OldVern , that was part of my point. Some would say, "Derail Valley isn't a simulation because mostly it isn't simulating specific locos. You change the signals yourself using a remote control zapper, the locos have limited number of controls and gauges." But on the other hand, some parts of it are quite detailed and aiming for realism. There's different ways to simulate things.
How you choose to use MSFS is up to you, but if you choose to use it like the real world it is by far and away THE single best simulation that has ever been released to a home PC. Is it perfect? No, but it’s leagues ahead of anything else on the market.
That's if you use mods or third party add-ons. SimLabs A320 for P3D (even FSX), or even the Aersoft A320 is a much more realistic experience than the stock A320neo, by far. The FBW A32NX gets close but it's nowhere near. Hopefully the PMDG 737 will be at least as good as the current P3D variant. Same for ATC, which is not realistic. Unless you use (again) a third party plug in, or fly on VATSIM. Some areas look nothing like real life, unless you use the google maps mod, there are way too many trees for example, sometimes ruining the approach into an airport. Autoland doesn't work on any plane, so any approach with low or zero visibility is not realistic, VNAV is not implemented, so using real life procedures is impossible, etc...
For it always feels like there is something missing in TSW2. What you do is jump in a Train and drive to a certain destination, that's it. Great if you like that but imo TSW2 would come 'alive' if it had a Career mode from the real world. We have a scoring system that makes little sense but if we had a CM it would be good. Obviously it would be country specific but there could be job 'opportunities' for going to a different country. It would have to take into account what routes you have also but it isn't impossible. It would give your game more immersion. You could start off getting some sort of 'licence' for a Loco/route. Freight and passenger, you could perhaps get sacked if you make too many mistakes. You could be forced to drive with the inspector if there are complaints, the possibilities are many and really would make TSW2 a better sim.
Agree with everything you’ve said, but as a professional pilot I can say whole-heartedly that for a piece of software costing ~ £100 it’s phenomenal. Of course you need add-ons to get the most out of it but what it allows you to do has never been bettered. I’m not convinced it ever will be.
Well... again, we agree. I just wanted to point out that usually when drawing parallels between TSW2 and MSFS we shall remember that often (especially since you are on PC) we forget how "basic" and relatively unrealistic the base game is, when we take some basic mods for granted (like for example, who doesn't use the FBW A320, Salty 747 and Heavy 787?). MSFS is a great platform and a great "starting point", for example the default planes are basic, but a lot better than FSX's default 737 for example, but mods and third party developed stuff is what makes it the best. IMO IMO TSW and vanilla MSFS are not that different both in immersion and realism. But MSFS goes far ahead with the right mods.
TSW has a long way to go in my eyes but it's more Simulator than game. Go play some of the android and apple apps or Trainz if in doubt. Where its lacking in my eyes is lack of randomness. The real sims that UK ToCs use throw some right spanners in the works. I would like to see more of this but understand the development teams reluctance to go down this road as it can be game over in many cases or long waits at least.
DTG can never be 100% driving accurate otherwise that opens up security issues like terrorists thinking they can drive Trains and the such like. But there is so much more DTG can do to immerse the player into the game. Making Stations better and brighter is an easy one for instance. I also have never understood why there is no toilets on the trains. It is only a small detail but adds that extra level, Buffet cars also. Surely one Toilet interior would be similar to another one, they don't have to be working but is just a nice little detail. There was a Train Sim that did have this but I have forgotten it's name. Having guards also would be great. Even staff on the station where saying you are driving a slam door the staff could close the doors after so long and you as the driver would get the clear signal. So many little things that could be added to add to immersion. Do I think DTG will do it? hahahha, no of course they won't. Like most software these days they want to do the least amount of work for the biggest amount of profit.
