1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tsw Editor Vs Bs18 Editor

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Ian1991, Jun 14, 2018.

  1. Ian1991

    Ian1991 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2017
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    168
    So those who are interested bus simulator 18 has been released and i have not bought it YET however already within the first week a developer called Rhys who is making the london DLC for omsi 2 is importing a Gemini 3 into BS18.

    BS18 uses UE4 and people are already editing.
    I just found it strange that BS18 was released with multiplayer and editing tools and has took off so fast! If your interestes in seing his work add the omsi2 addon london page on facebook.

    This guy is a genius for a stand alone who has tought himself, and UE4 looks good in that game.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
  2. Corvan

    Corvan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    702
    From what I've heard it appears that BS18 has come out with the full UE4 editor which means you can essentially put anything into the game.

    I'm guessing the editor for TSW is going to be a little more strict and also provide some way of using Simugraph so that you can setup the trains the same way they do. Like this:

    [​IMG]

    If you could get access to it, you could probably put the Class 47 model into BS18 as well. It would just be missing all of the stuff in the picture.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
  3. Digital Draftsman

    Digital Draftsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    SimuGraph is just part of the standard Blueprint system in UE4; It's a way of visualising scripts and changing how they interact with each other. I don't understand why DTG act like it's something they have created. There's no techincal reason that DTG couldn't release the full UE4 Editor in the same manner as Bus Simulator 18.

    Personally I think the lack of tools is either DTG's business plan having no intention of letting 3rd Parties play with TSW, or to prevent people realising the game is very poorly coded by keeping them away from the code.

    Bus Simulator 18 is an example of how things should be done and what can be acheived with a highly skilled small team, who are in touch with the community, have passion for their creations as well as excellent leadership.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
  4. Corvan

    Corvan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    702
    http://www.dovetailgames.com/news/2...-the-clock-and-get-the-trains-running-on-time

    A quote from this article:
    Considering DTG are using an 'all rights reserved' symbol next to Simugraph, and I've seen them do that elsewhere as well, I'm going to assume that it's more involved than the UE4 blueprint system. Otherwise DTG are claiming copyright on something they don't own and are opening themselves up to a lawsuit.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
  5. Digital Draftsman

    Digital Draftsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Before I played with UE4 I assumed that the node graph interface and real-time variable reporting was part of a program called 'SimuGraph' which would then export physics code to be used in UE4. Since, I've played around with UE4 and some C++ code and I don't understand what's unique about what DTG are doing. I can set things up so I can see the variables in my code change in real-time, and the node graph for arranging 'components' is a standard interface in UE4. As for the physics code, there's really good open source code out there and after all it's all based on standard equations.

    So what specifically is SimuGraph and what's unique about it? No one seems to be able to answer this question, so I'm left thinking it's just fancy marketing guff for some physics code.
     
  6. animalkosmik

    animalkosmik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1,180
  7. Maik Goltz

    Maik Goltz Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    114
    Nope, it is an example of how you sput out a game with the very standard UE4, means a unmodified UE4 and UE4 editor. You can simply release an unmodified editor with the standard licence agreement. But you can't release a heavily modified UE4 editor under that licence. Matt said more than twice that DTG modified the engine and editor within the source, and thats where the problems begin with Epic. Just the short story of course. Try it, modify the engine and the editor and release it. BusSim18 is simple UE4 stuff only.

    SimuGraph is a very own pyhsics engine that uses the node based graph UI API to visualize its functions. It's not just a new Blueprint-Script thing. You can see that in the picture above. Normal BP script graphs do look different to that. Again, short story here. DGT/Matt could explain more i guess.
     
  8. Digital Draftsman

    Digital Draftsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    So if you're creating a game where more than 70% of long term profit is going to come down to modding and 3rd Party content, why would you use a game engine that doesn't permit you to redistribute the modified engine with an editor? If I was in charge of the project, negotiating the terms of releasing the potentially modified engine would have happened at the start of the project. If Epic said 'no way' then I'd have found a different engine to use, because long term TSW isn't viable without 3rd Party contributions. Or alternatively I'd have stuck with standard UE4, within which it's perfectly possible to script decent physics.

