Previous Topic | Next Topic

I have seen a number of posts on activities that don't or partially don't work.The problems are as follows:The creator runs it on his system, and it works fine. The user tries it and there are errors.There are 2 main reasons why: 1, (if software related), some lower systems will have errors with activities with high graphic content.
2, The activity creator knows exactly where he has set his switches and reverse points, the user does not.In addition, I have noticed a lot of activities that use AI trains that are time critical, you have to run the activities to the minute, or AI may or may not appear. A lot of the AI runs are much too short, and while this gives variety to a route, it makes some too easy, and other impossible to achieve.I spoke to one guy who created activities for the East midlands route, and his AI runs for the entire route, 140 miles, so you always see them, no matter if you are slow or fast.In addition, I have seen a lot of activities which are somewhat vague in description, and others which are wrong. While they are free, it would be nice if they were more accurate.David

Alert | IP

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

RE: Activity problems, LAHDPOP, Sep-04-03, 11:15 PM, (1) RE: Activity problems, hhdawrs, Sep-05-03, 02:37 AM, (2) RE: Activity problems, MasterChief, Sep-05-03, 04:23 AM, (3) RE: Activity problems, downside, Sep-05-03, 05:29 AM, (4) RE: Activity problems, GP15Dash1, Sep-05-03, 03:46 PM, (5) RE: Activity problems, CBF, Sep-05-03, 04:16 PM, (6) RE: Activity problems, DTA, Sep-05-03, 04:35 PM, (8) RE: Activity problems, Paul1953, Sep-05-03, 04:41 PM, (9) RE: Activity problems, GP15Dash1, Sep-05-03, 04:51 PM, (10) RE: Activity problems, Paul1953, Sep-05-03, 04:32 PM, (7) RE: Activity problems, kevarc, Sep-05-03, 04:55 PM, (11) RE: Activity problems, DTA, Sep-05-03, 05:19 PM, (12) RE: Activity problems, kevarc, Sep-05-03, 05:33 PM, (13) RE: Activity problems, DTA, Sep-05-03, 06:46 PM, (14) RE: Activity problems, brucek, Sep-05-03, 07:16 PM, (15) RE: Activity problems, Paul1953, Sep-06-03, 03:01 AM, (17) RE: Activity problems, Paul1953, Sep-06-03, 02:57 AM, (16) RE: Activity problems, Paul1953, Sep-06-03, 03:08 AM, (18) RE: Activity problems, Paul1953, Sep-09-03, 04:45 AM, (19)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Were you just exercising your fingers, or had you intended to make a point?Pop

Alert | IP

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

Perhaps this is why many activity problems submitted for help are not fixed?Herb

Alert | IP

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

>I spoke to one guy who created activities for the East
>midlands route, and his AI runs for the entire route, 140
>miles, so you always see them, no matter if you are slow or
>fast.
>I was just going to post a question on this very issue; is it better to use short AI paths, or longer ones, even letting them run the entire route? I have played a little with both, and I seem to have more troubles when I use the shorter paths. I'm wondering if it isn't best to have the AI trains run on extended paths, just like they would in real life, rather than spring up at some designated point, only to disappear a short distance down the track? Would using the longer paths allow the signals to work more correctly, or would it allow the automatic switches to operate more reliably?Thanks,MC

Alert | IP

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

It's all very well for the AI to run the entire route but in activities where the AI is relevant to the working of the player consist then this is not really feasible. The Longhairedwizard's activities are an excellent example where you wait at a red for one of his massive AI trains to come through and they need to be spawned by an action of the player consist. These are the activities I like best.For quality activities there are those produced by the well-known activity writers such as Steve Davis, Kevarc, Skyrat and many others. At vNERR http://www.vnerr.com/ there are well in excess of 200 work orders that have been produced in-house or altered, with permission of course, to fit the vNERR rolling stock, and have all been thoroughly tested by the feasibility team before being released to the engineers. Some are easy and some are difficult but they all work as they should provided the instructions are followed. This is why it is a very successful virtual railroad.Bill