While that's true, they are bespoke situations individually programmed: i.e. "scenarios" in TSW terms
It´s a nice simulator. It just needs to be polished to solve those terrible performance problems and that things are not rushed because an uncontrolled errors plage is what can really kill it forever. When things work well the beauty and the magic of trains beats any other train simulator which is currently available. I´m always quite critic with it but on the other side I will always say that the platform has a lot of potential to enjoy it during many years if they handle it in the proper way and not like a machine that just produces DLCs. I understand that Dovetail needs profit and that they need to please both the casual gamers (which are also a market for them), the console/pc players and the more serious simmers. There´s room for everybody here provided that to please any of those groups the features of the platform are not decreased for the others. Now the gameplay allows easier handling and simplified controls for those who don´t want to mesh a lot with complexity but also a deeper simulation environment for the railway enthusiasts. While player has the ability to choose how to use this and to create its own content for it we would be on the good way. Now content creation is really limited by the current scenario planer. If they solve that, improve the performance issues, solve the bugs and add more features to enhance the simulation I would be happy at least. Cheers
Just caught up with this thread and spent a while (wow is that the time...) reading through - very interesting discussions and inciteful feedback. Before I proceed, I will preface everything below with "nothing here should be taken as anything more than discussion and musing, there are no promises here". Sorry, now, let's get on. A couple of you have said you feel it's hypocritical of me to ask the question - first up, I didn't - it was asked in the Q&A thread and I wanted to address it head on rather than dodge it or ignore it. This thread proves that there's a discussion here and a wide range of viewpoints. What I wanted to do was understand some of those views and see where people feel the product is at, where it could be more in depth, and what areas are affecting your view on where the needle sits between Sim and Arcade. There are a few points i'll certainly give an immediate take on because I share the same opinions. Reduction in functionality such as EOTD's not working and the length counter not there on sherman - wasn't intended, it was a time thing but certainly shouldn't be taken as a specific change of direction. As Sam has mentioned, I have been working on a set of checklists for a while now for various types of content and the idea is that the internal teams can use them to check off features are implemented, and then QA can use them to ensure they are checking the entire scope of a release. This should help greatly with this problem in the future but don't expect miracles from tomorrow. Tutorials - interesting discussion. They are necessary, but I think we do need to give you the option to say "I know what I'm doing, leave me alone" We also need to improve how they run, and expand them to be more specific to the features of the train as well. There's lots of other areas here that need looking at too, there are still a number of issues with how new players get into the game I think. Lighting - totally agree. Both on the environment itself and the subject lighting on stations, towns, roads etc. It's on my hit list for the environment teams to review how they're going to improve, alongside rain and snow settings. Random Events - i'm with you on this. Maybe it doesn't seem so because I have highlighted the challenges, but really what that means is I need to resolve the challenges first, and then this can start being a thing. I'd definitely like there to be more variety in each run, it was in the very original spec for the game and the dispatcher is built to be able to cope with dynamic re-routing once such a subsystem can drive it. There are many things that can vary an experience which don't terminate it or create a long wait (which effectively would terminate it for most players ). Bugs - Of course. Ebula - Yep, definitely on my wishlist. Certainly hope to get to this at some point in the non promised future. Animation and general life in routes - Yep, agreed. UK approach control and so forth - Yep, agreed. Neutral Sections - Yep. Trains backflipping off the track, that's not a simugraph thing - though that's largely irrelevant, trains should not be backflipping - please send me YouTube videos of such things so that I can put them in front of the relevant people Somebody noted it happening on the 387 on LC which is alarming, so yes please as much help identifying that as possible would be much appreciated. There's a few things we're not going to agree on though - because I need to make a product that fits in the timescales we have related to the cost