[Falcus]

To expand on my last post here:

As already pointed out, the Track Monitor isn't prototypical... Engineers don't get a magic floating box (See-through opacity or not) next to them that provides them with all the pertinent information for turn-outs and signals on either end of their train for up to the next 5-10 miles....

So, what is the Track Monitor? Where did it come from? Why do we have it, and should we have it?

I don't *know* the answers to most of those questions, as I wasn't a Kuju Dev about 12 years ago now or so when MSTS was originally in production... But I can take a few guesses. I would Guess that the track monitor is a cop to gamers and non-railroaders in general... Kuju wanted something that would attract non-railroaders, and as has already been mentioned on this forum in various threads over the years the way real railroads have had to manage their routing and timetables would make most people's hair cringe when they realize what one little mistake of a few minutes can mean sometimes... So the Track Monitor is, IMHO, a way to bring people that have no clue into the game, and give them a tool that will allow them to arguably simulate "Prototypical Operations" without the complexities of Prototypical Operation.

Not to mention the lack of real time radio communications (The AI for this for single player could probably occupy a Cray Super Computer or a few wired together quad cores on its own), and a desire to stay away from Railroad Formatted Paperwork which has forever been too small to really express whats going on without explanation from a "Vet" or becoming a Vet yourself. So you could also posit that the Track Monitor is a Cop to excessive, essentially needless, simulation creation of highly focused material and activities....

That pretty much covers the first three questions IMHO. The last one though; Should we have it? My question would be, Why Shouldn't We have it? I know theres a fair few rivet counters on this site and in this hobby. Thats awesome they're here. Some however seem to espouse "Perfect Recreation before ANYTHING else!"... Too which my response (Though rarely expressed) is along the lines of "And you're sitting on your butt behind a computer playing at trains instead of actually driving them for a Class 1 why again?". I'm all for detail, but this is still a game, and it should be have room for inaccuracies, whether its Track Monitors or Rolling Stock that was built/painted to attract kids (Theres some great examples of this up on T-S that I wish was better labeled since this isn't my thing, lol). I'm not a Railroader. I'm not any more familiar with the GN Hi-Line or the Surfliner Division anymore then the Bum @ the 1st Ave Terminal begging at the Crossing gate.... Nor is most of the people that play this game... Because it is still a game. And the more a simulator reaches out to people to give them tools to have fun doing what they've dreamed of doing all their life, the more successful I believe it will be. Particularly if it can do it in an artistically prototypical (Because it will have to be a work of art of creation to blend the Game side with the Prototype side). How awesome would it be to be able to ask someone "Hey, have you tried driving Moffat Pass in full Proto mode? OMG those grades are killer!", but recognizing that not everyone wants to be able to do that, also be able to say something like "Yea, I spent HOURS trying to find that consist buried behind the Acme Thumbtacks building, but then I turned on the Track Monitor Helper and it sent me straight to em!"

I have alot of hope for OR. As do many here I think. I think we're also willing to be patient. Anywho, I've digressed quite a bit, but I hope the discussion might bring about more thinking and awareness for anyone that actually has the care to read what I've typed.

Thank you for reading if you have,
Falcus

[markus_GE]

Actually, you just about aswered you´re question right:

OR should be open for everybody, not just those that are already into it and know what to do. I recall the TM (Track Monitor) having been a great help to me while I was still a Train-Trainee. I´m not an apprentice anymore in driving virtual Trains, but others that might be interested in it, may be. And also I myself yet don´t know by heart every route I´ve installed, not speaking of the ones I don´t have. And TM can really be a great help in all These cases. If you don´t want it, simply hit F4, and there it goes. It´s there, for those who Need it, and those who don´t can simply cross out the F4 key - virtually - to not have it.

I think, that would also be why Kuju made it optional - thus it also is optional in OR. And I think, it´s good that way, see what I wrote above, or more extensively, what Falcus wrote so dedicatedly.

To the (not yet asked) question, if it should be Extended (may it take the time it will): Yes, I think not everything about MSTS is bad, but it´s an old program and besides a Facelift, some better internals could be of use for sure - as OR readily and greatly prooved already. Keeping track of the slow order zines this Topic is actually about: How would an aprentice, not acquainted by any means with railroading practice, just wanting to "Play Trains" a bit, how should they know what the heck a slow order is? Give'em a TM with the proper indication and it´s alright. Same for the other things mentioned, but we´re talking about slow orders, so I´ll leave that part for other threads :whistling:

Cheers, Markus

Cheers, Markus

[James Ross]

Falcus, on 10 September 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

I'm not any more familiar with the GN Hi-Line or the Surfliner Division anymore then the Bum @ the 1st Ave Terminal begging at the Crossing gate.... Nor is most of the people that play this game... Because it is still a game. And the more a simulator reaches out to people to give them tools to have fun doing what they've dreamed of doing all their life, the more successful I believe it will be. Particularly if it can do it in an artistically prototypical (Because it will have to be a work of art of creation to blend the Game side with the Prototype side). How awesome would it be to be able to ask someone "Hey, have you tried driving Moffat Pass in full Proto mode? OMG those grades are killer!", but recognizing that not everyone wants to be able to do that, also be able to say something like "Yea, I spent HOURS trying to find that consist buried behind the Acme Thumbtacks building, but then I turned on the Track Monitor Helper and it sent me straight to em!"

This is, in essence, the entire point of my GUI update - these are aids that people can choose to have on or off (and after my updates, a few more states) depending on how realistic/prototypical/hard they want it to be. If you know a route like the back of your hand, don't turn the Track Monitor on; but if you have no idea where you're going and would like something to help you alone, it's there for you.

Open Rails is for everyone, and we want as many people as possible to be able to pick it up and have fun - whatever that may be.

