Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in MST

I don't understand the enthusiasm for multiplayer or moving people. I would much rather be able to load container cars, load ore into hoppers, or unload lumber from centerbeam cars. Interaction with the railroad equipment is what I want the most in MSTS2.

Alert | IP

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

RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, heffed, May-18-03, 04:36 AM, (1) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, MRRextreme, May-18-03, 11:05 PM, (2) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, plainsman, May-18-03, 11:11 PM, (3) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, kevarc, May-18-03, 11:16 PM, (4) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, Fastruck, May-18-03, 11:40 PM, (5) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, jcnighs, May-18-03, 11:59 PM, (6) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, MRRextreme, May-19-03, 01:47 AM, (7) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, cityeast, May-19-03, 07:08 AM, (8) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, Hack, May-19-03, 07:39 AM, (9) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, davereage, May-21-03, 05:36 PM, (24) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, crow357, May-19-03, 08:16 AM, (10) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, sniper297, May-19-03, 12:14 PM, (11) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, ronson, May-19-03, 01:53 PM, (12) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, davereage, May-21-03, 05:41 PM, (25) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, edwardk, May-19-03, 05:06 PM, (13) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, heffed, May-19-03, 07:15 PM, (14) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, wpfan, May-20-03, 02:39 AM, (15) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, MRRextreme, May-20-03, 10:41 AM, (16) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, cdntrains, May-20-03, 11:52 AM, (17) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, MRRextreme, May-20-03, 09:11 PM, (19) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, DougG, May-20-03, 02:03 PM, (18) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, cityeast, May-21-03, 08:28 AM, (20) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, adamw, May-21-03, 09:12 AM, (21) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, Franklin, May-21-03, 01:11 PM, (22) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, crow357, May-21-03, 04:33 PM, (23) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, dispatcher618, Jun-01-03, 12:46 PM, (30) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, dyvach, May-21-03, 06:16 PM, (26) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, MRRextreme, May-22-03, 09:48 AM, (28) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, Engineer, May-21-03, 07:55 PM, (27) RE: Prefer interactive loading of railroad equipment in, ronson, May-24-03, 09:21 PM, (29)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

>I don't understand the enthusiasm for multiplayer or moving
>people. I hear you.I could care less about moving passengers, and multiplayer doesn't interest me much.I'm assuming though that there will be an option to turn off the animated passengers to increase game performance.-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

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

Judging from the response to this thread, I guess we are the only ones who feel this way. Sometimes I wonder if some of the users of MSTS would be better suited to the game "The Sims"

Alert | IP

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

I agree, being able to perform tasks (with some kind of econ analysis) would be more interesting than multiplayer modes. I would like to see some way to justify that SD75 on the front when a GP40-2 could do the job. Which would keep a real RR in business and which would create a fallen flag.
Bob

Alert | IP

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

Amen. I would rather have that.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

I rather have where you can dump a grain car or coal into a pit or
silo and maybe have a forklift or wheel loader to drive arrond.
but heres the clicker I like really to have where if your train derails or wrecks you could fire up the train crane an rescue the wreck loco an cars

Alert | IP

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

Agree completely. I do not understand the enthusiasm for moving people. I thought this simulator was for people interested in simulating railroad operations.

Alert | IP

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

It is good to hear some people's thoughts on this. An idea that would be neat to me would be if any object representing an industry had a set of functions that could be defined by the user. The functions could appear in a pop-up window. The functions might open doors to allow a railroad car to be moved into a facility, lower chutes on a grain elevator, or allow containers to be unloaded from cars. The economic results summary mentioned would be interesting as well.-Gary

Alert | IP

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

Would have to agree entirely with you all.Trains do not fight, race, or shoot at each other as a general rule, so the multiplayer option would be somewhat boring, UNLESS it involved a far more complicated game engine whereby someone or a server would act as a dispatcher. The ability for freight interaction would be more logical at this stage of MSTS evolution. Starting with coal/ore/grain/liquids would suffice for now.

