Page 1 of 1
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 17:08 #57901 | |
DanC
53 posts |
I was having a thought the other night whilst...not doing much! It's an idea that I had and I was interested to see what people thought. I'm very much into my Sims, and whilst I mainly play Train Simulator (and SimSig) I used to (and still occasionally do) play Flight Simulator also. An interesting "community" I found (There are in fact 2 I am aware of) involved combining both aspects of Flight in a multiplayer platform. These communities created a large multiplayer environment where you could either fly using Flight Simulator or Control using a variety of community developed air traffic control simulators - very similar to SimSig (In terms of creating an air traffic control program that simulated proper ATC radar screens and control facilities). Now my thought was simple - I wonder if there would be a way of doing this for the Train Simulation community. I appreciate at present, there is no multiplayer train simulator available (though I do believe Rail Simulator/Dovetail Games who make TS2014 were discussing possibility of some sort of multiplayer platform). I did wonder, however, should a train simulator with a multiplayer platform be release, would it be possible/popular to create a similar community in which people could both drive trains and be controlled by real people (e.g. A Simsig program released that interfaces with a multiplayer server and allows people to signal a route driven by real people online) Again, I appreciate this is a pipe-dream type idea and that, the likelihood is that it will never happen. I was just interested to see what people thought about the idea. I apologise if this seems a bit rambly/isn't clear (if I need to I'm happy to clarify exactly what I mean) - when I have an idea I often struggle to get it down on paper. Thanks for listening to my bizarre brain-farts :) Dan Log in to reply The following user said thank you: CTCThiago |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 17:17 #57902 | |
Tempest Malice
122 posts |
Auran's Trainz2012 has multiplayer already, but I'm not too certain about how possible it would be to get an external program to control signals within that simulator. Though I have to agree this is a good idea if it could be possible.
Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 17:21 #57904 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
I suspect Simsig puts out enough data (it needs to for MP) that a suitably programmed interface could pick it up and show signals in a driver sim. But programming that interface might be just a little bit interesting... if anyone here knows where to start I'm sure it would be much appreciated though.
Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 18:02 #57909 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
Can it be done.... Yes, in theory there is no reason why not. It would require the train simulator folks and the SimSig folks to work together and for that to happen there would need to be interest on both sides of the fence to push it forward. Are enough personnel with the experience and access to the necessary tools who that are motivated to do it? From the SimSig side, we still have a lot of the country not simulated yet (though work never ceases in the world of SimSig of course!!!) and I suspect most SimSig users would prefer more sims than integration with a driving simulator....might be wrong though..... Then you've got more implemenation issues to deal with... For a typical TT in SimSig, it's likely to have more trains than you'll have drivers available. Would you only signal the trains that are being driven manually? If that's the case, the signalling side may be somewhat quiet and boring. However, if the other trains could be run automatically by the driving simulator, then that would make things interesting. How do you get the TC occupation from the Train Simulator? How do you get the signal aspects to the trains simulator? What controls what trains enter and from where? How does the driver telephone the signaler? What happens if a train being driven by a real person passes a signal at danger (remember this NEVER happens in SimSig)? There are no doubt a host of other potential problems too (these just happens to be the ones that sprung to mind). None of them are insurmountable I grant you but they'd need to be solved. I agree its certainly an interesting proposition...however, I think before anything happened there would need to be a willingness on both sides to do it and that may be the biggest stumbling block. Last edited: 27/03/2014 at 18:03 by Lardybiker Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 18:12 #57910 | |
|
DanC
53 posts |
