[Weter]

Here is essential experience about scenery tweaking. You can use translators to read.
Exactly about AI paths

[R H Steele]

I finally found the activity --- downloaded it --- substituted rolling stock --- and started testing. Just as I thought, especially since there is only one AI path -- MOW_AI -- the starting point ( which probably worked for MSTS ) needed to be adjusted.

The path started on a siding that is occupied by 4 static consists...so the start point was after the consists. I moved the start point some distance before this siding and let it occupy the same track as the player path --- because the other track is occupied by the 4 static consists.

No problem using part of the player path because all the missing traffic had start times way before the activity start time.

Just started the activity and all the traffic is present. Have not run the entire activity yet, so do not know what happens when the later traffic starts...it will probably work just fine.

Attached log as proof of concept and zipped up the edited traffic path...name is the same so it will overwrite the current traffic path.

[ Edit...just noticed that I was not using advanced physics...that always happens when I use stable ver1.4 to test and then jump back to a monogame version to run the simulation. That really bugs me...always forgetting to make sure the simple controls and physics box is unchecked....WHY is that such a problem between the different branches? ... furthermore, WHY am I so forgetful...I know this happens ]

Attached File(s)

•  OpenRailsLog.txt (13.41K)
  Number of downloads: 120
•  MOW_AI.zip (1.42K)
  Number of downloads: 128

[engmod]

>simple controls and physics box is unchecked

Are you running ini files with your different versions?

[R H Steele]

engmod, on 21 June 2022 - 09:22 PM, said:

>simple controls and physics box is unchecked

Nope -- don't know what you are referring to because in the log I attached to the post is this >>> SimpleControlPhysics = True
Which means I am not using advanced physics.

engmod, on 21 June 2022 - 09:22 PM, said:

Are you running ini files with your different versions?

Don't know anything about them. Read some references to them in the threads, but never found an explanation specifically showing how to use them.

[engmod]

One of mine, use it as a base.

Attached File(s)

•  openrails.ini.zip (1.4K)
  Number of downloads: 130

[Niknak]

R H Steele, on 21 June 2022 - 08:10 PM, said:

I finally found the activity --- downloaded it --- substituted rolling stock --- and started testing. Just as I thought, especially since there is only one AI path -- MOW_AI -- the starting point ( which probably worked for MSTS ) needed to be adjusted.

The path started on a siding that is occupied by 4 static consists...so the start point was after the consists. I moved the start point some distance before this siding and let it occupy the same track as the player path --- because the other track is occupied by the 4 static consists.

No problem using part of the player path because all the missing traffic had start times way before the activity start time.

Just started the activity and all the traffic is present. Have not run the entire activity yet, so do not know what happens when the later traffic starts...it will probably work just fine.

Attached log as proof of concept and zipped up the edited traffic path...name is the same so it will overwrite the current traffic path.

[ Edit...just noticed that I was not using advanced physics...that always happens when I use stable ver1.4 to test and then jump back to a monogame version to run the simulation. That really bugs me...always forgetting to make sure the simple controls and physics box is unchecked....WHY is that such a problem between the different branches? ... furthermore, WHY am I so forgetful...I know this happens ]

Thanks Gerry. Your amended path file seems to have done the trick. :)

[R H Steele]

http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/dirol.gifcool....http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/hi.gif
note: running the activity I had to delay the start time for the AI-1 ( about 6 minutes ) so I could see it at the beginning of the activity.

[R H Steele]

Laci1959, on 19 June 2022 - 10:21 PM, said:

In previous OR versions, this was not a problem at all. Regardless of the previous time, they appeared with the usual delay after the start of the game.
Maybe you should go back to the usual way in version 1.3. A lot of tasks were done for us in this way as well.
Trash all users? I mean those who can’t do that kind of fix, and there are a lot of them.
Of course, if another train takes the place you are legitimate. Or if the path is damaged for some reason.
In the present case, that is not relevant.

You are assuming the problem is with the AI start times prior to the beginning of the activity...not so in this case.

The problem lies with the AI path. OR still will start AI traffic with start times prior to the start of the activity -- that has been the way OR operates and continues to be the way OR operates.

[vince]

Running latest testing version:

I ran my testing activity Senator Vincent on the PRR-East v2 that has more than 20 AI traffic trains starting before the activity start time, some starting hours before Act start and no problems.
vince

[Weter]

Senator Vincent!
:good2: :thumbup3: :thumbup3: :victory: