Do you remember the February Player survey? There has been a question in it about which feature one would prefer to see the most in TSW. It was a single choice vote. Now the funny thing is that except modular routes, everything they asked the player for in the survey came/or is about to come to Train Sim World at least with one example. Route Extension -> We get LIRR 2.0. Expert loco -> We get the BR 101 from TSG. Remastered route -> We get West Somerset Railway. In case of the subscription model also asked for in the survey, since today we know it became true for the new TSC iteration, Train Sim Classic 2024. Now following this pattern and evidence, When do we get modular routes, DTG?
I hope it happens. I'd argue NYC would be a good place to start for the US, but maybe too many licensing issues with MTA. Maybe Boston? LA? London seems a logical nexus for UK routes and can be extended in most directions. Maybe Dresden for Germany? Build towards Leipzig, Berlin, and Prague? Yes please! Tbh, from a dev perspective, it might need TSW5 unless they already started laying groundwork in TSW4.
I'm pretty sure Matt has repeatedly explained in the last week or so why simply putting two routes together doesn't work.
If DTG know that putting two routes together isn't a viable option, then why are route mergers being an option for player surveys? I wonder if those survey results are actually considered when adding new features or if it is just to keep false hype.
I want all of those, but I believe I chose the extension option... I would like to have a route or routes that not only test your skills at signalling and all, but also put your endurance and focus to the test, like, you actually get somewhere long-distance... an example from Slovakia, hypothetical - in TSW, you mostly get routes like Bratislava - Galanta or at most to Nove Zamky, like 50-90km, but it would be nice if I could try my hand at sth like Bratislava - Kosice, a 300 km or more varied mega route <3
It's to measure how much people want the various things that are talked about. Mergers (what "Modular Routes" are) have been a thing since the TSC days and have been suggested/asked for, in TSW's case, for years, with a few community efforts alongside. They're obviously in a degree of demand, so that's why DTG put it in. Same reason VR and Multiplayer show up every year.
I think those "modular routes" could work if they were planned and made with the "modularity" in mind. -> Something like Hagen in RRO and RSN couldn't work for example.
Doesn't the description given for modular routes as above describe a type of editor feature? 'Easy Route Building' and 'Adding your own scenery'. I thought the idea of this was overlapping routes would snap together, allowing you to seamlessly continue your journey from one route to the next, not an editor thing. Also aren't remastered routes and route extensions the same thing? It says 'revised in a more substantial way such as adding additional track and/or trains' for remastered routes. LIRR 2.0 and SEHS are surely therefore both?
There is an overlap, yes, but Boston - Providence, Sherman Hill and Dresden - Riesa were all remastered without any additions to the track or trains (Boston & SMH were to go along with other DLC, but don't really count as the remaster adding anything), while Dresden (in TSW2) technically received an extension without any remaster.
in the subscription version perhaps? but isn't there a snag, a route can have only one tracks.bin, so the other parts of the route are disconnected? Unless you follow JT's model, where only the scenery tiles and scenarios are tied to the part of the (network(/route you actually purchased?
There are two problems. One is the coordinate system; each route has its own origin point, so they can't talk to each other spatially. The other problem is that you would need a unified timetable covering both routes.
It's possible - but you need to build the game from the ground up for that purpose, which would require a custom game engine imho. Zusi was done this way, all timetables have a defined set of modules (usually 20-30 kms) which can be assembled. The route origin can be different for each timetable, usually in the middle to avoid issues due to rounding errors which can cause jerking at distances far away from the origin due to mathematical problems. (It's not using permanent origin shifting like TSW to trick the UE engine, causing the stuttering.) You can make simple timetables yourself, using only a few connected modules, or define a timetable that uses 1000 kms of connected track. The way I see it this is impossible in TSW, as each DLC is kind of its own world with settings that are specific to it. Timetable / Consist Editor. It can automatically set the optimal UTM origin based on its used modules. And the best - no need to "cook". Game's "eating" plain XML.
Modular routes sounds like something you would see at a model railroad show with the prebuilt sections attached together, or Kato's T-trak modules, as stated in the description. Nothing about using already existing routes and such.
I think you are reading it wrong. From the wording, I am pretty sure they mean building your own fictional routes from various pre-prepared blocks. Think of separating KWG into ten parts that you can freely shift around to make however long route you wish to drive that are seamlessly glued together ie. in a tunnel. Or doubling the length of Semmering pass by repeating some of the curves. So something completely different from the realism-oriented content we got for TSW so far, and probably also for a different audience. Trainz actually originally started as model railway simulator, and this would be going into that direction as well. It will not be merging of whole realistic routes with common point, DTG said many times that TSW is simply not capable of that, performance-wise.
Run 8 is probably the best example of a sim designed to be extended in modular format. Look no further than the massive SoCal network which extends from LA and Fresno across to Seligman. (Strangely no Antelope Valley, though). The downside is, they have created a behemoth which, while suitable for R8’s more open style of gameplay, would be a nightmare for DTG’s scenario and timetable planners (Joe!) to compile and test.
I read it 4 times and I still don't really get how they see modular routes. I think Noir's explanation makes the most sense. Fictional routes being able to be changed up and easily built modularly. indeed like Trainz a bit model railroady. I liked the christmas special two years ago for a little change and with free roam spawning it sounds definetely possible with some work, especially if you can set directions on the go to let AI drive to. but then, you are getting near just making a scenario or using the editor. I think that the modular route idea had gotten the least amount of votes and I personally think the game better sticks to it's realism with some fictional but real ish routes in the editor projects. Combining routes as has been said is very difficult if it hasn't been set up for it. and apart from how RSSLO did their combine austrian routes. I see that works in TSC but TSW is a heavier game so although I hope it works I'm not sure. especially if they aren't the only ones making austrian content in TSW. I'd love to drive a Railjet from Wien to Innsbruch if I had the time. but I think if all the dlc are released it's gonna be a drive of 30 to 70 minutes. back to home screen, select play, select route, select timetable, select train, find the same service. and start setting up the loco again...