" said:Can it be done.... Yes, in theory there is no reason why not.Whilst I agree with this to an extent, if the train simulator goes into a multiplayer platform then the simulator must output information for other clients simulators to interpret and process - the signalling side would simply need to be able to interpret this information! Also as a note, the flight simulation equivalents (not sure if I'm allowed to post who they are?) were self developed and had absolutely no input from the creators of the simulator, so I'd say whilst collaboration between simulator and SimSig would be helpful, maybe not completely necessary! Interesting discussion - good to see peoples ideas/thoughts 
Last edited: 27/03/2014 at 18:13 by DanC Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 20:34 #57918 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
" said:Whilst I agree with this to an extent, if the train simulator goes into a multiplayer platform then the simulator must output information for other clients simulators to interpret and process - the signalling side would simply need to be able to interpret this information!Correct but you are only considering half of the story. It requires that both sides give out data as well as being able to accept data. To begin with, the trains location would need to be available from the train simulator. In a multi-player train simulator environment, you expect that would to have to be transmitted but SimSig would need TC occupancy. I doubt such a concept exits in the train simulator system. They probably just send the trains location data using a GPS-tpye co-ordinate. This is no good for SimSig so it would then need to be taken and interpreted. However, you'd also need the length to the train or it's type (so you can extrapolate it's length) to compute which TC's are being occupied. That data could then be passed to SimSig. Within SimSig, the sim itself would need to accept this TC occupancy data. As it stands no simulation can do that for all TC's in a sim so a special sim would have to be built specifically for this. Assuming that is done, SimSig would then know where the trains are, but to affect control, it would need to pass the signalling data back to train simulator. Each signal change would need to be sent which may require additional changes to the sim in question to transmit the data required. The next step is getting that data into the train simulator. Can the Train simulator accept external messages for individual signal control? If it can, then there just needs to be data conversion. The result is that while you may not need both sets of folks to work together, at minimum you'd need the SimSig dev folks to build you a sim specific for this purpose. Ypou may also require the train simulator folks to have to make certain adjustments too. As a result doing it completely independently wouldn't be possible. Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 22:32 #57921 | |
Peter Bennet
5360 posts |
I vaguely recall Kurt talking about this many years ago, something to do with BVT (Is that what it's called?) Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Last edited: 27/03/2014 at 22:32 by Peter Bennet Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 22:52 #57922 | |
dmaze
88 posts |
My US$0.02... I *think* most of the commercial train-driving simulators have enough of a notion of track circuits to do a plausible implementation of signaling. You'd need a piece of code that pretended to be the "server" for a multiplayer SimSig that could interact with that. If one of the driving simulators also had enough of a multiplayer network interface, you could build the single magic server for both. The hard part of this is going to be getting a compatible driving map and simulation map. There's definitely some overlap between the (Dovetail) Train Simulator maps and SimSig maps, but it is just overlap. Every train in a SimSig timetable would need to match up with actual stock in the driving simulator. You'd need an auto-driver module in case not every train has a driver, and an auto-signaler module in case nobody is doing that role. Now you're getting to "it needs to be easy to create SimSig maps to be compatible with SimDrive maps"...which suggests a non-SimSig platform as a base for this. In my dream world this is also easy to plug into other driving interfaces, which in particular means that it can be a signaling interface for my model railroad setup too. :-) This isn't impossible, it's just a lot of work. Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 27/03/2014 at 22:53 #57923 | |
Temple Meads
307 posts |
" said:I vaguely recall Kurt talking about this many years ago, something to do with BVT (Is that what it's called?)I think you mean BVE Peter? Username TIM in multiplayer Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 05:31 #57928 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
