Train-Sim.Com
MSTS Activity Design

FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

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.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend

Reading Topic #1637

Charter Member · 100 posts

LAST EDITED ON May-05-03 AT 03:08 AM (EDT)

With the recent discussion about the drawbacks of "permissive" signal indications in MSTS, I would like to hear your opinions and suggestions for the signal system for the next release of Full Bucket Line.Mainly I would like to hear opinions regarding Permissive signals. Should I include the permissive indications (and to risk having an AI train crash to player's rear end), or to do the unprototypical thing and to make all signals Absolute (ie. "Stop and Stay").This is your chance to tell me your opinions.Cheers,

TVRail
President & CEO, Dakota Eastern Railroad
Member of Yonder Locomotive Works

Alert | IP

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

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, kevarc, May-05-03, 11:10 AM, (1) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, buttercup, May-05-03, 12:20 PM, (2) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, Claude350, May-05-03, 06:32 PM, (3) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, mauried, May-05-03, 07:27 PM, (4) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, FullBucket, May-06-03, 03:55 AM, (6) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, kevarc, May-06-03, 12:45 PM, (8) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, cn_bayview, May-05-03, 10:37 PM, (5) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, harryadkins, May-06-03, 12:28 PM, (7) RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted, tvrail, May-07-03, 09:21 AM, (9)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Charter Member · 4246 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

FBL needs to have LESS signals. The branch up to, can't think of it, has signals that make it a pain to do activities. Need to add a ton of reverse points. That branch also needs a better way for an engine to escape at the end of the branch. If you have a train of more than two or three cars, you cannot get the engine out with some very convoluted switching. Again the signals play a part of the difficulty.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIESFBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted – image 1

Alert | IP

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

Charter Member · 137 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

I'm just going to throw this out here. It may or may not be correct, but after running quite a few activities I think the sim does the following.Absolute blocks consist of stretchs of track between two opposite facing absolute signals. This can cause problems when opposite facing absolute signals are used on single track sections. One place where this happens on FBLv2 is between MP's 1226 & 1230, 1230 & 1231, 1231 & 1233 there are opposite facing absolute signals which create 3 absolute blocks on a single track. When the sim looks at the block ahead it can see an empty block even though there may be a train approaching from the opposite direction on the single track. By the time it sees an occupied block both trains can be on the single track with no way out. If someone doesn't run an activity with the timing expected by it's author he may end up with a stalemate on this stretch of track.If the above is true then the entire length of a single track secton should be one absolute block. One way to accomplish this on this section of track would be to have double track sections on the wye. That way you would have an alternate route and still have absolute signals protecting the legs of the wye.The ideal solution would to be able to designate blocks so that the sim would check the entire single track section for occupancy. I have no idea if this is possible or not, but since it is possible to designate track sections on multiple head signals, would it be possible to have single head signals that would allow multiple track sections to be selected so that all the sections along a single track stretch could be selected so that the single head signal would protect it's entire length.As I said above if my orignal premis is incorrect then the above is meaningless.RegardsEric

Alert | IP

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

Charter Member · 1296 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

Keep some of those permissive signals in there.There are sections on the main line where there use is warranted.Especially if you have long section of open track.

Claude350

Alert | IP

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

Member since Aug-25-02 · 107 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

When a train is approaching an absolute signal , the AI Dispatcher looks ahead for (SNCA Signal Num Cleared Ahead) signals in an attempt to clear them.
The value of SNCA can be varied and is set in the signal config script.
If you are getting a stalemate on a single line ,then it means that the signals used in the route have the SNCA set too low ,or there are too many signals on the single line section so that the AI cant see far enough ahead.
The SNCA value is a compromise and varies from around 3 to 6 .
Values below 3 seem to default to 3 .
Values between 4 and 6 seem to be a good compromise.MD

MD

Alert | IP

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

Charter Member · 125 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

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

> That branch also needs a better way for an engine to escape at
> the end of the branch. If you have a train of more than two
> or three cars, you cannot get the engine out with some very
> convoluted switching.Kevin, last but not least due to your suggestion a few month ago, this section at Simonville will be completely redesigned in FBL version 3.0. Even TVRail doesn't know the changes I made (yet!). Cheers, BjörnBTW: Monday, May 12, is the FBL's birthday.

FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted – image 2
http://www.fullbucket.com/msts/

Alert | IP

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

Charter Member · 4246 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

ThanksSignals, as referenced in the post below do make it hard to set up activities. Everytime you add signals, esp in the yards, keep adding reverse points which complicate paths. Movements in yards a PITA when you have to keep adding reverse points. For instance, to set up an activity in Simonville, without any signals other than where the branch reenters the mainline only require a single reveres point. You put that point where you want the last movement to be. That way it does not trigger a red for the mainline until the switching actions are over on the branch. You could leave the signal before the wye, that way the player returning from Simonville has a chance of getting a red and letting a manifest pass while waiting on the branch line to proceed.Kevin Arceneaux
DEFAULT IS FOR DUMMIESFBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted – image 3

Alert | IP

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

Charter Member · 1089 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

Hi,
One thing you would want to do is Home signals at the sidings or diamonds etc.And intermediate signals.
Because that way AI will work out.
instead of meeting in between sidings.For intermediate signals you'd want restricting and home signals would be absolute signals(stop and stay)just my thoughts!

Rob.
Mile 21.0 CN Oakville Sub.FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted – image 4

Alert | IP

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

Member since Aug-6-02 · 16 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted

First I would like to say that the Full Bucket Line is one of my favorites!!! I operate it exclusively as either UP or SP. I do agree that there are too many signals on the FBL that hinder online switching. I suggest that you remove all signals on the branch lines and in the Lake Hurst Yard. All we really need are signals at the entrances to the mainline. I also suggest that you take out the stub end yard at Lake Hurst and make one long double-ended yard. Not too many stub ended yards in the USA. Thanks to all for an excellent route!

Alert | IP

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

Charter Member · 100 posts

RE: FBLine Version 3 Signals - Opinions Wanted


I have noticed the difficulties with the signals at yards and where switching is being done. Believe me, a great number of signals will be up-rooted in FBLine3. These include most of the signals at/around yards.I agree that Simonville branch should not have signals. I'm working on a suitable solution, and it will include some specially designed signals (switch-point indicators, distant signals).But the main question was that should or should not there be permissive signals on the main line. I will run a few tests with the absolute-only intermediate signals and check if those work. Last time I tried the absolute only signals did worked, but the tests were not thoroughly comprehensive.The drawback of a RESTRICTING or STOP AND PROCEED indication is that the AI train will slow down to a crawl and will crawl on and on, and on... and so on. Nothing makes it to return to normal speed.

TVRail
President & CEO, Dakota Eastern Railroad
Member of Yonder Locomotive Works

Alert | IP


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

Restored from the Train-Sim.Com archive, captured May 16, 2003. About this archive.