Alert | IP

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

>An idea that would be neat to me would be if any object representing
>an industry had a set of functions that could be defined by
>the user. The functions could appear in a pop-up window.
>The functions might open doors to allow a railroad car to
>be moved into a facility, lower chutes on a grain elevator,
>or allow containers to be unloaded from cars. The economic
>results summary mentioned would be interesting as well. While not in MSTS2 AFAIK, these exact features are to be part of the upcoming "Ultimate Trainz Collection 2004." The sim was demonstrated at E3 picking up coal which was then delivered to a power plant, which in turn powered a lumber mill, which received fresh logs from a forrest, the cut lumber going off to a furniture factory...Rollingstock was visibly filled and off loaded, which added quite a bit of depth to the scene. From what Auran told me, you contol more than one or two trains - you control a complex world, with one industry depending on the other to function. Neat stuff, for sure. Cheers!
Marc - 3DTrains
http://www.3dtrains.comPro Series SuperPacks

Alert | IP

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

But if we are simulating passenger railroad operations, people moving on and off the trains are integral (why would passenger train be driving around if no one is using them?).

Dave Reage
www.geocities.com/d_reage

Alert | IP

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

Totally agree. Although, I could see MP if there was an "operating session" function like you would have in a club layout. Everyone gets together, you have a dispatcher, yard guys, etc. That could be fun, but I don't think that'll be in MSTS2.

Alert | IP

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

Primary reason why I never put roads and carspawners on the PO&N, if I'm gonna eat clock cycles and framerates with moving things, it's gonna be lots of AI train traffic, not cars & trucks chugging along a highway. Hopefully they'll have a button to lose the people, but I suspect they'll be like deer and trainspotter "hazards" (I could see a herd of elephants on the tracks being a "hazard" to a 250 ton loco, but I don't think a collision with Bambi or Hikin' Heidi would be hazardous to the train!), you can include them in your route or not, and set the number in the activity editor.As far as multiplayer, crow357 hit the reason why it would be nice, instead of AI traffic pre-programmed to run from hither to yon, a bunch of guys operating trains individually on the same route would be just like a model railroad club operating session with those onboard CTC-16 type controllers, where several trains can run on the same tracks without having to block control the power packs. We had Keller back in the 80's, same thing, and my Dad and I and several of my brothers used to get together and each would operate one engine, two of us assembling a train in a yard, then another coming along to pull it out to the mainline, can't make it up the hill hey Roger gimmee a shove here, yo John you better take that next siding cuz I can't back this thing up, Rob's blocking the junction behind me, man we had some fun! A single saw-by is doable with an AI train since the player does all the thinking, but a double saw-by would require two human operators.Biggest problem is the development team themselves, they have maybe 5% of the crew that even like trains, and those are only interested in running passenger trains. They don't have one single individual on the staff that has the first clue about freight ops, nor do they care. Marias and all the freight cars and activities were obviously a last minute afterthought for MSTS 1.

Alert | IP

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

Who here didn't DL Train Artisans F7 and passenger set? I'm thinking no one did. Passengers are well in a word 'cargo' to be carried by rail as well as freight. Yes animated freight loading and unloading would be quite cool. However if you think of the simulator as a locomotive sim you will find that most of the loading and unloading of freight is handled by the shore workers or logging company or coal mine. One of the jobs could be to work at an intermodel facility or mine say. This would probably preclude him/her to just that area for the duration of the activity. This could be a cool idea nevertheless.I'm not trying to say that passenger railroading should take precidence over freight. I think however they are about equal in interests. I like both. In Canada we see way more passenger trains then freight 1 about every 30 minutes while freight is about 1 every 50 minutes or so (at least in my area anyway). I think they wanted to boost up the animation in the backround not just the passengers boarding and unboarding. Perhaps this will bring about freight animation.You know they don't have passengers boarding and unboarding in the flight sim and they have had that opportunity for quite some time. I kinda look at passenger rail as a cruise on land somewhat where as freight is meat and potatos railroading (one being a staple and the other a luxury).I don't know if passengers make an impact on the weight of a train or not. Despite having a full train say I'm thinking the equipment far and away exceeds the total weight of the passengers. So loading and unloading a passenger train would have little effect on performance. On the other hand a freight that has just been freshly loaded with coal or agraget or lumber could have a big impact on performance. One of the things that would be cool in MSTS2 would be the ability to have loaded and empty weights of the cars (tarre and load Cap weights). This would bring into account the consist of the train as loaded cars are placed first behind the prime movers and empties to the rear. So a symbol or something would be needed either on the car or say in the number key indentification to show loaded or empty. The more things you add the more you have to add it seems.Ronson2k

