[Genma Saotome]

roeter, on 06 February 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Admittedly, I never run in Explorer mode.
Rob Roeterdink

Rob,

IMO explore mode is not a defined activity but instead is the antithesis of any formal definition. There is no need whatsoever for any kind of train control and any CPU cycles spent on train control are CPU cycles that are wasted. The only necessary use of a defined path in explore mode is to locate the starting position of the train. Beyond that purpose, everything else about it should be a don't care.

As far as prioritizing work goes, I am sure that you are doing the right thing with your focus on getting the new code to work properly for all activities. But a lot of people don't use activities, they simply explore, and eventually things need to work properly for them too.


One more thought... it is quite possible that the varying opinions on what is needed is due too many meanings wrapped up in Kuju's labels of Activity and Explore Mode. I'm not saying that for a fact, just observing that many times heated debates over what feature xyz should do are happily resolved with the discovery that people are arguing over two different concepts that are called by the same name. Meaning what to do might become much more clear if the phrases "Activity" and "Explore Mode" were dropped -- at least for discussion purposes -- and we tried something else... for example, perhaps Strict Train Control, Flexible Train Control, Lax Train Control, and No Train Control might serve, where the first two are the Auto and Manual modes being implemented now, Lax meaning there is a defined path to guide you for a while but it can be abandoned at any time with no effort... possibly has AI trains... but essentially other than the initial path no other controls, and the last is you get a place to start and everything after that is on the players shoulders. Just food for thought.

[James Ross]

Genma Saotome, on 07 February 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

The only necessary use of a defined path in explore mode is to locate the starting position of the train. Beyond that purpose, everything else about it should be a don't care.

I would suggest that aligning the switches to the chosen path initially is also a purpose of the path, but I would agree that anything that interferes with free running is a problem (I don't mind if switches align when you hit them wrong or the error is just ignored but anything else is a hindrance).

[eric from trainsim]

Lindsayts, on 07 February 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

One exception (sort of) to locking of main line points are isolated passing loops these use trailable turnouts, at one end the turnout is set to the main line the other its set to the loop. ON exit the trains wheels simply push the blade out of the way. In such loops the position of the point blades are protected by signalling. The signal simply indicating that the blades are properly home.

In the US, we call those spring switches -- there's a spring in the bar mechanism which keeps the blades in the normal position, but allows the blades to move open with appropriate pressure from the trailing end.

This is still used by some railroads, and widely used with trams/traction/trolley/interurban.

Walter Conklin, on 08 February 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

I am one of those OR and MSTS users that David mentioned about who mainly chooses a predefined path to explore a particular portion of a route. I do this to check for any issues that might come up on the Tristate route project. Eventually, users will come up with more polished activities for the route.

Same with me --- I use it side by side with the Route Editor to "fit check" what I'm doing on scenery or track repairs.

[rdamurphy]

Just to throw this out there... If the player had the ability to set trailing switches ahead and behind, it would enable the ability to perform some old time real life maneuvers, such as a "Flying Switch."

This move, now outlawed, was used when you were facing a spur track, with a car behind you, and no runaround. You'd approach the spur at the (hopefully) correct speed to be able to cut the car off, and run away from it, while your brakeman threw the switch behind you, routing the car onto the spur where it would clear the switch (hopefully), allowing you to back through the switch, and push the car into it's proper position.

Robert

[spud]

I have to agree about the Emergency stops with 1423. I started to re-run the CNW activities using OR to see how it preformed. and trying both v8.0 and X1423 I was impressed the way 1423 exhibits reverse points on the track monitor now but unfortunately 99% of the time there is a large red block covering most of the reverse indication and usually as you approach the reverse point the engine goes into Emergency breaking. Some times you can stop prior to the reverse point and the red block will disappear and you can drive up to the point to cause it to disappear and become functional. But as I said most of the time I'm stuck.
Oh yeah, brings up the question of how the heck do you ever get started again. I've mashed the buttons til I'm blue in the face trying to come out of Emergency. (Obviously I have not found instructions on this. the PDF for OR doesn't cover it that I could find)
:lol2:

[roeter]

spud, on 09 February 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

I have to agree about the Emergency stops with 1423. I started to re-run the CNW activities using OR to see how it preformed. and trying both v8.0 and X1423 I was impressed the way 1423 exhibits reverse points on the track monitor now but unfortunately 99% of the time there is a large red block covering most of the reverse indication and usually as you approach the reverse point the engine goes into Emergency breaking. Some times you can stop prior to the reverse point and the red block will disappear and you can drive up to the point to cause it to disappear and become functional. But as I said most of the time I'm stuck.
Oh yeah, brings up the question of how the heck do you ever get started again. I've mashed the buttons til I'm blue in the face trying to come out of Emergency. (Obviously I have not found instructions on this. the PDF for OR doesn't cover it that I could find)
:lol2:

Instructions are here.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

[thegrindre]

Has this new feature been placed in the Options menu so we can either turn it on or off?