    If Epic haven't already agreed to distributing a modified UE4 with tools, they're never going to do it and so the tools will never be released and TSW dies.

    Is it fully fleshed out physics engine used in place of the PhysX engine? If they're still using PhysX, SimuGraph is not a physics engine, just some supplemental code. The node graphs are standard UE4. So to me it seems like they created some poorly optimized code which talks to the PhysX engine and causes a bottleneck in CPU resources and thus poor performance. They have never specifically said what SimuGraph is, which is confusing as it seems to be really important and impressive.

    The video posted above is quite funny, as you can see them using the Widget Blueprint Editor in UE4 to 'Rewire' things related to SimuGraph, when actually they're using it to place a scenario objective marker.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 2
  9. animalkosmik

    animalkosmik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    296
    Likes Received:
    1,180
    but you can build 300-mile route and trains with real physics and simulation directly now in a Bus Simulator 18 ;)
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
  10. Maik Goltz

    Maik Goltz Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    114
    No one said that. It just takes bit longer because Epic need to review the changes before release.

    Yep, no PhysX involved there. Ask Matt. Completely own train phyiscs with all the little extra needs. The old Kuju TS uses a mixture of own phyics and PhysX. They use bogie proxie movement with mounted rigid bodies. TWS is using own physics all over.

    Nope, take a deeper look. Its not the normal wiring and parameter layout. They just use the UI for the node graph, not the BP scripting. Of course, there might be a possiblitiy to interact with SimuGraph via BP scripting, but SimuGraph is not BS scripting at all.

    Nope, impossible. That's a reason why the engine and editor needs to be modified. WorldComp is not able to do such big maps from scratch.

    At least it seems you are not really familar with UE4, but you talk about it in such a manner. Just wondering :)
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  11. Digital Draftsman

    Digital Draftsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    It's true, I'm not really familiar with UE4, I've only experimented with it in anticipation of developing addons for TSW.

    My point is that the UE4 tools allow real-time reporting of variables and a node graph interface, yet DTG focus on that aspect of SimuGraph, which is unimpressive as even I with little experience in UE4 can set up something similar.

    If SimuGraph is a completely new physics engine, why don't DTG say so? I can't recall DTG ever calling it the 'SimuGraph physics engine'. If they have built a new physics engine from the ground up which doesn't rely on PhysX or any other physics code, that's impressive, so why don't they focus on that instead of the less impressive UI and variable reporting? That's what makes me think it isn't actually a complete physics engine and is rather just a tool for pushing bits of code around.

    Also, with regards to Epic. I would have expected all the negotiations regarding distribution of the tools to have been complete by the time TSW:HH shipped. It's over a year later and still there's nothing about the tools. I also don't think Epic will change the EULA for a small game like TSW, perhaps for a AAA title, but not a little game like TSW. The tools are fundamental to the success of TSW, so I just don't understand from a project management point of view, why all the negotiations and reviews weren't complete months ago. This makes me think DTG didn't realise they'd run into these issues and are now in position where they will never be able to release any tools; Of course, admitting that, would kill TSW overnight.

    I really want to eat my words, because I'm really excited to develop addons for TSW, as I have done for MSTS and TS2018. I have lots of interesting ideas that are possible in UE4 that weren't in TS2018, so it'll be great to have the opportunity to make them reality.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 3
  12. Maik Goltz

    Maik Goltz Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    114
    Just wait a bit more. As i do too. We will have our editor some days. By moaning around the editor will not be here faster.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  13. Wivenswold

    Wivenswold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    94
    I don't think people are impatient about the TSW editor, I think they're just eager for news on it. Big difference in my opinion as the latter is easily fixed, the former takes time. People understand that.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 2
  14. pschlik

    pschlik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    1,507
    Matt sounds somewhat confident that the TSW editor is easier then the BS one (oh the joys of having a game that can be abbreviated “BS”) which is probably due to the modifications made to it. Makes me kinda wonder if Epic is trying to leverage DTG to get their modified stuff as a standard for everyone :P
     
  15. Digital Draftsman

    Digital Draftsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Ultimately there's little point having a superior editor if DTG can't make it available to those who are responsible for their game's profitability going forward. They'd have been better off accepting the original editor and making do with coding and world building the old fashioned way if the alternative is no editor.