The basic idea is fine, but as we all know, signalling rules in different countries differ greatly. These include the shapes of the signals, the colour light displays, the degree of interlocking and the nature of the traffic within each area simulated. Most of the large "driver simulator" seem to be American, rather than UK-based, so there would need to be a whole new set of rules for UK sims if signalling is to be accurate. Even these detailed sims make lots of compromises, track gauge being just one of them. Of course, the many clubs and groups who build and run model railroads embody DanC's idea. They meet regularly at a time convenient to all (not like an ad hoc multiplayer game), the train operators are each given a card telling them where to go to collect their consist and where to take it, there are coordinators who handle the signalling, everyone has a good time for a few hours then return to their homes. Recent issues of Model Railroad Hobbyist Magazine (free) contain articles about how to set up a group. The members regularly play the same layout and after a time work smoothly as a team, just as in real life where signallers know their own area and drivers know their own routes. I would hate to be playing the driver of one of my sims, stuck for what seems like eternity at red signals along the way, crawling forward, watching Class 2 and even freight trains pass when I'm driving a Class 1, delayed by the breakdown in the train in front or a wrong food trolley, harangued by my passengers by being forced to pass the next station without stopping, told to reverse into freight sidings or ring back every 15 minutes, etc. If only I could get my hands on that shift signaller I'd ... The driver-signaller milieu seems to be a delicate piece of machinery, fine when everything runs smoothly, a nightmare when enough goes wrong and takes you way beyond your comfort level. For it to be rugged enough to withstand these vicissitudes it has to be greatly simplified. Oversimplification is not something for which SimSig is noted. Seriously, as a cabin-view sim driver I'd expect signalling to be impeccable and to provide interesting and varied trips each time, as far as driving the same route can be considered interesting and varied. I would not like to be told by a live human signaller to hang around for half an hour while gridlock is sorted out elsewhere. I can think of four types of simulators. 1) Cab view and signal panel are entirely separate. The driver has a map of his route but no control over signalling. Early versions of BVE were cab view only and signalling was fixed for each route. DanC's concept requires route flexibility. 2) Drivers have both cab and limited external views, as in the major driver simulators. Usually the driver can throw points as well. Signalling is rudimentary but set scenarios have AI trains and signals. Drivers have detailed maps of their routes showing trains as moving objects. 3) Freight and shunting simulators such as Freight Yard Manager, which is plan view only and caters for those who enjoy assembling and disassembling large consists. SimSig stops at the siding, so if you wish to cater for drivers you might have to include this aspect, as the larger driving simulators do. 4) Signalling simulators with 2D panels only (SimSig, Train Dispatcher) or 3D (landscape) views (A-Train/Train Giant, Locomania). I used to love playing Locomania for its tiny trains and large layouts but found the game design most frustrating. Remember, these are GAMES and, as such, are there for entertainment so must not become boring. As a result of all this, I would like someone to produce a computer version of a really large model railroad, with realistic curve radii, either fictional or based on a real locality, suitable for no more than perhaps a dozen players including signallers and controllers. Last edited: 28/03/2014 at 05:32 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 06:06 #57929 | |
|
Hawk777
386 posts |
This would be really fun to see, but as others have pointed out, a lot of work to implement. Trains and railways carry a lot more state than airplanes—an airplane can be fully described by its latitude, longitude, altitude, heading, airspeed, and transponder code, six numbers which the flight simulator already ships over the network to all other players in order for them to see the plane (communication was handled by a separate program which wasn’t built into the flight simulator, if I remember correctly). Also, I’ll point out that the ATC simulator used in the network described, if it’s the same one I was thinking of, was developed from scratch just for that purpose—it wasn’t bolted onto an existing ATC simulator. Finally, an ATC simulator is much easier to build than SimSig: all you have to do is draw a static image with a few lines for runways and paths, plus a few dots for planes; all the physics is taken care of by the flight simulator side.
Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 09:16 #57932 | |
|
GoochyB
222 posts |
This was discussed some time ago now. One of the points raised then was how different the user experience would be - if you are driving then does it matter to you whether the signals are controlled by an invisible human or by an effectively pre-defined process/AI; if you are signalling does it matter to you that there are humans driving the trains or they are run by the sim? Could you tell the difference in either situation?
