Just money and time. Memory isn't the biggest issue for the route length as not all is loaded at once. Memory is the constraint for busy and diverse timetables. DTG won't ever make a complex route again as they refuse to spend time optimising
still reminds me apparently how when TSW was launch it was promised with longer routes yet here we are, barely getting any after DTG said "they tried" What an utter joke I still remember Matt coming down to one of the threads saying it was a trek to work on routes like Brighton Mainline, East Coastway and the TGV route. Cant remember did they say anything about the WCMLS and ECML.
Routes can be longer. Just run on TSC. The memory used here is used only for driving the train, not spending redundant space to support treasure hunts, conductor mode, walking around the station and all of the additional trappings TSW provides to give it a more rounded simulation capability. All of these excellent attributes take up memory. If you want longer and more connected routes then use the software platform which focuses solely on driving the locomotive!
Talking of routes like ECML - I would support an approach where after a year, they release a 'new' route which would be the next leg of a route, added onto the existing route. It wouldn't be an expansion, it would be a whole new route but you essentially pay for the new parts and get the existing bits for free. Means you don't have to teleport and can run through services. Also lets you uninstall the old route to save space. Does mean that any clocked up achievements would be lost, but perhaps they could find a way to port these over. The risk is that people wouldn't buy the first route and wait for the second part - but presumably DTG would wait for a minimum purchase threshold on the first part before doing the second in order to ensure sufficient interest.
I decided to go backwards this steam sale and venture into TSC and now down the rabbit hole I go.. Spent some hard earned not only on collecting quite a lot of UK DLC with the sale but also on other third party addons and here I am travelling down the ECML York to Kings cross merge with AP Track/cloud/veg+sky and weather in the JT enhanced voyager wondering why I didnt go with TSC first! No TT/free roam and old graphics was my reasoning for going TSW first, now I wish I didnt, the scenarios and enhancements combined with the variety and distance in routes, rolling stock and mods has made me think twice about anything TSW again..
The reason is it IS a rabbit hole. It all depends on what the user wishes to do. TSW is all out of the box - everything provided direct from your provider (Steam etc). Lots of additional train related things to do to provide the full Train Sim World (hence its name). If your focus is on the actual driving and seeing more locations then TSC comes into play. Sure there is vanilla stuff out of the box. You need to be intrepid enough to want to expand your vanilla set and acquire 3rd party stuff. The pain being that you need to do work yourself to add these things. The rewards being a much larger diverse network of driving opportunities. TSC is not for everyone. For those of us who enjoy the challenge it is a fantastic journey. On a side note I have a lot of both TSW and TSC DLC and have been running comparison runs using like locomotives back to back. My immediate personal take is that the locos in TSC seem much more responsive to controls. Better acceleration and braking. Of course if you like steam engines TSC is definitely the way to go along with US type locos. Both are great products. For my poison I am in love with the way TSC looks and feels - especially after comparing the back to back comparisons. Respectfully
Just a quick note on flukes comments. There are no timetables (correct) however Free Roam is a large aspect of TSC. In fact the whole Danish network is played using only Free Roam. There are a handful of scenarios from Denmark however the whole country is available as a 2 part Free Roam network. (Taken from my site) https://sites.google.com/view/trainsimulatorcontent/europe-routes/jutland https://sites.google.com/view/trainsimulatorcontent/europe-routes/zealand
Euston to Birmingham would be my preferred route distance. Varied stopping patterns with the 350, 730, high speed service with the 390 with at least 4 stops. German routes have been this long before, the entry into BHM is already modeled from BCC, so is Lichfield TV That would be my preference for a longer UK route. only needs 1 new train and that could be released as a separate DLC, which also layers onto the BCC line now they have got rid of their 323s
Ever since I bought the AP mods it’s been a real game changer. The sky & weather and vegetation mods have really changed the way TSC looks and feels, it’s a lot more realistic now, far more than TSW could hope to achieve I’m afraid to say. I still need to buy the track, signal and a few of the train pack mods one day. At the moment though I’m quite happy with the mods I have. I also run RW2 Pro too for the announcements.
I've uninstalled TSW completely now, something I would not have expected to do a year ago. Apart from the TSG and JT content I find it's totally uninspiring. The steam content both payware and freeware is very immersive on TSC added to the fact you can drive a Pendolino to New Street or a HST from Paddington to Cardiff etc.
