Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !

Morning all,Now I really got down to thinking about multiplayer in MSTS2. As much as I would like to have it I can see where there would be issues.In the online gaming world ( Ghost Recon - MOHAA - Battlefield 1942 - Operation Flashpoint - Janes F18 & Falcon4 )Jeez thats about all I play, hmmmmmmm.... I wonder why I have NO free time !!Anyways.With every one of these games there are people who create their own "skins" to have within the game, just as we do with MSTS.Now here's the problemIn order for the people you are playing train-sim online with to see your train, they would require every peice of equipment that all the other enginners are using installed on their hard drive..That could make for a HUGE problem if you were playing online with 6 people who were using 100 + car trainsIn Ghost Recon there is an easy solution. If the other players don't have the different skin , their PC's will use the default skin.NOW ....this works because 99% of the people are skinning over the Exact same 3D model.In MSTS there are so many different models available this waould not work either. So it leads me to believe the followingMSTS2 Multiplayer will either be 1. Non-exsistant
2. Totally unusable - or un-stable
3. You will be limited to using default equipment in multiplayer.Just my opinion from 4 years of online gaming !!Any other thoughts - opinions ?LaterTim Kent
96th_Malice
" Power for You "

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, CPR_Malice_96th, May-14-03, 10:45 AM, (1) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, AlphaMaster, May-14-03, 10:46 AM, (2) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, CPR_Malice_96th, May-14-03, 11:07 AM, (3) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, ryanreeves, May-14-03, 12:08 PM, (4) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, tcain1, May-20-03, 08:10 AM, (16) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, StoneC0ld, May-22-03, 03:12 AM, (20) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, dyvach, May-14-03, 12:57 PM, (5) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, sniper297, May-14-03, 01:14 PM, (6) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, heffed, May-14-03, 06:09 PM, (7) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, Overkill211, May-14-03, 07:37 PM, (8) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, Matt Vince, May-14-03, 07:40 PM, (9) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, ronson, May-14-03, 11:12 PM, (10) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, VRfan, May-15-03, 00:18 AM, (11) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, SD40T_2, May-18-03, 09:24 PM, (12) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, crow357, May-18-03, 09:36 PM, (13) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, Franklin, May-18-03, 09:48 PM, (14) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, SD40T_2, May-18-03, 10:57 PM, (15) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, Pkman, May-20-03, 09:16 AM, (17) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, CPR_Malice_96th, May-20-03, 11:16 AM, (18) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, Pkman, May-20-03, 11:36 AM, (19) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, cityeast, May-23-03, 10:01 AM, (21) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, SD40T_2, May-23-03, 11:42 PM, (22) RE: Multiplayer MSTS 2 = Problem Central !!, cityeast, May-24-03, 03:14 AM, (23)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Sorry maybe I should have stated the obviousIf you dont have the SAME files ( equipment )as EVERYBODY else in a multiplayer game, You CAN'T play !!LaterTim Kent
96th_Malice
" Power for You "

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I DO see the problem there, but if there is multiplayer, I would hope they implement some sort of pre-game lobby so you can download the stock from the other people's pc. Or if they dont do that, you could always tell the people beforehand what stock they will require.

Danny - Pittsburgh
Official YARD DUTY Junkie

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Alright that would presume that the players are going to use equipment that the host has.What if they want to use their own trains ?Now multiply this times 6 Engineers with their own trainsThis leads to ALOT of downloading for EVERY person within one multiplayer session.Which leads me to the next problem. All the files / subfolders will require the EXACT same name........Alot of Train-Sim downloads require you to creat folders for the rolling stock you have downloaded. Just cause I have the same CP Rail SD-90 as you does not mean they have the exact same file name...........which is also an online " NO NO "Just shedding some more light into the world of a possible disastrous Multiplayer MSTS world.Don't get me wrong, I'd love multiplayer, I just don't expect it to be that achievable.LaterTim Kent
96th_Malice
" Power for You "

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-14-03 AT 12:08 PM (EDT)

Well maybe we could do something that i seen years ago in the Flight sim side.
Just group bunches of stock together and call it a multiplayer packThe flightsims had that because if you did not have the airplane that the other one did it would display to you as a cessna. It did not matter what the other person's model really was.That is an idea. I would not think that it would be hard to make a few packs of rolling stock, and engines.Maybe make pacs out of the first 50 or so of the most popular downloads.That is just my ideaWhat does everyone else think.I would like to see that for msts 1 anyway so i could get a nice assortment of rolling stock and stuff.I really like the big packs of box cars and things like thatI know that there might be a problems with all the great authors being grouped into one package. But if we just did it here it should not be too big of a problem.Ryan