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 10:23 #57935 | |
|
kbarber
1712 posts |
" said:
So how is TC occupancy passed between server & client in a MP scenario? Could that be exploited to pass TC occupancy from driving sim to SimSig? " said: Assuming that is done, SimSig would then know where the trains are, but to affect control, it would need to pass the signalling data back to train simulator. Each signal change would need to be sent which may require additional changes to the sim in question to transmit the data required. If I read the original idea correctly (not always a valid assumption), signalling data is already passed from one instance of the driving sim to another - that's how it becomes part of a community setup. Again, SimSig must be able to pass signal data from server to client (and possibly vice versa) so it shouldn't be that impossible to pass it to the driving sim. " said: The next step is getting that data into the train simulator. Can the Train simulator accept external messages for individual signal control? If it can, then there just needs to be data conversion.If my speculations above are correct SimSig should already be able to handle everything (perhaps at the cost of adapting MP facilities to a purpose they weren't originally intended for). So most of the work on 'our' side of the house is already done; what we need is a driving sim that can intereact with SliSig. Intuitively, I suspect what would be needed is a connection module that took all the data from each side and converted it to send to the other side. In principle, I suspect, pretty simple. But in reality, I suspect, extremely complex! Would there be a generic module capable of working with any sim, with just the data being sim-specific? Or would a module have to be developed for every sim? I suspect this would need a team of core code writers drawn from both communities, plus a team of developers to create each sim-specific module (whether at the core code level or, SimSig-style, by putting together the necessary data) plus the inevitable testers (rather more than a SimSig sim needs, as it would require quite a few drivers as well as the necessary signalmen). I don't know whether signal post telephones have been considered as part of this? To a signalman (probably to a driver too) it would be far more realistic (and satisfying) to have a real conversation with a real human than simply giving a computer a multiple-choice option. It also allows rather more realistic working. Would the driver sim offer such delights as a loco not developing full power? Or an unusually light or heavy train? Perhaps that information (but not the resulting performance impact) would be kept within the driver sim, unless communicated to the signalman by phone. So the bobby would find a train being rather sluggish (or livelier than usual) and needing to regulate accordingly. Then different people work differently. Some signalmen will take a chance and run a freight on a tight margin; others will be much more cautious while others again will work by the maxim 'booked route, booked order' regardless of what that does to the timetable. Likewise some drivers will be on a finishing turn and others swinging it a bit in the hope of losing their path and racking up some overtime. Some signalmen are simply, I'm afraid, better than others at judging margins and keeping the job moving. So, to respond to GoochyB, I think the experience could be very different. Then there's the Freight Yard Manager that Max refers to. Could the same idea of an exchange module allow one of those to be chained to SimSig? Max, can particular layouts be developed in the same way as for SimSig? If so, might a carriage depot be created in the same way as a freight marshalling yard? Visions of Lovers Walk shunters working all night, passing trains in & out to Brighton (and doubtless with occasional late starts and short-formed to add to the signalman's frustrations). How about Temple Mills chaining to the North London? Or Tinsley to Sheffield? I imagine Freight Yard Manager deals with randomly-varying consists? So an outgoing train could be just a couple of wagons one day and a full 1200t 60SLU the next? Methinks another exchange module would be needed to interface that with the driving sim - but then it would be the train that was picked up in the yard that dictated the finer points of performance once it got out on to the main line. (And no, I don't want to reprise my time as Brent Sidings supervisor when Willesden sim appears and the Brent FYM is developed to chain with it!!!  )I think the possibilities are legion. Once SimSig has got the whole of the UK covered (well, we're getting there fast... ) this may be the next frontier. But it's going to be a lot of work for a very expert crew, I suspect. I imagine it would need to start with the requisite expertise (and knowledge of the inner workings) of a chosen driving sim, so that side of the exchange module could be worked up a bit, then the SimSig side of the connection needs working up too. Does anyone have the expertise/knowledge to offer a possible timescale? I would imagine several years of (assumed spare-time rather than full-time) development to achieve a workable prototype, but I may well be wrong. Something to think rather a lot about...
