Atomic Systems

jamespetts wrote:

Rail Simulator wrote: The train doesn’t stop, you just take it over from the AI and in return the AI takes over your previous train so the network keeps moving.

Does it? I thought that it did in fact stop.

Mike.

Mike10 wrote:Does it? I thought that it did in fact stop.

The controls are reset to full emergency brake, no throttle, reverser neutral. The train will stop unless you adjust the controls quickly enough, but it does not automatically stop.

The one you've just jumped from stops though doesn't it? so the network doesn't in fact keep moving as stated.

Mike.

Mike10 wrote:The one you've just jumped from stops though doesn't it? so the network doesn't in fact keep moving as stated.

Mike.

No, they keep going just fine. I have no idea where the myth that they stop comes from.

So James you want me to defend my position by making suppositions about your suppositions ?
give us a break... the only thing I find wrong about your posts is the definitive statements you make, that are in fact suppositions on your part.. your obvious skill with language is being misused.

In any other forum I could call similar acts trolling...

Not so much of a peep from yourself when you eventually realised the car you were driving didn't in fact have a clutch pedal ? you know exactly what I mean.

If RS are guilty of painting a picture that is whiter than white then you are guilty of, for whatever reason painting a picture that is pitch black. At least they have a reason for doing it ( what is your reason ? to appear to be influential ?)

If I were opposite side of the courtroom and you said " given that bla bla " I would be saying ...Objection M'lud the prosecution is making assumptions.

I am no fanboy I have more than enough problems trying to do something constructive, but then that was always going to be more difficult than being destructive..

You won't take me up on my offer to rid you of your blight ?

Somehow I don't think you will

If I can be bothered I will check all your posts here and do a James E on them and classify them ( the difference being it will be clearly stated as my own opinion of course )

Posts asking for assistance with a problem........ don't hold your breath
Posts saying something was achieved succesfully ........... some chance
Post saying that It can't do this.......... when really they should be James E cant't get it to do this ........ some counting to do there
Posts telling the developers how to do thier job.............
Posts helping someone with a problem.......... don't make me laugh

Which ones do I mark "Critical" ?

Your statement about "take anything the developers say" was (in my opinion ) way out of order.

Sly

Sly,

you evidently cannot differentiate between reasoning, inference and conjecture. I expressly asked you for reasoning for your claim that my conclusions were based on what you term "supposition", not supposition of your own.

As to the rest of the post, you have descended into making personal attacks. The moderator has been informed.

Okay everyone, please let's calm down and keep it polite. Contrary to what I have seen alleged about UKTS on another forum in the last few days it's fine to make criticisms of RS, but as with all contributions comments must be constructive and reasonable - and it goes without saying that we should be polite to each other even when disagreeing.

Paul

I am sure the moderators are watching this closely. my opinion is that they should have stepped in when you went over the mark with your "inferences" about trustworthiness. however they chose not too

The whole point is the inference and conjecture that you have been putting about.

Me, I don't need to defend a position, You on the other hand perhaps would like to produce some hard evidence to substantiate your "Inferences"

Stick to the facts, portray an opinion maybe even ask for something to be considered

But I politeley suggest you make sure that there is a full set of gears in the gearbox first

Sly

Moderators comments noted

Hi all,
I'd just like to add a comment to say that I have often found RSadam's and RSderek's comments on this forum quite off-putting. Some are very short and sharp and convey very little help or information. I particularly dislike their comments suggesting that anything is possible in Rail Sim if only we users would put our minds to it.
I don't doubt that many things not ready made or readily available in Rail Sim are 'possible', but they are only possible if we are prepared to delve into program code or scripts and alter them, amend them, or add to them. It is excellent that the code used in creating Rail Sim is open to this kind of amendment and development, but that is of no help to me personally. Plainly and simply, I am not a computer programmer!
I spend quite a lot of time enjoying creating routes and scenarios purely for my own use, and I am well aware of the limitations of the signalling which doesn't control the trains, a very basic 'fault' in my opinion, and the Dispatcher. This awareness has led me to decide not to spend any extra money on the various add-ons available for Rail Sim. I paid £27 for my copy of the Rail Sim DVD, and I feel I have my money's worth, and that I have not been 'done', but at the same time I do feel that to spend any more would not be a wise investment for me personally.
regards Ted.

