Operations

[SurvivorSean]

I can be civil and say welcome, but from my perspective I've lost alot of faith in a new simulator seeing the light of day. Too many promises, and they to had a spokesperson and their own forum :)

Now that I got that negativitiy off my chest (for now anyways) on to more positive things. Having the perfect settings for how a North American physic behaves vs. European is secondary, provided that these settings can either be edited or hacked accordingly. Just like having North American content is also secondary, provided user friendly yet powerful editors are built into the program, or at the very least open ended enough to allow somebody to come along and easily create the content.

The signal system in MSTS is fine, and behaves according to it's own set parameters and is universal. What is not fine, and must be dealt with is the system in which AI trains interact with player trains. To me this phase was never quite complete with MSTS, and unfortunately it stuck with MSTS in all upgrades. The dispatching system must be more adaptable, and capable of recating to changes in either the players or AI service in route, and not set solely on pre-simulation where all meets are then pre-determined. Passing paths on some sidings seem to work, while others are imposible. The ability to use multiple optional paths such as those in double track sections utilizing crossovers is also essential for a complete simulation.

When a proper signal system is in place, a whole new world opens up for the simulation. Take for example 2 popular add ons for MSTS, Activity Changer, and Switchlist Generator. These programs are great add-ons unfortunately due to the limitations of paths, and the AI in MSTS did not always work right, and often would cause stalemates, or the inability to complete assignments.

With the random generation provided by these two programs, possibly combined with a multi-player interface, or at least open ended enough to allow the possibility by a tandem program activities would never grow old, virtual railroads would evolve on their own, and the experience would enhance the shelf life of the product.

The reason why MSTS sits idle for me right now is not because of the great graphics, and routes. They're still out there, and still being developed. It's knowing that no matter how many new routes, or new activities I add to my system, eventually it all becomes old quickly. For me upgrading my computer system, and considering purchasing this program I hope this is dealt with in this program, or I will not be buying it, and dare I say others won't be so excited either. This program needs to deal with MSTS limitations, and to me this is MSTS biggest limitation.

Thanks

Sean

[OTTODAD]

Hi Sean !

Don't forget that KUJU are a public company with shareholders and other substantial investors who are expecting a return for their money and their executives and staff continued employment, or else ! ;-)

Not like a small private corporation which only risks losing their own money.

You can count on getting something from KUJU and from what we have seen to far am confident that it will be better than anything else Train Simming on the market !

O t t o

[lateagain]

That's as maybe Otto but I have to agree with Sean.

Solving the problems that MSTs has thrown out over the years HAS to be a basis for the fundamental design. No amount of gloss and glitter is going to fill the cracks in the foundation.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Geoff !

I would not bother trying to solve the problems MSTS has thrown up and rather design a completely new Train Sim, which is what KUJU are doing, I think !

It's easier to build a new and better house than trying to repair the cracks and remedy structural design faults in an existing one ! ;-)

O t t o

[muskokaandtahoe]

> You can count on ....

Otto, are you a paid spokesman for Kujo?

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[SurvivorSean]

In many situations I fear the public corporation the most because like you said it's all about the money (that is nothing personal it is buisiness, so for them I'd take my response from a business perspective). Apparently it was the money or lack of enough money that shut down the other 2 I mentioned, who is to say lightning won't strike for a 3rd time, already striking twice.

MSTS is built on old technology, and I totally agree it needs a brand new program. My point to all the methedology of operations and how MSTS failed needs to be a lesson learned. People will not be as gooey eyed (gulible) like myself when MSTS first came out and bought it as soon as it hit the shelves. The bottom line is a few improvements in gameplay, graphics, and sound is not going to make people go out and buy this product in droves (believe me I want NOTHING MORE than for everyone to have a product worthy of everyone being able to buy this, and for it's sucess).

