Running without AI and trail engines

[derekmorton]

With the ability of OR to handle full engines,
I have been removing all of my AI and Trail engines and running with full engines everywhere.

Is anyone else trying this?

[frliss]

With the ability of OR to handle full engines,
I have been removing all of my AI and Trail engines and running with full engines everywhere.

Is anyone else trying this?

Hi Derek,

I've been been doing that for quite a while now. Seems to work ok but I have no hard data on this issue.

Fred

[geepster775]

Did this long ago.

In the real world any engine located in any spur, siding or in any position in any train that is not tagged for a defect is operator mountable and can be commandeered by any engineer at any time. Why would we not enable the same potential in the sim? Decreasing the operating flexibility to work around MSTS limitations of the past is not a valid reason to maintain AI and Trail any more.

[R. Steele]

Did this long ago.

Yep, same here.

[rdayt]

Added cabs to the ones I wanted to keep and pitched the rest.
Years ago.

[qballbandit]

I know I've commented a few times on this in the past when this discussion was raised.
Given all that was stated above, and I admit I have not spent time addressing this in OR, can I still achieve what I have done for years, which is -
Create an AI copy of all player engines in order to have the ability to have a train in a siding with lights off/engine running, or dims lights on/engine running? Or, I have always created static versions of player engines to scatter around yards, sidings and spurs either with dims lights on/no engine running, or no lights/no engine running.

With using the same .eng file as the player engines, I can't see how this can be accomplished? If I have to create a second and/or third to do this, what did I gain?

I get using all player engines in a running train, both player and AI , but what about my scenarios above?

[geepster775]

It depends on what you want out of the sim, Neil, whether keeping them has value or not.

When you post pics, I see a lot of diorama scenes with or without trains, and very little complex activity operation from one end of a route to another. And if you enjoy that, by all means have fun continuing to create 6 different eng files for each locomotive road number to deliver the experience you seek.

Burgerbern is another user who always wants to see crew figurines inside the cabs of lead units. He spends a lot of time adjusting the position of the crew figure F/A to fit a variety of power, and he maintains separate eng files for crew-equipped player lead unit, crew equipped AI leader, and crewless trail units. He has about 6,000 eng files to maintain compared to my 2,000. Of course, his solution is kinda rigid and does not work well with newer Open Rails activities where the player or AI train has to perform a lead unit setout because of a defect, or swaps out lead unit with another AI train about half way through the activity. ( see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyynPDB4k1E ) or ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFmEQ15LPA ). The more complex the activity, the less plausible his system of deploying fixed F/A's is. After the loco swap, his replacement lead unit is crewless and the new trailing ex-leader still has the crew in it. But then maybe complex activities doesn't float his boat. Maybe he just likes driving from point A to point B. As for me, I enjoy complex activities, and I would simply prefer to wait for version 2.7 of Open Rails released in the year 2026 to have the sim itself dynamically populate lead units of all consists with crew figures when the sim loads, and then reposition them automatically if the loco consist changes. Until then, I can go without crew figures and this strategy saves me from maintaining 4,000 eventually redundant eng files. Maybe someday you will put down the control pad of the "great scene manufacturing machine" and start diving deeper into the complex activities side of things. But that's going to depend on what floats your boat.

[qballbandit]

I agree, my "home made" activities are mostly comprised of me running a train from A-to-B with some meets along the way, and equipment populating sidings and yards. My time is limited to 30-60 minutes when I run trains, and I never spent the necessary time to learn how to create the complex activities that you thrive to create and run. I think what you come up with is very creative, realistic, thought provoking, and challenging to run accurately. I applaud you for this.
My passion is indeed scenery. Same as has been with my Flightsim for years. The way my mind is wired is, if it doesn't look as realistic as I can get it to look, I feel like I am playing a game vs. running a high-end simulator (or pretending to drive a real train, of fly a real plane ), and my interest fades.
My niche, your niche. Maybe one day I'll be able to combine the two, but for the moment, I am completely satisfied with running trains and seeing AI's pass or wait for me to pass, etc.

Enjoy!

[Shawmut]

I've been in the process of cleaning out redundant eng files myself, as well as applying Erick Cantu's methodology to freight cars that I first observed in his Gosskit retrofits. For example, by creating a single physics file for the Autoracks_Jeff_A folder, and aliasing it to each wag file, I've been able to reduce the wag file to 4-5 lines of text and a delete whole slew of .sd files and those jpg files that Route Riter created. As a consequence my Autoracks_Jeff_A folder went from 63.5 MB to 57.4 MB, and from 519 files/folders to 403. Fewer draw calls for the 'puter, and it somehow tickles my OCD impulses.

But back to the engine files of this discussion. For pusher engines without a Fred on the end I like to see the headlights dimmed and I have so far been unable to replicate this with a driveable engine. I can of course switch cabs and turn on the lights dimmed, but when I go back into the lead engine and put on bright lights the pusher's lights go off. Is there a way to do this in OR, or do I still need an AI engine for that purpose?

Dave

[wwhall]

If you look at some of TrainSimulations recent .eng files, they usually have additional lines to define lights for DPU units. You could probably adapt those to your locomotives.

To answer Neil's question about lights on static consists: OR has an irritating feature that I don't like. The program automatically lights the headlights on static consist locomotives. I think the reasoning behind that is that a static train "posing" as an active one on a siding should have a lit headlight. I don't agree with that method--I would rather see the headlight off unless it is set to "always on" in the .eng file. Then, if one wanted a consist to sit on a siding with a lit headlight, I would set it up on the siding as an AI with a very short path and a very long waiting point.

[Shawmut]

If you look at some of TrainSimulations recent .eng files, they usually have additional lines to define lights for DPU units. You could probably adapt those to your locomotives.

Just checked in the BNSF_SELIGMAN_GE_ENGINES folder, and sho 'nuff there are lines under the comment heading of "DPU Lighting." Will give this a test and if it works then I've just lost the last reason to keep AI engines!

[Edit] It does indeed work. Thank you, sir!

Dave