It seems they are after a quick payday, spend as little time on development as possible, sell the route, abandon it and move onto the next! Especially with UK content recently. The first Welsh route I have played a few times before it's just the same old same old. If this is what Wales has to offer, then I'm not buying anymore. I am not blaming the console in any shape or form before anyone kicks off... But maybe kids are like mum/dad can I get this route, play it once or twice then mum/dad can you buy this route. So longer routes are no longer needed or wanted. As vern stated with illogical start and end points, some routes I get 3 mins into and think what's the point of going from nowhere to nowhere. When another several miles is all it takes to go to somewhere.
It's simple. You market to the majority. The majority want short routes. I forget who from DTG said it, but the "sweet spot" is around 40-60 minutes. Some can be up to 2 hours for the "long haul" minority, but most people they found ran routes under an hour. The other thing they find (that you can see on the forum) is that people demand new routes all the time. You could produce four 50-mile routes for $40 each. people will buy.. or one 200 mile route for $150 that many people won't buy. Which would you do if you wanted to stay in business? It's not some big conspiracy or "money grab." It's just how business works. You give the majority what they want. It's not just DTG either. All the third parties max out on shorter routes too. They can make routes as long as they want, but they choose to make "shorter" ones. (Well "short" as in under 2 hours for most runs) That tells me it's not just DTG... it's them thinking that's what the majority of people want. What you're asking for is just a very small, niche thing. It's okay to want it, but you have to realize that it is not what most people want. At this point, you'd have to go against market research and prove to developers there is a PAYING audience in TSW for those "longer routes." Not just paying.. but paying a LOT to cover the much higher cost and far lower number of sales.
operator#7940 Okay...how does that explain TSC having longer routes from DTG and other developers consisently over many years? You can go compare TSC to TSW add-ons and TSC routes from all developers are clearly longer than TSW stuff. The exception beeing only JT. Talking about JT: so why do they bother making TSC style route lengths, if it does not pay and a only a fringe minority want it?
Tsc is easier to work with with more accessible tools i guess and you don't have to make it very detailed. You can get away with lots of things. That's why on majority of dtg routes and some 3rd parties, it's low poly and you can just place down 2d trees and objects pretty much. And it's not like tsw where there's a million other things to do
As you generalize a lot, this is not true. One example being TSW's Semmeringbahn (68 km) being way longer than TSC's Semmeringbahn. (41 km). Another one being TSW Dresden Riesa (83 km) vs TSC Dresden-Riesa (78 km).
This is not fully true. I don´t know about TSW, but I worked for many years with the TSC editor. I know that stations must be way more detailed in TSW, because you can walk around them. But things like foliage is clearly more challenging in the TSC editor... from what I understand, in UE engine you can just "draw" foliage with a brush or even auto generate parts of the scenery with AI tools, whilst in the TSC editor you have to place everything manually. This is the reason why TSC routes can differ so massivly in quality of scenery, deponding on how much time the person takes making scenery. With TSW everything route has a similar feel to me... I think this is duo to auto generation (DTG have talked about this on streams) and focusing more time on building stations, rolling stock, making timetables etc.
congratulations captain obvious.... you´ve found two examples of longer routes in TSW. Shall I list you the 50 or more examples of longer routes in TSC now? Are you aware that the whole Südbahn in Austria exists from RSSLO and from freeware sources? Actually, most of the Austrian rail network is on TSC at this point excluding a few branch lines.... but go on and pick out the one short route from DTG on the Steam store to make your point.
Exactly. TSC is TSC. TSW is TSW. The "argument" is self defeating because if what you want is already in TSC... why not just use TSC? Or Run 8? Or Sim Rail? As usual, the only argument to be made for TSW being unique is that it's the only "train sim" that is on console. However, again that just proves the point that it's a very small minority asking for something. Since those "longer routes" already exist on several places for PC players who have already migrated there, it just further reduces the number of people who both a) want longer routes and b) are unwilling to invest in more than a console. The fact that several PC games offer them but no console is not a coincidence.
They have already explajned the answer to this question several times in the past. So your just beating a dead horse. And to all these people saying TSC does this better then stop playing TSW. Obviously you prefer TSC and if you keep claiming its so much better then why even bother playing TSW? TSW is not TSC and never will be.