If they learn from MSTS shortcomings, and flaws (with a strong attempt at some of the features I seek) it will go a long way and I'll be happy to upgrade my pc and purchase it. I'm somewhat confident (forgive me once again for my warrented caution) that this company will follow through, and support this product. Otherwise I'd be wasting my time posting this message for nothing, or for keeping up with the train-sim community. I honestly hope these words are taken very seriously, or at least can build towards that goal. Even if this program doesn't have all the bell's and whistles, provided it's a complete product and is open ended for expansion and 3rd party software to fill the gap then it too is worthy of a purchase.

Thanks

Sean

[OTTODAD]

Otto, are you a paid spokesman for Kuju?

No, but am planning to become a share holder.

For that reason alone you will have to forgive me promoting KRS as much as I can and if you want some North American content then I would suggest that you do the same !

It might also be in the interest to some North American Train Sim Payware vendors to beat the drum for KUJU if they want a share of what I hope will be substantial sales of KRS and it's add-ons !

If you have nothing more constructive to say then why bother posting ?

O t t o

[OTTODAD]

Hi Sean !

Under contract with Electronic Arts, financial details of the deal not disclosed and Fund4Games bankrolling KUJU to create their Rail Simulator, they have to produce results !

Since going public a few years ago the company has lost money, their shareholders not having had a penny in dividends to date.

Being an Accountant and looking at their annual returns, this is a "Make or Break" situation for them and am sure that they will pull out all the stops to make sure that their Rail Simulator is going to be a winner and perhaps even rival MSFS in the popularity stakes ! ;-)

Additional revenue from games created for VISTA will be a long time coming !

O t t o

[muskokaandtahoe]

> If you have nothing more constructive to say then why bother posting ?

It's called being polite enough to let the other person answer the question before drawing conclusions.

> ...and if you want some North American content then I would suggest that you do the same !

I seriously doubt Kujo's decision tree includes counting how many vapid posts I might make on the subject.

Give it a rest Otto. As one great wit once said "...Let the other young ladies have time to exhibit."

[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[OTTODAD]

As one great wit once said "...Let the other young ladies have time to exhibit."

And I hope that whatever that is going to be will be a treat for sore eyes ! ;-)

No seriously, like Sabrina said, they are too busy working on KRS to get involved in forums a lot and in any case can not say much relating to matters which are likely to affect the launch of KRS, other than publish approved for release design developments.

But if I can repeat what has already been discussed in the UK-Trainsim forum then that could help to clarify a few things some might have a misconception about ?

Mike Simpson started a discussion there on more of Global content, which covered a lot of ground on that subject, attracting over 6000 readers.

No matter what, KUJU deserve all the support they can get, after all KRS is all we have got to look forward to in Train Sims right now, BVE apparently having disappeared off the radar too, temporarily only I hope ! :-(

O t t o

[rdamurphy]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but how did MSTS "fail?" Many of us have used the sim for, gee, how long now? 5 years??? How many other games from 2000 do you still use? Or have come anywhere close to passing the test of time? Sure, there's bugs, name software that doesn't? After 5 years of driving GP-38's, the ESE, BigBoys, Challengers, -9's, and man, I can't list all of them! I just have an awful hard time with the whole "failure" thing. KUJU didn't give us a perfect piece of software, thank goodness! Otherwise we wouldn't have been able to fix it! I sure hope KUJU leaves a lot of flaws in KRS, so we can get on top of fixing them right away!

Robert

[MRRextreme]

<<but how did MSTS "fail?" Many of us have used the sim for, gee, how long now? 5 years??? How many other games from 2000 do you still use?>>
Thank you for driving this point home. I actually have used MSTS software with 3 different PCs, 2 different OSs, both AMD and Intel CPUs, and both NVidia an ATI graphics cards without any problems. I don't quite see the "failure" either.

[OTTODAD]

MSTS did not fail and is still very much alive and kicking, having been upgraded to MSTSBin-1.5.7 recently and I am sure there will be more of that to come !

