Atomic Systems

I haven't read everyone else's posts but I thought I'd share my thoughts. I think its a good idea, but I don't think its a good time to do it just yet. It would probably be more suitable when/if the multiplayer system is activated.

Whilst I think its a good idea, I don't think now is the right time.

jp4712 wrote:But in real life, whacking the power to 100% from a standing start would earn you a stern warning at the very least

Been there done that, full power starts in the real world, are VERY rare.

What I would like to see is good marks for braking, most real drivers use about 3 applications to stop (in the right place) from speed, so you could have points knocked off for using say 6 applications.

Glyn

NeutronIC wrote:Yes, it almost seems to me that to make it nicely generic and extensible, there need to be hooks in the engines themselves to essentially be able to tell the scoring system if the unit is being driven well or not since engines are not alike and it might not be practical or possible to try and lump good and bad driving practices for all engines in to one definition (or one per type, i.e. diesel, steam etc).

It is the need for these hooks which makes me sound a bit negative in my attempts to be constructive. In a bright future, where control of manifold exhausts and outside animations is possible from within engine scripts, it will only take few more system calls to implement complex evaluations for each engine, like the maximum amount of pressure drop without causing excessive boiler wear.

In the short run, I would be glad enough to let engine and signal scripts write something into the evaluation log (the one that is already there), implement basic speed monitoring alone.

NeutronIC wrote:It almost needs some kind of scenario registration system, where the scenario is "signed" and versioned, and then you can run that exact scenario and be scored equally against it - but if you have changed any stock or anything then you're using a different version of the scenario... of course, what do you do then about someone who changes the engine file of a stock item in order to make it accelerate mega fast and stop on a dime, for example, or tighten up couplings so that freight wagons can't bounce around. It almost implies that not only does the scenario need to be signed and versioned, but all the stock it uses must be too - which then brings other problems - changing *any* aspect could alter that version, so replacing the sounds or putting a nicer texture on it. It also could give you serious conflicts such as scenario A needs loco A at revision 1, but scenario B needs loco A at revision 2, and then what exactly *is* revision 1 versus 2? i.e. revision 1 is as shipped, revision 2 on my machine is where i changed the textures, revision 2 on johns machine is where he installed some new sounds, though I guess the signature would say if it's actually the right or wrong one you wouldn't know how to *get* that one... which really starts pointing to the fact that it must all be seriously tightly controlled - making 3rd party scenario submission for this rather more difficult, and even more difficult for locos - unless the whole thing is distributed entirely by some central resource that manages the signatures and versioning so that you can do this...

So it's not impossible for it to support non-default assets, but I suspect it would start to eliminate hosting sites like this one from hosting assets that could participate in it.

I think the way to go would be to have a new, top-secret, hack-proof file format to store the MD5 checksums of all the related files, and of course, their names (root blueprint, provider, product). Each registered scenario would come with such a file and a guide to getting the required assets. The checksums would, of course, cover each of the many files of an engine, ensuring that you did not hack anything, including the Lua script which implements the evaluation of your driving.

Then, there would be no versioning mess, you either follow the retrieval guide or you are out.

I believe that the problem with improved versions of engines is not so big. I think that there is one group who wants to master driving and another one who wants to master tweaks of their engines. Widespread replacement sounds could be a problem, but other than that, I believe that there are drivers and tweakers and builders living in their own worlds.

One thing about the faking occurred to me: You could play in online mode and send a message of where you are in the game every few seconds. Then, there would be no danger of someone making up the results file. The message would include a current assessment produced in the engine scripts.

It could be a good idea..but there are still too many basic problems to solve before spending time and energy on adding things to this sim.
Get your priorities right..: get the basics sorted completely first..please.

I have somewhat mixed feelings on this. My initial reaction was "this is a simulator, not a game" whcih I still believe (hope) to be true however I think there is some potential in the idea.

Personally, rather that the approach that has been suggested, I'd like to see the scenario system overhauled in the UI first, so that you can see which scenarios you have already done (I like the idea of a big green tick next to ones you've completed) and have a look at your performance results for each scenerio (to start with, what we get now at the end of a scenrio, passenger comfort, speeding, SPADs etc.).

However, any scoring system has to be based on real world priorities, i.e. arriving on time, not speeding (and I don't think say speeding less than 5mph over the posted limit should count, with an analog speedometer or steam engine without a speedo you really can't do any better than that I suspect).

But before any of this, a few things need to be fixed otherwise it is doomed to failure. First off, the bugs in the scenrio system need to be sorted once and for all, there are still far too many instances of signals getting stuck on red requiring the old save and re-load trick or a forced (with permission) SPAD.

There also needs to be some influence from realism within the sim. Having the driver's guide open for example should lower your "score" however in order for that to happen there again need to be some changes - we need a "ready to go" indication as at present the only way you can tell when the passengers are on board is to wait for the display to clear and for shunting activities we need a cleaner way of setting points manually (separate out the mini track display from the rest of the drivers guide). I think a big step in this direction would be making the various displays far more flexible, for example have them floating (i.e. you can move them) but also so that you can "un-dock" the driver display tabs, so for example if you are learning a route you can have only the gradient, next signal and speed limit displays, or in a shunting scenrio you can have only the mini track display if you want. In fact I think the inflexibility of the UI in RW is one of its biggest weaknesses, it really wouldn't be that hard to make it properly customisable, but I'm going off on a tangent...

