MSTS X - In Depth User Manual

[rchgck]

If this has been discussed previously I apologize.

Has there been any discussion/indication that X will include an in depth user manual?

The previous version did not have much in the way of direction until the Route Builders Guide was written.

It would be nice to have a place to start with this simulation as opposed to having to reinvent the wheel.

I am not very familiar with flight Sim X. Did it come with any detailed documentation/manual?

I am thinking less along the lines of operating trains, etc and more along the lines of how to create a route and manipulate the software for full potential amd realism in design.

Has anyone else thought about this?

[m10bob]

On the same vein, I sure hope the editor is user friendly, because the last sure as heck wasn't..If my IT department worked as bad as the people who made that schlock editor, I would fire them, one tech per week till it was acceptable..
In past, I have found this measure eliminates all the "Nick Burns" types.

[Vince]

Thanks for bringing this up as IMHO, the lack of documentation was the biggest frustration I had with MSTS.
There were really simple procedures that took us in the new TS community a long frustrating time to figure out.

An example; How do you punch a hole in the terrain texture to run a tunnel?
Sooo simple: F9, Postion cursor, Press the 'V' key. Done!
But that simple procedure was nowhere to be found.

Now that the design team has pretty much got the game engine cranked I respectfully ask that they spend some time on the nuts and bolts and how to twist them in the SDK editors.
And thanks to all the team.

[SurvivorSean]

Very good topic sir!

The biggest thing I want in documentation is how something is intended to be used. There are so many variables and features in MSTS (I'm sure there are even a few we are not aware of) that were guessed at on how to accomplish. The best example would be why optional needs to be checked with a passing path since passing path alone doesn't seem to make any difference in operation.

Easter Eggs are cute for action games, but shouldn't be loaded into a simulation you expect the most out of when you get it.

Thanks

Sean

[kevarc]

Very good topic sir!

The biggest thing I want in documentation is how something is intended to be used. There are so many variables and features in MSTS (I'm sure there are even a few we are not aware of) that were guessed at on how to accomplish. The best example would be why optional needs to be checked with a passing path since passing path alone doesn't seem to make any difference in operation.

Easter Eggs are cute for action games, but shouldn't be loaded into a simulation you expect the most out of when you get it.

Thanks

Sean

But the optional path DOES work, I have no idea why you think it does not.

[Erick_Cantu]

Probably have an SDK just like FSX, which means that not a single soul but me will read it and everyone will be confused about simple things that are outlined in detail in the SDK. It just gives me more chances to insult stupid people, I guess, and that's always fun. I call it 'creative advice and consultation.' I'm here to help, really...

[SurvivorSean]

I did not say optional does not work anywhere in the above message - passing path alone to the best of my knowledge does not work. The point I'm trying to make is why the duplication of setting a passing path, then going through and setting optional. It implies there are 3 different scenerios:

Hard Coded: Obvious the train is going to go there no matter what
Passing Path - Optional Not Set: Does this even work? Will trains take a diverging path?
Passing Path with Optional Set: Yes we know this does work, but there are limits and I've proven that to myself. I don't know how many times I've posted my findings, and I won't waste my time here again. It does work some of the time.

The only point I make with the above is if passing path alone is an option (not to be cofused with setting optional) what is the point. My theory is they were trying to make something work such as using a different track with or without oncoming traffic. But not explaining in a manual what it is for and leaving it up to our theories and testing is not what I want to do in this sim. Documentation often gets left on the back burner when something is behind schedule/budget and it's those that want to get the most out of a program that suffer. Thankfuly many in MSTS community including you and myself have pushed to find out what this is capable of.

Thanks

Sean

[landnrailroader]

Colleagues,

I have FS/X and it comes with barely enough instructions to know how to load it. However
it does have .pdf files etc with more detailed instructions, similar to those found on the
2nd disk of MSTS. I haven't seen a Microsoft product with a decent manual since CS-2
came out some years ago. It (Pacific Theatre) and CS-1 (Europe) which I gave my grandson a few weeks back both had a roughly 100 page manual.