Microsoft failed to have MSTS upgraded with better graphics, ironing out some of the minor bugs, most of which the community eventually did themselves and the latest hardware is taking care of the graphics.

I too have been a user since day one and it has and still is giving me much pleasure and many challenges !

I shall be using it for a long time after KRS has been released, the latter providing a hopefully better alternative, until choice and variety has caught up with what we got in MSTS ! ;-)

O t t o

[SurvivorSean]

Take a look at the subject - operations and that is where I cast failure and is what I meant by it. In looking back at my post I see I didn't phrase this properly.

The program in a whole is not a failure simply because for those that like to run their cho-cho without limitation imposed on the program is simply fine for them. Many others have been able to represent fine examples of routes, have dealt with the buggy editors (where others have given up on them). Meanwhile people continue to sqweak out improvements to extend the shelf life, yet Microsoft/Kuju has never (other than a minor upgrade) given proper support to the program.

Just because a program is sitting around on a computer system, and has been vitrually unopposed for over 5 years (I've been here since day 1) doesn't mean it doesn't have it's failures. It most certainly does, and what you'll find is the lack of competition (mostly due to genere, and strong requirements of the programs in a simulation) have not met up to everyone's expectations. In fact I know many people who have simply taken MSTS off their systems a long time ago. Since I'm not running things, I wonder why I keep it on mine quite frankly. If I can settle with the limitations, and find enough enjoyment (like you and others have) then perhaps that is a success.

To me success is when a program can evolve over time, or a new program can replace it's shortcomings. With train simulators this evolution is at a crawl compared to other generes out there. A sports simulation for instance would be forced to correct any major shortcomings, or not be able to compete. Most versions you see today are simply better graphics, animation, and more perks compared to fundamental changes in getting code to work in a realistic manner.

When it comes to operations as I've already discussed in detail prior, it has failed despite still being the best simulator out there.

Thanks

Sean

P.S. you didn't fix the operational errors of the program, nor will you be able to unless you recompile the code (which of course is illegal). Changing the physics, fixing the front couplers, or giving a window out the back (though great achievements) will not allow trains to act properly to red signals, not allow head on collisions, and alter the activity system to allow all scenerios to take place without issues.

[ragtimer]

Trainsim is great as far as it goes.The community has uncovered lots of bugs and deficiencies in it and if it had been properly supported by either Microsoft or Kuju we would not be having this discussion today.As other writers have stated there are some very clever people out there in the community who have added greatly to the sim with fixes and workarounds but some faults still exist,some of which are pretty basic.Reading the posts by the Kuju people,I have grave doubts about the new sim because what I see is self satisfied spinning with no definitive statements about addressing issues which we raise.I see from UKTrainsim that a gentleman has been appointed as a railway "guru".I wish him well and would be interested to read his views and depth of knowledge about railway matters.As I have stated elsewhere,it is as easy to get things right as it is to get things wrong.For example the pictures of proposed UK semaphore signals.They have several glaring errors although they look very pretty.Is that going to be the standard of the new sim?This is not meant to be critical but this is the last chance for a sim which improves on the current one,I sincerely hope Kuju do not squander it but being a betting man I certainly would not put any money on this horse given the previous form and the training reports we are getting.

[OTTODAD]

Peter, don't forget that most train simmers do not look at it with the eyes of experts on the subject like you and some others are, most not even familiar with the routes they are driving on, nor their signaling or rolling stock.

The same as most flight simmers would not spot inaccuracies flying planes, of which there are many, nor know much of what they are flying over or about terminals and their layouts. I should know some of that, having been a real private pilot, but there again the variety of what goes up into the air and what is on the ground is enormous for anybody to know every detail of !