I don't like the idea of linking your score to rewards by way of free scenrios or discounts. That puts a lot of the user base at a disadvantage (those who spend most of their time creating new content rather than driving for example). I do however think linking scenarios is a good idea, for example multi-part scenarios where you have to finish part 1 to a certain standard before you can start part 2.

So, in summary I think it is a good idea, if done properly and if the ground work is done and working properly first.

Finally, and the biggest potential show stopper in my mind, there need to be far more scenarios for this to work, and I don't just mean a couple, more like 30 or 40 per route at a bare minimum (at least 10 each of express passenger, stopping passenger, freight and shunting for example). And for that to work, the scenario interface needs a complete overhaul (the ability to filter scenrios by type for example and, as previously discussed, to see which ones you've done, which ones you've just installed etc.).

Paul

A couple of additional thoughts...

This would probably have to be sold as an add-on pack similar to FS Passengers or Airliner Pilot so it can be run as an option, rather than integrated into the core itself.

So far as tracking progress with addon routes and rolling stock - why not? I hate to keep bringing up Train Driver 3 but that had a selection of routes including a couple I built and the tracking mechanism looks for the same core standards wherever or whatever you're driving. A blowback in a tunnel is going to be lifestyle damaging (!) whether on the default S&D or a third party created route.

The other key as mentioned above is a complete overhaul of the scenario system. You are certainly going to need fixed timetables implemented to track your progress and some sort of random scenario or "mission" generator (I think Airliner Pilot used this) to offer variety. If it could be done, a choice of difficulty level, e.g. random signal checks or TSR's via auto generated scenario specific speed boards (if the core could do that).

bigvern wrote:A couple of additional thoughts...

This would probably have to be sold as an add-on pack similar to FS Passengers or Airliner Pilot so it can be run as an option, rather than integrated into the core itself.

So far as tracking progress with addon routes and rolling stock - why not? I hate to keep bringing up Train Driver 3 but that had a selection of routes including a couple I built and the tracking mechanism looks for the same core standards wherever or whatever you're driving. A blowback in a tunnel is going to be lifestyle damaging (!) whether on the default S&D or a third party created route.

Hi Vern

There is no problem in looking at what has been done with other simulations, indeed, a lot can be learned from the experience of others.

AndiS wrote: I believe that the problem with improved versions of engines is not so big. I think that there is one group who wants to master driving and another one who wants to master tweaks of their engines. Widespread replacement sounds could be a problem, but other than that, I believe that there are drivers and tweakers and builders living in their own worlds.

One thing about the faking occurred to me: You could play in online mode and send a message of where you are in the game every few seconds. Then, there would be no danger of someone making up the results file. The message would include a current assessment produced in the engine scripts.

Seeing this is using Steam, it has built in I think a VAC system to ensure that people are not cheating with hacked files though that tends to be applied when playing other users in multiplayer games where this is important.

John

Pretty much a waste of time i think. If scenarios were graded easy, medium and hard you can progress yourself by picking increasingly harder activities if you want to. Im not one of the "Im the best" crowd.

Good idea,bad timing - wouldn't this take lots of programming & altering /implementing new code,that could have been spent fixing major bugs,I do believe Derek when he says it won't hamper ongoing fixes.
If only we had some assurance as to what bugs were getting looked at right now and what priority they hold.Surely fixing the major issues would pull more users than some Scoring & Career mode,better fix the signaling the amount of times you have to ask for permission to bypass those red signals,everyone will end up with a minus score.

Get the basics right first,then maybe Career mode will be fun.

Hello again,

I'd like to apologise to anyone I offended with my previous post. I used a few adult words and got a (perfectly fair) warning from the mods.

I got a bit angry in my desire that RS.com try to concentrate on the problems that you see cropping up here time and time again, rather than an achievement system.

Once again, I apologise for any offence caused. If I feel the need to curse again, I'll use this handy icon :bad-words: instead.

Best regards,

Shad.

This feature could be made into quite a reasonable addition, but again, you have to return to some of the problems RW can have like "not recognising you are in/at the platform"!!

I am not so much interested in competition. Normally I have a short look at my scores, but it does not mean to much to me. Violating seed limits is clear, bur exceeding passenger comfort levels???? Its doesn't mean anything to me. A system should give feedback immediately as a choice (kind of learning mode) and offences should be clearly documented.

Personally I think there are more possibilities to increase realism. For instance, in reality the engineer would receive information about train length and train weight before each trip. It would be nice to have and see the effects on braking.

This all does not really have my priority. I would like to see an more realistic German signalling system and better physics (I am not an engineer but the working of dynamic breaks seem not very realistic. First it does not have any effect and the you speed drops very fast. Maybe I do not understand it properly, but then I would like better instructions).

It's a well know trait of RS.com

They always put the cart before the horse.

Less day dreaming about fanciful ideas and a bit more concentration on the nitty gritty, would be most welcome by yours truely.

cheers,
Chris.

Wikkus wrote:

jp4712 wrote:But in real life, whacking the power to 100% from a standing start would earn you a stern warning at the very least

...unless driving a 'tractor', in which case it's de rigeur


Rik.

...but back to topic...

Personally i'm not the slightest bit interested, BUT anything that expands the interest of the sim is A Good Thing to generate more and better content and it's great news that some imagination is being used.

There's a whole host of comments above about fixing the problems that are there (and are now getting a bit old...) and I echo these - lets get them fixed first. If we could get some prior warning before it lands in steam that would also be appreciated. The response to the jubilee and hopefully to the hall sounds from RW and Derek's communication on this have been appreciated.

B