Atomic Systems

How does TS17 handle long terms stability say in passenger shuttle end to end runs that could last over 3-5 hours?

Im a fan of long runs and small traction.. Having decided both the 08 and 03 shunters have a long service life as mainline locomotives

A full run plus return could take hours
I notice most scenarios are around 1 hour? Is this a conserative figure or is there a wider reason?

Loving these engines being mainliners dream come true really

Overland4432 wrote:I notice most scenarios are around 1 hour? Is this a conserative figure or is there a wider reason?

Because they feature a particular trip...there are many shuttle type scenarios about though, admittedly using 'sensible' traction rather than shunters!

The duration has never been seen as a factor with regards to stability, the limits are usually thought of as being asset density so you should be OK---have you a particular route/trip in mind?

I would just add save progress in the scenario periodically, rather sad if you are near the end and something untoward happens. On long scenarios I save when each station stop is made, or every other if they are close together, or part way through long sections.

Thanks I appreciate the replies.. definitely need to start making scenarios.. on the Quick Drive I'm doing with 03 "Hellfire" I got to a station called Frosterly, she was routed onto the opposite line and since the line was controlled by a signal box I had no way of seemingly changing it.. having reached 3 stations tonight after work it was a grand run until this happened..

odd you are using a shunter to do a passenger trip,but hay ho,would'nt fancy doing a 3-5 hrs run in a class 08 or 03 by the end you would be either deaf or would have handing your notice (lol).

Scenarios tend to be (relatively) short because few of us have the time to spend an entire shift playing trains! Donner Pass did come with a 4-hour scenario, but I wonder how many people have played it to the bitter end?

Worth noting that resuming saved games is not 100% reliable - sometimes it causes signalling and pathing to get confused (although sometimes it can fix it too!); and some scripted locos don't handle it well.

If you're into Career scenarios, these have to be completed in one go to give you a score, too, to prevent repeated reloading from just before the point you made an error.

I presume the OP is American where the idea of pottering along a mainline at 20 mph for hours is the norm.

In the UK the use of a Shunting loco, which could not provide any heat or Air Cond power to the train would be unacceptable.
The use of a Shunter on a branch freight might be more in line providing there was no other trains.

Peter

Thanks everyone, some very useful information about the saves.. Exactly what I was looking for
Might make the run back a seperate scenario

Im Aussie not american.. We dont putter around in shunters, although CSR cane trains some of them are gardener engined and not too disimilar



https://youtu.be/MaBf61b8VUk

Im just used to long drives from Kerbal Space Program
This being my other haunt

Nothing wrong with giving some 03 mainline time in comparison..im sure its shorter than driving around kerbin in a train

Depends on the number of assets in game, both on the route itseld and in the number of rolling stock. Well detailed routes and trains consume more memory. When the memory load reaches 3.5 GB the game becomes unstable and will crash.

I have a question related to this if I may....

I want to make a "shift" style scenario, say starting at 04:00 am and running multiple different trips say on South London - Brighton before running back to depot to finish at about 10am.

I realise that if I was to create loads of individual AI services I would use up a lot of resources.....

But, Say I was to make multiple runs with the AI services would that help the scenario to run more smoothly? i.e creating less services and using less consists.

tango4262 wrote:But, Say I was to make multiple runs with the AI services would that help the scenario to run more smoothly? i.e creating less services and using less consists.

Theoretically yes, and maybe no ... you'd be loading fewer rolling stock assets, but you could run into pathing problems if you have services conflicting when they 'head back in the other direction', and the load caused by routing those services could equal and negate that saved by reducing the number.
Having services *disappearing* in portals is supposed to alleviate the load and pathing problems somewhat, but I suppose the only way to find out is to test it---and of course you're back to the old problem of scenarios working fine on the authors PC, but failing on others due to different configurations/capabilities.

21C164FighterCommand wrote:When the memory load reaches 3.5 GB the game becomes unstable and will crash.

That really should be...

impartial view wrote:When the memory load reaches 3.5 GB the game may become unstable and could crash---much depends on the individual PC's setup

It's been demonstrated that even with a memory usage of over 3.5GB the game will run, I'll see if I can find the screenshots of the reports generated by diagnostic tools.

3.5 GB of memory usage by TS2017 does appear to GENERALLY be a threshold, but I have found with particular routes/scenario combinations, a failing situation can be resolved with a fresh reboot of the PC - it clears out some of that dross that builds up in the background over time

I also find that manually closing down some other un-needed background applications helps (e.g. Dropbox, OneDrive, mailwasher (my email filter), and Chrome will often leave random traces).

When the memory is "on the edge" I always keep the Windows Task Manager window open on my left monitor, on the Processes tab, click the Memory (Private Working Set) column to put highest usage at the top, and keep an eye on the RailWorks.exe number - when it gets over around 3.2 GB, it's an indication that things are getting tight, and if nothing else an F2 SAVE is called for

Thanks everyone so far, exactly the answers im looking for especially the shift scenarios for a busy little shunter turned passenger engine with light freight in mind at the days end

Hoping for something eventually like a passenger run, uncouple at station after all out, take some milk tankers from one siding to another..(hopefully turning engine around via this.. Then running back to the carriages for the return back home..which is mostly downhill and relaxing

gptech wrote:

tango4262 wrote:But, Say I was to make multiple runs with the AI services would that help the scenario to run more smoothly? i.e creating less services and using less consists.

Theoretically yes, and maybe no ... you'd be loading fewer rolling stock assets, but you could run into pathing problems if you have services conflicting when they 'head back in the other direction', and the load caused by routing those services could equal and negate that saved by reducing the number.
Having services *disappearing* in portals is supposed to alleviate the load and pathing problems somewhat, but I suppose the only way to find out is to test it---and of course you're back to the old problem of scenarios working fine on the authors PC, but failing on others due to different configurations/capabilities.

Thanks, you make a valid point there. I will go ahead and give it a try and report back my findings.

But by the sounds of it the best way to build a scenario is the tried and tested way. As you say using portals.