I think that the most important aspect of a simulator is that most of it's basics function as they should, like a front coupler and properly displayed and animated switches ! Whether it looks exactly the same as in reality bolts for bolts and nuts for nuts is less important to me and I dare say to the majority of train simmers. ;-)

O t t o

[SurvivorSean]

Once again I touch on the subject it's going to be about Operations for me. I don't expect them to get every detail correct the 1st go around and that is what patches, upgrades, and continued support should address. This is something that I reiterate MICROSOFT FAILED MISERABLY! To say that the program in whole is a failure is certainly not true, and I didn't mean to imply that as I've had plenty of enjoyment from the product in the past, though it still lies dormant on my pc (still installed though).

I also agree that not everyone is going to look at the fine details discussed. I consider myself an expert on North American signals (but I guess that only applies to the modern era) because other than the approach and home signal differences I did not know about the diamond symbols. Now show me a red over green over green and I can tell you medium to medium without hesitation (though this too changes within regions in North America mostly by wording such as approach etc.).

To me if the fundamental flaws of MSTS operations are corrected then I'd consider purchasing this. I think the true consumer base lies between the train hobbyists, to the absolute prototypical enthusiasts. I also think the geographic market will still be European, and that North America as a secondary spin off. Hopefully enough of the fundamental flaws will be corrected, and the ease of creating new North American content by the community will take care of that by itself.

Thanks

Sean

[ragtimer]

Hi Otto,you miss the point,I am not being pedantic,merely pointing out that what is being shown off to the world as wonderful is not entirely correct and if this is an example of the care which is taken about everything that is put into the new sim then there will be inaccuracies not only in the graphical representations of things but the nuts, bolts and innards of the thing and we have that already.It shows either a sloppy attitude to or ignorance of what they are trying to represent.I repeat,it is as easy to get things right as get them wrong.There are many people in the community with the knowledge which will put them on the correct track who are only too willing to pass on that knowledge.Personally,all I want is for the current one to stop crashing so often so I can drive the locos I want to,not just the ones that do not crash the sim.Everything else I can live with.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Peter !

I would love to get hold of your computer and have a good look at what it is doing and what you have been doing to it ! ;-)

I have had MSTS since day one on a WIN-98SE and it's atrocious frame rates before better graphics cards came on the market, but never had any of the problems I keep reading about, the front coupler being the only exception I can think about.

Progressing into WIN-XP made a world of difference and repeatedly updating my hardware culminated in near perfection of MSTS, now running on my latest SIMS ONLY AMD 64-bit X2, 2 Gb DDR-RAM, ATI X1900XT PCI-Express, Creative Audigy-4 and two 150 Gb WD Raptors.

Other shortcomings were rectified by many in the community, including myself and I now have a MSTS which will take some doing improving on, updates like the MSTSBin-1.5.7 being exceptions ! ;-)

I always install any add-on into a copy of a bare bones test MSTS MINI routes version first, containing enough of the default routes and templates folders to install routes into and if all works as it should then add it to the MAIN or other collective MINI routes, frequently BACKING-UP everything that is important on my computers.

As I keep saying, the problem with MSTS is not the program itself, it is what users of it are doing to and with it ! ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

[ragtimer]

Hi Otto,I have narrowed the problem down to polys.For a certain activity,say Libby to Bonners Ferry on WF6.With multiple UK locos on player service ( 60 wagons ) with very low poly counts,no problems.With multiple US locos with quite high polys,crash.The AI trains appear to make no difference at all because they are common to both activities.I then looked at all my US locos and found 3 with reasonably low polys and used them on the player service.Result:no crash.To my scientific mind that points to the culprit.My computer is not as good as yours but it aint bad:Athlon XP3200+ processor ( 2.2Ghz),1.50Gig RAM,ASUS Radeon 9200SE AGP graphics card,Soundblaster Live! sound card.Frame rates 30ish in high scenery areas,does go lower,does go higher,has achieved 60 which you say is the max.On UK routes with single loco on trains,no problems e.g on LBE my Acton-Ardingly stone train,Class 66 and 14 wagons,31 AI services in about 1 hour,no crashes.I do have more problems on WF6 and Marias 3.1,I can get away with high poly player services on the (excellent freeware) Seligman sub and the(payware) Tehachapi 2 without crashes.I have tested all my addon locos and wagons before letting them loose.I have checked them with routeriter and Conbuilder and done bracket checks with engmod.No problems (there were one or two locos but I sorted them)I actually posted about a bracket problem on some Dash9 locos in the library which stopped the AI lights working but no one seemed interested.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Peter !

