Atomic Systems

rosschris10 wrote:Ok but the MAIN safety reason of preventing the train passing a signal at danger is not implemented

Then don't pass any signals at danger then.

You drive the real things don't you? Should be a walk in the park.

Well said this is a fantastic implement that no one has yet fixed or achieved

Tom

deltic009 wrote:

rosschris10 wrote:

thetrainfan wrote:One main feature of our forthcoming Class 43 (MTU)/Mk3 Enhancement Pack is ATP (Automatic Train Protection).
Following a number of incidents, this safety system was introduced on the Great Western Main Line (GWML) between London Paddington & Bristol. It monitors signals/speed limits and should the driver not respond correctly to them, intervenes with a brake application. Note that due to limitations of the simulator, we have not been able to simulate the signal monitoring part of the system.
Check out what we have managed to implement though, in the video below!

https://www.facebook.com/armstrongpower ... 298121504/

So the main point for the system is to protect the train from passing a signal??? So they are implementing the system into the "enhancement pack" but can't get it working correctly with the signals. So really it isn't not implemented then or am I missing something

The full explanation from AP not enough to stop you poking your neck out to whine about another of their products then?

It would require custom signal scripts which report back to the APT system, and then routes would require those signals installing in place of the standard ones - every single signal - in order to replicate the behaviour correctly. And all of this would put an additional load on the SIM and the users machine, an additional load that would be entirely irrelevant when not driving the route in an AP enhanced MTU HST - doesn't really sound like a worthwhile trade-off in either the performance hit, nor the massive amount of effort required in the first place.

Thanks for making it easier to understand. I wonder if it is possible if AP could impliment the ATP system to work fully on the required scenarios by making seperate scripts for the scenarios to use the feature just a though

rosschris10 wrote:So the main point for the system is to protect the train from passing a signal??? So they are implementing the system into the "enhancement pack" but can't get it working correctly with the signals. So really it isn't not implemented then or am I missing something

At least they are trying to implement ATP as far as possible, which is more than DTG have ever tried, why complain about every thing, when they enhance products, whats the difference in HST sounds, there is the original Valenta power unit, VP185 and the MTU all sound different hence 3 sound files, would have thought you would know that having an interest in trains.

At the end of the day nobody is forcing you to buy it if you don't like it

not saying anyone is forcing me to buy it and it is my choice. Funny enough your quick to point the finger at me for " why complain about every thing" yet i dont see you saying the same thing to EVERYONE who critices DTG i wonder why that is. I stand by my origional statement MAster Key Simulations will produce a brand new HST and it will be amazing no doubt.

MAster Key Simulations will produce a brand new HST

If it gets finished and gets released, I'm bored reading about how great or rubbish something will be that ends up as vapour ware. Can we just wait and post the rubbish after stuff is out rather than wasting hours of effort arguing about it before? I love the AP packs as I think they enhance the sim. I love most but not all of DTG stuff, its not perfect but at least we have it. If it wasn't for the useful stuff on here I would have stopped reading these forums years ago because of silly tit for tat arguments like these.

rosschris10 wrote: Funny enough your quick to point the finger at me for " why complain about every thing" yet i dont see you saying the same thing to EVERYONE who critices DTG i wonder why that is

That's because most of the traction that DTG produce is poor, class 91, 175,180 all very poor sounds, and class 150/1 was very poor.

rosschris10 wrote:I stand by my origional statement MAster Key Simulations will produce a brand new HST and it will be amazing no doubt.

I am also looking forward to what Master Key Simulations are going to produce, I just find it annoying that when third parties try to improve thing and then people complain about only half doing it, don't forgot that RW is old now and does have limitations, at least AP is pushing the sim to its limits and making great improvement, which is why so many people slate DTG because they don't even try to get anything else out of the sim. DTG answer is to build a new sim, and keeping up with there normal standard even the beta was poor and most things were not even implemented, so looking at the beta and also DTG track record I will not be buying it, as I don't need it, maybe that will change if they can produce a route with all needed traction at the same or better standards as AP/Waggons/Railright.

rosschris10 wrote:not saying anyone is forcing me to buy it and it is my choice. Funny enough your quick to point the finger at me for " why complain about every thing" yet i dont see you saying the same thing to EVERYONE who critices DTG i wonder why that is. I stand by my origional statement MAster Key Simulations will produce a brand new HST and it will be amazing no doubt.

What exactly have Master Key Sim produced so far?? How can you say something will 'no doubt be amazing' when you have nothing to compare it on.

AP have a great track record of improving things and often you have had to eat your words and admit that something is good upon purchasing. So lets not even start mentioning Master Key Sim in the same thread as an AP one or even comparing them to DTG as so far they have produced diddly squat!!

bri2808 wrote:So lets not even start mentioning Master Key Sim in the same thread as an AP one or even comparing them to DTG as so far they have produced diddly squat!!

I'm sure those talented individuals who have come together to form Masterkey will thank you for that vote of confidence in their abilities.

If you read back a bit though, you'll find that the first mention of this 'fly by night' outfit was by one of those members countering rosschris's observations/comments--a little unfair to attribute all you find wrong in this thread to the one guy!

