Page 1 of 1
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 21/02/2014 at 18:18 #55940 | |
Jay_G
52 posts |
First of all, massive thank you and well done for everything so far, and releasing some brilliant sims of late. Very pleasing! Whilst pondering away to my self, I came across an idea. Being relatively new to Simsig and how it works, I am not sure how feasible it is (it doesnt seem particularly difficult in my mind, as its mainly just phone calls?), if it needs a great deal of changes, or if its something in the TT. But here is my idea. I feel the one thing we lack that the real railway 'has', is incidents. Of course, not every simmer will have the knowledge on the relevant rules to 'act accordingly', so it could be added to the failures page, and change the percentage that a random 'incident' will occur, or maybe only available on the "Hard/Expect" difficult setting. My idea, would include relatively simple things like Tree on the line, Animals on the line, Tresspassers, track side fire, OHL problems, track fault, pway finding broken rail/fishplate (this of course, could be much more involved) with possible line blockages to fix the latter? (Technican calls up, can I have a LB from X1 to X2, with call back in X amount of time/LB granted, but thats something else entirely!!) The incidents could be trigged by a driver stopping at a signal to report one of the above. Then, cautioning drivers (a 'tell driver to proceed at caution' option would of course have to be added to the telephone call there), and in X amount of time, a member of pway/MOM/whoever calls up to say the problem is fixed, back to normal running. What do we think? Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 21/02/2014 at 18:39 #55942 | |
|
John
884 posts |
I'm interested in anything that gives a greater degree of realism. Whereas all of the scenarios you mention can be simulated through the F11 menu, the randomness would be nice touch. Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 21/02/2014 at 18:40 #55943 | |
|
Jay_G
52 posts |
Yeah exactly. It could be simulated, but the randomness adds to the stress!!
Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 21/02/2014 at 19:09 #55948 | |
DriverCurran
683 posts |
Jay The quoted text from the wiki is the refernce point for this.... 'SPADs also have a psychological aspect on both signaller and driver, and as such, are not appropriate in SimSig. Some games may simulate crashes, blood, guts, and gore, but SimSig is not such a game.' Paul You have to get a red before you can get any other colour Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 21/02/2014 at 19:19 #55950 | |
Peter Bennet
5360 posts |
Cambridge, Edinburgh, NESCOT and Motherwell all have random incidents of the type you are suggesting in some of the more difficult scenarios. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 21/02/2014 at 19:21 #55952 | |
|
John
884 posts |
To be fair, Jay didn't mention SPAD's. 
Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 06/03/2014 at 10:43 #56610 | |
|
uboat
219 posts |
In addition to Jay what about low fuel and mechanical problems? The train goes to the depot for attention. Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 07/03/2014 at 11:57 #56660 | |
jc92
3629 posts |
" said:In addition to Jay what about low fuel and mechanical problems?that would be near impossible with the TT structure Simsig employs. it can be done with manual alteration to the TT, but i can't see a feasible way of randomising it. on a TT I am currently working on, there is a standby loco which sits all day, before returning to the MPD in the evening. a couple of trains have -1 and -2 variations which are governed by rules to randomly appear. if such a variant appears, the TT note indicates the loco has a failure and will need to be replaced by the standby. this then requires the standby to be allocated the correct timetable (similar to the operation of the banker at bromsgrove). that's about as close as i can get to randomisation. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 07/03/2014 at 13:09 #56662 | |
postal
5190 posts |
" said:" said:You can randomise if you go far enough back up the chain to a point where a train is entering (but you lose any element of surprise). For example suppose you have Train 1 entering at X, stopping at Y then terminating at Z and forming Train 2 to return stopping at Y then exiting the sim at X. If you then want it randomly to go out of service at Y on the return trip and run ECS to the depot you would timetable Train1A and Train 1B in the same path. Train 1A would form Train 2A at Z and run normally back to X. Train 1B would from Train 2B at Z which would be TT'd to terminate at Y and form Train 3, an ECS movement to the depot. If you make Train 1A and Train 1B mutually exclusive and set a percentage in the first of the 2 in an alphanumeric listing you can adjust how often the ECS working is required. For example if you set Train 1A to an 80% probability and have no probability set for Train 1B, you would expect to see normal running on 4 out of 5 occasions with the train failure occurring once in every 5 occasions.In addition to Jay what about low fuel and mechanical problems?that would be near impossible with the TT structure Simsig employs. it can be done with manual alteration to the TT, but i can't see a feasible way of randomising it. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Last edited: 07/03/2014 at 16:32 by postal Reason: typo Log in to reply |
| More 'Incidents'/Line blockages 07/03/2014 at 15:23 #56665 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2025 posts |
I did alter one train in a similar way on a recent multiplay to "fail" in an obscure location and hang around there for an hour before going off ECS to the Depot at reduced speed. It certainly works in stitching up the job, but everyone knows its going to stand for ages as soon as it enters the sim. Certainly added some entertainment though. Log in to reply |