Elvas Tower: Activity randomizing - Elvas Tower

Jump to content

Posting Rules

All new threads will be started by members of the Open Rails team, Staff, and/or Admins. Existing threads started in other forums may get moved here when it makes sense to do so.

Once a thread is started any member may post replies to it.
  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Activity randomizing Rate Topic: -----

#51 User is offline   Csantucci 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 6,986
  • Joined: 31-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:26 PM

Can you please be more detailed? Which part does not work any more? Weather randomization or train run parameters? What occurred (or did not occur) that led you to infer that randomization did not work any more?

#52 User is offline   motor1 

  • Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 2,858
  • Joined: 21-December 14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northeast Oregon
  • Simulator:Microsoft Train Simulator
  • Country:

Posted 15 November 2017 - 08:29 AM

Here's my step by step process:

1. I start Open Rails
2. I click on options, followed by clicking on Experimental
3. I set Activity & Weather Randomization to 3, then I close out of Options
4. I choose a activity, then I start the activity
5. At a certain point, I save the activity
6. After a while, I choose replay, and I repeat steps 4 & 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I noticed that Activity & Weather Randomization doesn't work after the first save.

#53 User is offline   Csantucci 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 6,986
  • Joined: 31-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 15 November 2017 - 12:45 PM

I tried the following (testing only randomized weather):
1. Start activity
2. Save after a while
3. Exit activity
4. Resume saved activity; randomized weather is the one saved, and weather continues evolving
5. Save after a while
6. Exit activity
7. Resume from this second save: randomized weather is the one saved, and weather continues evolving.
So I'm not able to reproduce problems with save/resume.

There is instead a - non solvable - problem with replays (not resumes): it's very complicated to replay the same way the activity was saved, because every randomized value should be saved: recalling the same randomizing method would - by definition - lead to other numbers in the replay. So every randomized activity run is unique and not repeatable.

#54 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 16 November 2017 - 10:25 AM

View PostCsantucci, on 15 November 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

There is instead a - non solvable - problem with replays (not resumes).

Intriguing problem, and it might be solvable. I found several solutions offered here including:

  • an extension to count how many times Random.Next() is run and then pre-running it after a Replay
  • serializing Random and keeping that as part of the save to deserialize from later
  • implementing your own random number generator

I think option 2 would be easiest.

#55 User is offline   mirekkr 

  • Hostler
  • Group: Status: Active Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 18-January 15
  • Simulator:ORTS, MSTS
  • Country:

Posted 14 December 2017 - 10:31 AM

Hi Carlo,
after several evenings spent by running randomized activies, I'm experiencing what I was afraid of (see post #34 here): with almost every activity run, it comes to a loco failure - even if I set Activity randomization to 1.
Let me propose: could it be possible to set train failures randomization separately from other events? This way we would have three groups of randomized events: /a/ rolling stock failures, /b/ efficiency and times, /c/ weather, with possibility to set randomization level separately.

Anyway - this is a great feature, and - at least for me - it works fine. (Only if I had bigger chance for my train to survive my 5-hours' jurney without loco failures...)

Thanks for considering this.

Wish you all best,
Mirek

#56 User is offline   Csantucci 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 6,986
  • Joined: 31-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 14 December 2017 - 11:13 AM

I'll consider reducing the probability of a loco failure. That's a fine tuning that I expected would take place after using the feature.

#57 User is offline   mirekkr 

  • Hostler
  • Group: Status: Active Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 18-January 15
  • Simulator:ORTS, MSTS
  • Country:

Posted 14 December 2017 - 11:45 AM

ok, thanks.
When done, I promise I'll test it :-)

Mirek

#58 User is offline   mirekkr 

  • Hostler
  • Group: Status: Active Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 18-January 15
  • Simulator:ORTS, MSTS
  • Country:

Posted 14 December 2017 - 01:16 PM

Carlo,
to help you with setting the probability of rolling stock failure, I googled for some railway statistics. Not much straightforward figures. Which may be of some help is this:
"Trains hit a high of 120,591 miles between breakdowns in October 2012. That number slid to 103,813 miles in October 2013 and further to 87,750 in October 2014, according to NJ Transit."
"By comparison, the Long Island Rail Road won an award for its fleet traveling nearly 200,000 miles between failures. The New York City subway system's oldest trains went 55,540 miles between failures and the newest subway cars traveled 381,131 between breakdowns in July 2015, according to MTA statistics."
(source: http://www.nj.com/tr...stats_show.html)

Regards,
Mirek

#59 User is offline   Csantucci 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 6,986
  • Joined: 31-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 17 December 2017 - 01:50 PM

Hi Mirek,
attached you have a file to replace into x.4009, that should lead to more realistic loco breakdown rates.

18/12/17: file deleted because updated release available

#60 User is offline   Csantucci 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 6,986
  • Joined: 31-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:05 AM

Further lowering of probability of loco crash with randomizing level = 3 (file to be replaced in x.4010)

20/12/17: File deleted because patch committed

  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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