of the products, and because it needs to be more broadly accessible. GSM-R - *yes* adding the "call the dispatcher" and making it so you can turn it on and off, that's on the 313 and works well and is infinitely more immersive than pressing a button on the controller or using TAB on the PC. It's going on my checklist for the team to keep up with too for that reason. As a potential next step, having a bit of VO that comes up when you request to pass a signal "standing at signal, request permission to pass" (or some such more appropriate) with a VO response again feels like potentially achievable and something I can talk to the team about. But *full* GSM-R ? Makes sense for multiplayer when there's real people to talk to, would be lovely for single player but I can't balance it out in terms of effort required versus how many people would then see it as *that* much better - and equally i'm not confident about how many TOC's would want that implemented - so perhaps there's approximations such as the suggestion above that might move in the right direction. "Every button and switch, every feature on an MFD" - is just not going to happen for hopefully obvious reasons including the vast amount of work required to actually do it, security concerns from railway operators, and how many people would actually benefit from it (balancing against the work required to implement it). Now, that's just us. If a 3rd party developer comes along and wants to spend 2 years making a 1:1 replica of a loco I will absolutely be the first person to cry with joy, TSW2 is absolutely ready to handle that - but I wouldn't be able to tell them it'll feed them. Toilets - honestly, i'm not sure how surprised I am that this game up in a sim vs arcade discussions. Just, no, never, not going to happen. Waste of memory and time to make it, and no, they aren't all the same at all, you lot would be the first to say "OMG i cant believe they put a shanks model 3204 in here when it should clearly be a Kohler atlantis! the cheek!" On the subject of why the intro's and tutorials are there for every route and every train - as Sam said earlier, it's because we don't know which is your first experience. if you bought TSW2 to play Sherman, the game will try to put you into a tutorial such as SPG the first time you play but if you're me, then you're hitting ESC and going to main menu and thinking "get out of my face, i want sherman". Meaning sherman is your first experience. Second reason - sometimes we change up the bundles, in TS1 every year the core routes change. If you didn't have any tutorials for US trains in other routes, when there no longer is one in the core (maybe there's just an EMU and not a GP38 or something) you're faced with going back to every other route and adding tutorials to fix the gap. It's a difficult balance, but the answer IMHO is a common core training route/area that then allows the tutorials on a route to be much more specific to that route and not do anything you can be assumed to already know. Of course, if you skip the base tutorials, you're on your own, I have nothing further to help you with Third point - a few people talking about the way the route intro's include very basic first person elements that are "covered in every other game" - but what you must realise is that a lot of people coming to TSW2 are here for the trains, and are NOT gamers, so we need to teach them to "game" a bit first. Anyway, this post has gone on long enough, taken me an hour to get this far... Thanks for the vibrant discussion folks, it's a useful read. (and whomever asked the original question for the Q&A, thanks to you also for posing it )
Have you looked at External Dispatcher? It runs outside the Run8 game and communicates with it. It runs on a second monitor. Which loco and length train are you running with instant release? I have not really found instant release to be a thing. The release is just about instant at the front, but if you skip to the rear you'll hear the brakes are still on back there and stay that way for quite a while on a long train. The gauge will only show what's happening on your loco. Paul
More realism in coupling is advantages. In Run8 you even have to think about how you open the angle LOVE, you must open it a little bit until the air sound settles down before fully opening it.
To me the take away from that is that swapping out routes every year or two adds a lot of unneeded junk that could be tossed out if we just committed to the current routes. After all, Euro Truck has had the same starting area since the beginning, all the aircraft MSFS had at launch are still apart of the base package, surely TSW2 could do the same with the current three routes.
One thing I noticed whilst watching some YouTube videos of US 12" to 1' railroads was a computer axle counter/hotbox checker coming over the radio. Not sure exactly what its called or how it works but it would be cool if this was added into TSW especially once random events are added into the game.
