Kariban wrote:Nah, there's no difference between a 3rd-rail and an overhead; go put some of your 3rd-rail stock on wcml. Lacking a big 3rd-rail route atm I tend to use that for testing!
I've thought of panto height too, and you could just attach the panto to your own control & script the animation. The problem comes with detecting the wire height, which you can't do. Real neutral sections are a no-no, they confuse the AI; I guess you could put a signal down to add them as a new type of signal block so the AI just ignores them.
I don't know why Clapham doesn't work, I just trust the routebuilder who tried it & told me
I see, well I'm guessing that should need looking at, just not prototypical enough for me... 3rd rail stock shouldn't run on a line that doesn't actually have a 3rd rail
Re the panto height, I wasn't thinking along the lines of having the train detect the height, more a case of being able to set it in the cab of the 373 (it needs to be done a couple of times on the run from Paris, on entry to the LGV Nord and either side of the chunnel). Scenario creators could then, possibly, use a trigger to throw an error if the panto isn't at the right height. I'm guessing the power can be cut via script?
Shame about the neutral sections, I was kinda hoping these would come in when the WCML was released.
crumplezone wrote:I believe Clapham is due sheer to the amount of cross overs and points and the daunting task of getting that all correct has left many route builders rocking in the corner hugging there knees to the chest and I believe the dispatcher wouldn't be able to handle it, so prototypical operations would be out the window. I also would consider the possiblity of performance drop being another factor, so maybe Clapham will have to be done after the code overhaul due sometime this year, but here is hoping in the long run.
I second the DVT set, we really could do with one being made by now, with the addition of the class 90 now available for railworks use it feels sorely missed at the end of the train and its been somewhat overdue as a item of stock for UK mainline in my opinion.
I'm thinking the Clapham problem may also be down to path control logic (removing the human element from the equation for the moment) - I'm assuming RW uses some form of point-to-point co-ordinates system which the ai uses to plot a route. If that is the case, wouldn't it require that junctions need some form of configurable logic applying to them in the same way that signals have? Points control the flow of traffic in pretty much the same way, albeit in a non-stop and go kind of way. Bringing back the human element, I can see why it would be a difficult junction to create prototypically but for those that have the determination and the will power to create it, then I really do hope the software evolves to a point where it is possible. After all, it is probably one of the most famous junctions in the country (and possibly further afield too).
As for the issue on performance, this has often been a really big bone of contention with me. I have a Quad-SLi PC and Solid State HDDs (at least the drive I have steam and Railworks installed is). Despite all that horse power, I still get noticeable performance issues, such as 100% GPU Load when just sitting at the menu screen (go figure... I'm guessing that the graphics engine is purely 3D based and there's yet to be an implementation of a proper 2D engine - which, if one was implemented, could ease the load when handling things like the UI and make things run so much smoother). If I can drive a route at 100FPS without the machine breaking so much as a sweat, then the menu screen shouldn't cause it a problem (one thing that does annoy the hell out of me though, if I may digress for a moment, is the repeated damned graphic driver crashes, sometimes every 60 seconds - nothing to do with my hardware, or RW for that matter, but more a case of a fight between nVidia and Microsoft and their implementation of 64bit drivers in windows... never have this problem with any other game but for some reason RW just brings it out). I also get that annoying (but endurable) caching judder as the software loads in the next section of the route... having solid state drives has eased it somewhat over SATAII but still it's there. And there's so many other issues I have with performance that I could sit here and go on all night about!
However, with all that said, I know all too well how difficult it can be to optimise code to run smoother and more efficiently on a diverse array of configurations without the danger of adding yet more bulk to the application and greater overhead. I'm confident that one day, if the software hasn't improved, the hardware will have to a point where things run just like they should (course, by then, we'll all have a holodeck and be able to drive for real!
I'm betting the number of SPADs will drop considerably hehe)
Re the DVT, I think this was well missed when they brought out the 86 (they did have them on those didn't they?). As ingenious as the 86 is, in terms of its control and simulation (which I'm betting took some effort), I was kinda hoping there'd be a DVT as a new add-on soon thereafter. Much to my dismay, it didn't happen. I'm sure these will need some ingenious scripting to have them operate as they should with being a kind of a hybrid between a coach and a loco without an engine. Just as I've written that, I had a thought... (uh oh) I'll have to implement a similar script for the APT-P (wonder if the 390 handles it the same way), with both driving units being controllable but not powered... hmmm
Tankski wrote:Cuh, fine! I guess I'll finish mine at some point
. It really was giving me a migrane with some of the shapes involved.
Lol I hear you, imagine how I feel with APT-P's nose and those damned cab windows! Really difficult to get it right, I must have re-constructed the nose some 50 times by now. No matter how many times I do it and I'm happy with it, when I go back to it, something never seems right. I keep saying "Right, that's it, you're staying as you are. If anyone objects, just blame someone else or say it's artistic expression - similar to picasso".
I have to say though, I was quite well versed with 3DSM to start with but after the repeated processes, I'm at the stage now where I can complete a nose in around 30 mins. Now if I can manage to leave the nose as is and not touch it anymore, I'll have the whole thing finished by tea time tomorrow (yeah right
) If you ever need a hand with anything David, just gimme a shout via pm. I'm far from an expert but I know my way around Max well enough to do pretty much anything I need to.
Anyhoo, sorry for the war and peace but, when two or three lines just won't do the job, what else can one do... as my gran used to say "don't keep it to yourself, make sure everyone's sick of hearing it"
Before I sign off (yes I can hear your cheers from here
) I have to ask, is there anyone out there that actually thinks the new Class 70 looks good?! If there is, they definitely need to go to a very well known shop that sells eyesight improving devices... lol
Oh and one final (I think) addition to my list... where's the 59!
Kr, Steve
I kid, I know the shapes are akward with the nose and rounded edges, possible could have a look at railnation's 90 since he included the model files, not saying you need help mind, more to see if he's done anything special with the 90s nose and stuff, since its similar shaping. But of course it could be down to just the DVTs shape being a swine to do anyway.