:lol2:

;)

[thegrindre]

I just came up with another idea or suggestion about these pesky emergence stops.
Is it possible to add a tag in the engine file on whether or not the particular engine has emergence brakes or not?
If not, then the feature is ignored.

:lol2:

;)

[roeter]

thegrindre, on 09 February 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Has this new feature been placed in the Options menu so we can either turn it on or off?

:lol2:

;)

The application of emergency brakes is not just a new feature but an integral part of the new signalling.
The scope of that change is such that an option to choose between old and new signalling is not feasible.

But don't panic - the comments on this subject are not being ignored, but the changes required - in particular for Explorer mode - will take some time to implement.
For normal activity mode, the brake application will be maintained, at least for the time being until proper collision and derailment logic has been introduced.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

[roeter]

thegrindre, on 09 February 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

I just came up with another idea or suggestion about these pesky emergence stops.
Is it possible to add a tag in the engine file on whether or not the particular engine has emergence brakes or not?
If not, then the feature is ignored.

:sign_thanks:

:oldstry:

I'm afraid that for running in normal activity mode (in AUTO control), this is not possible.
In AUTO control, everything related to the signalling and track occupation is based on the train's route. When the train goes off it's route, all that information becomes invalid. When the brake is applied, the train is 'isolated' from the signalling until it is stopped. Then, by switching to MANUAL mode, it's position is reestablished and proper situation restored. Other trains which may be affected are stopped and their routes reset to clear the track the train is now on, if necessarry.
For AUTO control, I think this is quite appropriate. The brake applications only occur if you violate safety issues, like running through red signals or going beyond authorized locations. Such actions would in real life lead to very stringent measures.
For Explorer mode, work is in hand to change things, as I mentioned above.

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

[thegrindre]

The biggest issues I have is that none of the routes I run have any signals on them. Very few locos I run have emergency brakes.
Why are those that run dark routes subjected to these rules which don't apply?
That's why I've been asking for an, on / off switch of some sorts.

:sign_thanks:

:oldstry:

[roeter]

thegrindre, on 09 February 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

The biggest issues I have is that none of the routes I run have any signals on them. Very few locos I run have emergency brakes.
Why are those that run dark routes subjected to these rules which don't apply?

:sign_thanks:

:oldstry:

Dark routes also have extensive train control, just not through physical signals. The word 'signalling' in this respect is not just a reference to those ligths or arms on posts, but to everything to do with control of trains - switch alignment, deadlock prevention, collision prevention etc. That logic is applied to dark routes in very much the same way as signalled routes. The only difference is that there are no signals to display the information. For the time being, you will have to take the information from the F4 window. Specific logic for dark routes (train order control) which differs from the 'normal' logic has been discussed before and will be implemented as soon as the activity definitions have been worked out. The present information in the MSTS activity files is insuffiecient to control this specific logic, in particular as it requires 'triggers' between trains, something MSTS can not handle. Furthermore, some definition has to be worked out to set a route or a part of a route as 'dark', such that train order control would apply rather than the normal control. Just a user option would not suffice as it might be applied to just part of a route - there is no reason why a route could not have both signalled and dark sections. Would be very interesting, in fact.
These points have not been ignored - it just all takes time.

And, anyway, on dark routes you cannot get an emergency brake for running through a red signal :oldstry: .

Regards,

Rob Roeterdink

PS. Just one further remark :
if you run just a single train (no AI), you can run in explorer mode and the brake application will not apply (when the recoding is completed). But if you run AI trains, there must be some control, otherwise everything would just run as ghost-trains. Without control, AI trains would just always run on, right through eachother and through the player train etcetera. That control is the 'signalling' process - of which the player train is just as much a part as the AI trains. In fact, the control logic makes no distinction between player or AI train. That is why you have 'signalling' on dark routes. And I don't think you would like the result if that were removed.

[Genma Saotome]

It's also important to remember that all of this is a work in progress. What's a problem today can be fixed later on.

Earlier in this thread I suggested there might a need for 4 modes (there are really only two right now). Four was a hunch. Could be three... could be 5 -- or more. It'll take some time to think thru, categorizing the types of operation, how they are similar and dissimilar from what's been coded, and to figure out what to do.