Plainly and simply, I am not a computer programmer!

An important message which I think it is vital to get across to the developers programming these titles. Kuju obviously took a bit on board as they scrapped the obscure tangent/angle nomenclature used for gradients and radians for curves in MSTS but still failed to grasp that the average train sim user is not necessarily a "coder". They may have a knowledge of railway engineering and how the various infrastructure goes together in the real world, they understand how to manipulate terrain and the artistic skills to work in a 3D Editor or modelling package - but we don't do code, LUA, XML, scripting or programming. My sum knowledge of programming is writing the startup files on an old MS-DOS boot disc.

A vital lesson for other companies here too - some concerns already being expressed on the MSTS2 forum about whether it might all be too technical.

Hi Ted,

I'm sorry you feel this way about our posts. We are but 2 people answering (as best we can) thousands of posts, threads, emails and pm's and trying to help so many people.
However thank you for the feedback and we will discuss how we can improve.

Many times the posts are kept short to cover as much ground as possible. Others don't hold information for a few reasons;

1 - We don't know. Just because something happens in RS does not mean we know why. If we don't know why then it needs to be looked into and that takes time.
We always try and get back to the users but sometimes it is not in the time frame that they expect.

2 - We are posting in our own time and while we try and get back to as many people as we can we don't feel the need to answer every thing. Some times we post as users of RS and not as members of RSDL. Adam and I are building personal routes, rolling stock and scenery, which I feel gives us just as much right as anyone else to post without having to answer questions and feel like the hobby is work.

We do not mind anyone being critical of RS, as many have stated it is a good way to raise the bar from what we have to what we want.

Vern, I agree with your view. While some love digging into the code, most do or can not.
However we can not go back and change what has been done just make sure RSDL do not repeat that mistake.

regards

Derek

Let me just add that, in my view, the coding issues (non-programmers getting in touch with XML and Lua) come from three distinct reasons, and it is the coincidence of these three that makes things look so bad.

a) KRS is more complex than MSTS. As a consequence, there is more to specify. Of course, you are right in demanding a user interface which is nice to non-programmers, 100% agreed. But we all know that this programme was not too complete before release.

b) Lack of documentation lead to wild speculation and big discussions, which would be defeated by proper first-hand information from the producer. This is getting less with the growing stock of documentation, but still there are many unanswered questions. Non-programmers would never need to worry about them, if a few programmable ( ) members of the community would integrate this knowledge into some tools. But while we keep discussing and asking, XML and Lua seem to be all-important.

c) Salvaging corrupted files is always a difficult undertaking. In MSTS, when the route editor destroyed your work in a fit, the official directive was: Start again from your last backup. Full stop. In KRS, you stand a theoretical choice to edit the XML files. Some times it really works, some times you have to give up. Again, XML-knowledge seems important, but only to undertake the otherwise impossible.

In general, I find it a very challenging task to create a user interface for such a complex thing as a model of a route so that users consider it simple. Of course, there are lots of details to improve in the KRS workflow, but by and large you are certainly right in assuming that MSTS 2 will be just as complex.

However we can not go back and change what has been done just make sure RSDL do not repeat that mistake.

regards

Derek

Derek can you answer this please, will the pathing and signalling problems be resolved by either you or Kuju programers?
If not are we to understand by your statement that "can not go back and change what has been done "that the solving of those issues raised by members of this forum are not possible?

In short is this upgrade mark 2 the final and last fix?

Pete Doré

peterdore wrote:

However we can not go back and change what has been done just make sure RSDL do not repeat that mistake.

regards

Derek

Derek can you answer this please, will the pathing and signalling problems be resolved by either you or Kuju programers?
If not are we to understand by your statement that "can not go back and change what has been done "that the solving of those issues raised by members of this forum are not possible?

In short is this upgrade mark 2 the final and last fix?

Pete Doré

Pete, the quote from Derek is about the complexity of the sim in relation to non techincal users ( as posted by Vern ) and not about the problems with the dispatcher etc. They have already said that there will be a MK3 upgrade and it's main aim is to fix the dispatcher.

John

Thanks for that John, Right thats good to know

So things can only get better then

Pete Doré