Alert | IP

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

>In Canada we see way more
>passenger trains then freight 1 about every 30 minutes while
>freight is about 1 every 50 minutes or so (at least in my
>area anyway). Do you live on the Quebec City - Windsor corridor? I think that would be one of the few places in Canada that would see more passenger than freight ops.

Dave Reage
www.geocities.com/d_reage

Alert | IP

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

Rollingstock was visibly filled and off loaded, which added quite a bit of depth to the scene. From what Auran told me, you contol more than one or two trains - you control a complex world, with one industry depending on the other to function. Neat stuff, for sure.Sounds more like Railroad Tycoon 3 If we look at MSTS1, we have pickup objects for not only fuel, but also for freight. It's quite possible that the pickup ojects will serve more of a purpose this time around, but lets not forget physics. With passenger animation, will the weight of the cars increase when passengers are loaded and will the weight decrease with the unloading of cars? There has to be a difference between pulling a string of empty passenger cars vs a string of loaded cars. Does anybody know if the weight of the coal tender in MSTS 1 remains the same or changes as the visible coal load changes?Edward K.

Alert | IP

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

>Does
>anybody know if the weight of the coal tender in MSTS 1
>remains the same or changes as the visible coal load
>changes? It's my understanding that fuel of any type (diesel/water/coal) makes no difference to train weight in MSTS.-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

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

I couldn't really care about loading/unloading flat cars, container cars as that is stuff that is usually done with the car spotted on a siding, unless we were looking for MS Forklift Simulator. However I think the idea of starting with an empty 100 car coal train and driving through a flood loader trying to maintian the specified speed with each load adding more weight to the train then as a finale running through the rotary dumper start stop start stop, each time the train gets a little lighter. Or what about one of those ore piers on the Great Lakes working the loads and empties back and forth. Another idea having a weight limit for tracks, i.e. when working with a ferry slip (I can dream can't I) having to use an idler car(s) or else when you sink to the bottom after breaking the slip (I wonder if this would be a problem when operating a U-25). I would definately enjoy the idea of being able to play multiplayer if it was done with a dispatcher controlling several different trains, this could probably be real interesting with TT/TO operation.

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON May-20-03 AT 10:46 AM (EDT)

<<I would definately enjoy the idea of being able to play multiplayer if it was done with a dispatcher controlling several different trains>>
While I see the excitement for the dispatcher, I just don't see how it would be exciting for the 20 or 30 other people on-line waiting around in the yard before their train is allowed to go. A group of people on-line acting as full-crew could be interesting.
I just think interactive industry and robust AI would provide more immediate excitement than MSTS2's focus on passengers getting on a train.

Alert | IP

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

Last time I checked, MSTS stood for MS Train Simulator. if in this sense, simulation means 'simulating the real world', then how could one leave it out? Now I don't know how the trains in other areas are controlled, but in ALL places around here, trains/foremen NEED to be controlled by a dispatcher/RTC/yardmaster (NO matter what territory or even if it's simply one train).. When it comes to MP, frankly, I wouldn't mind waiting even 30 minutes at a RED! It's the excitement, anticipation, and NOT knowing what will happen next that would make (and makes) MP a lot more fun (AND a prototypical simulation!?!?) than doing it on your own. (Aren't there long waits in real life anyways!?) Besides, if communications b/w other trains and dispatcher(s) is left open, the time where one is waiting remains eventful as they hear the progress of other trains or the reading of their clearances/track warrants. When I "play train" I'd like to do it like they do in "real" life (i.e. given your train and told what to do and where to go) and not simply play it as if it were my model layout. The excitement of MP comes from not knowing what will happen next (as opposed to a pre-planned activity or just going at your own whim on explore mode).. But I do respect your other opinions and the "active industries" would be nice also. But then again, it sounds like we are into 2 different things: switching vs. mainline hauling..