It must be said if the forum crowd don't seem to not fully understand what it is, imagine how hard it's gonna be to sell modular routes to casual players? I don't see any situation where "modular routes" will succeed when even the games biggest supports willing to chat about it on a forum aren't certain what they're being sold. I actually remember making this remark about the survey when it came out- -and honestly I think it needs to be said here again. It's really hard to say whether this is something we want or not when it's so vague as to what these even are.
I feel like if DTG wanted to make modular routes, they should make a spinoff of TSW as a model railroad sim, using assets from the Holiday route with new ones to build prefab modules. Granted DTG would then have to go against Trainz and Rolling Line.
Modular routes is not merging routes to be clear. It was under discussion a long time ago as a potential for easier route building where you can get bits of route that people have made and shared out of the editor, and then click them together in the way that you want - so some canyon, followed by a yard, some country running with a branch, etc. No current plans to actually implement it, too many questions about it tbh, it was included just to see what conversation it stirs and what feedback it gets. Matt.
Fair point, and kinda disappointing that people don't seem to get it tbh. It seemed self-evident to me that it meant "similar to Run 8" as this concept has been discussed somewhat frequently around here. Certainly more than digital toy railroads and fictional jigsaw pieces i would have thought. Obviously i was wrong lol! Maybe there's a better way to describe the concept than "modular routes"? Maybe "route networks" or something like that, idk. But honestly, given Matt's comments above it doesn't seem like something that's really being considered anyway. Fair enough.
To be fair - sometimes these survey questions are left a little vague purely to find out how YOU would interpret them or what conversations they spark on the forums. Obviously, should something become an active feature for the game, it would be clearly described so you would be without any doubt what it is
I would like Koln-Aachen, will have a "Remaster". Longer, more trains (and train companies) and with current simulator standards. I believe it is an "emblematic" one, that deserves to be improved. You can run passenger trains - both local, regional and high speed ones "ICE", but also freight trains of different types. There are some yards also for passenger and freight. Hopes can be possible!
The thing about Run 8 is that the network still works (after a fashion) if you don't have all the modules. It took me ages to get around to buying the San Bernadino/LA and Fresno sections also the Bakersfield and Mojave branches. All that happened on loading something like the "Very Populated..." session, cars for destinations which you didn't have simply showed as "None" on the tagger. So your choice to assign a different destination or delete the consist. That wouldn't work as previously noted in the more structured gameplay environment of TSW.
I understood what DTG meant with it, but I wondered how this even could be technically possible. I thought that DTG kind of would distribute some essential route parts, which a user then can connect together to form a route of their choice (yes a bit like model railways). However, now the concern that the community themselves should made these pieces is already demolishing this idea halfway since we can't cook content on the official and partwise even the unofficial way. Another thing is that it would require that people could use the Creator Club to share routes or route parts (as you also already spoke about quite a time ago but said to be problematic) to make that happen. However, we still can't do that, neither can we host it somewhere else because it seems that the AddOn Manager doesn't let it pass through. But if it never really were meant to be a reasonable feature that could be implemented, I don't understand why it was a viable option to choose from then. People gave their votes for this option maybe because they saw a chance that it could be implemented, and therefore didn't cast their vote for another option. If this question in the survey was ever meant to have any reasonable impact on future developement and the poll results are meant to be legit and trustworthy, IMHO it's not correct to include an option which never really was intended to come into the game. That circumstance kind of distorts the result of that particular question. If you want to know what people think of an idea and actually understand with it, do so in the forums, or raise a separate question for it, but not let it be part of such a serious question. (For me it was the most serious one in the complete poll). And contrary to many others in this discussion, I did understand what was meant, because I took the time to read through all of them (as also suggested for this question if I recall correctly). The description kind of described it well enough. But however this circumstance again, that people actually didn't know what they're voted for exactly, is the second reason why the results of the poll aren't 100% undistorted. Yeah, but that would be rather an extension (as the description in the main post says) than a pure remaster to TOD4 and maybe bits of scenery. And yes, we proabably would all want a remaster or extension of our favorite route, however DTG can't do them all unfortunately. I wonder how much time it would be necessary to just upgrade a route to TOD4, though. Edit: I just realized that the option "Remastered routes" also includes added tracks and new trains. As I read it now, the only difference between a remaster and an extension of a route, seems to be that the extension could be purchased as a separate addon - just like LIRR 2.0, while a remaster is for free - just like West Somerset.
This has been rumbling along since 2022. Check here https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/route-mergers-in-2022-lets-build-a-network….50511/
Yes, but the main topic as raised in the OP of this thread of yours are indeed Route Mergers. That's also the topic what most people replied to you. There is this one post of yours basically hitting it correctly, but I think nobody really reacted to this idea of yours. Still I'm not quite sure in which way a "modular route" could have a real counterpart. I assumed modular routes rather to be like fictional routes, where for example you connect individual pieces of scenery together. But in the end, it doesn't matter whether these pieces are pure fictional or are referring to real places. I made a detailed explanation why mergers like that will never happen in TSW here. In a nutshell, there are parameters and factors for routebuilding which do not allow dynamically merging routes like in a puzzle. You only can have one single map, but not individual ones that then glue together. Therefore I wonder why they even raised that as a possible answer in the poll.