Don't you think that battling with some of these problems and winning is more fun than actually running the sim ? :7

Your computer should be more than adequate for the job and you seem to be well in control of it.

I just did some tests for Ian Macmillan and going to an outside view in the WUPPER-10, crammed full with ICEs at Dortmund, my MSTS froze, I did not notice before and others had problems running one of it's activities in heavy rain. Those are the sort of MSTS things I got used to living with, including a temperamental Route Editor ! ;-)

What else is running on your computer at the same time as MSTS and have you looked into what "Services" you can de-activate, not required by what your computer is used for ?

http://web.archive.org/web/20041128084144/www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

O t t o

[ragtimer]

Hi Otto,yes I have been down the route of shutting down unnecessary operations on the computer,but it makes no difference.Even running with the anti virus turned off makes no difference.I have been checking the "polys" on my locos this evening and have found some more with quite low counts and some also with LODs and will experiment with them.I do like the F7s but almost all have high polys and crash as soon as the first or second AI train attempts to load.I think the routes with less trees etc are better too eg Seligman sub.I really would like to be able to take whatever loco combination I like out and drive straight through an activity rather than either keep crashing or be restricted in loco choice.The reason your Wupper express is OK is I imagine because you have one loco only per train,which I have shown is OK.It would be nice if one the experts could find a way of reducing the polys on locos maybe like "fat reduced" food ! :7

[OTTODAD]

Hi Peter !

Would running one of these consists which give you problems do the same in EXPLORE ROUTE mode, using the same starting point, where there are no AI trains nor "Loose Consists" and the weather is sunny and clear ?

O t t o

[SurvivorSean]

>>As I keep saying, the problem with MSTS is not the program itself, it is what users of it are doing to and with it !

As I keep saying too there IS fundamental issues with the activity system when it comes to trains at restricting running into you or staying at restricting speed (but I guess this doesn't affect you so it's just perfect for you). This is a bug that can't be corrected in the code. The only workaround is for route designers not to use intermediate signals and this doesn't cure all issues. Besides many places intermediate signals are prototypical and should work properly. Holding points also never retain their values, passing points do not work properly on all routes (especialy those with reverse switches that return to the main line). In general I'd say the whole system was a good 1st attempt in dire nead of a patch or upgrade that never happened. This in return lost alot of people despite those that reduce traffic flow to what AI can handle, and avoid trailing traffic etc. in activities to avoid MSTS issues that would pop up.

I'm sure if you run explore mode, you need not worry. But if activities, Route/Activity editors (though they always said not supported) are part of what a user would like to use then there are many, many, issues and bugs that have never been fixed, period! If I want to I'm sure there are plenty of things I can still do with MSTS and avoid these bugs, but when it comes to that subject (that I started here called operations) it is simply limited to the restrictions of the program.

As I've said in reply to someone else that doesn't have any issues, GOOD FOR THEM! But the fact remains there are PLENTY of issues that are not caused by users, and can not be fixed! Sometimes a workaround does a trick for certain things, but not all workarounds fix everything. Many people do have issues with the program, and to generalize the entire community is working with a wonderful program is simply not correct.

Thanks

Sean

[OTTODAD]

Hi Sean !