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 12:31 #57939 | |
|
Jan
889 posts |
If I may point to a specific example, Zusi 3 intends to include external signalling and multiplayer functionality, although not necessarily in the first release. Here's a translation of the relevant passage: Quote: External signalling interface Although of course it remains to be seen whether people will actually create some British routes for Zusi, which would then make a possible connection with Simsig a worthwhile project. " said: The hard part of this is going to be getting a compatible driving map and simulation map. There's definitely some overlap between the (Dovetail) Train Simulator maps and SimSig maps, but it is just overlap. If both Simsig and the train simulator route builders strive to accurately model reality, both layouts should eventually converge on the same point (if both parts can agree on the era to be simulated), although the devil is probably in the details. However the amount of overlap between both could introduce some additional complexities. If the whole of a Simsig layout was covered by a train sim, then the whole business of creating trains, handling train physics etc. could be left completely to the train sim, with Simsig only receiving information about track occupancy etc., just like a real signal box. With partial coverage, things would get more a bit more convoluted. E.g. if I have a train sim route covering King's Cross to Cambridge, what happens to Shepreth Branch Junction - Stansted, Cambridge - Ely etc.? Either you'd need to create a custom Simsig which only covers the layout modelled in the driving sim, or else you'd need to transfer trains between the two worlds. So basically in that example, parts of Cambridge sim would have to operate in server mode, while being "chained" to the parts covered by the train sim, where Simsig would be in client mode, with the train sim acting as the server. " said: You'd need an auto-driver module in case not every train has a driver, and an auto-signaler module in case nobody is doing that role.Theoretically, a good train sim ought to have those anyway... :whistle: Two million people attempt to use Birmingham's magnificent rail network every year, with just over a million of them managing to get further than Smethwick. Last edited: 28/03/2014 at 12:32 by Jan Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 12:58 #57940 | |
|
dmaze
88 posts |
" said:Then there's the Freight Yard Manager that Max refers to. Could the same idea of an exchange module allow one of those to be chained to SimSig?I like this idea. (We had someone asking here earlier about a Tinsley sim, and if they actually meant "Tinsley" and not "Sheffield"...) Quote: I imagine Freight Yard Manager deals with randomly-varying consists? So an outgoing train could be just a couple of wagons one day and a full 1200t 60SLU the next?...which is one specific technical difference (I think?) from SimSig...if SimSig gets handed a description it thinks it already knows the length, power, and timetable, yes? In a big multi-player multi-role sim, does somebody need to be Control? Quote: I think the possibilities are legion. Once SimSig has got the whole of the UK covered (well, we're getting there fast...Hey, I've got a whole 'nother continent over here... 
Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 13:47 #57944 | |
jc92
3629 posts |
I think to run tinsley properly, you would need the info for Shepcote lane PSB, with the corresponding 4 tracks over shepcote lane into Tinsley Yard, which isnt currently represented on Sheffield Simsig. Carlisle Kingmoor Tower and Toton Hump also both spring to mind immediately as good calls, along with cricklewood depot panel. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 17:37 #57953 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:" said:FYM only caters to the North American scene, and the developer has expressed that he has no interest in European layouts. In addition, development has basically stopped - there are several very long-standing bugs - and you wouldn't actually have much signalling to do anyway, given that the trains don't run to any timetable.Then there's the Freight Yard Manager that Max refers to. Could the same idea of an exchange module allow one of those to be chained to SimSig?I like this idea. (We had someone asking here earlier about a Tinsley sim, and if they actually meant "Tinsley" and not "Sheffield"...) Last edited: 28/03/2014 at 17:38 by Danny252 Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 28/03/2014 at 22:31 #57963 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Many interesting comments here. One aspect which I don't think has been mentioned so far is that SimSig makes very little demand on CPU resources. You can run it while downloading several files, burning a DVD, etc. On the other hand cab driving simulators are graphics-intensive. This has to be remembered. Furthermore, since SimSig is UK-based, reading the latest comments suggests to me that we should be looking at a UK-based cab view simulator, of which BVE is the only one that comes to mind. Originally a Japanese sim, most of its early sims were based on the UK experience thanks to a few tireless UK amateur devotees. Although later versions involve a 3D (external) view, I think SimSiggers would be quite happy with a cab-only view, which is work enough. The major stumbling-blocks will be to change the view according to the route taken and to have moving, rather than stationary, other trains on neighbouring lines. This would need a fair bit of coding. The answer seems to be to make a fresh start, possibly inviting comments from those who have made BVE the success it is, to see if the two programs can be amalgamated. Who's going to hang the bell around the cat's neck?
