CIMA and Open Rails

[Don6218]

I figured I would start to put what I find with this route down here, it was getting crowded up in the "Routes" section.

Another trouble spot, Nipton Meet. This went much the same, went to Manual Control and changed the turnout for my Player train, upon doing that the AI Signal allowed it to proceed as well. Same for exiting, Manual Control for turnout, signal gave me a "Proceed" after pressing TAB. Once back out on the main, back to Auto Signal Control and all is good.

So far, two out three meets this way, the third worked only because the AI was already present. OR set up the route properly. It would seem that when this happens, the route is set up correctly, but when either AI or Player train is still travelling a Red for both is inevitable at the meet site with no change in turnout position. I am using X3862.

Not a big issue, takes away from the monotony of the desert.

Just thought I would put this in. This is a great route and the activities provided are great as well.
Kudos Jeff!

[R. Steele]

Don I don't know if the activities were actually tested in OR. From what I've seen running the activites...they were not. So you might have to adjust the AI traffic (usual stuff - start times, efficiency, starting speeds, or paths, extended shunting features perhaps)
I agree about the route - very fine work.

[Don6218]

Yes I realize that it was not meant/tested for OR compatibility, I am just relaying my findings so far in case someone else runs into the same problems, they will know it is not their system or install.

I appreciate your input though and these little hiccups are a learning curve for me.

Just after that last post, I ran into a situation were OR will not let me go back to "Auto Signal". I have included the log from that portion.
I am starting the activity over with X3866 update.

I will see what happens this time. An adventure for sure.

[jefffarq]

Don I don't know if the activities were actually tested in OR. From what I've seen running the activites...they were not.

Gerry,

I think you are correct; at least two of my testers are big ORTS guys, and ran the route in both MSTS and ORTS. But I never asked them to check everything out in ORTS. In fact, two of the activities (Las Vegas Setout and Yermo Switching) were written after my testers had pretty much finished with things. I believe only the Amtrak Rescue activity had any extensive testing in ORTS.

I apparently misjudged the size of the ORTS community, as well as its newer iterations - I'd tried it years ago and found it severely lacking compared to MSTS. I didn't realize how advanced it has become. I guess I should have made more accommodations for ORTS; I just didn't give it any thought since I don't use it.

[R. Steele]

Don't give it a second thought...I'm in the middle of running the UP Tank Train on autopilot to see what happens. So far, it appears to be working right on schedule...of course I cannot manage a loco as consistently accurate as OR code can. I'm only referring to speed and timing - the computer really does some wild things with the brakes ... and no matter what the grade, speed is always maintained.

Autopilot was designed as an aid, or testing mode for activity/content makers.

Jeff, the route inspired this screenshot >>> https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showth...wn-on-the-Cima
I cannot say enough good things about the routes you've so kindly provided to all of us.

Anyway, if the activities don't work as planned in OR, it will give someone a good time tinkering and trying to figure it out...more fun.

[Rick-MONON]

The biggest thing I noticed, using OR at least, is the AI traffic.

If you have 2 or more AI trains taking the same path, the 2 and 3d or more after that never get up to the speed limit, the first AI does but not the others following it.

They get green signals but maintain a 53mph speed.

[Don6218]

The biggest thing I noticed, using OR at least, is the AI traffic.

If you have 2 or more AI trains taking the same path, the 2 and 3d or more after that never get up to the speed limit, the first AI does but not the others following it.

They get green signals but maintain a 53mph speed.

I noticed that very thing on the Amtrak Rescue activity. The first AI leaves ahead of the player train right on time in Regular Mode or Auto pilot. In regular mode, if you start the Player train immediately behind the AI it slows up! Takes forever to go through the crossover, but it does keep going.

The next meet works properly in autopilot or regular mode. It is the ones after that, the second and up that have the speed problem. They all slow up even though most have green signals. Maybe this is what is confusing OR and giving me the reds at meets. Like Gerry said, time to Tinker and have fun.

