Standard Scenarios

[OTTODAD]

Following my previous unsuccessful attempts to make player and AI services path plot to their destinations the way I want and not cause player derailments on trailing Automatic switches, I think I have finally worked out the HOW TO ! ;)

Checking the CAJON "Slow Climb South" scenario realized that apart from using drive-through portals it is using a Siding marker for it's path end destination, properly pathing the player service all the way to it, not derailing it and is not stopping it at it's plotted path end, letting it carry on "Freestyle" after passing it.

In this Standard Scenario test route all player service-1 tracks 1-3 have Manual switches, but for testing purposes the trailing switch on to track-1 is an Automatic one and the player loco is changing tracks just like I want it to, not derailing when switching on to track-1: ;)

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3483&stc=1&d=1209214235

Selecting a Siding marker for the AI path end destination worked, but left the AI service-2 stopped there for other services to run into. :o

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3484&stc=1&d=1209214235

Using drive-through portals for this AI service-2 and switches in it's path being mixed Manual and Automatic ones did not prevent it's loco to go where I want it to, changing tracks just like the player service-1 and evaporating at the final end destination Portal, set in the service's Driver pull-out.

One peculiarity is that the AI momentarily disappears for a split second when passing drive-through portals, unlikely to be noticed, the AI probably being out of sight then ! ;)

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3485&stc=1&d=1209214235

The idea behind using existing Standard Scenarios and then modify them is being able to use their already existing AI services, not having to create them all over again after having created a new scenario ! ;)

This will now let me modify and create all types of scenarios, knowing that they will do most of what I want them to do ! :D

If others can confirm that the above works and is not just an assumption, then perhaps this post could be pinned and perhaps tempt commercial add-on vendors to create other US routes for RS, there now being plenty of US rolling stock and more likely to come soon ? ;)

Spawning more than one AI, using Time Tables and more fancy stuff I do not intend to get involved in unless somebody can create a similar tutorial showing how that is done !

O t t o

[OwainGlyndwr]

Why would US Payware Vendors, want to risk their reputations. Creating third party add ons for a game that so obviously does not function, anything like it should.

[OTTODAD]

Why would US Payware Vendors, want to risk their reputations. Creating third party add ons for a game that so obviously does not function, anything like it should.

I all depends how they create add-ons and what they do.

The graphics capability is there, so there is no holding back capable scenery, objects and rolling stock creators ! ;)

Jim Ward and some UK freeware vendors seem to be doing just fine and if payware creators take note of what some of us have found makes RS do things the way we want it to then creating add-on routes, ignoring some of the short-comings of RS, would be marketable.

For those who would like to see how I did it, attached is my stand-alone test route, which installing it with the included Mike Simpson's RouteSetup.exe will not interfere with other RS routes.

RS-UK default Diesels are required !

Run it with the #9 Map active and watch it perform. ;)

O t t o

[OwainGlyndwr]

No good having lovely graphics if the core of the game is crap. Railway operation wise it is a non starter, so how can payware creators work with it in regards to creating routes.

Payware locos and stock are fine, but nothing of any substance can be created for it, untill the whole sorry mess is sorted out.

[OTTODAD]

No good having lovely graphics if the core of the game is crap. Railway operation wise it is a non starter, so how can payware creators work with it in regards to creating routes.

How much do they know about real railway operations worldwide ?

Payware locos and stock are fine, but nothing of any substance can be created for it, until the whole sorry mess is sorted out.

Being an ex-railway employee, what else do you think needs improving to make this a Train Simulator of interest to all and not just a few real railroaders ?

Peter Smith (ragtimer), being a driver of real UK locos, can we have some comments from you and never mind dynamic brakes, I can stop a train without in RS. ;)

O t t o

[OwainGlyndwr]

RSDL obviously knows nothing about railways past or present.

It`s not a rail simulator, it`s a train game.

The same way that MSTS, is a train driving game.

RS was supposed to be the next generation, but instead is just a complete shambles and a let down. To those of us that thought it was going to contain at least more realistic operational substance, than MSTS or Trainz.

[sniper297]

Gotta agree with Mike here, the whole thing needs to be redone somehow. MSTS activities sucked because it was ridiculously complicated to set up the simplest switching activity, and even after fiddling with the route editor to change signals and manual VS automatic switches then farting around with passing paths and double reverse points it STILL fell apart like a house of cards at the slightest excuse.

