Figuring I wanted to learn Activity creating eventually... I thought it would be neat to take a short break from route building and put together a quick activity w/AI traffic for Marias Pass 3. Figured this would acquaint me with the AE portion of the MSTS experience.As a route builder, if you have NOT got a working experience with AE, I highly suggest you do so. You are in for a rude awakening about what will/will-not work with AI trains/etc. To wit: 1. Some prototypical track arrangements will NOT work with AI traffic. Quickest example is the typical "ladder" arrangement that the prototype uses to fan out into a series of tracks. Reason that won't work is because the AI path will follow the straight side of the switch REGARDLESS. Anywhere the route logic requires the path to negotiate the diverging route to rejoin the main, and the AI path will not reconnect. The AI path MUST be "forced" to rejoin the main by a trailing point switches. This ONE item alone means extensive rework for my currently shelved KC&G route.2. Absolute signals MUST be used at critical points. The AI will cruise right on through a permisive with gay abandon. True, head on collisions are fun to watch... but get old when trying to set up an activity.3. The pass track switches must be automatics. In fact, you actually need automatic switches at each important trackage situation where AI traffic is intended. The AI dispatcher will NOT throw a manual switch, thus resulting in stalemates and other "interesting" experiences, to say nothing of how an unwary player can foul the AI traffic paths with an inadervant throw of a switch. Though non-prototypical, for successful AI traffic, the switching areas need to be OFF the mainline and thus OUT of the AI traffic paths.In all, it's been a harsh lesson. BUT, it's been a very enlightening lesson. Eventually, I want my mainline-oriented routes to handle AI traffic, because frankly, a good activity w/AI brings a mainline theme to life.For those of us that love route building, this brings with it a set of circumstances that we will absolutely, positively face and MUST decide: Should I lay the track with prototype fidelity or activity friendliness in mind? I think I will choose the later.This means that my own KC&G is going to have to have some HEAVY revisions. So much so, that it may be in dire straights. What a shame.That's why this post. If you're in the beginning stages of building a route in which you envision AI traffic running up and down the line for the player train to contend with... you'd better learn what that's going to take from the GROUND UP and save yourself some anguish.I should have done this VERY early on in my MSTS experience.Andre "Ever Learning" Ming
Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
RE: Routes vs Activities, kevarc, May-30-03, 11:04 AM, (1) RE: Routes vs Activities, Coonskin, May-30-03, 05:19 PM, (2) RE: Routes vs Activities, kevarc, May-30-03, 05:23 PM, (3) RE: Routes vs Activities, Coonskin, May-30-03, 05:50 PM, (4) RE: Routes vs Activities, kevarc, Jun-01-03, 10:54 AM, (5) RE: Routes vs Activities, ATF1224, Jun-01-03, 01:49 PM, (6) RE: Routes vs Activities, Coonskin, Jun-01-03, 04:17 PM, (7) RE: Routes vs Activities, robertreedy, Jun-01-03, 04:41 PM, (8)
Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
