I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology

Hello, it's been a long time since I've used my MSTS1, and also a long time since I've been here. The reason being more than anything I got bored of the limitations of the Activity system in version 1.Real railroading deals less and less with schedules, and is more adaptable to changes as it happens. More emphasis is put on a dispatcher to keep the hotshots going with little delay, keep passangers on time, and allow low priority or forgin trains to operate while not emposing the priority trains.IT IS NOT A RECIPE, and should not be followed step by step. No matter how nice the scenery gets, seeing the same train, at the same siding eventually gets repetative, and lacks purpose. What even hurts this more is for those who take the time (I did and gave up quickly after) to develop these activities to know exactly how it's going to play our. When I gave up on MSTS1 the demand I had for new activities was higher than the supply of new activities being available. This is simply because so many routes were now available, and the quality developers of these activities were spread to thin.All it takes is a random generator based on parameters set by an activity developer. From there you should have the option to save your activity as you progress through unlimited playability, rather then a set finish. AI Trains, including yardmaster, and switchers can run the railroad even when you are not a part of it. This would require a proper AI dispatcher to determine routes dynamicaly and not by paths like the current system does.I hope this is something that is possible in Version 2. The good news is the one thing I hear is not backward copmatible is the activities. That to me indicates the whole process has been rethinked, and I hope it's in the right direction.

Alert | IP

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

RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, ssw_96, May-17-03, 09:11 PM, (1) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, Survivor, May-17-03, 09:18 PM, (2) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, crund, May-17-03, 09:28 PM, (3) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, sniper297, May-17-03, 11:22 PM, (4) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, heffed, May-18-03, 00:14 AM, (5) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, cityeast, May-18-03, 08:09 AM, (6) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, plainsman, May-18-03, 09:35 AM, (7) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, sniper297, May-18-03, 12:37 PM, (8) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, cityeast, May-18-03, 03:59 PM, (9) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, kevarc, May-20-03, 04:51 PM, (12) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, heffed, May-20-03, 08:00 PM, (14) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, crow357, May-18-03, 09:32 PM, (10) RE: I hope they change the whole ACTIVITY methodology, cityeast, May-20-03, 11:53 AM, (11) something to learn from MSFS, ruifonseca, May-20-03, 07:42 PM, (13)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

hear hear to that. i agree 100% The fact that you were always given the priority was not too fun at all. It was a sight to see a train of pulpwood passing an Amtrak train. Oh well we'll have to wait and see what the future holds.

member of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SP_MSTS

Alert | IP

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

There were ways of making your train hold, but once again it was something the designer had to set, when and where this was to take place.I hope this is something that will be taken out of the designers hands, and let the program dispatch as it sees fit withing a set of parameters.Sean

Alert | IP

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

I most whole-heartedly agree. It takes all the spontenaity and fun out of the simulation if you have to spend hours scripting every event in advance. User should set basic parameters and then be able to respond to events as they unfold with a certain element of surprise or unknown.Just my $0.02 to add.

Alert | IP

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

You guys tried the freestyle activities that come with Port Ogden & Northern? 12 to 14 AI trains running around the route at any one time, the player is completely unrestricted as to where he goes on the player route, and you never know when you're gonna have to hold for an AI train at a junction. http://www.train-sim.com/cgi/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3909&forum=DCForumID6&archive=yeshttp://www.train-sim.com/cgi/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11521&forum=DCForumID3 Hopefully MSTS 2 will have a better signalling system so all that nonsense won't be necessary, but if you want to run a peddler freight and try avoid stabbing AI trains by blocking the main, or run a little faster next time to beat one to a junction, each starting point has endless possibilities how it can play out since you write your own work orders, try ponV6.zip from the file library. Since the signals are set up for "whenever" schedules, you can also have some wierd fun with this.
http://www.train-sim.com/cgi/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=12611&forum=DCForumID3 http://www.train-sim.com/cgi/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=12672&forum=DCForumID3

Alert | IP

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

>You guys tried the freestyle activities that come with Port
>Ogden & Northern? Yes indeed! Too much fun. I've posted more than once that you are a genius for this "freeform activity" concept. I wish MSTS 2 was based more on this format than the "normal" type of default activities. Chances are very good that my idea of a fun activity isn't what KUJU can't think up!-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

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

I think two simple (well, simple in theory) changes Kuju could make are the following: Change No. 1 - Service Priority (to eliminate mexican stand-offs and allow overtaking).*The activity asigns a priority to the player service (lets say from 1 to 10, with 1 being the top priority...all traffic must give way.)*AI traffic is asigned a priority also, but only above or below the player priority. Change No. 2 - Make "Spawn AI service" a time OR location event. It could then bring up the normal service menu or you could choose Random Service. Combine these two changes and you could script an Activity like a Hollywood masterpiece.