Alert | IP

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

<<I wouldn't mind waiting even 30 minutes at a RED! >> I am not sure I am into that, but I do understand your points about prototypical operation.

Alert | IP

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

God Bless You..... I totally agree. It would be greattttttttt !!!!
pardon the Religious note...... I want interaction with cargo.....dg

Alert | IP

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

In order to set up MSTS for MP in such a way that would satisfy the even the average train enthusiast would be vastly complicated. Firstly, you would probably require quite a powerful server. Secondly, you would almost certainly require a human dispatcher with a specially developed console. What happens if he has to leave his/her computer?, or his/her computer connection fails? Who then becomes the dispatcher? What if no one can be the dispatcher?Thirdly, player drop-out/player misbehaviour would spoil the realism. Take FS, or Counter Strike, or any other MP game. If a player in these games drops out, then no big deal, the player disappears without any real affect on the simulation. BUT DISAPPEARING OR FREEZING TRAINS WOULD REALLY SPOIL THE FUN.Athough I can imagine that MSTS players would be less inclined to misbehave, there is always one or two, who would spoil the game. How do they get kicked or banned?IMHO, MP MSTS should be developed as a either a plug-in or a separate program altogether, that perhaps shares some common files. Why? Because activities are too highly integrated into the existing MSTS gameplay. In MSTS MP, you wouldn't need them, the dispatcher does everything.MSTS must learn to crawl before it can walk. Its must follow a logical evolution, and that means perfecting the existing shortcomings before adding more vastly complicated features.

Alert | IP

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

I think all of you are living in looloo land, it means you are dreaming, since this discusion is worth nothing. It's too late for academic discussions, they are in very advanced stage of development and they will never think to change or add any new feature.
If you are so interested in Railroad Operations, then consider Trainz 2004 which will cover all aspects mentioned in this post. This is Train Simulator, not Railway Simulator.And animated people are the best eyecandy with dynamic weather. I'll hope also for random activity generator which will change the whole situation (signals,static trains and weather along the route).Adam

Alert | IP

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

>Firstly, you would probably require quite a powerful server. The Zone can take care of this. Another way to handle a multiplayer game would be through a person's (host) IP address.>Secondly, you would almost certainly require a human
>dispatcher with a specially developed console. What happens
>if he has to leave his/her computer?, or his/her computer
>connection fails? Who then becomes the dispatcher? What if
>no one can be the dispatcher?If the host loses his/her connection, then either:• the MP game is cut off and everyone is directed to the game menu.• the person who joined in the game right after the person who's hosting it will become the dispatcher, which I think is complicated because that person would be interrupted from driving his/her train and would be given dispatcher controls (a map of the whole route, signals, switches, etc.) instead. And if no one wants to play "dispatcher", then they can continue their run or leave.OR• the engineers have access to all the switches since there's no dispatcher to take control of them...>Thirdly, player drop-out/player misbehaviour would spoil the
>realism. <SNIP>
>Athough I can imagine that MSTS players would be less
>inclined to misbehave, there is always one or two, who would
>spoil the game. How do they get kicked or banned?The dispatcher, who I assume is the host, can go into the in-game menu > kick player (or whatever) > player name. It's that simple. However, if an IP address MP game were to be held, like all other PC MP games, there's no way to ban the immature player out for good.
>IMHO, MP MSTS should be developed as a either a plug-in or a
>separate program altogether, that perhaps shares some common
>files. Why? Because activities are too highly integrated
>into the existing MSTS gameplay. In MSTS MP, you wouldn't
>need them, the dispatcher does everything.Like all other games that include MP, I say that it should be included with MSTS 2, that's if they hear our voices and can implement it into the sim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

I'm extremely active in the Links 2003 golf sim community and I'm here to tell ya, that I NEVER play with the deadbeats in the zone. I've developed a friendship with about a dozen guys and we play against each other exclusively. The same could be done for MSTS. You'd join a club, they'd have weekly operating sessions. If someone turned out to be a loser, they'd get kicked out.But as someone has already pointed out, this discussion is purely academic as we won't have any MP capability in MSTS2. I'd be willing to bet $100 that the code for MP is already in the game, just not turned on. You'd be surprised at what is in other games just waiting to become part of the next version.

