[YoRyan]

I'd like to propose a new setting that would allow players to hide upcoming signal aspects in the Track Monitor. Why might one want to do this, you ask? To challenge himself or herself. You'd still be able to know the locations of upcoming signals but, just like a real train driver, you would be responsible for spotting the signal head and reading the aspect. If you've ever played RailWorks, this is exactly how the HUD in that game works, and Train Sim World has a similar option to conceal the upcoming aspect.

The setting, named "Signal aspects in the Track Monitor," would default to on. When switched off, all upcoming signals would render as grey, or "unknown."

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[engmod]

Why not just turn the track monitor off?

[YoRyan]

So you can retain assistance for the route knowledge - speed limits and signal locations - that train drivers would be expected to know by memory. Having foreknowledge of these items is plausible and realistic, but knowing in advance what the next signal is displaying is not. It would be sort of a halfway mode between hardcore no-HUD realism and arcade-style driving.

[Genma Saotome]

IMO I suspect this is a good idea for anyone who wants the player to work in dark territory.

I recall reading somewhere a suggestion that a route builder could bury signals to hide them from the player while retaining the ability for those signals to influence other trains. I havn't come across any implementation of that so I've no idea if it really is useful but if it is the combination could be a nice enhancement to certain activities.

[Coolhand101]

I done the very thing years ago in MSTS and OR. In MSTS, the signals where hidden on the track monitor. In OR, the signals on the track monitor just show a static signal for all signal aspects. It's not 100%, as any signals not cleared well in advance will not show. Like the OP, I wanted to know just the speeds, gradient, etc and the position of the signals. Here is what I have been using since 2016:-

Spoiler

http://www.atomic-album.co.uk/showPic.php/178898/Static%20Signals.jpg

[ebnertra000]

It looks like you have a custom image for the signals on the track monitor? I also modified the image so I could tell exactly which aspect was being displayed for testing purposes (a couple are duplicates in the original). In all, though, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to have the option of greying them out for an extra challenge, and realism, since unless you have cab signals, you won't know what the next signal is showing if you can't see it.

Also: yes, Dave, some routes have buried signals to simulate dark territory, though that was more for MSTS, which couldn't handle the idea. OR, if I understand correctly, can use track nodes sort of like signals for the purposes of meeting trains if the line isn't signaled.

[Weter]

Real cab signal display shows only one signal's aspect- of the closest to locomotive signal
As prototypic ALS(automatic locomotive signalisation/TCS) receives information in form of encoded pattern from the rail-circuit, related to nearest signal.

There were some routes with signal shapes hided underground: most often- red signals at the end of track, but at other cases-maneur signals.
Indeed for affecting AI trains behavior in activities, while the player receives orders from dispatcher in form of text messages triggered by "events"

So, maybe it's really not bad idea for using F4 without aspects-as plain roadmap, while using cab signal to read next signal's aspect.

Real roads can use only ALS as signalization-then only static signs mark the borders of blocks. While aspects are read by the drivers from locomotive cab aspect display only

[Traindude]

What's the point? It'd be better to leave the signal aspects intact, but instead add the "name" or indication of the next signal (example: "Proceed", "Approach", "Advanced Approach", "Restricting", "Stop and Proceed," etc.). This could potentially be used to help individuals who are unfamiliar with signal aspects and their indications.

[YoRyan]

Nitpicking here: Cab signals do not provide foreknowledge of the "upcoming" signal. They display the status of block the train is currently moving in. The "upcoming" behavior was a programming oversight by Kuju, subsequently propagated to all MSTS content.

 Traindude, on 24 September 2020 - 02:53 PM, said:

What's the point?

We wrote what the point was up here:

 YoRyan, on 23 September 2020 - 04:43 PM, said:

So you can retain assistance for the route knowledge - speed limits and signal locations - that train drivers would be expected to know by memory. Having foreknowledge of these items is plausible and realistic, but knowing in advance what the next signal is displaying is not. It would be sort of a halfway mode between hardcore no-HUD realism and arcade-style driving.

 Coolhand101, on 24 September 2020 - 01:36 AM, said:

I done the very thing years ago in MSTS and OR. In MSTS, the signals where hidden on the track monitor. In OR, the signals on the track monitor just show a static signal for all signal aspects. It's not 100%, as any signals not cleared well in advance will not show. Like the OP, I wanted to know just the speeds, gradient, etc and the position of the signals.

[Coolhand101]

When I make new signal scripts or route editing, I default back to the original track monitor texture for testing purposes. Learning the basic signal aspects should be simple. As I drive era trains and routes with no in-cab signalling, IMHO, it makes a very good point to see what train drivers see, actually looking out the window for the signals ahead.
Thanks