Alert | IP

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

There are two schools of thought on this, and DTA touched on them in his complaint. As I understand it, one of the quirks of MSTS is that it loads all the consists that are on the route whether they're in view or not, which can cause problems with memory-related crashes for low-end computers. You can and will reach a point at which your computer can no longer store wagons (and other objects) for ready use when they come into view in the sim. As a result, many activity designers prefer to create shorter paths for their AI trains, which allows them to run more AI trains. The other side of the argument holds that the whole thing operates in a much more realistic manner if the AI paths run the entire distance of the activity, and (with full knowledge that I may be wrong) I agree. One problem I've had with shorter AI paths is that they make timing much more critical, and the designer is forced to find creative ways to keep the player in the right place at the right time to meet the AI trains. As DTA mentioned, some activities force the player to maintain speed within a narrow margin (which can be very hard to do). I prefer to avoid this technique, and force the player to wait periodically, whether through "fleeting" a series of AI trains past a spot, or by artificial means (such as text messages from "dispatch" calling for a player to hold at a certain location regardless of signal aspect). One activity I plan to post soon regulates player train speed by putting it behind an AI train, so that the first half of the activity is run almost entirely under Approach aspects, and therefore 40 mph. Since the player train is capable of running at track speed, it's reasonable to expect that the player will run close enough to 40 to make the meets on time.I design my activities on a machine with 256 Megs of memory, so I am reasonably confident that if they run on my machine, they'll run on most. I've seen comments from other designers that say the same thing. Because I'm running with so little memory, I'm forced to make compromises in certain routes. Cajon and Tehachapi both have lots of "eye candy" within the route, which are great to look at, but limit the number of static and AI cars I can put into an activity. On the other hand, Whitefish and Sandpatch allow much more freedom for me.One other key thing to remember is that "more AI trains" does not always equal "more realism." On the Tehachapi, it's realistic to run the 2 hours non-stop from Mojave to Bakersfield and meet just 6 or 8 trains. By posting a response here, I'm not trying to put myself into the same category of activity designer as say, Kevin Arceneaux, these are just some of the things I've learned since I started to get "serious" about activity design. Hope it helps!Kurt

Alert | IP

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

Hi Kurt; In activities where timing is critical, how about posting the times in the work order so the player has some idea as to a required schedule? I know this is more work for the designer, but now that the problem of timing has been defined, this might be a solution. Also, designers might think of posting an update to existing problem activities with a timing schedule in mind. Just a thought.Cheers; Chuck F.

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Sep-05-03 AT 04:40 PM (EDT)

Thanks for the feedback, (except for LAHDPOP, who seems to have a problem.I think the short AI runs are definitely a problem, especially when they suddenly pop up in front of an express running in the same direction! Longer AI runs ensure you see the trains that have been set up, and the feeling of reality remains.As an example, the "bestonnec" activity (NEC2) has 104 AI trains, but only if you go exactly by the timetable. There are other activities that warn of problems, but you get none if you ignore the timetable. I sometimes tweak times in activity editor, in order to get what I want, but on some activities the AI can vanish when you do this.Just an addition: The shorter AI runs seem better on US single track, the longer ones work better on double track.BTW it wasn't a complaint, just an observation.David

Alert | IP

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

That would work very well for a passenger activity. the player would be able to know in advance were he/she needs to be at a particular time. You can already get that info in any activity file, if you want to take the time to covert say, for example "31920" to 8:52 am ( 0852hrs for my friends in the services ). Good idea though, and one I will pursue in an upcoming passenger act for the FBLv2 due out in the next couple of days. Paul

" I hear my train a-comin'"
Jimi Hendrix

Alert | IP

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

Chuck,That's a great idea. My logtrain activity has a "profile sheet" based on the paperwork the SP used to require in the cab, and it's got a time table in it, though at the time I developed that activity, I was going for the "feel" that the train had originated elsewhere and would terminate somewhere off the route...but it's the perfect place to give hints about where the player needs to be at critical times.I've got an activity pack coming out soon, and I'll put your idea to work in the enclosed profile sheet.Kurt

Alert | IP

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

I agree with Kurt. When I first started to develope activities, I was using paths that spanned an entire route. That quickly fell out of favour, when the timing of on-coming AI trains resulted in numerous standoffs or trains just sitting in a passing siding. Yes I'm aware that that happens, prototypically. But when I d/l an activity with 50 files I have to obtain to make the activity work, I want those puppies to move! I found it was better to take a run with the player train ( keeping in mind the speeds to be used) from start to finish , noting the times that it reached platforms, in the case of passenger activities, and of sidings or passing tracks for the freight operations. With point-to point-movements, it became fairly simple to arrange "meets" between player and AI, on the fly , as it were. Passenger ops were approached differently. Knowing that you had a schedule to keep, meant that you could use short paths for AI. If your train is leaving a platform adjacent to double-track mainline that reduces to a single track, you could start the AI at the far end, at about the same time as the player train left the station, and have a reasonably realistic train meet somewhere in between. It is certainly much easier in the Activity Editor to tweak those two times. In a long activity, with AI starting from the opposite end, it is quite a bit harder to arrange those meets sometimes. Especially if you've been running for 2 hours or more, and 10 minutes from the end you are stymied by a stand-off. A lot of trial and effort can quickly become tedious. Mind you, it does help to know that AI runs at about 45 mph. Also, we all know that the video playback in AE is notoriously out of whack. Although I have found that at 16x, you can get a fairly close approximation of where you and the AI need to be.Thia alone will help cut down the number of times you may have to test the activity, to make sure it does what you like. As I don't have a high powered gaming computer, my preference is for "shorter" paths with lots of room for adjustment. In my own view, once that Ai gets past, I don't particularly need or want my computer dealing with something I'm not going to see again anyway. Paul