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-20-03 AT 08:10 AM (EDT)

Well maybe we could do something that i seen years ago in the Flight sim side.
Just group bunches of stock together and call it a multiplayer pack
The flightsims had that because if you did not have the airplane that the other one did it would display to you as a cessna. It did not matter what the other person's model really was.In earlier versions of Flightsim (I don't know about the current version) it was possible to transmit the image of the plane you were flying! I used to do this at the FLYINs on the compuserve flightsim forums. This was with dialup and not on the net though! You had to make sure the model was setup for multiplayer and that the poly count wasn't too high. If you exceeded it you got the Cessna, else the remote saw what you were flying. One year I flew in the F-117 and the next I flew in a F4U Corsair which the remote site saw the actual image. I know for a fact the remote site didn't have the model, since I made a number of changes to reduce the poly count so it would work, and haven't distributed it yet.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I can't really see that happening, unless each loco/car/etc had an unmodifiable attribute saying that that item can or cannot be shared.What I'm getting at: Joe Blow purchases a really nice addon TGV for a good chunk of change. Such a system without any controls would allow me to download that TGV addon from Joe Blow for free.So, the only way it would be possible would be to have a "payware or freeware" bit so the lobby knows that the item can be shared or not. But, using that strategy, anyone with a hex editor could change that bit and share the payware addon anyway.....Now, what I could see happening.... If Player B does not have boxcar Z installed that Player A is using, then Player B's MSTS2 would generate a substitute ghost car in its place. This ghost car would be a generic shape that can be dynamically generated with a length matching that of the real car on Player A's system. Sure, it may look ugly when you meet an oncoming player's train that has a lot of these generic ghost cars, but it would solve the problem without limiting players to only the default stock or co-ordinating everything to make sure everyone has the same stock....

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-14-03 AT 01:03 PM (EDT)

In order for the people you are playing train-sim online with to see your train, they would require every peice of equipment that all the other enginners are using installed on their hard drive..That could make for a HUGE problem if you were playing online with 6 people who were using 100 + car trains
(..)
Any other thoughts - opinions ?Simple solution -- multiplayer session/scenario is prepared in advance by single person --the dispatcher-- much like a single player activity. The dispatcher gets to pick the route, trains, schedules etc. The session is then made available online on some sort of a server, along with other scenarios prepared by other people.(multiple instances of a session can be created if there's more interested players than available trains to drive) People who like some particular session and want to take part in it can check before joining what rolling stock and other files are required, and download them if necessary. And since they pick sessions which meet their interest, chances are they'll already have the required rolling stock (of some certain company, region or whatever)What if they want to use their own trains ?Well, engineers normally don't get a say about what train they'll drive, do they?They can create their own scenarios involving their favourite trains. If other people find those scenarios interesting, they'll join.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Seems to me the simplest solution would be a set of default consist files, multiplayer1.con, multiplayer2.con, etc. Then you wouldn't have to worry about it, player #7 is driving a C&NW GP9 from his multiplayer22.con file, the network sends the info that player #7 is driving multiplayer22.con to all players, and it shows up as BNSF 2081 on one system, a UP dash 9 on another. That's for activities that start with just the engine, and you'd have to couple up to a train to actually start.
That's where the big problems come in, the loose consist definitions in the .act file. Way around that would be generic trainset folders with generic wag files that would be used as loose consists. Hard part would be updating everyone's route that the string of 40 cars on track 9 in whatever yard is no longer there, because it's been picked up by player 5, and transmitting that info about the changes in player 5's train to all systems on the fly. Lotta stuttering there, especially if you get 3 switchers working in the same yard when two through freights and a passenger pass thru simultaneously!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I remember a racing game I used to play that had multiplayer.If someone had a user built car on their system and you didn't, their car would just show up as a box with a question mark on it.Simple and crude, but it worked. -Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

If you think about it, multiplayer in first-person shooters is simply getting online in a room full of strangers, and interacting with weapons. Add clans into the mix, and it becomes more structured. New models and skins can be used because the clans actually communicate internally (and sometimes with each other).
Now, several "virtual railroads" already exist, who could bring the same kind of structure to the mix. Smaller clans could form as "branch lines"... sorry, couldn't resist.
Just placing a few words in the description could tell people whether or not they should even try joining that game room. Example- "Virtual PRR - Default equipment & Route". They would need more detail than The Zone currently gives, however. I would suggest an in-game browser like UT2003 and MOHAA have. With those little expansion "+" markers that would reveal the required equipment to join that server. Implementation like UT2003 also allows automatic downloading of the required files when you decide to join anyway (a feature I wish EVERY online game had).

