Notice to all visitors and members of the Train-Sim.Com message forums: If you plan on using a signature banner in your posts, we would like to remind you that there is a maximum size for banners. That maximum is 450 pixels wide by 120 pixels high, and not to exceed 25k. Your compliance is appreciated. FORUM RULES Problems? There are two common reasons for problems with logging in and posting messages. The first is that you are running a firewall that prevents your messages from being sent to the server. The other is that you have cookies disabled; the DCForum software requires cookies to work properly.
Tim, I've been reading the suff on TMTS with great interest because it's shaping up to be the next popular Train Sim program, particularly with the TM legacy of physics and train handling simulations.Has the discussion about how to handle multiple train AI been started. A improved train AI over MSTS would be a huge bonus. Having the ability to do either on single session player with other AI trains, or a multipplayer session with a actual dispatcher would be a dream. Another though is to scrap the MSTS idea of activities with AI trains, but instead have the activity creator write scripts for the other trains. ie, train such and such meet train such and such at such and such siding...If you plan to still have AI trains, let the activity creator assign the AI train and the player train a priority number (1-9), and the meets would give preference to the higher priority trains.Ted Curphey funnelfan@icehouse.net
Railfanning the Northwest http://www.icehouse.net/funnelfan/ Railfan Guides, Photo Essays, Trip Reports, Train Dispatcher 2/3, and a whole lot more!
Thanks Ted,We have indeed discussed AI and have taken your suggestions on board, we will be working the AI program later in development so I'll no doubt keep everyone posted as to what we are doing.Tim C
I think that if you defined the players & AI path by signal blocks permission(similar to movement permission in Train Disp3) rather than MSTS current concept of drawing the path to define movement you could solve a great may problems. You could then use signal stacking or signal fleeting to help define priority movement for your train. In MSTS, "the path" is the governing factor and signal indications are secondary to the path thus timing becomes a factor to proper running of the activity. In the RW,"the path" is just a direction and signal indication a reflection of Dispatcher mainline authorization(via CTC,TWC,DTC,track permits,etc) is the governing factor to all movement orders. So if signal block authority is use to define the trains path timing is not a factor because Dispatcher or in this case the activity editor defines who gets the signal, and in what order. No more Mexican stands, all traffic flows per activity designers wishes and in the order he desires.
I would think that all switch may now be hand throwable since AI dispatcher following signal stacking instructions will throw switches per activity designers instructions. Offering even more possible options in games play.In fact their are many random TD3 functions that I would like to see incorporated in the next train sim to make game play nor realistic.
Speaking of TD3, It would be sweet to have a 'dispatcher display' of the layout. Kind of like Trainz but more of the TD3 game style. And an option to be the dispatcher or have it on automatic would be more than awesome. This would improve the game so much.-csxac44_69