Alert | IP

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

Or let the activity designer asign priority levels to each service. I like the 1 to 10 scale, ought to handle almost any mix. The traffic spawn as you describe would be a great idea as well. I just hope it isn't too late to get some of this considered for inclusion in this version.
Bob

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON May-18-03 AT 12:40 PM (EDT)

Problem is they have their priorities screwed up, the overwhelming emphasis is on passenger trains, which is why they were oblivious to the front coupler problem, and apparently unaware that the 1.1 patch was buggy as well. http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID18/64.html#4MSTS 1 has very basic weather, if it starts out clear it ends clear, start in the rain and it will always be raining at the same rate of rainfall, and the daylight/night transition is a sudden "pop!".They're fixing that for MSTS 2 from what I've read, gonna have dynamic weather. Better to have dynamic dispatching, on-the-fly artificial intelligence to set signals and switches, and two-way radio communication with a halfway intelligent dispatcher. If that's too complicated, a hotkey for the player to enter dispatcher mode with a map, something like the squadron command interface in Gunship 2000, so he could play dispatcher and give commands to AI trains, or even merely set signals to red to stop AI trains and change switches to reroute them. The whole process of controlling AI trains is way too complicated to try to do even simple things, falls apart at the loss of two minutes from the timetable (on any other route except the PO&N) unless you do the default type activities where the AI trains run on a parallel track and never cross the player's path.I found a new thing recently, the problem with the PO&N activities that's been plaguing me for a while, where if I replace the default GP38 in a consist with a repainted geep (or even a more powerful engine), one AI train (not even necessarily the one that was edited!) will stop dead since the light in front of it refuses to turn green.Someone pointed out to me that's actually in the consist file itself, the max velocity line, so editing ALL the consists used as AI trains in the activity to:MaxVelocity ( 15.0 1.0 )fixes the problem. The first number is the actual max velocity, I don't know what the second number is, other than it seems to be some kind of minimum or something, usually 0.23596 or whatever, but changing the second number to 1.0 keeps the little beggar from stopping with a clear track ahead, and the first number gives actual speed control instead of having to fiddle with "expected performance" b'guess and b'god.One major thing I see is them losing a large part of their customer base to Auran Trainz (oopz, I said the "T" word!), since MS pretty much ignores it's hard-core customer's input.

Alert | IP

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

I think here it doesn't hurt to compare MSFS to MSTS. On face value FS is taken much more seriously in every respect than TS. The realism in operation, and now ATC and AI traffic, would satisfy even professional pilots. I am interested to see the improvements when FS 2004 comes out. I think MS will be foolish to ignore input of real enthusiasts. I am just tired of spending so much time trying to perfect and fool-proof an interesting and challenging activity that by the time I am finished I don't even want to play it myself.

Alert | IP

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

On a activity that has been designed and uploaded it should be the Designer who set priorities for the trains. If it is set up so the user can right click and change things from the way it was designed, I will quit doing them. There would be no point in setting up a activity with meets and other things if the first thing a user does is change it.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIES
Lone Wolf Activities Forum on www.3DTrains.com

Alert | IP

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

>On a activity that has been designed and uploaded it should
>be the Designer who set priorities for the trains. If it is
>set up so the user can right click and change things from
>the way it was designed, I will quit doing them. There
>would be no point in setting up a activity with meets and
>other things if the first thing a user does is change it. What??? You mean you don't want people complaining that your activities aren't working as they should because they dicked with it? -Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

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

I agree Survivor. If the program is "As real as it gets" then, the 1st thing they need to concentrate on (not the bloody eye candy) is realism. Yes, physics, but more importantly prototypical operations!

Alert | IP

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

When I heard that backwards compatibility will not extend to activities, I thought maybe we may be in with some luck. But then I realised that activities become obsolete and unusable at the smallest adjustment, so I guess we shouldn't get our hopes up.

Alert | IP

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

One thing I think they should do for MSTS has it was done to MSFS, is the creation of a CTC kind of software, just like air trafic control software that was created to MSFS. That would make multiplayer even more interesting, when added... and it would be great for someone to be controlling the trafic... and train conductors never knew what to expect, so to say...clearly, MSTS must follow in the footsteps of MSFS

Alert | IP

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