Railsim is worse, it's been like buying a house under construction and coming back to find interior decorators working on "finished" rooms where they forgot to put in any electrical outlets. :rolleyes: We didn't actually HAVE a scenario editor when the game came out, and we've been getting beta versions of the scenario editor ever since. I'm not even sure it CAN be fixed, it's far more complicated than the MSTS activity editor, extremely clumsy and tedious even when you do finally figure out how to work it. I'm stubborn but not stupid, if upgrade mark 2 doesn't positively DAZZLE me that's when I give it up as being hopeless. :mad:

That said, let me get a bigger hammer :eek: so I can pound this into your head, Otto :D

"Selecting a Siding marker for the AI path end destination worked, but left the AI service-2 stopped there for other services to run into."

" Using drive-through portals for this AI service-2"

No "drive-through" portals, portals are not intended to be used for STOP AT "waypoints", they're only used at the beginning and the end of AI runs. Never never never use a portal for a STOP AT instruction, never never never use a portal for a player train at all. Use siding, platform, and destination markers for STOP AT to control the path for both AI and player, use portals for the FINAL destination for all AI services, using a portal for a destination removes the AI train from the world instead of leaving it sitting on the tracks. You CAN use a siding/platform/destination marker if you don't WANT the AI train removed, for example end the path in a station and leave it sitting there, you can also use portals to "add" AI trains to so they start from the portal - but if they start from a portal there MUST be a clear block for them to spawn into, in other words at least one signal separating the starting portal from any other trains anywhere else on the route. Even with that it don't always work correctly, but my experiments with the portals show they should only be used at the beginning and the end of an AI service path and for no other purpose. :cool:

[OTTODAD]

Hi Jim !

I think you had better run the attached test routes to see what I use drive-through portals for, which is directing player and AI services from on track onto another and back again.

The first one diverts the player from track-4 over to track-1, the AI from track-5 to track-6 and back to track-5 again on it's way to it's path stop portal on track-5.

The second one overwrites the first test route and this time the player goes from track-4 to track-3, to track-2 and then on to track-3 and track-4, but can not divert it any more, it ignoring further drive-through portals or other path markers, the code not allowing more than 4 in one path ?

There is also another AI running on track-1, ending on track-2.

If the drive-through function is not one of their options then why change their speed option from 0mph to 1mph to let services drive through them after having been pathed to them, the same also applying to intermittent Sidings markers ?

I also use them to path a player service to a specific location and after having passed a drive-through portal there it's driver can go anywhere he likes, providing that there are Manual switches in the loco's path !

I think that it is high time that Adam explains how these portals and other markers are supposed to be used, if he knows how all their functions are supposed to work and has tested that they do in fact work, that is !

O t t o

[OwainGlyndwr]

Otto even Jim is trying to tell you that PORTALS are not meant to be placed in the middle of routes, but only as entry and exit points.

What you are doing or trying to do, is completely unrealistic.

[OTTODAD]

Otto even Jim is trying to tell you that PORTALS are not meant to be placed in the middle of routes, but only as entry and exit points.

Why don't you run these test routes and find out what portals can be used for in all scenarios.

A "Portal", as the name suggests, is something you can go through unless it is bricked up ! ;)

If they are "Start" or "End" markers then they should be called that and in the case of the former have an option for spawning more than one AI service !

My main use for them is that using their drive through version I can force the path plotter to go to one and from there on to another and so on. The same can be achieved with "Siding" markers.

O t t o

[OwainGlyndwr]

Otto, don't try an teach your granny to suck eggs. Portals are ONLY for placing at entry and exit points on routes.

As someone that is used to using them in TRS, i don't need to be told what they are for or what they do.

RSDL or Kuju obviously blagged the idea from Trainz, but failed to implement the functionality or flexibility that Portals have in Trainz.

They may be new to most MSTS users, but have been around in Auran`s trainsim for a few years.

If you look up the definition of Portal, it will say much as this does................

Portal is a term, generally synonymous with gateway

[OTTODAD]

Hi Granny !

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3493&stc=1&d=1209249488

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3492&stc=1&d=1209249488

If "Portals" are used for starting and ending services paths only, then what has the above got to do with problems for RS scenario services Entering them ?

O t t o

[sniper297]

It's obviously gonna take dynamite. :eek: What the grumpy Welshman (who must be older than Methusela if he's YOUR Granny :D ) and I have been trying to pound in is that altho it's POSSIBLE to use portals instead of destination markers for STOP AT, that's not what they're designed for.

"Fixed a bug where trains entering a portal", as in reaching the end of the path, entering a portal and leaving the 3D world. "Fixed a bug where an AI with a physics model entered into a portal", as in the AI was added to the portal and the physics model remained in the 3D world instead of going into the portal along with it.