Editor - yes, by all means Microsoft lets not have another buggy item like the one we have
spent the last 7 years or so figuring out. Fortunately there is the Michael Vone book which I have, and any serious route creator probably has, but it should not be necessary to print your own manual from .pdf's or buy another book, which in Vone's case also has to be printed out if like me (age - 70) you prefer the printed page.

The one most dreadful thing about the MSTS RE is it's uncanny ability to corrupt the track or roads database. Then when you attempt a rebuild, you get esoteric errors all over the place that may take hours, days, or even weeks to dissect. In my Coast Div. work in progress, it is impossible to get a rebuild unless a double track 100M piece is left out across a boundary at a certain place, so the last thing before releasing the tracks only version, will be to insert this piece, knowing full well that I cannot rebuild the database with it in place.

landnrailroader

[rchgck]

I myself was envisioning something along the lines of M. Vone's book in regards to a manual for X.

This is probably wishful thinking considering past experiences with other products as mentioned in this post.

It will be interesting to see what is included, how much has to be figured out and or how much information is included pdf's, manuals or otherwise.

The question is, will the new sim bring the base level of knowledge back to 0 or will knowledge, experience, and skill developed in the first MSTS pay dividends with this version?

Either way, I guess we will always have people out there to help us "stupid people" who may have one aspect of the simulator figured out but turn to the community for the gaps in knowledge.

That is, after all, part of what this forum is for. Right?

Whatever plays out, it will be interesting to see what the future holds.

[kevarc]

I did not say optional does not work anywhere in the above message - passing path alone to the best of my knowledge does not work. The point I'm trying to make is why the duplication of setting a passing path, then going through and setting optional. It implies there are 3 different scenerios:

Hard Coded: Obvious the train is going to go there no matter what
Passing Path - Optional Not Set: Does this even work? Will trains take a diverging path?
Passing Path with Optional Set: Yes we know this does work, but there are limits and I've proven that to myself. I don't know how many times I've posted my findings, and I won't waste my time here again. It does work some of the time.

The only point I make with the above is if passing path alone is an option (not to be cofused with setting optional) what is the point. My theory is they were trying to make something work such as using a different track with or without oncoming traffic. But not explaining in a manual what it is for and leaving it up to our theories and testing is not what I want to do in this sim. Documentation often gets left on the back burner when something is behind schedule/budget and it's those that want to get the most out of a program that suffer. Thankfuly many in MSTS community including you and myself have pushed to find out what this is capable of.

Thanks

Sean

I have no idea why you have never got the concept of passing paths. They are very easy to use and relieve an activity designer of having to go through and hard code every meet. You just decide how you want the meets to occur and off you go. You have a problem of over-complicating things.

[SurvivorSean]

Kevin I think you have the problem of over complicating things. Take a look at message 4 again, please I beg you. Where did I say optional paths do not work? I said passing paths alone WITHOUT OPTIONAL does not work. Certain routes will work better than others as far as how much you can push out of extra traffic. But it is quite well known that if you push the envelope too much timing or no timing MSTS will cause issues.

Why do you think people are running into head ons, and red lights that never change? Either their timing is off (and in some cases it doesn't take much), or they hit the G to throw a manual switch somewhere way up the line. Or is it that the activity creators are not as talented as you?

The point (which you certainly have not addressed) is what is the difference between just using passing path or not. As far as I know there is no difference. You must select optional for passing paths to work and is why I mentioned it in the first place.

Thanks

Sean

[kevarc]

You ahve 2 options

1. use them and set the optional path use. This pretty much relieves the designer of screwing around trying to set up meets. Why the requirement that you have to check the box? Beats the hell out of me. It is redundant. But maybe there was something else planned that was never coded. Just look at all the things in pop up menus that are shaded out because they were never finished. The only thing you loose is the time to go through the route and hit the check box for the sections needed. I cannot address what I have no idea of why MS/KUJO did what they did

2. Not use them. Then you get the chance to play it over and over to set meets.

More talented - maybe, maybe not. A better word would be experiance. I have been messing in the AI since I got MSTS. I probably have made every mistake that you can in the AE. But instead of whining and crying, bitching about it, and/or looking for someone to hold my hand, I kept hammering at it until I could kinda/sorta get it to do what I want.

Head ons are because someone starts the AI in the wrong place or the signalling on a route is screwed up. I have yet to see where this is not the cause.

