Message Areas - "AI Signalling system"

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"AI Signalling system"

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Previous Topic | Next Topic Conferences MSTS Activity Design (Protected) Original message
JonathanMSTS (11 posts)
Aug-23-01, 08:36 AM (EST) "AI Signalling system" I seem to be having alot of trouble with the signalling system. Unless I spend 3 hours trying to time AI traffic exactly, the signalling system is always allowing for head on crashes. It seems that a light can go from green to yellow to red extremely quickly. I also have the problem that if and AI train is going to pass me on the main it always stops and I have to back up a few feet to clear his path (when I back up the switching aid turns green for the main track). I know there have complaints but does anybody know how to edit the logic or such other things that would help correct this. I how to mess with the aspects of the signal, but not how to mess with the logic as I am not a programmer. Anybody with any answers please post!Thanks,
Jonathan Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: AI Signalling system ajp31 Aug-23-01 1 RE: AI Signalling system JonathanMSTS Aug-23-01 2 RE: AI Signalling system ajp31 Aug-23-01 3 RE: AI Signalling system Frin63 Aug-23-01 4 RE: AI Signalling system JonathanMSTS Aug-23-01 5 RE: AI Signalling system flarrfan Aug-23-01 6 RE: AI Signalling system SuperDave Aug-24-01 8 RE: AI Signalling system ajp31 Aug-24-01 7 RE: AI Signalling system Dokkensound Aug-24-01 9 RE: AI Signalling system hammerstick Aug-26-01 10