What you're dealing with here are four objects - destination markers which have ONLY that function and no others, siding markers that have the additional function of the potential for dropping off cars in instructions, platform markers which have the potential of passenger pickup instructions, and then the portals, which have whole extra subroutines for inserting and removing AI trains from the world. Use a portal instead of a destination marker and create the potential for confusing the program, which EXPECTS the portal to be the final destination and EXPECTS to remove the train from the world, and gets the hiccups when it's used for STOP AT instead with something else to follow. Think of the portals as "final destination" markers instead of alternative destination markers, they will work SOMETIMES as STOP AT destination "waypoints" because they include the same type of "destination" subroutine as the other three - but they're designed for a different purpose, which is why they screw up so often when you use them in a way they were never intended to be used. I completely understand your confusion, at first I thought that's what they were for too, use as guidance markers to plot the paths, but that's actually the purpose of the destination markers.

[Capt_Scarlet]

Hi Granny !

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3493&stc=1&d=1209249488

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3492&stc=1&d=1209249488

If "Portals" are used for starting and ending services paths only, then what has the above got to do with problems for RS scenario services Entering them ?

O t t o

Hi Otto,

The quote from Digital Traction relates to the fact that there were a couple of portals that had duplicate names on some of the routes DT had written scenarios for and as such if a AI train in a scenario used one of those portals then it wouldn't work any more because of the change to the portal name.
Also on the York - Newcastle route a destination marker was also renamed due to a typo which also broke a scenario if a AI or player train used it as a intermediate or final destination.

"Fixed a bug where an AI with a physics model entered into a portal" - means as Jim said that when the trains entered the portal part of the AI train was visually was left behind. This would affect any other AI train following as in effect the line would be blocked by a train which could cause AI collisions

"Fixed a bug where trains entering a portal would cause the trailing signal to stay red" - Means that because the signal before the portal wouldn't clear once the AI train had disappeared off the route and therefore any other AI train wanting to use that portal would be held at that signal thus blocking it's access.
This also would have the consequence of causing the stalled AI bug which should be fixed in the next patch which is going into the testing phase very soon ( according to RSderek ).

How do those bug fixes relate to your use of the portals ? - They don't, as they are only fixes to allow the correct functioning of the removal of AI trains off the route so other AI trains could follow and stop some of the problems with AI collisions that these bugs caused.

Can a portal be a destination ? - Yes, but only in the context of their intended purpose which is to remove a AI train from the world.

Where should they be placed in the world ? - Only at the end of a line preferably out of the line of sight of the Player train.

Why is this so? - It is best done that way because its purpose is to simulate more realistically the movements of a railway, to get around the magically disappearing AI trains MSTS has and to lower the computational load on the game engine of AI trains not needed any more.

But the game lets me do it ! - Yes while what you have been doing is allowed, it doesn't mean you should use them that way . As you have seen, using them in the way you have does have unintended consequences.

The pathing engine is broken ! While the pathing engine has it's problems this isn't one of them. The portal is a special world object that has two purposes the removal and or the production of AI trains. The markers are there to be guide and or force the pathing engine to take the correct path between portals or from A to B etc ( hopefully ). Otherwise the Portal should be called a Portal Marker !

While trying to find out the what the game can do and it's limitations is a worthy cause, on this you are fighting a losing battle as you are creating the problems you are reporting by continuing to use the portals in the way you have.

I hope this helps you in your understanding of portals and when to use them.

John

Edit- As a side note as Mike says TRS2004 etc has had portals for a number of years and they are far more flexible in there operation ( though a lot of that came from the community latter on ) but operated differently in that a train going near them would be grabbed by the portal and consummed by it ( they were visually displayed as long tunnels ). Because Trs has a scripting language it is a very powerful platform that can be made to do a lot more than MSTS or RS though that doesn't necessarily make it better or worse.

[OwainGlyndwr]

What John says above and i rest my case, Otto.

[OTTODAD]

I hope this helps you in your understanding of portals and when to use them.

Yes, that helps, John, there being no mentioning of how to create paths with waypoints for standard scenario player nor AI services in any of the RS documentation, other than short examples of how to create simple scenario and AI paths.

As I have said in my opening post, I am assuming that this is what Portals can be used for and could find answers only by trying various options.

Letting a standard scenario service create a default path to a path end marker, it plots it according to what it thinks is best, which may not be the path I want it to take.

Looking at other standard scenarios, it would appear that Platform and Sidings markers are being used to create Waypoints.

So now I am using Siding markers as intermittent waypoints, making the services paths plotter change to tracks I want them to drive on, but find that 4 of them seems to be the maximum allowed in any path ?

Also noticed that they snap to the tracks the Portals do not.

