MSTS-X and Multiplayer

[Poltergeist]

Do you guys think it'll be feasibility possible to include Multiplayer into MSTS-X? So far it seems like every Rail/Train sim that has come out has been Single player only, which is fine but even when you're running an activity the rails seem kinda lonely.

I'd like to be able to go to a Multiplayer session with my train and talk to other engineers and dispatch over team speak, to talk to other drivers and have the 'human' factor added into my run on the line. I mean with activities, everything is written out, so if you programmed an activity you already know what's going to happen and when, but with multiplayer, you have no clue what's going to happen. I could be pulling a major freight on the mainline and have to stop because an Amtrak train has priority over me, or there's been an accident and the line is closed, you know stuff like that.

Also I believe that if MSTS-X has Multiplayer, then it'll just take the game to a whole new level because now you have virtual railroads, with session where everyone can log in and run their order on the line at the same time with a dispatch it'd actually feel like a real railroad instead of just a sim.

Microsoft: include Multiplayer into MSTS-X!

[maddog_2020]

I can almost assure that if that feature was included, it would be a top seller. But the only that that would get me is how other peoples cpu's would handle it. If a train length was enforced of 50 cars or so, it wouldnt be too bad.

[Poltergeist]

>I can almost assure that if that feature was included, it
>would be a top seller. But the only that that would get me is
>how other peoples cpu's would handle it. If a train length
>was enforced of 50 cars or so, it wouldnt be too bad.

I think the way to handle this is to have low poly count and low detail generic cars and engines, trust me when I fly FSX, and fly into a busy airport on VATSIM, all of the players aircraft are low poly and low detail and I only notice 1-2 fps drop.

[muskokaandtahoe]

> Do you guys think it'll be feasibility possible to include Multiplayer into MSTS-X?

Anything is feasible but whether it would be implemented in a good manner is the real question.

IMO anything that would allow a completely free, multiplayer environment would be a bad idea -- and by completely free I mean something like explore route w/ multiple players. All that gets you is a modern version of Gomez Addam's O gauge layout.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/119701.jpg

What would be a whole lot better is to include some form of dispatch, be it a role a player performs or a rule set created by the scenario author.

[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

[Poltergeist]

Well what I was thinking was this.

Lets say one server host one route, and everyone who has MSTS-X & the route connects to that server.

Now this can go one or two ways. 1. You can either have a pre-determined time for everyone who signed up to run on the route) or 2. It's open 24/7.

If we go with 1. here's what will happen; the owner of the server will be handing out train orders before the session, the train order will be in limited number so that way we don't get 500 players trying to run on the route. These will be like real train orders, and at the time of the session, players can run their train order during the session and everything is nice and controlled.

If we go with 2. they're still be train orders, it's just that now the time and date of when you have to run that train order will be included, so you can have a bunch of people signed up they still won't be able to run the route all at the same time, they'll be spaced out.

However, the jinx in this system of control is that not everyone will be able to A. complete their train order for some reason B. Not show up at all, which can be a problem if your train order relies on someone else to complete theirs or C. we have a server crash in the middle of a session or run.

[TedS]

I agree that some form of Multiplayer *MUST* be included. The lengths that some have gone to incorporate simulated multiplayer in MSTS 1 ought to be evidence enough for Microsoft.

Programming a multiplayer train sim is far less challenging than multiplayer online racing or aerial combat. Those games are plagued with lag and "pop in" because when the server loses contact with a client, it has to guess where the player's vehicle will be when contact is reestablished. Since trains can only travel on a track, and have a lot of mass and hysteresis, the server can predict fairly accurately where the train will probably be when contact with the client is regained.

If there is any problem where contact is lost for a long period of time, the other player's train reverts to AI control, and the AI follows the remainder of the train orders as best it can. But I believe the best way to handle the inherent unpredictability of online multiplayer is to follow the VATSIM model, and also have online human dispatchers. As long as the human players made a good-faith attempt to follow their train orders, the "Gomez Addams" effect should be minimized. This could be enforced by a "karma" rating or feedback system.

I would personally be content with reduced poly count, screen resolution, restricted route/activity selection, etc. to make this possible. If nothing else, more random activity on the part of the AI (and the ability to build random elements into user activities) would be an improvement over the original MSTS.

To my knowledge, no train sim to date has incorporated a real-time multiplayer mode, even in a LAN environment. However, Microsoft's experience with XBOX Live should come in handy in making multiplayer a reality. 'That Other Sim' from Down Under was planning a multiplayer version when development was essentially abandoned. I was heartbroken, because this is one of the few serious disadvantages that V-scale suffers relative to its three-dimensional alternatives.

My $.02,
Ted Sowirka

[Poltergeist]

Train Artisan had Multiplayer in their TA Sim, but we all know what happened with that sim.

[muskokaandtahoe]

If MS were to use an Object Oriented design (not necessarilly construction) you would think the acceptence of the basic concept a train is a train is a train and it knows already what it can do will take you a long way into being able to do multiplayer. And the reason for that lies in the OO concepts of messaging and encapsulation.

A Locomotive object "knows" what it can do. So do car objects. A train object is simply a "bag" full of those. These objects would receive messages from other objects... the train object could get something from a dispatcher, or a signal, or the track (for a change of grade), or from locomotive controls (envoked by a player) and the train object acts properly for each message. The car objects get messages from the train, like air pressure change which the car object knows will have some effect on brakes and so it'll have to figure out what it's going to do. And so on.

This opens the door for peer to peer messaging of just player comntroled messages, stuff like dispatching (either by train order or ctc) and of locomotive controls envoked by a player. IOW, all the because all of the pc's have an identical set of objects in motion and most of their behavior is computed locally on each PC only messages requesting a change in the ongoing trend need to move around. And that isn't very much.

[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

[BNSF4723]

>Train Artisan had Multiplayer in their TA Sim, but we all
>know what happened with that sim.

Nothing at all :(

[gltech]

Say your prayers for this:

http://forums.flightsim.com/ts/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=175768&mesg_id=175768&listing_type=search

[RedDeath5]

you also have to think that the only thing we can base our ideas on is what we know of MSTS.. we have no idea how MSTS-X will be ran.. and like someone else said in this fourm said.. "anything is possible" I think Hosting rooms would be the way to go.. with gaurds (to keep out profanity and such, railroads are fun, we cant have a bunch of jerks running around.. everyone that works on the railroad are uselly nice guys, cept the bulls ;-)) that way we can make a muiltyplayer activity.. and when someone joins the room they download it and you can all play it.. microphones (being used as a CB) would be nice to... however.. right now.. one can only dream until it is released :)