The blurb from AP could be seen as slightly confusing, and perhaps should have been worded differently---

One main feature of our forthcoming Class 43 (MTU)/Mk3 Enhancement Pack is ATP (Automatic Train Protection).
Following a number of incidents, this safety system was introduced on the Great Western Main Line ...

becoming something along the lines of:

One main feature of our forthcoming Class 43 (MTU)/Mk3 Enhancement Pack is a partial implementation of ATP (Automatic Train Protection), for technical reasons the signal monitoring aspect of the system cannot at this moment be implemented in game.....

Matthew; by "It would require custom signal scripts which report back to the APT system, and then routes would require those signals installing in place of the standard ones" are you saying that the inability of AP to implement the signal monitoring part of the system is down to the existing signals not having the right scripting, rather than it being an inherent limitation in the game, and that with the correct signalling in place the system would be fully working? There's a huge difference between the game not being able to support such a feature and a route not having the correct assets and associated scripting.





Following a number of incidents, this safety system was introduced on the Great Western Main Line

gptech wrote:

bri2808 wrote:So lets not even start mentioning Master Key Sim in the same thread as an AP one or even comparing them to DTG as so far they have produced diddly squat!!

I'm sure those talented individuals who have come together to form Masterkey will thank you for that vote of confidence in their abilities.

If you read back a bit though, you'll find that the first mention of this 'fly by night' outfit was by one of those members countering rosschris's observations/comments--a little unfair to attribute all you find wrong in this thread to the one guy!

The blurb from AP could be seen as slightly confusing, and perhaps should have been worded differently---

One main feature of our forthcoming Class 43 (MTU)/Mk3 Enhancement Pack is ATP (Automatic Train Protection).
Following a number of incidents, this safety system was introduced on the Great Western Main Line ...

becoming something along the lines of:

One main feature of our forthcoming Class 43 (MTU)/Mk3 Enhancement Pack is a partial implementation of ATP (Automatic Train Protection), for technical reasons the signal monitoring aspect of the system cannot at this moment be implemented in game.....

Matthew; by "It would require custom signal scripts which report back to the APT system, and then routes would require those signals installing in place of the standard ones" are you saying that the inability of AP to implement the signal monitoring part of the system is down to the existing signals not having the right scripting, rather than it being an inherent limitation in the game, and that with the correct signalling in place the system would be fully working? There's a huge difference between the game not being able to support such a feature and a route not having the correct assets and associated scripting.





Following a number of incidents, this safety system was introduced on the Great Western Main Line

Thank you GPTECH I am glad I am not the only one who thought the way that was worded was misleading or starts of sounding like the full APT is implemented then goes on towards the end it is not. Well masterkey simulations have uploaded a picture of there 460 cab and If the level of detail of that cab goes into there hst I am sold on that hst pack

Funny how people don't want DTG mentioned in AP release threads but are quite happy for the I hope AP makes a sound pack and I'm not buying this until AP makes a pack comments in threads about DTG releases. It works both ways AP fans need to stop bringing AP into DTG threads along with the DTG bashing and then others might not bring DTG into AP threads.

I think it's entirely possible to achieve full TPWS simulation, but as well as the engine scripting required, you need TPWS grids that will send custom signal messages to inform the engine script of the speed restriction approaching an adverse signal, and a signal that not only tells the engine script of its light state, but also that it is a TPWS grid linked signal that will trigger the TPWS to slam the brakes on when SPADing. I think you could do a crude implementation with just the engine script just taking the track speed and next signal state to determine whether it is speeding or SPADing, but you'd have no way of knowing whether the signal is TPWS-linked or not, so you would end up with the same behaviour regardless of signalling system, such as non-TPWS-linked semaphores. Unfortunately I think it's a bit late in the day to go back through all of the popular modern routes from over the years and update the signal scripts.

What would be really great is if all developers and publishers building new signals with new scripts together established a set of standards, including custom TPWS messages, so that this feature could be fully implemented moving forward.

Kind regards,
Chris

Merlin75 wrote:Funny how people don't want DTG mentioned in AP release threads but are quite happy for the I hope AP makes a sound pack and I'm not buying this until AP makes a pack comments in threads about DTG releases. It works both ways AP fans need to stop bringing AP into DTG threads along with the DTG bashing and then others might not bring DTG into AP threads.

Correct the ap fans are only kicking off now because master key simulations who are a group of high level developers who have now gotten together to form an elite team and judging by the screenshots uploaded to there Post above what a level of detail has gone into that cab

The one she moaning about other developers getting mentioned in this thread only have themselfs to blame as they do exctky the same in other developers threads they just don't like it now because the tables have turned on them

Just a thought, but this has been in the file library for years:

HST Update of exhaust/brake/ATP/rear sound [216422 bytes] - hst_drb_a1z.zip File ID: 23719 Date: 12 Apr 2010 - 1894 Downloads

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has incorporated it into a publicly released route.
If Armstrong Powerhouse, or any other developer for that matter, have worked out a way to simulate (at least partially) this system without having to go through the rigmarole of wholesale route editing, then surely that is a good thing for those looking to enhance the realism of their driving experience.

I've never tried it, but does anyone know if the "Brake on overspeed" option in the gameplay menu works?