Excellent post Matt. Three points if I may: - The GSM-R thing. All it would need to be would be the same that AP have provided in TS1 (I’m sure you know exactly how far they’ve gone with it), with the ability to call the signaller in addition. It’s enough, it’s a nice little feature and it adds a lot of immersion. Surely it wouldn’t take long to get that working, and once it’s done it’s done. People that aren’t interested / don’t understand it wouldn’t know it’s there and wouldn’t miss it. Those like me who didn’t know it prior to using AP products could learn about it, and for those that do know it would be great to see. I doubt anyone is asking for a fully simulated GSM-R, but one that we already have in TS1? For sure. - Secondly, have you really never seen this phenomenon of trains flipping over? It first started with the LGV route and it would almost always be in the snow (occasionally the wet), and often follow an emergency brake application. It’s happened to me twice on L2B in that last week, once in rain & once in snow. Once an emergency brake application (not paying attention) and once me simply going from brakes off to Full Service (still not paying attention!). I’ll do my best to capture it but it happens sporadically and means I’ll have to record all my gameplay, which isn’t much at the minute. I’ve only been able to play recently as I’ve been banged up self-isolating with you-know-what. At least at the minute I can tell you for sure it happened on 1W98, Chapter 2 on Journey Mode. - Finally, although not implicit, can we assume that by adding checklists you’re aiming to address the inconsistencies from one release to the next? That would a big step forward. Great post again though, and it’s really nice to see a lot of these issues/niggles on your radar.
This weird "we-pretend-we-have-a-new-game-every-year" (incl. the name changes) has always annoyed me. It's really just a marketing stunt, isn't it? I think it's a waste of resources. If you want to boost sales or generate buzz, you can do that just as well with DLCs, new feature-updates, etc. The new "version" always seems to be a gigantic workload, where they try to squeeze three times the amount of work into half the time and afterwards they have to patch the stuff for a year.
100% agree with this. This annual thing is a total faff. For example, everything is now branded ‘rush hour’ which is pretty much meaningless and will all need changing again come the summer. There has to be a better way.
There are defect detectors at intervals trackside and they send a report to the train radio after it has passed. Run 8 simulates this, usually no defects not had a hot box or dragging equipment alert yet. In the UK hot box detectors normally sound in the signal box so the signaller will bring the train to a controlled stop.
I think that's fair enough, just wanted to add that while 1:1 MFD is not realistic, I think something a bit more in-depth than what we have currently would be still a worthwhile addition, nothing crazy, but something like the Class 66's and (a working) BR187's display should be the standard. For example there are other trains (like the BR187) which have brake informations on the screens, and those can't be left out like in the ICE3s. Also if there are additional features that can be accessed through the MFD (like the ACS-64's cruise control) those should be modelled as well. Think how much basic the Class 66 would be without the screen, we couldn't even switch brake modes! Also realistic destination setting using codes should be a thing as well IMO. Now this is a bit off topic, but I also think having CCTV working (both in-cab and on platform monitors) would help immersion and realism immensely for modern UK content, particularly other underground lines. But IIRC I got told it would be very resource intensive. Can't wait for EBuLa and Random events
The difference between a Sim and an Arcade game Matt is the details and sometimes the little details. For instance your objection to Toilets on the Train? I don't understand this, why is this so objectionable? If you went on a longish Train journey and there was no Toilets you would be the first to complain. Even having a basic Toilet model would be better than none NO? You mentioned about Trains flipping over? What about the 38 stock? Perhaps they might not be flipping but they are certainly derailing which you yourself have experience of, is this being look at?
I have to agree here. Especially with the uk diesel trains: Usually all pipes are connected nomatter you operate in vacum or air condition. Sometimes the mainreservoir hose isnt connected between your locos in mu ops. So in a towing scenario of simulating a failed train you could end up without air in the second loco. The system is modeled, just the nessecary hoses dont get always connected. So actualy its more a bugfixing thing, than a realism thing. I wish dtg adds this. The only uk loco couples the hoses correct is the cl52, which isnt actualy mu fitted.
A train toilet would take a lot of time to model and this would be time taken away from modelling something more important such as the cab. There is a finite time to model everything and a toilet would just be a novelty, whereas a detailed cab is something everyone can enjoy on every drive and that’s where the dev time goes. One thing to keep in mind is that it isn’t real life so there is no need for a toilet on a long journey in the sim and complaining that there is no toilet in real life is quite a bit different. There’s just no need for it in the game.