[eugenR]

In MSTS a slow order zone can only installed for the Player-service.
AI-Traffic das ignore slow order Zones of the Player-service at all.
For the future (OR) I think this slow order Zones should be installed in the route (route-editor) and only activate/inactivate in the activity-editor. Similar to Stop/no-stop in a station.

[markus_GE]

Actually, this would be a good idea, as to make things easier when it Comes to how the AIs are made Aware of the extra Speed Limit. But there´s one Major drawback on the in-game "operational" side, I think: It would not really add a lot to flexibility in form of where and for how many miles the Speed will apply. You just would be able to choose from predefined sets, which is OK for Station stops, but somewhat impractical for things that can be anywhere on a route, like slow order zones...

Maybe an intermediate solution would be possible: Automatically devide the route into 1 mile / 1/2 mile / 1/4 mile sections and activate them according to track. But I think it wouldn´t be a good idea t let the route builder do it, as it would probably add a lot of work which probably might be too much for some of the "lazier" ones :)

Cheers, Markus

[Falcus]

I think theres going to be a few issues with trying to make "Flag Zones" in routes....

First, any route builder, even if they never actually release a route, if they can get the route to the point of adding scenery, is in my mind, someone that could hardly be described as lazy.... This isn't an admonishment directed at anyone or anything, but theres just so much work that goes into creating routes with the MSTS Tools, its unfair in my mind to even bring that word into the discussion.

Second, adding to the work a route editor has to do isn't going to go over very well with many, if any of them (Payware sites excepted. Im sure 3dts and SLI will love to charge you even more for their routes). I would wager, certainly at the outset, and arguably forever, few would even bother trying to use such a limited system. Imagine trying to implement this in say, 1/2 mile increments on just the default Marias pass.... That route is roughly some what, 150? 200? Miles long? Thats between 300 and 400 new markers/Demarcations a route creator now has to do by hand.... Then on the other end of the spectrum we get things like the PRR ER, 4000+ miles.... Have fun with that one, I certainly don't have that kind of time....

Next, how do you envision Activity Creators selecting the area they want to be affected? If you're going to code this so far as adding a convenient GUI for it, you might as well just spend the time to add an entirely new system that makes more sense representing what you're trying to do because coding this in the first place would marginally take a majority of a similar amount of time... More then likely though, you're going to get some kind of list with Mile Post Markers and those will have to be gone through by hand by the activity creators when trying to use this system. Again this seems like an awful lot of work for what I think we'll all agree is an awfully limited system...


Finally on this, my argument/suggestion would be that, when its convenient to do so, add a *dynamic* system that can be set by an activity editor/creator that will be recognized by both AI and Player alike. Having a system like this *might* even make it possible to make it so activity creators could add Slow Orders to older routes, and it wouldn't further burden the already over worked Route Creators.... This ability would make it so you could actually have slow zones in places that make sense.

Further, with a system like this, you might even be able to make it dynamic to do more then just put a few color coded bars in the Track Monitor. As I suggested before, imagine a rail simulation capable of actually having temporary track side objects. With such a system in place and working, imagine driving your train past the appropriate colored Rail Road Speed Flags so you can look out your window and wave at your monitor to the temporary Track Repair Crew on the side of the RoW.... Or someone might even created "Toppled Cars" that you could now place off the side of the track to represent Derailments (Instead of having to have "Derailed Cars" that are actually "Cars" on the track).

Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Falcus

[markus_GE]

Sorry, if the above was missunderstandable - Of course I know that route creation is an awful lot of work, having done it myself in tarinz and tried it in MSTS (where it´s even more work), but given it up all by now. I didn´t want Insult anybody, bt obviously I didn´t have under full control my Austrian sarcasm... :)

What you Point out, Falcus, is actually also what I´d prefer: A dynamic System as in MSTS. But we had the Points about it already, and so I was trying just to offer an idea for an alternative. But as you pointed out so extensively, I maybe should have thought a bit more myself ;)

Cheers, Markus

[dcarleton]

About the track monitor and slow orders-

It is true that while running a train in real life there is no track monitor. But you will be receiving a plethora of information through all of your senses and not just through the front window. For example, you will feel the acceleration and deceleration through the seat of your pants. Is OR going to include that? On the other hand, you will hear the fireman or conductor or a voice on the radio reminding you that there's a slow order three miles ahead. Is OR going to include that? It could remind you - through the track monitor!

[Falcus]

@ Markus

Just so you know, I've read enough of your posts to know you meant it jokingly. Nothing to apologize for. I just wanted to make sure that anyone reading (Have you seen how many new members we've been getting lately? I remember when this was just a quiet little board! lol), didn't make the mistake that Route Building could ever be something less then a gargantuan undertaking, particularly for the freeware routes. Thats why I said that that paragraph wasn't aimed at anyone in particular XD.

My worry about an alternative, is that it would end up being a "Solution" with no replacement in sight. At the end of the day, I'd rather keep what we have now until such time as it could be possible to create a better system, rather then to try to paste a band-aid over Kuju's originally broken outta the box system.

Falcus

[markus_GE]

@ Falcus: I just read my post again and added the "" that were missing. Hope this also adds to the purposes you mentioned.

The Problem with "keeping what we have now" (as you expressed it) is, there´s nothing to Keep concerning slow orders... As for a preliminary solution becoming a forever-one as of experience I can say that with the ORDev Team we have People developing the game that don´t seem to ike such things either: Take the steam physics, for example, that are currently being reworked, or the signalling System, of which I myself "still have memories" how it was before the experimental release started out at all.

Anyway, I think I said what I had to say, apart from one Thing:

@ the ORDevs: Keep up the great work! :)

Cheers, Markus