Stand offs - Bad paths? Meets in the worng place? Starting from a Save where you are sitting at a red. If you go through the activity, you can pretty much spot the cause and fix it. That is why you need QUALITY beta testers who will tell you the truth, warts and all and not an butt kisser - they are worthless.

I try to keep it KISS.

Probably 80% of problems people have doing activities is signalling issues in a route. Signal ahead is a huge evil. The school of thought for a long time, before you started messing with MSTS, was to set that value as 5 or 6. This is way to large, 3 works best. M&M was a piece of garbage out the gate. You have trains stopping 5 or 6 sidings away from where they could get to set a decent meet. Changing that value to 3 made a huge difference. The same with Sandpatch. For Sandpatch, put a lot of WB AI traffic in an activity and you will see it really stack up at the top of the hill.

Bin is a boon. You can really set up a lot of fun stuff with it.

[SurvivorSean]

Well said Kevin, and you hit the nail on the head - redundant. Probably unfinished as you mention is my theory too. Still I can imagine that there are a few nuggets still out there that haven't been discovered for those that want to dig further. No thanks from this end.

Though I've only released a few activities myself, I have wrote many activities templates. I too have been creating activities since the beginning of MSTS. Running Activity Generator and Activity Changer on top of this and this number becomes exponential.

Bin has done wonders with activities by making one feature work well and that of course is the waiting points. I remember a time running TD3 simulations on the Conrail Indy 4 route. It was very frustrating because even with delicate timing in the AE you could not get the AI to behave exactly the same way they did in reality through a TD3 session. Once the bin enhancement came along this of course made it much easier to time AI in trial and error until things worked out right. If it wasn't for additions like Bin, Activity Chagner, and Activity Generator I probably never would have came back.

Of course the biggest reason why I haven't released many activities is I get very bored with writing novels I know the outcomes of. The majority find the AE too difficult and would rather run explore mode or other activities. Those who write a few activities don't get much out of it I would imagine. I tried a concept a while back where a group would write activities for each other using the same equipment. Couldn't find much participants in that (more users than activity creators).

Through trial and error I have found that if there are enough nodes in between sidings, passing paths / optional will work consistantly under any timing. What throws this off is when the siding has many nodes (examples are yards or sidings within the siding) that throw off the balance. When this happens the mainline highlight takes off much further down the mainline while the siding highlights try to catch up. This happens quite a bit on the M&M, and I'm noticing this now on the Bala Sub. Intermediate signals between sidings apparently don't throw off nodes either.

Good cookie cutter like sidings with even nodes work perfect under any circumstance. As long as the traffic isn't over capacity and has an outlet at the next siding meets will work on these at any timing. So if you don't have a cookie cutter siding, you need enough nodes (normally industry stubs) between mainline sidings for the optional pathing to catch up. Once the siding path is fully yellow from one end to the other (even if the mainline optional is further down the line) will work.

What will not work is the following - 1) a passing path / optional that isn't completely yellow through the siding 2) a passing path / optional whose mainline counterpart is so far down the mainline that it has already reached the next siding. What ends up happening in that case is traffic will hold off multiple sidings back because the optional path is part of not only the 1st siding, but the mainline and the next siding or more beyond.

Now I realise my method is not conventional, but it does work. The best routes for this method are single track mainlines with even nodes (mainline vs siding) and enough nodes in between sidings to allow the uneven path to catch up to the main. This may sound complicated, and I've probably lost the majority.

All I do with the right route, and the right paths is throw in Activity Changer with realistic traffic levels for the line. Because MSTS isn't perfect at handling over capacity it is not 100% (but will work most of the time with better conditions as mentioned above). To give myself one last failsafe after Activity Changer I run the VCR playback (but move it off screen for about an hour or so after the activity completes). As long as the VCR playback doesn't show traffic at stalemates it's safe to assume the activity will work.

So why bother with all this extra complication? I'm using the equipment I already have on my system (no extra downloads). I run my trains not knowing what to expect with traffic, signals, etc. With the addition of Activity Generator I can add in random switchlists. Once my path templates are complete it takes a matter of a few minutes to generate a new scenerio and a new random experience without the need of beta testing.

Thanks

Sean