Why on earth would you spend like 2-3+ days modelling the inside of a toilet cubicle that a) serves literally no purposes to the functionality/playability of the train b) wastes time and memory due to it having no such purpose c) takes away from other aspects of the train like compromising the texture resolution and poly count of other bits of the interior d) End up having to simulate a toilet because "Well now we have a toilet on a train it should be made to flush" and then you go down that whole rabbit hole.
So your saying TSW2 is not a Sim then? For an artist to model a bathroom in game wouldn't take long and they do have spare time. The whole Diesel Legends pack was done because the artists had so much spare time. You saying a Toilet on a train has no Purpose? That's a little bizarre. Sam said a while back he would like them in game. Other Train game's had them. They don't have to be 5 star working toilets you know. You argue it isn't real life, so they can ditch the safety systems, passengers and interiors as well then? I don't know if there would be a call for them or not but I'd like to see them. I'd like to see Buffets in Trains as well. No doubt you wouldn't like that either but I would as it would add to immersion.
Diesel Legends was made because the gameplay team had spare time, not the train modellers, you need to get the facts straight. A toilet is required on a real train, I never said any different, and TSW is no less of a sim because your avatar can’t go for a wee, and you saying that they could take away everything, such as safety systems because I said it isn’t real life is going a bit far, and also not what I said. Safety systems are a big part of a train driving simulator, toilets are not. Sam has always been joking about having working toilets on the trains, that is true. None of your arguments have much weight when compared to the dev time needed to add a novelty room to trains, which is not as quick as you might think, and would be at a detriment to modelling the other things to the level of detail they do. It would be a novelty in the game because players would maybe have a look at it once or twice then never visit it again. A complete waste of everybody’s time for something only a handful of people would like. What is bizarre is anyone getting worked up because there are no toilets. DTG have made it clear that they aren’t going to make them, I was just saying why that is a reasonable decision.
I really, really don’t get the fascination with toilets, honestly when it was brought up a few months ago I thought it was a bit of a joke. The majority of stuff requested in the thread serves some sort of use to the player, but what does a toilet do? I barely ever use toilets on the train IRL, let alone in a virtual environment. I mean it’s not like they don’t model the exterior of toilets, you could always just pretend someone is in there? Each to their own, but I can’t really imagine much that would be a less useful allocation of dev time.
The day DTG considers doing a modeled Toilet over an engine room, i call my self too old for this But: Dhekelian has made an interesting point: While "scenery upgrades" are long common in the flight sim genre, this way of payware could also be included in a train sim, and looking at star citizen, the way digital goods are sold can grow to a bizarre point. "there is no wrong and right in this". Right now, i think DTG has to solve other challenges before toilets are gonna happen, so wont expect them anytime soon
hahaha, how do you know I don't? Toilets on trains have other 'uses' but that is another story. I said it wouldn't be for everyone but to me it just is another detail that is simple that would add to immersion.
Keep in mind also that adding complexity to the 3D model - especially if it's repeated multiple times - adds to processor load. This is the principal reason why DTG stopped modeling engine rooms.
Well i wasnt happy they were removed, but its understandable from a point. Putting the prime / start selector straight inside the cab still looks like a too easy & fake shortcut to me. At least they could have the door on the side left modeled without complex 3d engine, and put that selector inside the empty space. So the selector would be at the right location. Same with the uk locos. The cl 20 has the brake selector actually inside the cab, but on a loco like the cl.47 its located in the engine room. Instead of puting them inside the cab, they could model the door to the engine room and place the brake selector switch & battery isolation behind in a small space. This way the location is based on where its supposed to be.
At what point do we start requesting a fully modelled pastie booth so we can choose, tender and then sit at station and watch before dropping the virtual kids off at the pool
I have a great deal of respect for Matt and am more than willing to exercise patience for him to do his thing - however, the one thing I cannot buy is a reduction in functionality; that is simply unacceptable. Adding bells and whistles on the part of 3rd party developers I accept as out of DTG control, to an extent, but once present should always be present. And for the MSFS goonies who temporarily hijacked this thread - MSFS is not even close to the best flight simulator - a great game, but programs such as X-Plane are far closer to simulation of flight envelopes and does not have to be excused for lack of features such as VNAV. Enough of toilet fetishes (although I have to say that there have been developers who modeled toilets in aircraft)
I've had my head down enough toilets on a Saturday/Sunday morning to have any wish to see them in game. I mean if you have a toilet fetish and long to see them so bad Im sure there's multiple websites where you can enjoy to your heart contents.