Alert | IP

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

>In order to set up MSTS for MP in such a way that would
>satisfy the even the average train enthusiast would be
>vastly complicated.
>
>Firstly, you would probably require quite a powerful server.

>Secondly, you would almost certainly require a human
>dispatcher with a specially developed console. What happens
>if he has to leave his/her computer?, or his/her computer
>connection fails? Who then becomes the dispatcher? What if
>no one can be the dispatcher? This is going spawn something like "Microsoft CTC Simulator", and that may not be a good thing.
>Thirdly, player drop-out/player misbehaviour would spoil the
>realism. Take FS, or Counter Strike, or any other MP game.
>If a player in these games drops out, then no big deal, the
>player disappears without any real affect on the simulation.
>BUT DISAPPEARING OR FREEZING TRAINS WOULD REALLY SPOIL THE
>FUN. I bet you could have the dispatcher instruct a dead player train to become an AI train, then just shove it into the nearest siding or spur. >Athough I can imagine that MSTS players would be less
>inclined to misbehave, there is always one or two, who would
>spoil the game. How do they get kicked or banned?Hey, the dispatcher controls the switches... If the player wants to drive 100 MPH through a restriction, just line the switch that leads to that incomplete bridge over Clayton/Eastwood Ravine.

>IMHO, MP MSTS should be developed as a either a plug-in or a
>separate program altogether, that perhaps shares some common
>files. Why? Because activities are too highly integrated
>into the existing MSTS gameplay. In MSTS MP, you wouldn't
>need them, the dispatcher does everything.
>
>MSTS must learn to crawl before it can walk. Its must follow
>a logical evolution, and that means perfecting the existing
>shortcomings before adding more vastly complicated features. I definitely agree. Runaway trains and stalled trains on hills due to bad physics or other bugs will make for a very long session. I want my sanders to work on all four units instead of just my lead unit. I don't want to break couplers because the computer can't decide where my train "really" is in the world.

- DISPATCHER 618

Alert | IP

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

I don't understand the enthusiasm for multiplayer or moving people. I would much rather be able to load container cars, load ore into hoppers, or unload lumber from centerbeam cars. Interaction with the railroad equipment is what I want the most in MSTS2. Well, why do you complain about the idea of being able to load/unload passengers into passenger cars, then?.. That's exactly part of what you're asking for -- interaction with the equipment/cargo, with visual feedback to that...

Alert | IP

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

<<That's exactly part of what you're asking for -- >
The passenger activity is the most accessible aspect of real life railroads. I have more interest in the large industrial facilities associated with railroads to which the average person does not have access. I can already walk to a local train station and actually get on a passenger train. Last time I checked, the local refinery would not let me into their facility while they fuel up tank cars nor would the local intermodal facility let me mill about the container cranes loading trains.

Alert | IP

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

Come on now we got to leave something for MSTS3!?

Alert | IP

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

I agree with a random activity generator sounds like a cool idea. Real engineers rarely know what there job is going to be next unless they have been with the road for some time. Railroads of the past were very structured. This structure has been slowly giving way to progress. This sim has no problem with running steam though so the structure of the past is a good way to learn the ropes as it were.Weather the car is full or empty really means little to the engineer. Accept for the fact that full cars are forward in the consist. Most times these cars would be set out.Some things to consider.An Automated yard- Hostlers moving cars about making trains - breaking them up or moving diesels to and from service racks. This is of course if your activity is to do these jobs. This would require train orders to specify which tracks are off limits in the yard for through freight traffic.Automated lift bridges- Ships moving through sea ways or canals requiring the bridge to go up and rail traffic bringing them down.Automated Container Lift Crane- At a harbour location a lift crane could be busy lifting cans off of a ship and or putting them on.Just some thoughts.Ronson

Alert | IP

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