As stated in the manuals, a Portal needs to be used as the final destination in an AI driver pull-out to make the AI disappear. It's path's drive-through Sidings markers should be set to 15mph to maintain it's speed, 1mph slowing it down to a crawl in the sidings.

I think I got that right now but would appreciate you checking the attached and let me know if I have not !

Don't want to start on my Cajon freight switching scenario otherwise.

Thanks, O t t o.

[OwainGlyndwr]

It`s only taken you 6 months to find out what the rest of us already knew, hahahahaahahaha.

[OTTODAD]

What you're dealing with here are four objects - destination markers which have ONLY that function and no others, siding markers that have the additional function of the potential for dropping off cars in instructions, platform markers which have the potential of passenger pickup instructions.

I completely understand your confusion, at first I thought that's what they were for too, use as guidance markers to plot the paths, but that's actually the purpose of the destination markers.

Yes, we were talking about using Portals for pathing to waypoints before, but could be that Mark-1 has changed some of their functionality ?

and then the portals, which have whole extra subroutines for inserting and removing AI trains from the world.

Have you or anybody else managed to spawn more than one AI from a Portal, at varying intervals, always the same service or others too ?

I noticed how you did it in the US-PON, using the Freeroam Scenario only method of placing one somewhere and let it run at it's set starting time.

I though of creating AI services yards in a Freeroam scenario and then starting indidual ones from them, but have not yet tested how their pathing would work. Can I assign a different one to each train or will they have to use the same path ?

Will have a go at testing that in one of the US-PON Freeroam scenarios where there is space for lets say a 5 tracks siding next to your dedicated for AI tracks.

I am trying to create a Cajon freight switching route, basically using an existing Standard Scenario route which already has end-to-end AI services running and then replace it's player service with a new one, which after starting passes a Siding marker turns it into a Freeroam service which can then drive on all tracks with Manual switches, but can not enter AI services tracks via Automatic switches.

The only downside of doing that seems to be not being able to switch to other services and drive them.

Pity that RSDL abolished the Freeroam Scenarios programmable AI option.

O t t o

[Capt_Scarlet]

Otto, what route is that test scenario made for ?

John

[OTTODAD]

Otto, what route is that test scenario made for ?

Just did another test in a new Freeroam scenario for it and this time had 5 AI locos starting from different tracks at 1 minute intervals, all joining the same track and ending at the same end Portal on another track and all ran one after the other. ;)

They could of course start on the same track, but longer AI trains would look better being placed in a specific for them yard.

Trying to give them different destinations did not work, the second AI starting having a different destination path and setting it while the first one was still on it, the first AI set to diverge from their common path derailed ! :o

Starting the second AI towards another portal after the first one had left their common path and disappeared at it's portal also derailed, a diverging switch still being set for the previous one, the second AI path disagreed with.

Good enough for running multiple AI trains in Freeroam scenarios ! ;)

It's a new stand-alone route with 2 scenarios, not interfering with other routes in your RS, being installed by the unzipped RouteSetup.exe from Mike Simpson.

O t t o

[Capt_Scarlet]

Hi Otto,

From what I saw you had then set up correctly though in both scenarios you had the service type set to "special". In the scenarios you can have the trains going to a different portal etc if you set the service type to anything other than "special". Thats why the AI train derailed or left it's path as the train starting after it had locked the path. Here is a quote from the manual -

Don’t assign AI trains the Service Class “Special” as this will give the AI train running priority over the player and could result in the player sitting at red lights. I would add to that by saying that it can also affect other AI trains as well.

John

[OTTODAD]

From what I saw you had then set up correctly though in both scenarios you had the service type set to "special". In the scenarios you can have the trains going to a different portal etc if you set the service type to anything other than "special". Thats why the AI train derailed or left it's path as the train starting after it had locked the path.

I changed all the 5 AI services to "Standard Freight" and the second AI, having another end portal and starting while the first one had not diverted to it's end portal still derailed the first one.

I think I shall be happy to have more than one different Freeroam AI running on the same tracks, as long as they all share the same end portal !

B.t.w., I have fixed the Standard Scenario option, but still can not make the player divert to it's path end Sidings marker, you can download from my "Edited" post above.

Care to check that one out ?

Thanks, O t t o.

[Capt_Scarlet]

I changed all the 5 AI services to "Standard Freight" and the second AI, having another end portal and starting while the first one had not diverted to it's end portal still derailed the first one.

I think I shall be happy to have more than one different Freeroam AI running on the same tracks, as long as they all share the same end portal !

B.t.w., I have fixed the Standard Scenario option, but still can not make the player divert to it's path end Sidings marker, you can download from my "Edited" post above.