Great to hear you say this, Matt. It doesn't need to be anything dramatic. Just adding a small amount of random variation to the dwell times for user and AI trains (e.g. make each dwell time 15sec-180sec rather than a fixed 60s) would revolutionise the game. It would create some challenge in keeping to time, and randomised signal checks (every run different) rather than the planned scheduled ones (same on every run and they never make you late) which we have at the moment. A few randomised TSRs would be brilliant too, and would have similar effects. Thank you!
Yes and no, I agree for the lack of VNAV, but it is fixed by free mods to the standard planes, and probabily most of the future third party planes. The discussion of physics is still open, and I've heard all sort of people claim one is better over the other... Blade element sure is cool, but it's resource intensive, so Xplane breaks all of the aero surfaces into (relatively) big chunks, "The number of elements is decided by the user in Plane-Maker. Ten elements per side per wing or stabilizer is the maximum" that doesn't mean it's not realistic, in fact: "studies have shown that this provides roll rates and accelerations that are very close to the values that would be found with a much larger number of elements.", yet that's still an approximation. Even the calculations on the elements themselves are not all that in-depth. From what I can tell MSFS instead uses both the stability derivatives while still calculating vectors all over aero surfaces, and it's definitely an improvement over FSX/FS9, and unlike XPlane, marketing material suggests MSFS is able to calculate thousands of vectors instead of tens. I recommend taking a look at this thread: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/developing-a-blade-element-theory/407516 Long gone are the days of: "Okay, we are flying at Mach 0.8, so we add 5% to our drag due to compressibility," I also want to point out something else, while it is more noticeable with flight sims (where planes will actually feel on rails) what makes more the difference is how willful are the developers to make something realistic. Case in point, TSW's physics engine is light years ahead of the old config file type physics of TS (comparable to the old FSX flight model), yet the TSW Rivet Class 150 is nothing like a diesel-hydraulic, MSTS has a Class 150 with better physics, and even better trains like the DTG Class 313 and 465 are not as good as the best AP trains, same goes for flight sims. I'm sure the FSLabs A320, or PMDG 737 on FSX are better than the stock A320neo on MSFS. The physics engine only gets to shine when someone is willing to sink the time and effort needed to create something truly special, like the BR101, or something expensive in the Flight Sim Market, like PDMG, FSLabs, etc... Anyway until computer power gets good enough to do even basic CFD continuously, we will never have complete realism.
My understanding's that the way MSFS and X-Plane do flight models are different, but ultimately they pretty much accomplish the same end goal, and are equally capable. It really depends more on who's making the aircraft, and what level of detail they're aiming for. Ultimately the whole idea that X-Plane has a flight model light years ahead of MSFS is a outdated mindset from the days when FSX/P3D was the main competitor.
Sorry to drag this temporarily off topic again. Admittedly I’ve never used Xplane but I do speak with significant real-world experience and in my opinion MSFS is excellent, particularly at simulating VFR. Granted, no one has yet produced a full-on hardcore commercial airliner but it is coming. In my humble opinion there is nothing at all wrong with the flight model. The nearest thing I have flown for real that compares with a properly developed aircraft in the sim is the Just Flight PA28 series and they are damn close to reality. My current type is one of the bundled airliners and admittedly it’s disappointingly awful, but then that was always going to be the case I guess at that price point. It’s a shame, because the model is spot on. You have to understand that even Level D full motion flight simulators are not the same as the real thing. Outside of the airport environment, I think you’d be very surprised indeed at the standard of visuals that even the most modern FFS come with. There are certain aspects of the flight envelope where they’re only in the right ballpark too. So I stand by what I said, for Asobo to have produced what they have for circa £100 is phenomenal. Yes it’s a work in progress, and yes you need add-ons (of course you do, it’s only £100) but that doesn’t detract from the excellent product they’ve produced. Bringing it screaming back on topic, TSW isn’t a million miles away either. In my humble opinion a bit more focus on the areas that are acknowledged as needing it and some development of the immersion/experience and it will be right up there. What we, as customers, need to see is some action to back up the words and best intentions. We do see snippets, but there is still plenty to do.