There is no reason to be that provocative. And yes, that's how it works: if you generalize and say that "all" is like that, only one empirical example is enough to prove you wrong Also if you look at routes like Salzburg-Rosenheim, Hamburg-Lübeck, or Mittenwaldbahn you'll see that the distance is the same, but the TSW version looks way more detailed, especially the stations. You were comparing routes that were both in TSW and TSC, but now you compare routes that only exist in TSC but not in TSW? How does that comparision even work? I can also say that Zwolle Groningen with its 105 km is way longer than RSSLO's Holzkirchen-Wörgl route (85 km). But comparing these doesn't even make sense? Yeah, and everybody on the TSC community *loves* RSSLO because their routes are soooo so awesome, well done and detailed, right? Oh, wait, looking at the RS Forum, it seems like the only reason why people still buy their routes is "because nobody else does a TSC route anymore" and "someone from the community might do an overhaul". I highly doubt the level of details (bavarian houses on eastern german routes, so-called "vegetation") or even the railway infrastructure (*cough* signals, not working juctions, bad track laying) is nearly as good as in TSW. So I wonder if arguing with RSSLO routes is for or actually against your point hmmm.
I wish DTG would take one route and build upon it, extending it to the next city or station. Otherwise, it’s getting ridiculous. Why do we need two Manchesters? Two Frankfurts? Two Los Angeleses? It makes no sense.
Franfurt is already a big performance problem. Do you think merging these two together into one route makes anything better in any way?
TSW optimisation is so poor that I think you would need something even better to merge the two routes.
Other games make compromises to get longer route length. Less quality and narrower focus. TWC doesn't have timetable or an avatar. Run 8 has very low quality and sparse assets compared to TSW. Both of them have no "nice to haves" like conductor mode or fully detailed AI trains, with all those AI tracked on the cool new map. If people want the whole UK at Run 8 detail level or are willing to not have the TSW features included you COULD do it. But of course people don't want to compromise. They want the highest TSW quality... AND the things those other games do on top. Then when it's tried and performance suffers, they complain about that too. Look, it's POSSIBLE to do a route that's quadruple Carlisle-Preston (so about 400 miles), let's say the whole WCML. Okay.... so it'll cost 4 times as much. So who is going to pay $180? Or if there's no new stock, say.... $150? The only way I can see that working is if it is a full map that is "unlocked" piece by piece as buy new parts. Still, it'll take up 4 times the hard drive space on your console and it'll go a bit slower because of all the AI traffic for the whole route. That's a lot of "ifs" on selling it that way, whereas each discrete part is easier to manage and less initial investment risk up front. (What if you make the whole WCML and people only buy one small segment, and not the rest?"
Guys its all in the Name: Train Sim World: Lots of stuff to do with Train Simulators including Conductor, Walk about the station, go find stuff, Virtual or anything else DTG wishes to place on the platform (e.g. Thomas) Train Simulator Classic: Just drive a train and forget about all of the other stuff TSW = More memory used to cater for all of the additional sold aspects and for those who wish to have a more 'play' environment TSC = Focus on Routes, Rolling Stock - more focus on driving and ability to interconnect DLCs Respectfully
The things you said about TSC and TSW sound to be disjunct to each other. But I'd argue that both sims can have their strenghts in all the points you mentioned. For example the BR 101 Expert is a clear focus on rolling stock in TSW. Qualitywise. If your point is only quantity, of course TSC will be ahead as you said. Also a lot of TSC routes (I can only talk about the german TSC scene) have like very bad scenery. It's imo impossible to focus on driving if the route itself is the immersion breaker with 2D vegetation, grass only as flat textures etc. And a lot (not all) TSW routes are far more advanced. Especially being able to interact with nearly every button in the cab is in fact not only an argument of the 'play-environment', but also for the immersive side of things. At the end of the day, it doesn't make any sense to compare these to and try to argue which sim is better and which is not. Both have their strenghts, both have lots of bugs (either in core or in DLCs) and both are there to entertain people. So the obesession to compare TSW to TSC all the time - not aimed at you kilt46 - leads to absolutely nowhere.
