs have been reported and acknowledged and saves them having to report it again, which wastes everyone’s time. Yes, the forums can be searched, but it would be far easier for the managers to group all reported bugs in a locked thread easily accessible to everyone.
I think this would be excellent customer service too.
Completely agree, if I report a bug and they get back to me to say “thanks for letting us know!” You don’t know that conversation has taken place so you’ll report it too. It will also save the customer service team time having to respond to loads of duplicate reports.
I’ve just reported a serious bug (here on the forum, as in the past the support team just want me to send a video, and this is too complex for a video without added narration explaining what’s wrong) and I’ll be watching very carefully to see how it progresses. It’s a major simulation error in the physics of a loco and I’m surprised nobody else has reported it, which leads me to believe it’s a console only issue like the power issue on the Class 47.
The fact that I’m actually worrying about not being taken seriously is worrying in itself, which is why I’ve stress tested the bug and done a lot of investigation on the internet to prove to myself that it’s the simulation that’s broken and that the train should behave differently. I hope it’s not all a waste of time, or like in the case of the Class 47, a battle of wits to get it fixed. If bugs only get fixed if lots of people report them, then I fear this one will never get fixed because a large number of players won’t know it’s broken and will continue to struggle to drive the train with an important aspect of its physics behaving badly.
What is the issue?
This is a good example of a subjective problem. Your enjoyment of the game is spoiled because something does not behave in the way you believe it should. As you point out, other players either won't notice or won't care about what you're finding irksome - regardless of whether you're objectively right or wrong in your reporting. Our first objective has to be to ensure that the game works for as many people as possible, works well comes second, works perfectly third. This is tech-report triage.
As far as bug fixes are concerned, we are fixing them, but we can't do them all at once and, as mentioned, some won't make it to the roadmap because they're assessed and addressed between roadmap updates.
It seems that he is referring to this:
In this case though, it’s my report of a serious problem with the simulation of dynamic brakes on the AC4400 which do not function as they would in real life to the point where it is impossible to use them correctly. I’d say it is a very real problem, but already I’m getting the impression that it won’t be fixed if you’re saying it’s just subjective. I understand that to people who don’t know how dynamic brakes are supposed to perform this wouldn’t be an issue at all (they will all still struggle to drive the train though, just not know why) and for other bugs that I have reported they are subjective and they may not matter, but this one most definitely does matter as it is fundamental to being able to descend a grade in the flagship loco of a route. Please check the report I’m referring to, I posted it earlier today. It is for the benefit of all players that I reported it, not just for me. It’s just I have the knowledge to detect it. Thanks.
I think Dovetail is trying to fix SOME bugs, not all, especially not the big ones. I haven’t seen them blaming customers yet but I do hope they get their stuff together and start fixing the stuff that needs fixing.
Can we see further down the line an extension for Tees Valley to say Durham or Newcastle or even Cleveland Potash Mine?
I like your post on this topic, and I’m glad you’re raising this as an issue. If you’re right- and I’m sure you are because it sounds like you’ve done your homework on this- this problem will actually render the dynamic brakes ineffective for anyone trying to use them. And just because most folks haven’t noticed this problem yet, that’s not an excuse for DTG to just ignore the issue. I would think that DTG would have more of a quality ethic than that... ignoring something just because most folks haven’t noticed it is a cheap way out. Anyway, just my $0.02... it’s up to DTG to do the right thing on issues like this.
This would rather fit in the suggestions section, but it was said that extensions were not planned right now.
It's not about ignoring the issue, it's about where it falls on a severity list. If very few people are affected by its existence to the point where almost nobody notices it, it is of far less importance than something which affects a large number of people's enjoyment of the game. This is also not to say that it wouldn't ever be addressed, rather that it is not going to warrant maximum priority.
Fixes, generally, will be applied to A: what matters most and B: quick wins. It'll be a combination of the two as we plough through the backlog. This doesn't imply that items further down the list aren't important, only that there are other issues that might be more important still.
We won't ignore anything. Similarly, we won't be able to get to everything.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I have no experience in how well the physics are to real life, but I redid the Powering America scenario with the 3 AC4400s down the mountain, and I had it in DB8 nearly the entire time with auto brake applications off and on just to keep speed under control, which doesn't seem right - especially with the extremely sophisticated modern traction like the AC4400. All I do know is the dynamic brakes were invented for mountainous areas so engineers don't wear out brakes, and 3 AC4400s should've maintained that train quite easily. IMO if that's the way things worked in real life, CSX would be out of business from maintenance costs on brakes and engine issues a long time ago.
I understand your point Sam, I guess what upsets players besides not having important fixes asap like signalling issues on services etc. It is not knowing what issues are know by DTG. The same issues got reported multiple times.That's why I think it's important having an official bug-list on the forums.
With the London to Faversham dlc coming I wonder if swanscombe and Northfleet station will be in the dlc
Part of the problem with lists is the confusion created by differing terminology.
There’s a noticeable difference between devspeak, enthusiasts specific terminology and the average gamer.
See Sam trying to get Adam to avoid technical terms.
Even simple things like lead and trail in heavy haul with a four loco consist.
