[Traindude]

Weter, on 01 September 2024 - 07:44 AM, said:

Yes.
Remember some MSTS default activities: there have been told about track maintenance, after storm, bridge damage, etc... but nothing can be seen - we have to just imagine all that.

The same thing can be said for "static" consists on "dummy" tracks -- many routes have them to fill up yards, but they stay there, in the exact same place, for every activity. There should be a way for adding static consists' shape files to specific activities, without loading the physics and treating them like an actual "train."

[Weter]

Or dead horses/burning houses in the same place near ROW forever.

[Genma Saotome]

copperpen, on 01 September 2024 - 02:33 AM, said:

Currently you are unable to do things like that because OR is set up to consider any loose consist placed on the track as a rail vehicle and will couple to it if it is on the trains path. This causes problems with any activity that uses this method to place scenery items on per activity basis in that the scenery item is collected by the passing train.

Would a new consist parameter be of use, something like Usage( Scenery ) to signal to the program of "do not allow it to be moved" which means not to apply any physics to that consist. It occupies the track but in all other regards is static. The open questions are:

• Will it work?
  
• Will anyone code the solution?

FWIW I have never understood why the procedure to place loose consists is what it is. Why not just place a real consist?

[eric from trainsim]

Instead of trying to do hacks, why not look at expanding the existing data structure slightly?

The ActivityObject currently has three ObjectTypes that are supported in TSRE: WagonList, FailedSignal, and RestrictedSpeedZone. There might be others (not going to dive into the ORTS code to check).

I'd suggest maybe creating a new object type (how about StaticList? ) which would then contain multiple Static () items containing the shapefile name, tile X Z and position XYZQ.

The Static items would need to be manually added into an ACT file until it could be supported in a new editor or possibly in TSRE.

Another option is having an activity specific world file within the Activity folders which could potentially replace the route's W file for that activity.

Either way would allow an activity to add things like work vehicles parked off the tracks, emergency equipment next to a building, an animated fire object, etc. and not be bound by what TDB sections might be nearby.

Or, things obstructing the track and causing a collision... like rocks, a stalled truck, etc. which might otherwise try to connect into a consist if you did the loose consist hack mentioned earlier.

[copperpen]

Genma Saotome, on 02 September 2024 - 05:06 PM, said:

FWIW I have never understood why the procedure to place loose consists is what it is. Why not just place a real consist?

The loose consists in question have been used to place scenery items beside the track specifically related to an activity. They are Invisocars that have the scenic item offset from the track, and no couplers. When using MSTs these work as intended with the train passing over/through the consist without coupling. OR is coded so that if a wag has no coupler, one will will be added, much like the extra axle added to a single axle bogie.

[pschlik]

I know nothing about making activities, so I always assumed static objects could be added for an individual activity since every other simulator has some sort of "scenario layer" for scenery. Wild that's not a thing, can't imagine it would be too problematic to implement.

[Amtrak115]

Apology for hi-jacking this tread on Eng/Wag files....

Genma Saotome, on 02 September 2024 - 05:06 PM, said:

Would a new consist parameter be of use,

Dave I was looking at this not from a "Consist" standpoint but from an Activity standpoint. Having been looking into a "New" activity editor for probably over a year now...(I keep getting diverted into other areas like Consists....) I was thinking an Activity specific parameter was neeted....something like "ORTSActivityObject" with Location relative to the track hence the offset from track center for placement....

Genma Saotome, on 02 September 2024 - 05:06 PM, said:

FWIW I have never understood why the procedure to place loose consists is what it is. Why not just place a real consist?

Agree, in fact if you use TSRE to develop Activities, all loose consists are defined in the consist editor then placed as consist in the activity editor portion of TSRE. Personnal I think in an Activity file "loose consists " should just have an "include" file that list the consist files and placing locations for the loose consist rather than including the entire consist as part of the activity file...

eric from trainsim, on 02 September 2024 - 06:09 PM, said:

Instead of trying to do hacks, why not look at expanding the existing data structure slightly?

Eric, one of the objectives I had set for myself looking in "Activity Editor" was to try NOT to introduce a new feature into ORTS but to work within the existing data structures as much as possible. However it get to a point where modifying existing ORTS code baseline is an easier solution....Again, why it's taking me over a year at this point and not showing a lot of progress on an Activity editor....I have to stop and dig through ORTS code....(I'm not a C# programmer by any stretch of the imagination and it takes me a while to figure out what the code is doing and in most cases I guess wrong). Initially I thought of extending the activity editor with TSRE would be best, but the more I dig through ORTS code and the TSRE code baseline, the more I'm convinced that a 2D prospective is more conducive to activity editor, especially if you combine the features of "Track Viewer" into an activity editor which I believe is essential.

eric from trainsim, on 02 September 2024 - 06:09 PM, said:

Another option is having an activity specific world file within the Activity folders which could potentially replace the route's W file for that activity.

I had the same thought, however because I figured that world files are loaded before activity files (my assumption....you know what they say about assumptions....) then this would not be as practical as loading an activity object relative to track position....any way that was my thoughts.

copperpen, on 03 September 2024 - 04:45 AM, said:

They are Invisocars that have the scenic item offset from the track, and no couplers.

Also thought about this but I didn't know if this was a "design feature" or and "accidental feature" of ORTS and therefore deserved more research into the ORTS codebaseline....and I didn't have clue where to start looking for this one....

Anyway...again apologies for hi-jacking the eng/wag discussion....

Amtrak115