Jetwash, I would generally agree with all you say - just try the same Just Flight PA28 in X-plane - interesting! And one last swerve from the thread - more of you than you think have been for a ride on a 6-axis full-motion simulator. Every one of you who went on the Star Wars ride at Disney was on a full-motion simulator - built on a similar platform by the company which builds Airbus simulators - so you know what we are missing in TSW2
Getting back to earth here: DTG are continually edging things in the sim direction, for those who want it. For example, the revised German rolling stock for DRA now models brake-mode settings (which casual players can ignore, but the hardcore can set up from the actual DB manuals): https://forums.dovetailgames.com/th...n-driving-freight-trains-realistically.44532/ And little operating details like the series/parallel switch in the Gronk, which is not documented nor really necessary, but it's there. What's frustrating is that upgrades like this don't necessarily "stick", as with features found on Sand Patch locos but not repeated on later versions.
There still seems to be a general disconnect from the understanding that hardcore train nerds are not the only intended audience for this product. The general feeling I get from most of you is that you want TSW to completely ignore a very interested and profitable segment of the market just so that you can drive uber-realistic trains without getting up out of your chairs. Unfortunately, this wish is naive and selfish. You aren't the only people interested in driving trains, nor should you be the only ones who get a product to meet their desires. And since Dovetail obviously sees the potential, they've developed a product that tries to strike a balance between what you want and what we want. And it seems like all they're getting for it in return is a bunch of flak. Granted, MFS20 gets the same flak in the same ways with much of the same rhetoric, so maybe this is just a humanity problem rather than a gamer vs simmer problem.
Not at all, adding features doesn't mean you have to use them, like safety systems themselves. How does adding EBuLa, or more MFD functionality alienate more casual players? Just like adding a easy Trainz-like mode with simplified physics doesn't bother me at all, adding more in-depth features shouldn't bother more casual players.. Case in point, the new brake functionalities added to BRD, with the G-P-R selectors and new brake timings, the train works fine even if you don't know what it is, but it makes the experience a lot better and more in-depth for us train nerds. I agree with you if this point was more about the people compalining about the collectibles, points, etc...but that doesn't mean that more realism = bad for casual players and vice versa as long as you can opt out of the new features.
I think that's about fair: hardcores can ignore collectibles, and casuals can ignore brake modes. The key thing is that both are there for them as wants 'em.
Trainz2022 has stepped up a notch assuming you're not running in the easy DCC mode where it behaves like a model railway. Its actually pretty decent physics and train behaviour on the new routes and equipment. Like TS and TSW it has plenty of legacy content that never gets updated though. In the newest equipment you can interact with everything in the cab, turning knobs, change switches, move levers - basically very similar to TSW2. They went up a notch towards sim because they now have Walk mode and you can go anywhere, no invisible walls. If you leave the modelled area or fall off the world that's your problem. Paul
I don't think additional systems would alienate more players, providing they are off by default. Otherwise you can get 747 cockpit syndrome where you step in and you look around the 1,000 switches dials and controls and just go nope. Too hard.
I don't get that at all. We have users who wish for more realism, sure, better sounds, sure, better mechanics, sure ETC. Why does that effect you when you can drive the Train in 'easy mode' if you want to. And what has been said above DTG do cater for the 'casual' market with Trophies, achievements, collectibles ETC I don't why you have a problem with some people that want to improve the game. And what if the improvement wanted by people makes the game easier? Will you object to that to? I think you are the first I have come across that wants less features,