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Perhaps it could contain a line in the eng/wag file which relates to what should be displayed to other players if they don't have that unit, something from the default stock. This would have to assume everyone has default stock. A line like this:...
Multiplayer ( prrboxcar3 )
...Assuming PRR Boxcar 3 is one of the default wagons, most likely on Horseshoe...That, or a 'default only' option, works well enough in CFS.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Your forgetting what railroading is like. It would be much like FS2002 or one of the FS's. You interact but you don't see each other much. There wouldn't be like drag racing sessions on twin tracks. You don't spend much time watching other trains. This doesn't mean that interaction wouldn't be cool.Like I had mentioned in another post about Multiplayer. If you have crew on your train you have interaction a plenty. Especially when making setouts and pickups. This however would require something the MSTS currently doesn't have. The ability to move out and about the train. Simular to 'Battlezone II' (I use that as an example of getting in and out of your equipment not that I want guns and weapons on trains). If this was added in the multiplayer thing would have a really good chance. Your brakeman would be in charge of throwing switches and making sure the cars are coupled/uncoupled. Your conductor would be taking care of dispatch or RTC/CTC comms keeping abridged of weather and other conditions effecting the train (sort of a co-pilot if you will). He could be upfront in the cab or if so equiped in the Van/Caboose. You would also have the traditional multiplayer views lets say of oncomming trains or trains in the hole (on sidings). You wouldn't neccessarily have radio comms with them but bells and horns.Because your operating session will be on a road of choice at the beginning you would have equipment assigned to you. This would be layed out before you start say a week in advanced. The route restricts your equipment choices to those that would be on that route.
You would have to keep track the way the do in real life with a road number. Perhaps a name of the user could be displayed in the consist so you would know who it was as you drew closer.There would also be a dispatcher(s) as you move your train and others over the route. This would also need to be a sim of sorts. There is a Train Dispatcher Sim out there. It's not currently online capable but that could change I'm sure. Also there is a route designer for it. If this could be altered to accept MSTS route data and convert it to a form it could use for signals and the like. Virtual Operations could take place without to much work. Most likely MS would write it's own or buy out the software and convert it. I know some of these things are pie in the sky kinda stuff. A lot of ifs to be sure. However it's not impossible as we have scene in the FS world all that was required was the SDK and the ability to take the sim online and bingo tons of stuff came out of that.A piece of software could be built to check all the participants for there compatible equipment as part of the signing in process. A report could be made to show weather you have the stuff or need to get some.This doesn't preclude anyone from offering up an activity or special operations as a contibution to the operating session. Just that you would need to do it in advance somewhat so everyone is on the same page.Online voice could make the dispatching and other functions much better if everyone has a HSC. This could even preclude the use of such equipment onboard the train. You could use a seperate piece of software for that. You could perhaps even build in an ability to listen to radio traffic to extend the simulated area your working. This could act like the radio in the cab without it being in the cab if you will. This software is also currently available as you probably already know.Long post to be sure. I like the idea of working with a crew. Virtually if you will but a crew never the less. To see other trains and their crews working in the same area would also be cool. Swapping crew members as in real life would also be cool. Working a yard job or simulating engine facillities (Repair - Fueling) this could also be cool. Something that I think that also would be cool is port operations. Working a Railbarge/ferry..Tons of possibilities. Just have to get the ifs out of the way..1) MSTS goes online.
2) MSTS extends the sim to include crew (or the ability to have 3 people working on a train all of which can get off and walk around operate switches and coupler handles and communicate with the engineer/conductor/CTC-RTC)
3) MS or someone builds a dispatch sim that is online and compatable with MSTS both in function (signal and switches aswell as radio/text).Note: the communication part could be handled by a seperate piece of software but built in could be just as good.Further thoughts or comments welcomed...Ronson

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON May-15-03 AT 00:20 AM (EDT)