" I hear my train a-comin'"
Jimi Hendrix

Alert | IP

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

I use both. A lot depends on the route and what I am trying to do. Lately most have been end to end. It is just as easy to adjust the timing with long paths. If you look at most activites outside of the NEC, they very seldom have other trains going in the same direction as the player. I have done a few that have one out ahead of the player to build the fustration of being tail-end charlie and having to ride all day on another trains yellow signals.If you use short paths and the player is running slow or it can end up with odd things happening. Such as a train appearing ordissappearing from sight in front of you. Also, if you start messing with the player path and what is required of the player, it is far easier to add extra services with long paths that go in and adjust the times of all the short paths services. With long paths the player will still have to meet the AI train somewhere. That is where my testers play a key role. They KNOW that there are going to be weird things happen 3 hours into a 3 hour/5 minute activity. I have noticed no difference in the sim as far a performamce whether short or long paths are used, other than in the loading time of the activity.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIES
Cry havoc and Let slip the dogs of war.
Lone Wolf Activities Forum and Activity Packs are on www.3DTrains.com

Alert | IP

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

I think you are talking about US routes Kevin.All the newer European routes (Protrain3, Germanrailroads2, EastMidlands, London/Brighton, have a lot of four track lines, and consequently, a lot of same direction AI. The times when they go down to two lines, can cause loads of problems. Overall, I think long paths work better.David

Alert | IP

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

Yes, US routes. I think the longer paths do work better. Not just for the reason I have in my previous post, but also for keeping track of what is what. After many efforts I finally came up with a naming convention for my services and paths. This does lead to some pretty long file names, but the are discriptive of what type of train and where they start and end. You may be able to do this with short paths, but the path and service folders are going to get very fat, very fast. This makes it very easy to get the wrong service started.Granted, to get certain effects I will use short paths, but very seldom will I do so.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIES
Cry havoc and Let slip the dogs of war.
Lone Wolf Activities Forum and Activity Packs are on www.3DTrains.com

Alert | IP

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

I create my own activities, and load down others as well. Mine always work Ok, because I created them, but I have no idea if they would work on other PCs. Consequently, I am reluctant to make them available to others. I have downloaded activities that have been brilliant, and others that have screwed up MSTS completely. I know just about enough to enable me to delete those so I don't have to reinstall.One of the things that annoys me, is buying a payware route, where a lot of activities just do not work. While a lot of Cajon activities are Ok, some will never work, and I have changed the AI myself. It is a good route, but should not be sold with defective software. I am sure others have had the same experience, but may not want to post for fear of being castigated.David

Alert | IP

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

Quote:- .. It is a good route, but should not be
>sold with defective software.The crux of the above statement, David, is the definition of "defective".
As we have seen - and as you have alluded to in this thread - what runs perfectly fine on one person's system may be subject to gremlins on another's.I have never had a problem with any of the updated Cajon activities which I have run, yet I have seen others reporting a continuation of "stand-off" problems in the same activities.Therefore is it not reasonable to suggest that activity developers in general may test their activities on a couple of systems and not suffer any drama at all?One thing is important - and I'm sure there will be no disagreement with this statement - and that is the simple fact that any activity should be well-tested by independent parties (beta testers) before being published.Bruce.

AustRail

Alert | IP

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

Hear,Hear (here,here) Paul

" I hear my train a-comin'"
Jimi Hendrix

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Sep-06-03 AT 02:58 AM (EDT)

Hi Kevin, you may not remember , but you had given me some advice on how to see all the various areas in an activity might work, by splitting it up into "small" acts for each event of importance to the whole. I merely expanded on that, so that in the end, I had a series of sequential activities joined aby a common thread,ie: the player train travelling through it all. Like anything else , I guess whatever works for you/me/us, will do, so long as it works for the user. Paul

" I hear my train a-comin'"
Jimi Hendrix

Alert | IP

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

BTW, taking any applications for Beta-Testers? Paul

" I hear my train a-comin'"
Jimi Hendrix

Alert | IP

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

Bumped only 'cos I would like to read some other opinions on this Paul

" I hear my train a-comin'"
Jimi Hendrix

Alert | IP

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