My point is that if there are two locations in which discussion is held, how does one determine which one is the prime location and which is the secondary if they do not share the information?
Why should it be necessary to browse two or more forums in order to keep up with information when all that was needed was......
Release X1955 introduces new "passing path" definition and processing.
Passing paths can be used to allow trains to pass one another on single track routes. The required passing paths are defined per train path in the MSTS Activity Editor.
This present version is an 'intermediate' stage leading to complete new processing. The data structure and processing have allready been prepared for the next stage, when 'alternative paths' (so not just a single passing path but multiple paths through a certain area) will be defined per location, and no longer per train.
This version, however, is still based on the MSTS activity and path definition, and therefor still based on definition of alternative paths per train.
The setup of this version is as detailed below :
Passing paths defined for the player train are available to all trains - in both directions.
The 'through' path of the player train is taken to be the "main" path through that location.
Each train can have definitions for additional passing paths, these will be available to that train only.
Note that this implies that there can be more than one passing path per location.
When possible passing locations are determined for each pair of trains, the train lengths are taken into consideration.
A location is only 'valid' as a passing location if at least one of the trains fits into the shortest of the available passing paths.
The order in which passing paths are selected :
If no train is approaching from the opposite direction (through route) :
Train's own path.
"Main" path.
Any alternative path.
If train is to pass another train approaching from the opposite direction (passing route) :
Train's own path (if not the same as "main" path).
Alternative path.
"Main" path.
However, in the situation where the train does not fit on all paths, for the first train to claim a path through the area, preference is given to the paths where the train will fit (if any).
The setting of the 'deadlock' trap (the logic which prevents trains from getting on a single track from both directions) has also been changed.
In the 'old' version, the trap was 'sprung' as a train claimed it's path through a possible passing area.
However, this often lead to quite early blocking of trains in opposite direction.
In this version the trap is 'sprung' when a train actually claims it's path in the single track section itself.
One slight flaw in this logic is that this can lead to the train which is to wait will be allocated to the "main" path, while the train which can pass is directed over the "loop". This can happen when two trains approach a single track section at almost the same time, each one claiming it's path through the passing areas at either end before the deadlock trap is actually sprung.
One word of warning : if a passing location contains platforms and there are passenger trains which are booked to stop there, passing paths should not be used for that location. A passenger train directed onto an 'alternative' path will miss it's station stop and, for AI trains, it means it will also miss all further station stops as the missed stop is not removed from the list, and further station stops are therefor not processed.
This new logic can lead to considerable changes in the behaviour of trains on single track routes - and behaviour that is certainly significantly different from that in MSTS.
Therefor, this new behaviour is introduced as 'experimental option' - the option can be set in "options", tab "experimental"; the option is named "Use location linked Passing Path processing".
IBM XT i386; 512Kb RAM; 5.25" FDD; 1.4Mb FDD; 5Mb HDD; VGA 256-colour graphics card; AdLib soundcard; DR DOS 6.0; Windows 3.0
And the sun revolves around?? I believe Elvas Tower is the "official" Open Rails forum site.
So long as the dev team and hard core users continue to participate here with announcements and general discussion, then answers to questions shouldn't be met with "go to the source". If it's such an issue, then ask Nels to close this one and add a link to Elvas.
Enough bickering, guys. If it continues, the lock comes out.
Many of the recent experimental changes have been discussed at length over at ET, and its their prerogative to decide where they have the discussion.
It's one thing to provide announcements and support here, but I can see where trying to maintain a discussion across two sites simultaneously isn't practical. Some of the ORTS developers and many of the power users/testers are active on both TS and ET, others aren't.
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, or items available in our library, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
The bug reporting is not hosted on Elvis tower, but is a completely separate website, Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/or.
When you report a bug, it is recorded and an email sent to the developer team. (I currently have 4010 of them in my inbox, maybe I should start deleting the ones that we've fixed...)
To answer the question of the OP, checking the option won't allow the AI dispatcher to put a train in a siding that is too short to hold the train.
It's considered an "experimental" feature since it's uncertain if it will have a negative impact on frame rates, and it's still a work in progress.
This is the official home of Open Rails with news and links to content, vendors and the community. Open Rails is a totally free train simulator that supports the world’s largest range of rail content.
and click on the hyperlink, it takes one to ET. Why not offer some instructions and link directly to launchpad?
That's a pretty slick feature, Robert. How is this set in the MSTS Activity Editor, or is it completely hands off processing?
It's still based on the passing paths defined in the player train's .PAT file.
If you like what you see here at Trainsim.com, be it the discussions and knowledge in the forums, or items available in our library, I hope you'll consider a paid membership to help support keeping the site operating.... Thanks!
....To answer the question of the OP, checking the option won't allow the AI dispatcher to put a train in a siding that is too short to hold the train.
It's considered an "experimental" feature since it's uncertain if it will have a negative impact on frame rates, and it's still a work in progress.
Thanks for trying Open Rails, seagoon!
Robert
Thanks, Robert.
A grain of common sense in a field of thistles.
IBM XT i386; 512Kb RAM; 5.25" FDD; 1.4Mb FDD; 5Mb HDD; VGA 256-colour graphics card; AdLib soundcard; DR DOS 6.0; Windows 3.0
I believe Elvas Tower is the "official" Open Rails forum site.
No. There isn't any OFFICIAL forum site (at least not one I've been told about and I own Elvastower.com).
I offered the Open Rails team room for a private forum waay back when the project started. I was also an OR team member. The offer was accepted and team members began to post notes in that private forum to each other right away. At some later time a public forum was created at ET, here at TS.com, and over at the UK train sim site, all with the idea that end users might want to have a forum where questions could be asked. There was never any discussion that one site was "more official" than another. On the contrary, the thinking was the broader exposure via many sites was better for the OR project -- more sites means more people which means more feedback.
AFAIK, none of the thoughts that went into the above decision to create several public forums has changed and so, again, AFAIK that's ALL there is to it.
One more thing... when this forum was created Nel's & his staff wanted OR team members to be the mods. As an OR team member I said no. I thought then and still hold today that for a full and free exchange of ideas content providers (such as the OR team) should not moderate forums where that content is discussed -- it becomes too easy to censor unwanted opinions when creators hold the delete button. I got out-voted and so the Mods here are who they are... some from TS.com, some from the OR team. At ET no active member of the team is a Mod in the public forums. I mention this only to underline the point that there was no intent at any time for the various site OR forums to be unequal in the full exchange of information and/or level of participation. To whatever extent reality shows any real differences, that is, AFAIK, due to choices made only by individuals w/o reference to any other persons... the same as seen on any other forum on this, or any other site.
I hope that can close off any further speculation about this matter.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We do not share information about our users with anyone. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I UNDERSTAND" below, you consent to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment