Elvas Tower: AI Dispatcher doesn't realize train length - Elvas Tower

Jump to content

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

AI Dispatcher doesn't realize train length Rate Topic: -----

#21 User is offline   Csantucci 

  • Member, Board of Directors
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 7,013
  • Joined: 31-December 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 10 January 2014 - 10:25 AM

In fact MSTS path editor allows you to define both passing paths and optional paths. To optional paths the questions of railguy apply. However I understand that OR uses only passing paths definition and neglects optional paths, which is a good thing. I never understood why MSTS allowed the definition of both. In my MSTS activities, I always defined both passing paths and optional paths, but I was never sure if optional paths were really needed to have working meets.

#22 User is offline   railguy 

  • Engineer
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 10-October 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 10 January 2014 - 10:52 AM

^I agree,it's a good thing that OR ignores optional paths; I never could figure out what they exactly did, but they did seem to avoid some deadlocks in MSTS.

#23 User is offline   railguy 

  • Engineer
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 10-October 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 10 January 2014 - 12:35 PM

Just for my information, I assume that the revised RunActivity file (with RunActivityLAA) that you posted above that I tested was NOT included in today's X1931 release. Is that correct? I'm not criticizing--I just wanted to know if I'm experimenting with the X1931 release. Thanks.

#24 User is offline   roeter 

  • Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 2,426
  • Joined: 25-October 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 10 January 2014 - 12:51 PM

No, it's not included yet - still some details to sort out, it's not all yet the way it should be. Could be a few more days yet.
Watch this space.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

#25 User is offline   railguy 

  • Engineer
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 652
  • Joined: 10-October 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas
  • Simulator:Open Rails
  • Country:

Posted 10 January 2014 - 02:16 PM

I'll look forward to it. You guys are great. Thanks.

#26 User is offline   rdamurphy 

  • Open Rails Developer
  • Group: Private - Open Rails Developer
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Thornton, CO
  • Simulator:MSTS - OR
  • Country:

Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:06 AM

 roeter, on 10 January 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

No, it's not included yet - still some details to sort out, it's not all yet the way it should be. Could be a few more days yet.
Watch this space.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink


Let me know if I can be of any assistance...

Thanks,

Robert

#27 User is offline   roeter 

  • Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 2,426
  • Joined: 25-October 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 11 January 2014 - 05:18 AM

 rdamurphy, on 11 January 2014 - 04:06 AM, said:

Let me know if I can be of any assistance...

Thanks,

Robert

Thanks. The problem is, though, that I have not yet worked out the 'ideal' logic - that process is running through my mind and that's a bit hard to transfer.
But I will get back to you on some other issues soon - don't worry!

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

#28 User is offline   roeter 

  • Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 2,426
  • Joined: 25-October 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:33 AM

Progress report : the impact of the new deadlock logic on the way activities behave is greater than I thought at first. As there are a number of people who have put in a lot of work to get activities working as intended for MSTS, it makes sense that the new behaviour should be optional - so it must be introduced using an 'experimental' option.
Clearly, though, that means a lot of extra work as the code for both methods must now be integrated. So it will be quite a few days yet before this will become available.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

#29 User is offline   gpz 

  • Superintendant
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 1,772
  • Joined: 27-October 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest
  • Simulator:OpenRails
  • Country:

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:40 AM

But I think, always the newest and greatest should be the default. Otherwise we might stick the same way as there is the "experimental" option for train lights currently, which must be explicitly switched on...

#30 User is offline   roeter 

  • Vice President
  • Group: Status: Elite Member
  • Posts: 2,426
  • Joined: 25-October 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:16 AM

True - but the newest and latest in this is yet to come ... :whistling:

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink
  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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