    Let's accept the premise that TSW, like all previous train sims will be reliant on 3rd Party Content. Having editors/tools that can be made available to users is therefore a critical part of the product being created. As a project manager, when deciding on a game engine, a large part of that decision making process would be to ascertaining whether tools/editors can be created and distributed. If I chose UE4, I would talk to Epic and ascertain whether the UE4 Editor can be edited and distributed, and the terms under which that would be permissible. I would then factor any terms into the development of the editor to ensure that the editor is available to ship with the release of the core game.

    It would be nice if DTG made an official statement regarding the tools, rather than dropping little bits of vague information in the midst of a two hour long live stream or buried in the middle of a Steam forum thread. I also wonder if DTG managed to get themselves into a position where they will never be able to make the tools availble, would they tell the community that or would they string people along to keep them investing in their own DLC? The FSW debacle would suggest the latter.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  16. Maik Goltz

    Maik Goltz Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    114
    Just to make it short: TWS without modified engine and editor were not possible to do. It's a pure fact. You can't do a TS like TSW is with vanilla UE4 tools. Even not when you put in some own code plugins. You need to do more than that. And i guess no one at DTG thought that Epic could make problems. So they will figure out a way and the editor will be available as soon as possible i guess.

    If you are not happy with it, just grab the UE4 and make your very own and better TS. If you can effort a team with 100-500 men and about 30-100+ million ($/€/Pound), then go for it and show us your results, yesterday of course. If you can't do that, you need to wait as all of us do.

    Personally i have no doubts that there will be a editor soon and that we can start to make own content. But it will be kinda funny when the editor is released to the folks. There are some posts about the 'complexity' within the BS18 community. So this will even happen within the TS community much more. What you get with UE4 editor is a massive toolset that you need to understand first before you start to build your first 1m of route for TSW. Most people, who just changed some bits in TS1 by dragging a tree or a building, will moan around about the complexity then. Loading the editor, pick a route, press clone and do edit as now, just impossible in TSW. You need to start from scratch. And i'm quite happy with this as a developer who not like, that everyone can modifiy and reuse the hard work, and release it as their own work to earn some bees. If you want to earn some honor you need to do the same hard work as a normal payware developer then. That's a main difference to TS1 i think. Most of the self named 'freeware developers' will disappear quite fast.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  17. pschlik

    pschlik Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    1,507
    The problem with this "I'd talk to Epic before doing anything" chain of thought is that it would require knowing back in 2014 what changes will have been made to the editor in 2018. That kind of foresight is unreasonable to expect, and I highly doubt that DTG was always intending to enhance the editor on their own, and I think it's totally impossible for them to have known what exactly they would do to it. Heck, that early on in the project they were probably not worried about changing the editor at all-many of the major changes were so the thing isn't laggy as heck and doesn't use 32 GB of RAM. If DTG didn't modify the editor, releasing it might be easier, but nobody's computer would be able to handle it, and nobody would really want to handle it anyway.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 2
  18. Digital Draftsman

    Digital Draftsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    If that's the case, they should have sorted everything out with Epic before investing vast sums of time and money. Once you've managed a few projects, you realise how important it is to identify what needs to be set in stone before the project can progress, and that deal with Epic was one of them. If you build your whole game around the assumption that Epic will allow a modified editor and then after the fact start negotiating, you're negotiating from a position of real weakness.

