Interesting point. As you know signalling on a traditional model railway is very weak. One of the best layout's I ever saw was one I say at the international model railway exhibition at Westminster Halls...It was electrified and modern image with full signalling...took about 6 people to operate it..Can't remember what it was called.
To be honest I'm sure most people here are the same of you saddletank. I might start a poll!
Route Building Tutorial
Moderator: Moderators
-
saddletank
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 14183
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: UK East Midlands
Rob
The whole subject of signalling is quite arcane for most railway enthusiasts. For some reason here in the UK it is always, but always the weak point of model railway construction - probably because of the train set origins of most people's modelling experience and beacsue to run an oherwise aceptable model you simply don't ned them, so there is no incentive for people to learn about them.
The finescale trend of the last 30 years has led to more interest in signaling but it's often only limited to the hardware - the cabins and signals posts themselves which modellers are now as keen to get right as their engines.
But again, it's a hardware issue for most and not an operational issue.
The same goes for real train enthusiasts - they concentrate on engines, coaches and wagons, then stations, industries, signalboxes and signals but again it seems to be the hardware that is the interest, not the operation of them.
This is why there have been so few books on signalling as a system until relatively recently.
You tend to find that those model layouts that are beautifully signalled and which work, are those built by ex-railwaymen and even specificaly ex-signalmen.
There is still a sort of mythology that surrounds related subjects like loco headcodes/lamp codes and signal bell codes / block working.
Given this historical apathy to signalling I am not at all surprised that the MSTS signals are a bodge-up. Finding a knowledgeable and willing signal advisor would have been quite hard in the first instance (he'd have had to know old steam working as well as modern working) and secondly incorporating the whole signalling environment into the sim so it works as the prototype should (for every country that Kuju did a route for) would be more than the time/software constraints of the sim allowed, I imagine.
I suspect that no matter how hard you shout there won't be a great deal of improvement to the signalling system in MSTS 2 - Kuju will probably address issues that impinge on the sensible working of basic activities but possibly not mch more.
The whole subject of signalling is quite arcane for most railway enthusiasts. For some reason here in the UK it is always, but always the weak point of model railway construction - probably because of the train set origins of most people's modelling experience and beacsue to run an oherwise aceptable model you simply don't ned them, so there is no incentive for people to learn about them.
The finescale trend of the last 30 years has led to more interest in signaling but it's often only limited to the hardware - the cabins and signals posts themselves which modellers are now as keen to get right as their engines.
But again, it's a hardware issue for most and not an operational issue.
The same goes for real train enthusiasts - they concentrate on engines, coaches and wagons, then stations, industries, signalboxes and signals but again it seems to be the hardware that is the interest, not the operation of them.
This is why there have been so few books on signalling as a system until relatively recently.
You tend to find that those model layouts that are beautifully signalled and which work, are those built by ex-railwaymen and even specificaly ex-signalmen.
There is still a sort of mythology that surrounds related subjects like loco headcodes/lamp codes and signal bell codes / block working.
Given this historical apathy to signalling I am not at all surprised that the MSTS signals are a bodge-up. Finding a knowledgeable and willing signal advisor would have been quite hard in the first instance (he'd have had to know old steam working as well as modern working) and secondly incorporating the whole signalling environment into the sim so it works as the prototype should (for every country that Kuju did a route for) would be more than the time/software constraints of the sim allowed, I imagine.
I suspect that no matter how hard you shout there won't be a great deal of improvement to the signalling system in MSTS 2 - Kuju will probably address issues that impinge on the sensible working of basic activities but possibly not mch more.
Martin
_______________________________________
ED209: "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
_______________________________________
ED209: "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
-
Goingnorth
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 12:00 am
I agree with some of what has been written there and your reasons for writing it. I totally agree, many people are interested in the ‘hardware’ element rather that operations, politics and so on.
I take exception to ‘real railway enthusiasts’ are interested in coaches and locos and everything else comes second. There’s no more real rail enthusiast than me and I find everything fascinating. From railways around the world, to narrow gauge and industrial. Steam, diesel, electric, tramways the lot. The operations and the politics.
Indeed, I think it has been a big mistake within the privatised railway to think that running a railway is like running a bus service. You simply buy a nice train and off you go.
My point was, to have a accurate driving simulation, you need to take ‘what’s on the ground’ into account as much as what’s on the rails. Without that you a merely playing with a big electronic train set.
Now I don’t expect to see Kuju produce every signalling system and operational method around the world in fine detail. But what I would have liked was the ability to produce such a system. - or part way. Some very simple changes to the scripting would have allowed allsorts of extra features to be added.