The argument wasn't which was "better." It was how they each handle game technology limitations. TSW has shorter, more detailed routes you can "walk around in." TSC has longer routes, but are "train focused." (ie you can't "walk around", be a conductor, etc) The point being a compromise must be made... you don't get the best of both worlds. To do so you'd have to have what lexie called a "NASA supercomputer." Which is actually in large part why TSW in particular is NOT suited to higher performance and more extension. Because TSW depends so much on the console market, it can't depend as other games do on just demanding users upgrade to the latest computer or increase their hard drive space. Both processing power and hard drive space are "fixed" on consoles, so you have to operate within those limitations. Whereas, with a PC game you can fairly easily upgrade your computer as much as you are willing to pay for to get more performance. Granted, that limits your audience a bit, but it also means you have higher top end capabilities. With consoles there is no "tweaking" really, everyone has pretty much the same thing on average across a series, so you have to fit everything into that narrow band of resources. Leading to why there are now "tiers" of releases based on platform, where PC users can handle more and more content, while console users are "aging out" with older equipment becoming obsolete. This is not even getting into what you can do for PC games regarding modding that you can't do on console. It's the limitations of the consoles (and the multi-platform concept) that is what holds TSW back to being what you are demanding. Even if they could deliver cutting edge tech and development.... most players couldn't handle it. Frankfurt isn't even that "long" a route, but it's too much for current consoles. A game that is 80% console customers can't cater to high end content suited for PCs. So, they limit scope since most players don't even demand longer routes. No one is saying one is "better" than the other. Although, to be fair TSW is the default "ONLY" choice for console users. That's why I think it gets undue flak from people...because many console users refuse to go to PC, so they try to shoe-horn all of their wishes into one product and make it everything to everyone. It's not "bad" for what it is. Neither is TSC, nor Run 8, Railroader, Derail Valley, Railroads Online, Sim Rail, etc. None are "bad." They are just "different." Although only Run 8 has anything like "long" routes where you can spend a whole day travelling between Los Angeles and Modesto, and it pays for that in a small user base and very limited graphics. The rest are only about TSW length routes. That's probably for a reason.
Wouldn't it make sense to unload AI traffic from memory when there's no player nearby? Why load everything into memory at once? The game should only load what the player actually sees. Isn't that how American Truck Simulator handles it? Their map keeps expanding and still performs well. Also, there’s no need to create a fully detailed map of the entire UK—just what’s visible from the train is enough.
The game still tracks AI stuff now to display on the map because people requested it. Same thing with "trains you can drive anything you walk up to." So they can't have cheap "hollow" AI trains. Every train has to be able to have a conductor. Every station has to be ready to be walked in, even if you never do. ATS (and it's larger older brother ETS) use "cheats" like having AI non-drivable and "hollow." You can't get out of the cab and walk around. None of the buildings are usable or interive. They also don't track any other vehicles that are out of visible sight. They just vanish (and you can see it if you watch them in the distance) The "AI" that you can control (well, the drivers that "work for you") aren't physicalized, they just follow an algorithm to simulate "driving" when it's really just random number generation to see what happens to them on their "road trips." Not saying that's bad. It's what most games do. It works very well and keeps performance good. Just that the demands on TSW by players has created a much higher expectation of "realism" and "interaction" that has huge performance requirements.
Wow this has turned into a very emotive thread. I thought a recent comment of the forums was interesting. The long JT route which has been of interest recently was quoted as boring. It is hard to please the masses especially when you are attempting to corner several angles at the same time. We have all invested time and money in TSW. It is what it is. Play it, have some fun. There is more to life than having a glass half empty all of the time. Respectfully
That's why I think TSW is expected to be too many things to too many people. Not in DLC... but in the core. If you have a simple core, you can have tons of varied DLC. However, the more complex and "comprehensive" you make the core, the harder it is to get DLC to work with it and the more resources it will use. You can't please everyone. I just feel bad for the console people because so few sim games concentrate on console releases. On the other hand... I can see WHY there's not more sim content on consoles.
Depends on the general appeal of the route. Pretty sure a decently long WCML will always have appeal. Something like Euston to Birmingham will always have appeal over Edinburgh to Aberdeen lol
Nah I say Edinburgh to Aberdeen would be better due to being next to the sea for most of the journey and the trains are pretty interesting plus with give us the chance to get the Caledonian sleeper with a few of the locomotives that haul that train. also we could finally see a new freight train added due class 70 being used a bit more than the class 66 (or from what I’ve seen since I lived here) rail tours: jubilee, flying Scotsman, class 20, class 37, new train could be Sir Nigel A4 Pacific which comes to Aberdeen in August Cross country trains: there’s a few cross country like the highly requested voyager (pretty sure the service has just ended so depends on the era of the route) overall you have great opportunities for new trains since we already have two out of the three trains in the scotrail livery and the route is just Beautiful to be on and just the chance alone to get the class 70 should be enough to make this something of interest
thankfully the majority of German routes have community revamps that make them good or even outstanding. I´d argue without all those overhauls TSW routes would be superiorer, yes. But I find the community rebuilt TSC routes better than vanilla TSW routes. What is important to me? Driving good looking and interesting routes with good AI traffic. I don´t care too much for walking around stations, pressing every button and messing around in the engine room. I certainly don´t care about hunting collectables or beeing a conductor. A heavily modded TSC is still the better option for me. Others will feel differently, that´s fine. By the way, TSW also has older German routes, that are not great: just look at Aschaffenburg-Gemünden and Rapid Transit. On the other hand TSC also has many old routes, that have never been updated by the community and I don´t touch. Cologne - Düsseldorf and München-Augsburg come to mind. If there only was vanilla TSC: yes, it would suck and I would have stopped playing it a long time ago. But thankfully, that is not the case.