One lead and three trail, or two lead and two trail?
Not always obvious to the casual gamer.
That's the main issue with simulations in general. To suit the hardcore simmer things have to be fairly complex
hello so updates add vibration controller for roadmap on Steam tsw 2020 and tsw 2 please thank you
I always wait to answer for us
Yes, I would love it if haptic feedback was something they looked into. It's an unreal engine function as well, and you can see there's a line allocated for it in the settings.ini file. It's one of the biggest things that I miss from Train Simulator, and would bring a ton of immersion to controller users. Kind of a headscratcher how it was implemented in TS1 where most people were probably using mouse and keyboard, yet TSW which is very popular on consoles, lacks it.
Well it’s nice to see the next batch are available on XBOX. However there is one teeny little problem, well for those of us who bought all the dlcs from TSW2020. As we own them we should be able to download, correct? Well in game store and Microsoft store are not letting us download already owned dlc without paying for them. Something is wrong. If it were a space mission it would be Houston we have a problem.
I would just wait. There is not even an official release update on their homepage yet.
I would imagine the license application is being done "manually" by DTG even if the DLC has been officially released on the store, so I would wait a while and if not, then raise a ticket
Yep will do. Not wanting to be jumping up and down about it. I trust they will sort it sooner rather than later. Noticed that on TSW2020 on the market place it’s doing the same but luckily they are downloaded into my library. Anyway en-route to Paddington from Reading....can’t beat a good GWR 43. Oops almost a spad!
You can never please the people. I think it's great you brought preserved collection up. It is, in my opinion, great way for DTG to show that they don't only listen but also are taking actions to please as many people as possible.
Some people just think that everything should be perfect because... (Whatever the reason). Noone takes a look at serious things. Plus some people think that DTG should do what they want because they feel like they are entitled to whatever after paying relatively reasonable (small amount) of money for the game that should cost 80 Euros and for dlc that's worth more, with pretty small team a great product. Not perfect product but definitely a great one as it helps many many people.
A factor in that might be that people think there are way more developers working on this game than actually are.
I joined the Train Sim Community a couple weeks before the release of Tsw2, having bought alot of content in the steam summer sale. Ever since I have watched most of the streams and I found that alot of your expectations get to a healthy level this way as you realize what is possible in which time frame. Of course there is always room for improvement, but as has been said alot of times here, there is only so much that a specific team can do.
And I fully agree, that first everything should be playable before we start adding more details to the routes afterwards.
At least Train Sim community is not as toxic and vile as truck Sim community is. Let's hope it never gets that bad, that low.
Yes it is. My server is much nicer.
Well, at least I haven't seen any homophobic and racial slurs over here yet. They are pretty norm in SCS forums
They'd be barracked and hounded out of the site
Why need the Isle of Wight DLC so long?
I am sure Rivet Games are doing their best to get it out to us as soon as possible. On their forum they said it won't be long now, it seems they are at the point where they need the testing slots for consoles, but maybe I misunderstood.
In the meantime you can develop your own DLC if you think you are faster than them
They'd find themselves banned pretty swiftly.
This is incorrect. For grades of > 1.5% you are by no means guaranteed to be able to control speed with just the dynamic brakes.
Fortunately it's a simple physics problem to see why:
The train in Powering America has a mass of 7100 tonnes. I'm unsure if the third locomotive is actually powering (the rear DPU) since I can't hear any engine noise from it in view 3. At 40mph the dynamic brake effort is around 40 klbf, increasing to a maximum (in the game) of 100 klbf at around 15mph. I presume you were travelling at around 30-40mph rather than 15mph so a value of 50klbf or 222 kN should be appropriate.
At a grade the forces will be balanced when F_retarding = mg*(%grade/100)
For 1.5% this means you would need a retarding force of 7100 * 0.015 * 9.81 kN = 1044 kN
For 1.9% (the maximum of the route) you would need a retarding force of 1323 kN
If we assume all 3 locomotives are contributing dynamic brake force of 222 kN each then the total dynamic brake force is
3 x 222 kN = 666 kN which is less than half required at the maximum grade and still much less than required for the lesser 1.5% grade, and this presumes you are going at 30mph rather than 40mph where the dynamic brakes will have faded even more.
For mountain grades like those at Sand Patch, engineers usually set at least a 10 lb of air (iirc for 2.4 % it is around 1 lb per 10 tons of operative brake) and then fine tune the speed with dynamic brakes, so your assumption that the speed can be controlled with just dynamic brakes does not align with reality. Full use of dynamic brakes with no air set at significant grades is usually recommended against because a sudden loss of dynamic brake function could result in a runaway train. Think of it this way: if one engine fails you suddenly lose 1/3 of your brake force if only dynamic brakes were used (in the case that they could achieve this which I showed above is not possible) while if the air brakes on one train car fails you lose maybe 1/50.
I waiting for the DB BR 101 since the TSW day one (since GWE times). The DB 101 is a very usable loco for passenger and freight service (there is 1, just 1, that comes til to Italy instead of the ÖBB Taurus, for EC service) on TSW2 we can swap this loco with the 182. And as new loco, it will comes with LZB feature.
Separate names with a comma.