Super-aggravating aggravations

[OldProf]

There are few things that really anger and aggravate me about RW3. One of them involves speed limit changes that occur before the spot identified for them in the F4 HUD ribbon, especially those that result in a SPAD-forced stop. There I am, driving along, carefully decelerating to meet the speed reduction ahead of me and ... POOF! the limit changes well before its indicator in the ribbon and I'm turned into a poor driver. Another is an AI crash, path error, or derailment that occurs during the last minute or so of a very long scenario. I'm slowing down to stop correctly at the scenario's final destination. I've stuck with this scenario for 50, 60, even 100 of more minutes and just before I reach a successful ending ... POOF! an AI disaster tosses my achievement out the window.

I simply fail to understand why speed limits change before (or, in some cases, after their markers. As for the AI crashes, I know from my scenario writing experiences that they are sometimes random. Yes! They occur on one run of a scenario, but not on another ... completely unpredictably, as far as I can tell. This is especially true of "AI train +++++ has left the path" errors.

I'm not by any means saying that I would prefer scenarios without AI traffic which, among other things, makes some of those absurdly long scenarios bearable. As anyone who has played one of my own scenarios knows, I build in as much AI traffic as ... well ... as the traffic will bear. Then I test, retest, test again, ask fellow scenario writers to test, and, finally, test two more times to make sure, to the extent possible, that no AI train will crash the scenario. Do other scenario writers do this? I know of at least one who does, and many, including those who charge for their scenarios, RSC among them, who obviously do not.

Why not?

{Just in case someone is moved to ask, yes, I have sent this message to RSC support.}

[robbit]

The speed changes prematurely because the route builder did not pay close enough attention or was in to much of a hurry to align the speed marker in the right spot :(

[NDORFN]

The speed changes prematurely because the route builder did not pay close enough attention or was in to much of a hurry to align the speed marker in the right spot :(

Exactly. Those route builders have only one thing on thier minds and it's not quality.

[Machinist]

The speed changes prematurely because the route builder did not pay close enough attention or was in to much of a hurry to align the speed marker in the right spot :(

Exactly. Those route builders have only one thing on thier minds and it's not quality.

Exactly, this is careless (or not enough care) of route creator. You can check this using that feature in Scenario Editor "track properties" or whatever its name. Too much focus on visual stuffs, and deficient attention to driving stuffs. Most of the game is still concieved to be played as a sort of "train model" style (from helicopter's views, outside of cabin).

Edit later, about the AI Traffic: I've played and wrote scenarios for the other trainsim, and never saw such many complaints and problems with AI Traffic as we have with RS/RW series. There was a single short rule: if needed be (if, only if), add enough waypoints to lead your AI train to its due destination. Never saw an AI colliding with other (technically impossible if it obeys traffic signals, and recognizes signals block, for example). We don't need to e-mail to RSC support. We are needing a scenario editor... not a "new" scenario editor because the existing tool cannot even be considered a scenario editor, but needing a scenario builder - for real. POOF!

[OldProf]

it's a poor workman who blames his tools. Most scenario errors can be discovered and repaired or removed through careful testing and editing, but in my experience very few scenario writers bother to edit, test, re-edit, and so on until a scenario is as good and error-free as it can be. Yes, some strange situations exist in every route. A scenario writer's task is either to uncover and work around such anomalies or to lay aside that idea and try something else. Yes, the current scenario editor leaves much to be desired, especially since two major game revisions have gone by without the editor's manual being updated. To a certain extent, then, we who write scenarios are working in partial darkness: and that, too, becomes part of the process.

Blaming the scenario editor, the route creators, the game engine, etc., is beside the point and, moreover, futile. If anyone is really to blame for a scenario that cannot be played from beginning to end, it is the person who wrote the scenario and uploaded or sold it without finishing the job by making sure that it really could be run.

[PapaXpress]

it's a poor workman who blames his tools.

QFT

[NDORFN]

Excuse my ignorance, and perhaps my paradoxically youthfull ineptitude for internet langauge (in this case) but what does "QFT" stand for?

[arizonachris]

"Quoted For Truth", oh young padawan.

[JackD]

"Quoted For Truth", oh young padawan.

Chris,

Thanks for defining "QFT".

Should NDORFN feel horribly insulted by being called a "padawan" ?

[arizonachris]

Should NDORFN feel horribly insulted by being called a "padawan" ?

No, not really. I'm still a padawan, still learning, just not so young any more. (but I do have my own light sabre- I cut trains up with it)

Just don't ask me what "ROFLMMFAO" means.

[Hawk]

Just don't ask me what "ROFLMMFAO" means.

Shouldn't that be ROTFLMFAO?

[buzz456]

Just don't ask me what "ROFLMMFAO" means. [/quote]
Shouldn't that be ROTFLMFAO? [/quote]

Only if you are normal.

[robbit]

I think the extra m is for someones mother lol