Elvas Tower: Debrief Evaluation - Elvas Tower

Jump to content

  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Debrief Evaluation Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   copperpen 

  • Executive Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 3,139
  • Joined: 08-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:MSTS & OR
  • Country:

Posted 14 December 2016 - 07:58 AM

I think that using those ingame messages is not actually proper to an activity evaluation. The first 6 could automatically be an activity failure and the last one should also do the same. All the old MSTS version looks for is covered by dforrest in post #15. With regard to the speed limits, MSTS had a 5mph overspeed allowance. With regard to freight evaluations, far as I am concerned, the only criteria to be looked at is if all of the switching has been completed and does not have to be in the specified order either.

#22 User is online   James Ross 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 5,488
  • Joined: 30-June 10
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 14 December 2016 - 08:20 AM

View Postcopperpen, on 14 December 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

I think that using those ingame messages is not actually proper to an activity evaluation. The first 6 could automatically be an activity failure and the last one should also do the same. All the old MSTS version looks for is covered by dforrest in post #15. With regard to the speed limits, MSTS had a 5mph overspeed allowance. With regard to freight evaluations, far as I am concerned, the only criteria to be looked at is if all of the switching has been completed and does not have to be in the specified order either.

IMHO it's no use saying "we need what MSTS does" if nobody is going to implement that (and nobody has); it looks to me like we need to start with some simpler, and using already-existing checks in the code is one way to do that. I'd expect most if not all of the messages I listed to be included in any evaluation anyway (whether or not they're fatal to completion) so why shouldn't we start by simply recording some things that happened?

There's nothing here that excludes the list in post #15; in fact, I'd say the point is this is the preparation for doing that.

#23 User is offline   dforrest 

  • Foreman Of Engines
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 12-January 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Vincent (formally UK)
  • Simulator:MSTS, Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 14 December 2016 - 09:10 AM

View Postcopperpen, on 14 December 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

I think that using those ingame messages is not actually proper to an activity evaluation. The first 6 could automatically be an activity failure and the last one should also do the same. All the old MSTS version looks for is covered by dforrest in post #15. With regard to the speed limits, MSTS had a 5mph overspeed allowance. With regard to freight evaluations, far as I am concerned, the only criteria to be looked at is if all of the switching has been completed and does not have to be in the specified order either.


The basic requirement is that a report is displayed and saved to disk if requested, confirming that the activity has been successfully completed in accordance with the completion parameters of the activity.

In addition to this it should state whether the main parameters have been met and, if not, give a brief summary of the failure(s). The main parameters are 1) the time taken to complete the activity, 2) whether station stops were carried out and whether these were to the timetable, 3) that the Works Order has been adhered to, and 4) whether speed limits were adhered to. More items could be added.

Even a report stating only that the activity has been successfully completed would be a start and could be added to later.

#24 User is offline   dforrest 

  • Foreman Of Engines
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 12-January 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Vincent (formally UK)
  • Simulator:MSTS, Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:01 AM

Is there an intention to ever provide this?

#25 User is offline   Buttercup 

  • Conductor
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 24-July 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 20 April 2017 - 05:56 AM

It's on the Trello list for version 1.3.

https://trello.com/b...n-rails-roadmap

#26 User is offline   dforrest 

  • Foreman Of Engines
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 12-January 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Vincent (formally UK)
  • Simulator:MSTS, Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 20 April 2017 - 05:58 AM

View PostButtercup, on 20 April 2017 - 05:56 AM, said:

It's on the Trello list for version 1.3.

https://trello.com/b...n-rails-roadmap


As it was on the list for 1.1 and 1.2!!!!!!

#27 User is offline   cjakeman 

  • Vice President
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: ET Admin
  • Posts: 2,857
  • Joined: 03-May 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough, UK
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 20 April 2017 - 09:47 AM

View Postdforrest, on 20 April 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

As it was on the list for 1.1 and 1.2!!!!!!

Yes, it's a shame. We're all volunteers, of course, so we choose tasks from the list to suit our time and talents.

For a long-term solution, how do you think we could encourage/develop/boost our Development Team?

#28 User is offline   ATW 

  • Engineer
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 638
  • Joined: 07-January 13
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:MSTS Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 23 April 2017 - 08:11 PM

I say try 1 basic section of implementing at a time from scratch. We already have all this diagnostic HUD info that can be linked to advance evaluation but leave % out till later final stages.

At least start with basic MSTS evaluation which doesn't score but tells what's right an wrong.

1. Speed.
2. Signal & Switch/Red Block violations (ran through).

3. Stations performance & timing.
4. Durability linked to curve speed dependent handling.

5. Number of Emergency brake applications.
6. Throttle fuel timing.

Speed violation seams like the simple way to start with since track monitor track changes colors where Orange isn't too severe but red is severe to get one in deep trouble exceeding by 10MPH. One may get annoyed by exceeding by little but MSTS scores it if someone exceeds by 2MPH an let's it known but in ORTS could be 4MPH.




We still have more disciplinary actions an notifications needed in ORTS as far as train handling but notifications can as a basic start be also a part of evaluation recording the second they pop up on screen. May there be a speeding notification for ones critically or heavily exceeding speed limits? I'm not saying for evaluation log recording to include things like views.

#29 User is offline   ATW 

  • Engineer
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 638
  • Joined: 07-January 13
  • Gender:Male
  • Simulator:MSTS Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 23 April 2017 - 08:27 PM

So basically I'm saying as a short start... let's start a evaluation log with optional variable notification windows in options of what we want to be evaluated by an timed in when starting an ending. For examples for existing notification windows being key.

1. I have broken couplers set on an notification pops up I broke it an first thing at that second its logged into evaluation an what car number, at what speed an force.

2. I move throttle or brakes to a setting I get timed till I move throttle or brake again an at what speed.

3. I exceed curve dependent speed of a car it is timed till the time is over an notification disappears. Same for speed limits an signals.

Etc with existing notification windows some evaluating an some not. So the point is have existing notifications do the evaluation logs as basic start.

#30 User is offline   dforrest 

  • Foreman Of Engines
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: 12-January 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Vincent (formally UK)
  • Simulator:MSTS, Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 24 April 2017 - 03:47 AM

I agree with ATW on this approach. A post be me in this thread almost a year ago suggested:


View Postdforrest, on 09 June 2016 - 01:05 PM, said:

Are we perhaps looking to make this more complex than is needed.

A simple evaluation showing the main points, good or bad, on the completion of an activity is all that is initially needed:

The main points (probably not complete) are:

1. Was activity completed successfully and, if not, why.

2. Whether speed limits were adhered to and if not some information on what speed and how many times.

3. Were all station stops met and were they on time.

4. Was departure from station stops before loading has completed.

5. Was work order adhered to.


  • 10 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users