As a route builder I am faced with a problem with producing a realistic route. I can put plenty of eye candy in there, but operationally it’s a dead duck. It kind of gripes me what people go on about having ‘photo realistic’ graphics and huge polygon counts, when the basic operational details are missing. The whole idea of a simulation is to produce a believable representation of the prototype. Now I wouldn’t expect a (what is whether we like it or not) computer game to replicate £1m industrial simulators. However I think if improvements are to be made then some enhancements to bring in *basic* fundamental principles wouldn’t go a miss.
I’m not talking about block bell signals and the vast array of rules which go into running Absolute block, electric token and track circuit block installations. Or even replicating the dynamic nature of a railway to a high degree. Nor am I referring to every real thing being put into a game. For a start you simply can’t do it, even if money and technology allowed. And secondly it would be damn difficult to produce 3rd party add-ons in a reasonable timescale. I know more than most that MSTS vaguely touches the surface with regard to replication the real thing and I would be silly to expect a virtual prototype railway in a box.
My personal opinion is the current MSTS is pretty dull game play wise. Moreover, you should at least be able to use it without the track monitor...which on many lines is impossible. I think basic improvements to this end will keep the product fresh and far more addictive than simple pretty graphical enhancements.
As for finding signalling expertise there is plenty of it about believe me...I for one could advise on modern and steam-age practices is this country and many others. But at least give a programming language - and help with that programming language - that would assist the keen route builder.
It’s down to individuals. But I think you are very, very wrong to suggest that signalling and ops should be an after thought. Anybody that thinks that a simulation should just be about trains knows very little about real railways in my view.
One the biggest reasons why model railways have very little signalling, is not because of lack of interest, it's because a proper working system is not very easy to do and very expensive. Depending on how it's wired, a large layout can take very many people to operate.
I take exception to ‘real railway enthusiasts’ are interested in coaches and locos and everything else comes second. There’s no more real rail enthusiast than me and I find everything fascinating. From railways around the world, to narrow gauge and industrial. Steam, diesel, electric, tramways the lot. The operations and the politics.
Indeed, I think it has been a big mistake within the privatised railway to think that running a railway is like running a bus service. You simply buy a nice train and off you go.
My point was, to have a accurate driving simulation, you need to take ‘what’s on the ground’ into account as much as what’s on the rails. Without that you a merely playing with a big electronic train set.
Now I don’t expect to see Kuju produce every signalling system and operational method around the world in fine detail. But what I would have liked was the ability to produce such a system. - or part way. Some very simple changes to the scripting would have allowed allsorts of extra features to be added.
As a route builder I am faced with a problem with producing a realistic route. I can put plenty of eye candy in there, but operationally it’s a dead duck. It kind of gripes me what people go on about having ‘photo realistic’ graphics and huge polygon counts, when the basic operational details are missing. The whole idea of a simulation is to produce a believable representation of the prototype. Now I wouldn’t expect a (what is whether we like it or not) computer game to replicate £1m industrial simulators. However I think if improvements are to be made then some enhancements to bring in *basic* fundamental principles wouldn’t go a miss.
I’m not talking about block bell signals and the vast array of rules which go into running Absolute block, electric token and track circuit block installations. Or even replicating the dynamic nature of a railway to a high degree. Nor am I referring to every real thing being put into a game. For a start you simply can’t do it, even if money and technology allowed. And secondly it would be damn difficult to produce 3rd party add-ons in a reasonable timescale. I know more than most that MSTS vaguely touches the surface with regard to replication the real thing and I would be silly to expect a virtual prototype railway in a box.
My personal opinion is the current MSTS is pretty dull game play wise. Moreover, you should at least be able to use it without the track monitor...which on many lines is impossible. I think basic improvements to this end will keep the product fresh and far more addictive than simple pretty graphical enhancements.
As for finding signalling expertise there is plenty of it about believe me...I for one could advise on modern and steam-age practices is this country and many others. But at least give a programming language - and help with that programming language - that would assist the keen route builder.
It’s down to individuals. But I think you are very, very wrong to suggest that signalling and ops should be an after thought. Anybody that thinks that a simulation should just be about trains knows very little about real railways in my view.
One the biggest reasons why model railways have very little signalling, is not because of lack of interest, it's because a proper working system is not very easy to do and very expensive. Depending on how it's wired, a large layout can take very many people to operate.
-
saddletank
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 14183
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: UK East Midlands
I'm not suggesting that they should be an afterthought, I'm saying that they ARE. Your last sentence has described the marketing philosphy of Kuju perfectly and the majority of their customer base as well I expect.goingnorth wrote:But I think you are very, very wrong to suggest that signalling and ops should be an after thought. Anybody that thinks that a simulation should just be about trains knows very little about real railways in my view.
I also don't percieve MSTS as a simulation. I think it has been written and sold as a game. The fact that the physics, and things like the signalling system are so poor classes it in the game genre for me. Remember though that this is Version1. Look how good the flight models and air traffic controls systems of FS2002 are now compared to FS95. If we are patient, Rob...