[Rick-MONON]

I hate to say this, but I have tried 2, 5, 30 minspacing between AI trains, and the speed never inceases even though the AI's have green lights, I believe the issue is the clearing of the signals in the signal script files and maybe it is related o the shunting signals, saw in the GMO IC CN route where they would never go green again also.

[crstagg]

Have any of you considered that the ENG file for the AI (which I believe is UP8485 an SD90Mac provided with the route) has not been tweaked for ORTS?

Looking at the ENG I see "MaxPower ( 3263kW )" indicating that it is limited to 73% for MSTS rather than the full 4470kW.

Try adapting Bob Boudoin's SD90Mac ENG file found in v4_86or_acphysics.zip to the UP8485.

Decided to update it myself. Placed the modified for ORTS ENG file for UP8485 into a folder named OpenRails inside the UP8485 folder. That way when I run MSTS the original ENG filed will be used and when I run ORTS the ENG file in the UP8485\OpenRails folder will be used.

Unzip the attached to your ..\Trainset\UP8485 folder https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/...rails.zip?dl=0

[Don6218]

Charles, I am not using the supplied locos on the AI trains. They have all been replaced with "Full Power" Locos, meaning no AI locos for the AI trains in Open Rails.

This is where we need the expertise of someone to redo the files for the Main Locomotives on a power basis. That is an OR file for say a ES44AC, one for C44-9W, Ac4400CCTE etc. A basic engine file that will enhance OR performance. Since OR no longer depends on AI Engine files.

[geepster775]

Since OR no longer depends on AI Engine files.

Amen.

And notice how no longer needing AI files cuts any modification needs down by 50% right off the top. What remains becomes much more manageable.

How would you ever successfully complete an OR activity involving complex switching and train jumping, https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showth...24#post1916924 where you occupy just about every loco in a consist during the switching, without them all being player-mountable all throughout the consist?

Some guys are keeping AIs for their customized lighting codes that they probably spent months adding, so if they go down that self-made rabbit hole for whatever aesthetic purpose, then that's their choice to defend their time investment. But for others who are still using AI eng files in OR for the same simple reason they used them in MSTS, my only question is why?

[geepster775]

The biggest thing I noticed, using OR at least, is the AI traffic.

If you have 2 or more AI trains taking the same path, the 2 and 3d or more after that never get up to the speed limit, the first AI does but not the others following it.

They get green signals but maintain a 53mph speed.

If you open all these individual AI services in the AE, do they all have the same efficiency settings? I once needed an AI to be limited to 10 mph in ORTS, and that required an efficiency setting of about 8%.

If an AI is running ahead of the player, the AI is always going to run away ahead based on the fact that people are not operating trains as efficiently as the computer can. So you have to lower the efficiency setting if you want the player to keep riding that AI's yellows.

[qballbandit]

Would you be able to leverage the MaxVelocity values in the .con file for what you describe above? I always set these depending on the type of move the AI train is performing. I've never messed with efficiency percentages, and admittedly don't run activities as complex as your - yet.

[crstagg]

Would you be able to leverage the MaxVelocity values in the .con file for what you describe above? I always set these depending on the type of move the AI train is performing. I've never messed with efficiency percentages, and admittedly don't run activities as complex as your - yet.

Change them all you want. However, keep in mind that the ORTS team has stated that OR does not use the MaxVelocity values in the CON files. I was told that when it was proposed to move those Parameters in ENG files used to calculate the CON file MaxVelocity out of ENG files and into Include files. At that time I pointed out that none of the existing Consist Editors that calculated the CON file MaxVelocity values could read the Include files and thus would not be able to calculate the CON file MaxVelocity values.

[crstagg]

Charles, I am not using the supplied locos on the AI trains. They have all been replaced with "Full Power" Locos, meaning no AI locos for the AI trains in Open Rails.

This is where we need the expertise of someone to redo the files for the Main Locomotives on a power basis. That is an OR file for say a ES44AC, one for C44-9W, Ac4400CCTE etc. A basic engine file that will enhance OR performance. Since OR no longer depends on AI Engine files.

Bob provided OR ENG files for most of those locomotives in the file I mentioned above.