Railworks America

In the process of putting together a complex switching scenario for Munich-Augsburg, I've placed a number of AI trains near portals with the intention of loading the trains into those portals for the final version. Why? Simply because when I look at the 2D map while playing a scenario and see AI trains parked all over the place they irritate my aesthetic sense. Also, because it's usually possible and fun to do, all the more so because RSC says it shouldn't be possible.

Munich-Augsburg features a number of convenient portals, but many of them have proved unusable for "storing" AI trains because a single portal covers two or more tracks and I've just discovered that a train stored on one track of a multi-track portal winds up blocking trains whose final destination is another track covered by that same portal. I don't recall this happening previously, so perhaps it's the result of an update. Interestingly enough, most of these multi-track portals show up as individual track portals in the editor and on the 2D map, which can be very frustrating to scenario writers.

By the way, M-A does not have nearly as many portals as it could or, in my opinion, should. There are dead-end tracks all over the place without portals, the above-mentioned multiple dead-ends with only a single portal, and especially dead-end yard spurs where a terminal portal could prove very useful.

A tremendous improvement to TS would be the possibility of placing portals at the scenario editing level rather than just at the world editing level.

Regards,

That's not a bad idea.

I had asked about adding portals to the scenario editor level and they said they would not be doing it because they are very particular about the placement. If you have an AI train go into a portal before it clears a block you will not get the clear aspect for any other trains behind it.

robbit wrote:I had asked about adding portals to the scenario editor level and they said they would not be doing it because they are very particular about the placement. If you have an AI train go into a portal before it clears a block you will not get the clear aspect for any other trains behind it.

Wow wish I would have known that while placing portals onthe NERW. Nothing ever came up so I must have placed them in the right places. Too much information out there that is not properly documented.

robbit wrote:I had asked about adding portals to the scenario editor level and they said they would not be doing it because they are very particular about the placement. If you have an AI train go into a portal before it clears a block you will not get the clear aspect for any other trains behind it.

So that becomes a problem for scenario writers, doesn't it? Most of us who write scenarios are more than intelligent enough to spot problems like this and deal with them. RSC should stop playing "mother": if a scenario writer is foolish enough to make such an error, it affects only that scenario, whereas not allowing portal placement at the scenario level potentially affects all scenarios.

This sounds like an excuse, not a reason, to me. What I'd like to be able to do is place portals at the end of tracks that just terminate: something that RSC and their hired route creators almost always fail to do. If they aren't going to place portals in such logical places at the route level, why not let the rest of us do so at the scenario level?

I agree wholeheartedly. It would make life a lot easier and just imagine the possibilities it would create as far as scenario traffic.

robbit wrote:I agree wholeheartedly. It would make life a lot easier and just imagine the possibilities it would create as far as scenario traffic.

Tell me about it! I'm working on a scenario with lots of AI traffic and would like to add even more, but the limited number of available portals ultimately determines the quantity of AI trains. Being able to place portals at the scenario editing level would allow me to take advantage of all those tracks that just dead-end in a grass patch.

Come on, RSC: this must be possible! Let us kiddies really play with the toys!!

You could put a siding marker anywhere on the route and have the ai stop there but that does not take it out of the scenario. But that is a horse of a different color.

robbit wrote:You could put a siding marker anywhere on the route and have the ai stop there but that does not take it out of the scenario. But that is a horse of a different color.

Sure ... that's a possible fix, but it's far from the cure, especially the elegant cure. I approach scenario writing not only from the practical, but also from the aesthetic point of view. When I start playing a fresh scenario and press <9> to look for my first destination, I really don't like seeing an AI train parked on some track waiting for its start time to arrive. It's like seeing an actor whose character has not yet entered the play's action, but who is nevertheless standing idly and visibly on stage, rather than off in the invisible wings. Perhaps he's even picking his nose, or checking his deodorant. It's the opposite of aesthetic: it's just plain ugly. And it tells me that the scenario's writer either doesn't take notice of things like this or, worse, just doesn't care. Not unlike scenario writers who never bother to go beyond editor-assigned train names: "Service 1", "Service 2". "Player train" or "My train" are a little better, but only a very little.

So, I want AI "actors" in the wings, meaning either too far away from the action to be seen on the 2D map or, much better yet, concealed behind a portal. Not waiting to be "spawned", which sounds as though a portal simply spews out unplanned rolling stock, but waiting to enter on cue when they are wanted. I apologize for being so long-winded: that's just my nature.

I feel the same way about not wanting to see the trains waiting to leave but sometimes there is no choice and I hate looking in the 2d map and seeing unnamed trains. I have tried having the AI trains come out of portals before with some luck and dome others that where not so lucky, but thanks to you and your portal testing scenarios and prior posts I have learned the correct way to do so and what to look for in the portal placement and names to know ahead of time if there will be a problem with it and now I try to do it as much as possible. And you do not have to apologize about being long winded because anyone who has been around long enough knows that that is your way. And I always enjoy reading your posts because they are so well written and the analogies you use are entertaining as well.

Interesting info on this thread at UKTrainSim about messages sent by the game engine.
Some of it is relevant to portals, even to trains starting inside portals.

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=129485