Care to check that one out ?

Thanks, O t t o.

I duplicated what you said in the free roam, but I would add the comment that in reality you wouldn't have them leaving at that time interval and the track not being signalled might have an affect.
I was able to get the first one to its portal by making it a express freight but the 3rd ai affected the 2nd ai ( I still had set the others up as standard freight alternating to portal 1 and 2 ).

In the standard scenario I think you are forgetting that the player train's route is determined by the player when you have manual switches. It is (I believe) a coincidence that the default path happened to follow the path you wanted.

I tested that by deleting the stop at instruction for siding 1 ( and I also deleted them all and re did the path to just siding 2 and 3 ) When I did that the path was still via siding 1 ( which just happens to be the way the switches are set ).

John

[OTTODAD]

Thanks, John !

Just confirms that I can not do in RS Standard scenarios what I can do in MSTS activities, pathing a player train to where I want it go and what route to take on the way, using Manual switches so that it can leave it's path anywhere and create AI traffic which can be run from any location, using alternative service consists and have them run at pre-determined intervals, sharing player paths and again go where I want them to go and what route to take, etc.

Creating a busy passenger commuter route with frequent AI services running all the way and all the time, stopping at certain stations, will be impossible to achieve I think.

I am worn out trying to do similar in RS and shall give it a rest now.

Freeroaming á la US-PON will have to do. ;)

O t t o

[sniper297]

"It`s only taken you 6 months to find out what the rest of us already knew, hahahahaahahaha."

Only took me a couple months to figure out Otto is (1) an old man, and (2) not a native English speaker, apparently you still haven't figured that out yet. :rolleyes: And if you've known all about it for six months you must be clarvoyant, since the dev tools with the scenario editor didn't come out right away, and weren't finished when they DID come out, second version has only been around for two months, not six. Need to work on patience, Mike, you're gonna get ulcers if you let it get to you every time you gotta repeat something.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3511&stc=1&d=1209316570

Otto,

"Have you or anybody else managed to spawn more than one AI from a Portal, at varying intervals, always the same service or others too ?"

Yep, look at the south portal;

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=3512&stc=1&d=1209316578

Trick is the signals, to create a block for the AI trains to spawn into which is clear of other traffic. Most common stumbling block with using portals to "spawn" AI trains is they're "moving" from an "off world storage area" thru the portal into the world, an AI train won't go thru a red signal, and if there are any other trains between the portal and the next signal on the line (which is anywhere on the route if there are no signals) then it has a spaz attack. Problem is conflict of interest, the portal wants to shove the AI train into the 3D world on schedule, the AI train doesn't want to enter an occupied block, without an isolation signal those two subroutines start fighting each other, scenario failed to load.


"I noticed how you did it in the US-PON, using the Freeroam Scenario only method of placing one somewhere and let it run at it's set starting time."

MSTS I had the traffic pattern starting a few hours before the activity start time, so wherever the player started on the route there was already at least one AI train nearby, so he didn't have to drive around an empty route for the first couple hours. Railsim don't allow AI services to start before the scenario start time, so rather than having the end of the AI route empty for the first hour, I placed "primers" about 10 minutes apart on the path so they're already enroute when the scenario starts. Only necessary to do those once, since the services spawning from the starting portal continue the pattern 10 minutes apart until it runs out of services. Again, signals are the key, like MSTS the way to get AI trains to behave is proper signal spacing. Which takes a bot of trial and error to figure out!

So that's all there is to that trick, either add a signal between the starting portal and the mainline or start them on separate tracks. I haven't experimented yet with alternate paths, hard enough to get the player interaction working. This one;

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=269480

Describes how to set it up.

John, the "pathing engine" is the biggest PITA in the whole mess;

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=268384

For me to continue with this, mark 2 needs to fix that somehow, and the whole business with the manual switches getting locked hours ahead of the AI service regardless of priority setting. The scenario tools are NOT a finished product, plain and simple, because there are too many things it won't allow you to do and what it WILL allow you to do is too clumsy.

[OTTODAD]

Thanks, Jim !

I think I shall let you do the hard work and will stick to hacking routes which is more fun than driving in them, which gets boring after a while ! ;)

Take care, O t t o.

[OwainGlyndwr]

6 months was a figure of speach and english is not my first language either.

As for ulcers, how do you know i haven't got them already, or worse.

Most people do their learning in private, but you and otto have to spread it over a whole forum.

I haven't learnt one thing from reading either of your posts. It`s the same old info regurgitated add nauseum. With otto in particular creating problems where they do not exist in the first place.

[westerngy]

The inroad squabling stops here and now.