    If I had the financial resources I would, and perhaps one day I will. I did apply for a Project Management position at DTG when development of TSW was started. I've been creating Payware TS content both solo and as a subcontractor for many years. I'm competent with asset creation and fairly knowledgeable with LUA and C++. I have also done project management in the Railway Engineering Industry, overseeing modifications across hundreds of railway vehicles as well as producing resource plans for multiple depots. On top of that I absolute love the railways and train simming, so my passion and dedication is there. I felt I was a pretty decent candidate, at least one worthy of an interview, but I never heard anything from DTG aside from the automated 'we have received your application', not even a 'thanks, but no thanks'.

    Still, I plan to continue to contribute to the future of train simming as a 3rd Party Content creator, but of course that requires the editor/tools and hence my frustration is born. UE4 doesn't intimidate me, as I love the challenge that learning new skills presents, so I'm excited at the prospect of having a new and more complex engine. It means I can implement ideas that would never have been possible in TS2018.

    I think any additional complexity will for the most part be mitigated by the vast amount of knowledge out their regarding UE4. TS has its own engine and so the knowledge base is much smaller, more or less limited to TS users; by using UE4 it opens up a world of tutorials, guidance, tried and tested methods, as well as asset libraries and scripts/plugins to be implemented in TSW.

    I don't understand how you can have no doubts about the editor, especially after FSW. That incident made me realise that when DTG say that everything is fine and this is the future of this gaming genre, it's actually entirely possible that behind the scenes they are canning the project.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  19. Digital Draftsman

    Digital Draftsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    I understand that any development is dynamic and the situations often change, but there are always critical elements to a project that need to be set in stone before a project can continue down a particular path. You're correct that DTG wouldn't know what changes they may need to make to the UE4 editor, however if you establish up front that you cannot change the editor, or you that can but only in very specific ways, you then adapt the development of the editor to function within those constraints. If you discover you can't do something with the existing editor and there's no other way around it that complies with Epic's restrictions, then you accept that you can't do it, and accept it as a limitation of the engine. Ultimately it's better to have limited tools you can distribute than tools you can't distribute at all.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1
  20. Medellinexpat

    Medellinexpat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2018
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    465
    Digital Draftsman I agree with your last posting. The way that I look at it is that if the provision of an Editor is Mission Critical to the success of the project (that is a good proportion of the community will consider it almost valueless without an Editor) then that's something that's pretty much at the forefront throughout the project. In other words things may change around you but you maintain a development path that allows you to meet that requirement.

    Speaking as someone with Project Management experience (in software development and implementation, but not in gaming) I'm not sure I'd lay the issue with the PM. Presumably when DTG management undertook the concept of TSW they knew that they would need an editor and that they would have mapped out how the project would have developed and how they would support such a feature. If subsequently they found that the engine needed changes and that might impede an editor you'd have wanted them to find that out early enough in the project to decide whether a) the editor was not going to happen or b) they needed to rethink the engine. If there's an issue I'd guess it was a lack of diligence around the engine and how much additional work was needed and what the implications would be. Those type of issues are very common in projects and often are the ones that will bring them to their knees. What worked before tends to work on the next implementation. It's the change that kills you.

    What we also of course can't know is what the contract states around the provision of the editor. There's even the possibility that DTG didn't lock in the price or terms of the editor to the users back in 2014 and now in 2018 it's different. That wouldn't be that unusual. Why would you commit to paying license fees on a feature that you wouldn't need until after a few years of development? There could even be a case that the existing number of users (people who have bought the package) is such that the license fees don't make sense - they were expecting higher sales and therefore a wider base to spread the cost over.

    As to limited tools being better than no tools the devil might be in the detail in particular if that was the final state situation. DTGs issue is that any reduction in capabilities probably won't sit well with the editing community.
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 4
  21. Wivenswold

    Wivenswold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    94
    A well respected civil engineer recently said "The word 'innovative' in construction also means 'problematic'."
     
    • Upvote Upvote x 1

Share This Page