There are many like you who want a train simulator which "Simulates" reality of all railroading aspects down to the last detail. Nothing wrong with that. But that sort of perfection usually comes with a price tag to match ! :-(

There is a saying that you can not please all the people all the time. Trying to please most of the people most of the time is what should be aimed for ! ;-)

O t t o

[SurvivorSean]

Well here is something I'll repeat that applaudes MSTS and that is for a 1st effort, it was a great one at that. That was over 5 years ago, and I believe many issues would have been dealt with in either patches, or MSTS2 if it had been properly supported.

I don't think anyone is expecting a state of the art simulator like Trainmaster is apparently now focusing on. If I understand you from past posts, your in the programming field. I have some work experience in the field too, however changed careers as the technology curve developed faster than my promotions did. :)

Despite the technology curve, you should know that basic programming fundamentals would show that many of the bugs in MSTS operations was probably nothing more than variable/constant resets. For instance a train that slows to restricting, and doesn't update itself to max line speed once they get less restrictive signals is a simple variable issue, and is probably down to one single line of code that was missed.

More people were upset about the front coupler (as less of a percentage dealt with full operations) so when MS released it's only patch they focused on this. Your right that those that purchase the simulator for full operations is still a minority. I just left a model railroad club because the majority wasn't into operations like I was. But operations can't be ignored, especially when MSTS attempted a high enough standard 5 years ago. Many people did leave MSTS because of the operation bugs, and many more may have come on board if the bugs were not there, or they were supported.

Other options such as the waiting point value that never saved with the activity (to it's credit this could of been purposely set by Kuju due to issues with AE) but I believe was another simple miss too. When you get into the route editor, dispatching principals, paths etc. then your dealing with a bit more work. Fixing those few bugs alone however would of done wonders for operations.

When your dealing with the fine tuning of physics, and other intigrate details of running the trains I'm sure this takes alot more work and time to get it right. Even a proper route editor takes alot of work, and from my previous post in response to your update, I think simpler (with the ability to improve on upgrades or add ons) will be great.

I have some faith that if this (or any other simulator) goes gold they will deal not with just the gamers, but the simmers as well who enjoy operations. Honeselty MSTS with the exception of memory issues, outdated graphic technology, and the operation flaws shouldn't take too much more improvements to get it right.

Thanks

Sean

[OTTODAD]

Interesting links, Sean !

Looks like there are various niche markets even with train simulators !

Like I said in another post, much can be achieved by programmers, but at a price.

I am an Accounting Software programmer, where accuracy in the coding of procedures for dealing with financial transactions, ledgers and their double-entry bookkeeping is essential, other accountancy and legal rules having to be taken into account, but is nowhere as complicated as designing accurate fully functioning systems for trains and planes and never mind the graphics being used, I do not have to bother with, my line of software being mainly concerned with fast keyboard entry than anything else !

I sometimes marvel at software which can test all of a to be manufactured plane's functions and performance long before it's first part is on the production line and before it's wheels leave the tarmac for the first time ! ;-)

O t t o

[SurvivorSean]

Yeah I'm hoping somewhere these niche may be somehow networked to remain seperate to operate, yet be part of a system where they interact if you know what I mean.

I don't have much experience at graphics programs either, but I do believe that some of the variable misses are as simple enough for a co-op student learning to program to catch let alone someone like myself who now programs as a hobby, or yourself professionaly.

I think another big factor at why things get better is simply better hardware too like graphics cards, memory, processing, etc. There are actually many programs still out there where the PC is too powerful for the game to run.

I do agree that the more features you put into a program, the more the price can go up. In fact most companies will be wise at finding the features that are both required, popular, and take the least amount of resources to get running. Thats why newer versions of Flight Simulator (and other programs) still sell as they feed the community a little at a time.

All I'm hoping out of this simulator is adaptablility of user parameters, powerful editors, and enough operational fundamentals that was supposed to work with MSTS to build on. Proper testing and support is also critical, and I think though the community is hungry they're certainly not starving for a simulator like they were before MSTS came out (I remember being in that bread line). I'm willing to wait if they get it right.

Thanks

Sean