Seeing how most railway modelers approach the subject of signalling, the proportion of books written about engine classes or old railway routes vs signalling subjects... all this indicates that signalling is a neglected subject.
Reading how you describe yourself I would say that you are not an average enthusiast and that your interest in and knowledge of signalling is exceptional, well above the norm. How Kuju approached the subject is evidence enough of what they thought their customer base would want. There just does not seem to be THAT great an interest in the details of signalling workings for Kuju to justify writing the code to allow it.
ALL computer games these days are graphics driven, especially now that the console market has outgrown the PC market and sadly MSTS 2 will see graphics improvements first and foremost. While there probably will be signalling bug fixes or improvements in MSTS 2s physics I don't think you should hold your breath for a new improved system that allows very much more than what you have now. Of course if we do get a leap forward in signalling I'll be delighted, and I'm longing to be proved wrong in my guesses about the next release...
Martin
_______________________________________
ED209: "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
_______________________________________
ED209: "Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
-
Goingnorth
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 12:00 am
http://forums.atomic-systems.com/viewto ... ght=msts+2
Going back a couple of months or so we had a poll. Better Graphics was voted for by 2 people. Signalling and train control came out behind better editors - which I must admit are pretty dire.
I agree, I classify MSTS at a game too. The physics are pretty dodgy in areas and other bit's just don't meet the mark.
I think the area that graphics will improve (in the next version) is lighting and weather effects. You may even get some sort of volumetric lighting. The models themselves will be fairly similar in terms of poly count. You will probably get 3d cabs - we will have to wait.
The biggest change will be the editors...I would expect a completely new set provided in a 'pro' version of the package. I would guess the RE will be spline based and maybe have a 2d element.
In terms of activities I would expect them to be greatly enhanced, with passengers, leaf fall, trespass, obstruction, engineering work and other detail to going in. I would also suspect it will be possible for a player to hop between one train and another.
Signal scripting I would guess will be vastly improved. And some sort of activity scripting too...a la Trainz. I would be also willing to bet some sort of internet/multiplayer option will be added.
The key upgrades are likely to be:
Editors
Graphics and lighting
Signalling and train control/internet
That's my guess. We will both have to wait and see.
Yes I am pretty keen on signalling/ops, but I like lots of other things too. For me the trains are an element of the package. Having been in many real driving cabs MSTS doesn't stand up incredibly well, in terms of a driving experience.
Many real pilots use FS2002 as a training tool. As a training tool MSTS is next to useless. Very few real drivers are impressed by it, seeing it as a game rather than a simulation as you have stated.
It depends what you want. Trainz is a competitor to MSTS, but serves as a virtual model railway and many of the people that use it like to built layouts rather than run stuff. MSTS is supposed to be a simulation. Kuju/MS obviously have a marketing plan. If they see the product, to use their catch phrase 'as real as it gets' the signalling element will have to be upgraded as it's the biggest, most central thing to driving a real train.
We will have to wait and see.
Going back a couple of months or so we had a poll. Better Graphics was voted for by 2 people. Signalling and train control came out behind better editors - which I must admit are pretty dire.
I agree, I classify MSTS at a game too. The physics are pretty dodgy in areas and other bit's just don't meet the mark.
I think the area that graphics will improve (in the next version) is lighting and weather effects. You may even get some sort of volumetric lighting. The models themselves will be fairly similar in terms of poly count. You will probably get 3d cabs - we will have to wait.
The biggest change will be the editors...I would expect a completely new set provided in a 'pro' version of the package. I would guess the RE will be spline based and maybe have a 2d element.
In terms of activities I would expect them to be greatly enhanced, with passengers, leaf fall, trespass, obstruction, engineering work and other detail to going in. I would also suspect it will be possible for a player to hop between one train and another.
Signal scripting I would guess will be vastly improved. And some sort of activity scripting too...a la Trainz. I would be also willing to bet some sort of internet/multiplayer option will be added.
The key upgrades are likely to be:
Editors
Graphics and lighting
Signalling and train control/internet
That's my guess. We will both have to wait and see.
Yes I am pretty keen on signalling/ops, but I like lots of other things too. For me the trains are an element of the package. Having been in many real driving cabs MSTS doesn't stand up incredibly well, in terms of a driving experience.
Many real pilots use FS2002 as a training tool. As a training tool MSTS is next to useless. Very few real drivers are impressed by it, seeing it as a game rather than a simulation as you have stated.
It depends what you want. Trainz is a competitor to MSTS, but serves as a virtual model railway and many of the people that use it like to built layouts rather than run stuff. MSTS is supposed to be a simulation. Kuju/MS obviously have a marketing plan. If they see the product, to use their catch phrase 'as real as it gets' the signalling element will have to be upgraded as it's the biggest, most central thing to driving a real train.
We will have to wait and see.