Apologies, I've skipped over most of the thread but did want to drop a few cents in the bucket. First up I saw this one as I read through, thought i'd address it. We have to load the entire track database into memory, otherwise you don't have a track map on key 9 (same as TSC). We have to track and load the AI trains because otherwise a) they dont show up on the map and b) we don't know where they are at any given moment. AI trains don't just magic themselves into the world randomly, they are following schedules, some of which may be indirectly related to what you're doing yourself (particularly if you're running a multi hour session up and down the line), so knowing where all the trains are all the time is crucial to knowing when they will appear or not, or which ones will hold you up (remember in the US you can have quite long block sections with a mile long train in front - so you need to load a lot there to just track that). Again, TSC is doing this too. That's not new. One thing TSW *does* do is that it splits each rail vehicle into two parts. The visual/audio part of it, and the raw underlying physics and physical parameters (how big it is, where the axels are etc). When a train is not in sight, the visual/audio part is unloaded from memory. Only the physics/physical data is kept in memory, enough to know how fast it can go, how much it can pull up what gradient, how big the vehicle is, what couplings it as etc etc. Then as it comes towards you, at some point the visuals load in. If your framerate is particularly bad, you'll sometimes see this with the screen popping into visual far too close, because the game was simply getting too far behind. Road-based games get away with a ton more tricks. You can totally forget everything that isn't up close to the player it just has no impact at all. Regarding TSC / TSW yes they are doing different things with very different goals. If you prefer TSC, then the good news is that TSC is there for you to enjoy! What a world we live in with all this choice TSC is fantastic and nobody should feel bad about playing it, same for TSW. Why not long routes? I think the points have probably been hashed over numerous times just in this thread. Time to make the route. Longer the route, longer it takes to make, more the cost has to go up, less people will buy it. Timetables take exponentially longer to make the more you add to the route as well, with each iteration of an increasingly complex timetable starting to take 6+ hours to recalculate (and it might take 100+ of those to finish a timetable, not including the work required to actually make it). Memory. The longer the route, the more ram taken up with the track database, but more than that, the timetable probably grows to cope with knowing when all these trains are moving and how. Add lots of substitution possibilities and layering and it multiplies up rapidly. Suddenly your entire system ram is just housing the timetable! Playability. The number of people who want to spend multiple hours doing one thing is very small. The sweet spot, as noted above, is around 45 minutes of gameplay in a single session. That's where the majority of players seem to find success, if you go much above that, even to 60 minutes, the number of players abandoning or not even starting goes up dramatically. I'm sure you're thinking that it's also about having other parts of routes to explore as well - but for that comment I have to refer to my other points. We have always wanted to try and get routes longer, but the process just hasn't gotten any easier - the opposite in fact, because routes and trains take longer to make now than they did at the start because of exciting new features that have been added to the game over the years. Is it *technically* possible. Yep sure, there are some constraints but they're not that much different to TSC really if you assume unlimited PC power as most freeware TSC projects often do. Just like someone can make a mammoth project in TSC, there's nothing really stopping them doing so in TSW. I know its not a satisfying answer, but it is the answer, so there's not much more I can say to it really, but wanted to add in my 2 cents. Matt.
Your answer is absolutly fine and clears up alot things. This reaffirms what I can expect from the two games. People want different things and I´m sure most of us people wanting huge maps and lots of realism are in the minority. But that´s fine, because what I like is provided by a fringe freeware community within TSC and I´m glad DTG still provides the base game and plattform for that. I do wish you guys would give an answer about what happened to that announced TSC stream and it would also be nice, if you clear up the last little bugs, that came in with the last TSC update about a year ago (Headlight bug etc.).