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
ajp31 (14 posts)
Aug-23-01, 10:48 AM (EST) 1. "RE: AI Signalling system" Jonathan,My experience with getting the AI trains to work well has revealed this: it seems that when two trains (either two AI, or one AI and the player) need to share a single track, the "rights" to that track are given to whichever train first reaches the clear signal that is two blocks away from (before) the first restrictive aspect that would be shown leading up to the shared track. For example, on the Northeast Corridor, there are four restrictive aspects (Approach Limited, Approach Medium, Approach, Stop). So if two trains are barreling down from opposite directions towards a place where they both need to use the same track, whichever train gets to the clear signal TWO blocks before what would be the "Approach Limited" signal, is given clear indications all the way through. Same is true for two trains traveling in the same direction, heading from two tracks to one.Obviously, in real life, signal aspects don't ever become more restrictive right before an engineer's eyes. I think there is only one reason for this to happen in the game (and this would be the cause of head-ons and dispatcher lock-ups): if an AI service is "inserted" into the mix at a time AFTER the player has already gotten closer than the 2 blocks+restrictive blocks I described above--or if the AI service itself is inserted too close to the single track--then the game panics and stops both trains (if it can!) until the player reverses (which does seem to solve the problem, as long as the AI train has a diverging path to go around your train!). So the solution is very simple: be careful to insert AI trains at times and positions where the AI dispatcher has enough signals between the AI train and the contested stretch of track to make use of them correctly. "Enough signals" appears to be more than we may have expected!Hope this helps,
Andy Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JonathanMSTS (11 posts)
Aug-23-01, 10:59 AM (EST) 2. "RE: AI Signalling system" Thank you Andy. What you said made alot of sense! I never put too many signals because the farther the train has to travel, the harder it is to time it right so the player doesn't have to wait too long but also so the player doesn't get there too late. I wish they had AI traffic that was activated by location or action like the events are rather then just by time. I will try this new timing scheme in my next activity.Thanks again,
Jonathan Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
ajp31 (14 posts)
Aug-23-01, 11:11 AM (EST) 3. "RE: AI Signalling system" Glad what I said made sense! In your second post I realized that what you're trying to do is set up specific "meets" with AI trains at specific locations, which is something we're all finding to be rather problematic. I've had success modeling traffic patterns over the entire stretch of line that my own train is running. In other words, put yourself at one end of the line and start a bunch of AI trains, at reasonable intervals, from the other end of the line, and let the AI dispatcher figure things out from there. When you construct the traffic patterns this way, I think the system becomes more realistic, because the signals that you get really do reflect who's getting to a contested stretch of track faster. Of course, there's no guarantee that the meets will happen at specific times and places (and there doesn't appear to be a way to prioritize trains, and say, give your train rights over and above all others), but at least you know that you won't get caught in a lock-up.Andy Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Frin63 (43 posts)
Aug-23-01, 04:25 PM (EST) 4. "RE: AI Signalling system" I do that the smae way, just starting off trains from the oppossing end of the tour every x minutes, where x depends on the amount of traffic you like to meet at that route at that time.
I then try out how it works out and can the adjust the timing a bit by messing with the departure times of the opposing traffic. In this way you can have trains rolling into stations while you are waiting for departure, for instance.
Running the 'simulation' in the lower left of the activity editor sometimes helps too but it is not allways reliable. You still have to try it out in the 'real' sim to be sure that thing really work out like you planned. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JonathanMSTS (11 posts)
Aug-23-01, 06:39 PM (EST) 5. "RE: AI Signalling system" I see what everybody is saying. That sounds like that best way. The reason I haven't tried that yet is because I haven't done any activities that are past Essex so I have less trackspace. I will experiment with that method on my next activity and be sure to space the trains further out. Question: If I root paths for the AI trains and player's train all straight all the time, with I enter into a deadlock or will the AI Dispatcher change the path of the AI trains to an appropriate siding, or do I need to make sure either the player or AI trains are routed onto double tracks or sidings?
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
flarrfan (261 posts)
Aug-23-01, 06:54 PM (EST) 6. "RE: AI Signalling system" I have been doing short AI paths in my activities on the premise that the more consists you have active on a route, the bigger the fps hit. A recent post here suggested that static consists have more impact on fps rates than AI trains. Is anyone else finding that true? Doesn't seem to make sense, because the sim ought to work harder making the AI trains move than having statis consists sitting there. If I understand the discussion here, full-route AI paths are less likely to cause conflicts leading to signal issues and collisions. When and if I ever get my MSTS computer working again, I'd like to know whether my oft-stated advice for short AI paths is good advice or not. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
SuperDave (26 posts)
Aug-24-01, 00:35 AM (EST) 8. "RE: AI Signalling system" Not to get too far off the subject of this post (AI Signalling..) but I have to add and agree with "FARRFAN" concerning "overloading" the processor with extra consists. While trying to work our a performance problem with my WFL 2081, Episode 2, I noticed a significant decrease in my frame rate performance when I added static consists. Development was progresssing normally until several static consists were added in Whitefish Yard (the starting point) just for "looks". They seemed to impact the performance even when I was in Columbia Falls(well out-of-sight of Whitefish). When I reduced the number of static consists in Whitefish, my frame rate returned to the normal rate (from as low as 10 fps, back to 15 - 20 fps).You can probably manage the problem with AI trains, as long as you don't try to have to many running at once (and have a lot of static consists). It's just one of those things you have to watch as you develop.Dave Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
ajp31 (14 posts)
Aug-24-01, 00:13 AM (EST) 7. "RE: AI Signalling system" In response to the most recent questions:First, I believe that you DO have to incorporate passing routes into the traffic paths. Since siding points are usually computer-controlled (not under manual control), having two trains coming from opposite directions on the same track would lead to an impasse. One thing I have not yet explored is the "passing path" option; I usually just keep traffic on the right-hand side anytime it's an option!Second, about fps: I too have found that static consists impact performance much more than the AI trains. When I first started out making activities I filled the yards at Washington and Wilmington with static consists, and the game was unplayable (1-2 fps). Took 'em out, didn't touch the moving traffic, and fps returned to my normal 8-15. Of course, activities with no traffic would be even better performance-wise (but why not just use explore route mode?).Andy Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Dokkensound (67 posts)
Aug-24-01, 03:24 AM (EST) 9. "RE: AI Signalling system" My experence has been to create through routes from one end to the other in each direction and create different services with different consists to use them. If you add to many AI trains the signals become very confused. I had that problem with Whitefish local 3. You would end up at a permissive red in the middle of single track with a headon. By spreading out the start times of my AI trains the problem went away. The passing paths are a little funny. The player path seems to be a hard and fast rule. I guess that makes some sence as you wouldn't want to be switched away from a siding where you have a pickup. I've tried to create real paths where your train never takes the diverging route but the diverging route is always labled as a passing path. Should be able to do that with AI traffic as well but it is hit or miss. Sometimes it works and somtimes it doesn't. What we really need is a way to assign priority to a train on a scale of 0 to 5. A 5 priority train will always get the straight through route over a lower priority unless you do not mark a passing path for the players train. That way you would have more realistic meets and be able to route your train to a siding for drops or pickups.
R. Easterday (DokkenSound)
"But these go to "11""
Spinal Tap Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
hammerstick (2 posts)
Aug-26-01, 07:37 AM (EST) 10. "RE: AI Signalling system" I have an activity on the NEC where I had six AI trains running well, although their top speed was about 40MPH. After fine tuning station stops and meets at crossovers, I decided to add static consists in sidings and yards. This was a mistake. The speed of the AI trains was reduced to less than 20MPH, changing running times, stops and meets. My player driven train ended up waiting at a crossover for 15 minutes waiting for an AI train to creep by. Obviously, all of the static equipment affected things, but I can't figure out how to fix it without removing all of them. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic