Atomic Systems

As others have noted this is not exactly a new idea.

My main concern is your intention to contact FGW about this. That would in my opinion would be a very bad idea. It is far easier for a profit orientated company to say "No" than "yes". Once they are asked they will follow up on it if they say "no".

There have been instances in the past where real world companies have contacted the site owner with complaints over misrepresentation of their operations etc. The Alt-Rail and Alt-Bus forums had to be hidden as a result of this so Google couldn't find them when people were talking about company takeovers and selling of fleet assets.

Leaving aside that issue for the moment - you need to read Jimmy's post about the obstacles he found since I know he did a fair amount of preparation work. The main obstacle appears to be ensuring a supply of scenarios for people to drive. You can't just rely on the scenarios included with the routes since if people are keen they will blow through those in a week or two. How do you envisage a supply of scenarios working if this takes off?

Easilyconfused wrote:As others have noted this is not exactly a new idea.

Leaving aside that issue for the moment - you need to read Jimmy's post about the obstacles he found since I know he did a fair amount of preparation work. The main obstacle appears to be ensuring a supply of scenarios for people to drive. You can't just rely on the scenarios included with the routes since if people are keen they will blow through those in a week or two. How do you envisage a supply of scenarios working if this takes off?

There is a way around the copyright issue, since speaking to FGW they seem to have the idea that this is 'business orientated' or whatever rubbish they can come out with to prevent it, so simple solution is ditch the 'F' so its just 'Great Western Virtual(Virtual)'


Anyway scenarios, obviously all scenarios are going to have to be fresh, as the current ones some people will have already played.

What I was thinking is either setting idea of new scenarios being uploaded, every 2 or 3 weeks to a month. Obviously I can't expect scenarios to be done every week, as people have lives of there own to attend too!

So perhaps a set of say 15 scenarios, every 2 or 3 weeks(possibly a month) 5 - easy, 6- medium, 2 or 3 -hard, 1 or 2 - extreme(difficult hardest to complete),of course Ill speak to some of the excellent scenario creators to see what there views would be on it.

Another option is to have scenarios split into three groups, 1)Professional/Realistic(mimicking real life), 2)Virtual Fun(Scenarios users of the virtual group have made to share with others), 3)Random(Scenarios already uploaded by users, which users could try/reattempt)

Perhaps if possible the moderators on this forum could look into setting up a closed group for which members could join, the idea being that in the following way we know then that drivers, GW123,GW333,GW345 have played scenario S4. (excuse the awful names for drivers & scenario) Otherwise we could have 'Tim Smith' playing a scenario, even though he's not know as a driver for the 'virtual group'

May I first say about previous comments about 'well you can't do multiplayer so what's the point?'
It doesn't detract a lot of people using Virtual Airlines, because I don't fully understand ATC I don't use VATSIM etc where you speak to a real person acting as ATC, though I'd like to one day, I join the other lot that fly offline, IE use the required plane but the default, or and addon AI installed through packs, is seen, basically you see the same as you would when you play FSX normally so to speak, you don't see any real person virtually flying, unless you decide to fly online, which lots do, but there's lots that don't as well.

I fly with FlyUK, and have done with BMI virtual and JetVA (a changed name from Easyjet as said company didn't wan't their name used). Each one has a tracker program which is quite nice, in that anyone else can see where you are on a map, where you're flying to etc, and it automatically logs fuel used, time taken etc. A program like this would be handy, however you could add things where you manually have to log the fuel, take a reading from the F5 display, say 100%, then log another reading at the end, which could be say 90%. You could do awards for efficient driving or something. FlyUK do awards like that, and is added to your profile in a separate awards section, so that if you're not really interested you don't have to look but you get them anyway, and no one complains about it.

You also have to go through ranks, which again no-one complains about, as it's something to work towards. You can't just start flying around in a 747, you have to work up the required flying hours to be able to use it. You could do the same with an FGW virtual TOC, work through the ranks, start at local then work up to the High Speed Service link. Just some idea's.

Where would you want to cover though? We have the Riviera, Bristol - Exeter, Barnstaple branch and Oxford to Paddington routes that I can think of off the top of my head that covers the FGW area, would this be for all FGW area's or just a set section like Oxford - Padd or Exeter to Paignton/Barnstaple branch only?

tubemad wrote: You also have to go through ranks, which again no-one complains about, as it's something to work towards. You can't just start flying around in a 747, you have to work up the required flying hours to be able to use it. You could do the same with an FGW virtual TOC, work through the ranks, start at local then work up to the High Speed Service link. Just some idea's.

Where would you want to cover though? We have the Riviera, Bristol - Exeter, Barnstaple branch and Oxford to Paddington routes that I can think of off the top of my head that covers the FGW area, would this be for all FGW area's or just a set section like Oxford - Padd or Exeter to Paignton/Barnstaple branch only?

Basically all routes which FGW operate, and are currently in the game will be used.


The ranking idea is different for airlines in comparison to train operations, where as pilots would start off with an airline with the smallest commercial jet, for example British Airways give newly passed pilots would start off with an A320, then work there way up. First Great Western would train a driver probably starting on a few local routes for a month or so, then allocate them routes like any other driver. In effect the best drivers don't always operate the high speed routes using HST's or 180s its simply the next available train they can give them in the schedule.


I will shortly be uploading a mock driver schedule which could possibly be used to allocate drivers, depending on what routes they have!

I think there is a HSS link though, I don't think they drive anything. I know there's drivers who can drive HSTs but not 143s say as they aren't signed for it

tubemad wrote:I think there is a HSS link though, I don't think they drive anything. I know there's drivers who can drive HSTs but not 143s say as they aren't signed for it

It all depends on what there assigned to, Urban routes(Thame Valley), High Speed services(Padd to Bristol,Oxford,Wales,Devon & Cornwall), Local services - branchlines, Cardiff to Portsmouth,Exeter, Paignton etc.

Just assume all us (virtual) drivers sign everything

davep wrote:Just assume all us (virtual) drivers sign everything

Well, although im trying to keep it as realistic a possible, lets face it everyone who likes this idea is going to want to try out every aspect of it.



I have now included a driver schedule MOCK as to show how routes, and sets could be allocated

The whole concept has quiet alot going for it. Based on the ideals and structures of Virtual Airlines it could be possible to get up and running.
Regarding progression it could be completed in a Link structure. For example 5 Driver Links and Link 5 (starter Link) having limited Route knowledge and Traction Knowledge. Your scenarios would need to be based on a Drivers Diagram whichreflects the task and workload.
I think the biggest problem is going to be finding an automated reporting system that sends live trip data back to the Main Site. Virtual Airlines all use quiet clever PIREP systems, looks like someone would need to build something for Trains from scratch.

Its a Thumb up from me and hope you can get past the many issues ahead.

yyyyamst wrote:The whole concept has quiet alot going for it. Based on the ideals and structures of Virtual Airlines it could be possible to get up and running.
Regarding progression it could be completed in a Link structure. For example 5 Driver Links and Link 5 (starter Link) having limited Route knowledge and Traction Knowledge. Your scenarios would need to be based on a Drivers Diagram whichreflects the task and workload.
I think the biggest problem is going to be finding an automated reporting system that sends live trip data back to the Main Site. Virtual Airlines all use quiet clever PIREP systems, looks like someone would need to build something for Trains from scratch.

Its a Thumb up from me and hope you can get past the many issues ahead.

Thank you yyyyamst, of course all of these issues can be addressed as we make progress, for the time being we can always use the 'inner engineer' and find solutions to these problems

Ok, so I have given this thread a bit of a break for a few days,

I will now be conducting a poll to see who is actually interested in this idea.

If your interested, just reply with: YES

If you are not interest, just reply with: NO

thank you

POSSIBLY

YES

Sounds fantastic; the first hurdle to get past would of course be confirming whether the driver is actually doing the route.

Would it be possible to set up an external client, much like the ACARS systems used for Virtual Airlines, wherein current data from the sim (possibly x y and z coords, if the sim tracks that) is monitored and sent to a server, which relays that to controllers?

The program could then use that x y and z data to put a marker on a map for the controller so that he/she can track the progress of the train.

All it takes is a bit of open-minded thinking I guess

I haven't read the whole thread as I'm up to my neck in revision for exams, so sorry if this has already been said. I love the idea however.

davep wrote:POSSIBLY

It either has to be a YES, or NO . Any other replies unrelated to the poll are discounted