Its really a simple solution. MSTS just needs a default diesel loco, a default electric loco, a default steamer, a default passenger car and a default freight wagon for each route. If the player doesn't have the custom content on their computer, it is replaced in the game by the default item. I don't know what's in MSTS2, so I'll use MSTS1 stuff as my example:eg: just say you were having a multiplayer game on Marias Pass. The defaults for that route could be:diesel: dash9
steamer: Flying Scotsman (because there are no default US steamers)
freight: one of the box cars
passenger: default metrolinerNow, just say I wanted to use my Aussie stuff. I could be running a consist of:
Au_b74 - Au_gy3626 - Au_u931 - Au_vf74 - Au_ub18 - Au_zl656
loco - freight - freight - freight - freight - guards van
If no one else had this stuff, it could display on their system as:dash9 - box car - box car - box car - box car - box carOk, it wouldn't look like my train, but at least the game would run. If people really wanted to see what I was really running, they would just download the models from my site before they play the game. --Victorian Railfan Web Site:
http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/Australian Bulldogs for MSTS! B, S, GM & 42's now available!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

i'm sure this point has been made already, but in every FS i ever played online if you don't have a model someone else has you see it as a Cessna or now in FS2002 one of the default planes, which is fine, doesn't bother me in the leaset. This does not make gameplay impossible. so if someone has a particular loco or car that i don't have, it won't be unstable, i'll just see it as a default piece of equipment. So MP mode is possible, but by the looks of it there doesn't seem to be one. but it's still being worked on so who knows what tommorow will ring.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Has multiplayer capability been announced for MSTS2?

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

No.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there's any NEC 4.0 Multiplayer Session, you'd better count me in! "

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

yeah no MP announcments, but there's still some time left, i was just making a point that it won't be a Problem.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Find out if it is in the software ( Multiplayer MSTS 2 ) first , then plan out how Multiplayer MSTS 2 is going to be run . Multiplayer MSTS 2 is good idea, but let's wait and see if MSTS2 will hav it , if not we ask for it in MSTS3 one other problem , if Multiplayer MSTS, what happens to the player train , if he want to leave the game ?? , does he park it on a siding ?
Pkman

Mile Post 777.00 Jesus is the Light.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> Pkman
>
> Mile Post 777.00
>
> Jesus is the Light. STRYPER fan ??LaterTim Kent
96th_Malice
" Power for You "

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

was , I love Jesus !!! that it in a nutshell . Pk Man Mp 777.00

Jesus is first and Last .

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Multiplayer would be problem central for the following reasons:*Too many variables for computer to act as dispatcher. Human dispatcher necessary, but who can do that 24hr/7?*Player dropout/freeze/misbehaviour would destroy gameplay. I mean, if you had to wait 30 minutes at a red signal and have the oncoming train you've been waiting for just disappear or freeze, then it would really be no fun.*Server would have to be pretty powerful*As said before, rolling stock compatibility would cause many issues.Perhaps it would be better for MS to develop MSTS MP as a plug-in or separate program altogether. MSTS MP needs the Activity engine substituted with a dispatch engine.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

*Too many variables for computer to act as dispatcher. Human dispatcher necessary, but who can do that 24hr/7?
I have no clue on what you mean by that.*Player dropout/freeze/misbehaviour would destroy gameplay. I mean, if you had to wait 30 minutes at a red signal and have the oncoming train you've been waiting for just disappear or freeze, then it would really be no fun.
A person leaving, or having a computer freeze would not destroy gameplay for anyone but that person. As far as the person you've been waiting for just disappearing, well T.S that's life.*Server would have to be pretty powerful
again i'll bring in FS2002. With FS you have a person host and others join; there is no server. *As said before, rolling stock compatibility would cause many issues.
No it wouldn't like i said before, having experience in these type of games, you'd just see it as a Default piece of equipment..

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

"*Too many variables for computer to act as dispatcher. Human dispatcher necessary, but who can do that 24hr/7?
I have no clue on what you mean by that."What I meant by that was, for realistic MP MSTS, you would need some kind of dispatch system. With FS its pretty straight forward, ATC seems to act on a first-come, first serve basis and thats pretty much how it is realistically. Its pretty much A to B stuff.However, with train operations, you have A to B stuff also, but there are things such a switching movements, priority levels and safeworking issues to deal with. For a realistic simulation, I think it would be above and beyond the average AI. Therefore I think you would need some sort of human dispatcher with the appropriate console. But the dispatcher at sometime must be relieved, but by whom, how, and when?As for disappearing players not affecting game play, I disagree. And what for rogue players. They will exist I can assure you.

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.