Each to their own. I now have plenty of DLC on both platforms. I have been running back to back runs on both TSW and TSC using same loco to answer for me what I like best. My personal taste will veer towards TSC with AP rolling stock and addons. I have also appreciated a lot of work ATS has done (and still doing) in TSC. It was a no brained for me to pick up the Manchester Airport for TSW. Looking forward to some other stuff ATS are working on. I will be buying for both products going forward. Respectfully
The kinds of realism people want are also going to differ. I for one want the fully simulated daily timetables and physics, scenarios, free roaming, and the like do not interest me, I want a day on the railway to play out. I want a detailed train interior where I properly throw all the switches to do a cold start on the engine before heading to the cab. I would certainly like longer routes, yes, especially where there are faster trains. Part of why I enjoy US freight as much as I do is that it can fill the time that it might take to watch a film, or similar. As an example, usually in real life when I get on an 801 or 802 as a passenger, I am looking at a 1.5-2 hour journey at least. TSW's ECML thoroughly fails to scratch that particular itch.
ATS Edinburgh to London ECML might! https://alanthomsonsim.com/product/the-east-coast-mainline-merge/
If longer routes are not possible due to the limitations in PC hardware for the game, than would route continuations from previous routes be a possibility? Say the London Euston to Milton Keynes route, If the demand was high enough would a part-2 be considered “Milton Keynes to Birmingham New Street”. Same for the ECML. A part-2 from Doncaster to York. DTG Matt
Because you UK folks are excited for and buy up all these short routes they throw at you lol. It’s probably partially why they don’t make U.S routes anymore lol. They know they can’t pull that short route nonsense with us.
Without re quoting the whole of your post Matt, Run 8 seems to thrive on long routes. Although I have yet to add the Modesto to Fresno section (the exchange rate is looking more promising, to do battle with their e-commerce system), the R8 SoCal network must be getting on for 700 miles if you consider all the way from Seligman to Modesto plus down into Los Angeles. If you download one of the “Very Populated” sessions from The Depot there are hundreds of consists and various cars stabled on the industry tracks all of which need to be kept track of and “Otto”,the dispatcher, is doing a pretty good job of all the trains you throw out on that 700 (600 in my case) huge network, even to the extent of dynamically managing higher priority trains and using alternative routings on double or multiple track sections. Of course as we know Run 8 is nowhere near as pretty as TSW (or even TSC), there’s no passenger schedules or interrelated workings to keep tabs on and the gameplay is essentially a wide open sandbox. Nevertheless it shows that long routes are quite feasible.
Can we pin this comment for later? It answers a LOT of questions that keep coming and being debated over and over. My only additional question that relates to this is... is there more of a limitation for consoles compared to PC? My guess is being a multi-platform game has pros and cons. It means a larger audience, but creates more work and means you have to program to the most common, lower level of performance. Other PC only games can demand higher end systems from players, but with consoles you're fixed with the "standard" model of consoles and have to work within that performance cap?
A future of short bus routes boosts my confidence in the future of tsw. Let's just hope third parties don't follow suit. Even if we had one long route every year or 2 would suffice. Obviously that's off the cards though. US routes have become completely pointless then I guess. No one in there right mind is gonna buy a 20 mile US freight route. Like what is the point of supporting the franchise with my cash if there's no chance of any rewards!
They marketed MBTA and San Bernadino as "lots of freight layers" and they're both short. Wonder how they're doing with sales? TSW is putting their money into short bus stop routes. They are what are considered "safe sales." Doesn't mean we won't get another JT and TSG route soon though. As for US.... well, it's whatever third parties there are in the US to do it. I share your disappointment in the lack of longer/freight routes for the US, but that's hardly new at this point. I've moved to other games to scratch that itch. TSC and Run 8 especially. Not every game has to have everything for every player. There's still the existing content in TSW too. It didn't go anywhere.
this! TSW cleary can´t be everything and Matt perfectly explained why . It makes no sense financially for DTG. Besides the fact, that consoles and most pc´s would not be able to handle it anyway. A couple of years back someone released Bremerhaven-Hannover (about 200 kilometres of route including three massive freight yards) for TSC. A massive effort, even for a TSC route. I can´t even start to imagine having to build a 24 hour timetable for that route and testing it. What a nightmare. I can fully understand how that makes no sense for a company.