Last edited: 28/03/2014 at 22:33 by maxand Log in to reply The following user said thank you: CTCThiago |
| Something to think about... 29/03/2014 at 12:36 #57985 | |
|
dmaze
88 posts |
" said:One aspect which I don't think has been mentioned so far is that SimSig makes very little demand on CPU resources. [...] On the other hand cab driving simulators are graphics-intensive....so...you're saying you're tired of the character-cell IECC display, and you want a fully 3D rendered PSB wall-panel display? :) Actually that would be pretty awesome. And more to the point, two things that could be done for SimSig proper, if there was some sort of interface to a driving module with a model of at least a little of the real world: CCTV monitors for level crossings; and an "inside the signal box" view for sims like NWC or NEScot that have a lot of mechanical boxes on them. (Both are instances of "be able to render trains and scenery at specific locations", though modeling the interior of a signal box would be something unique.) Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 29/03/2014 at 16:40 #57987 | |
GeoffM
6282 posts |
The company I used to work for worked with an Australian driving simulator company (I forget the name) to produce a joint signalling/driving simulator for the Oslo, Norway area. IIRC there were six driving cabs, three signaller positions, and two instructors/assessors. All could be working together, or any combination of multiple sessions simultaneously. Computer-generated trains also ran to simulate passing trains not being driven by humans. Though I wrote the signalling software, I didn't really get involved with the networking side of it. I just had to expose certain properties of signals (eg aspect, route indicators etc) and receive track section occupied/clear states, send point controls and receive indications back etc. What I can tell you was that synchronisation was important. The signalling side relied on track lengths (more nodes and edges) with objects placed at specific positions, but the driving simulator also required exactly the same positions otherwise odd things could happen - for example, a signal could go back to danger just before a train passes it, instead of while passing it. Some of you may have noticed my name on MSTS2 (or whatever it was called - I never received a copy for my consultancy). Supposedly I was there to advise on how to do the signalling. But it ended up being more of "this is how we've done it, how well does it work". Poorly unfortunately. I also took the opportunity to try to get them to provide interfaces such as signalling but got nowhere. The focus was clearly on beautiful lineside trees than on realistic gameplay - an arcade game rather than a simulation. Still, that's sadly how many games are these days. So the concept has certainly been proved in the real world; just needs more co-operation between various "departments". SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following users said thank you: maxand, fsxfaulder |
| Something to think about... 29/03/2014 at 17:31 #57988 | |
|
dmaze
88 posts |
" said:Some of you may have noticed my name on MSTS2I just remember the scenario on the original MSTS, ostensibly of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, where there was one specific series of signals where the first signal was green, the fourth signal was red, and there was a normal aspect progression...but the signals were so close together that, if you were traveling at line speed, saw the flashing-yellow advance-approach signal, and immediately hit the emergency brakes, you'd still fly past the red stop signal and get thrown out. But somebody released a rebuild of the same Northeast Corridor section that behaved a lot better, and I mostly played that...in part because the signals weren't designed by game designers trying to trap players. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: guidomcc |
| Something to think about... 29/03/2014 at 17:44 #57989 | |
|
GeoffM
6282 posts |
" said:" said:I'm pretty sure I know exactly where you mean! One always had to have the pop-up driving aid thing up to have any chance of driving according to the signals. To be fair, MS did a reasonable job generally but just could have done with signalling experts on their team.Some of you may have noticed my name on MSTS2I just remember the scenario on the original MSTS, ostensibly of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, where there was one specific series of signals where the first signal was green, the fourth signal was red, and there was a normal aspect progression...but the signals were so close together that, if you were traveling at line speed, saw the flashing-yellow advance-approach signal, and immediately hit the emergency brakes, you'd still fly past the red stop signal and get thrown out. But somebody released a rebuild of the same Northeast Corridor section that behaved a lot better, and I mostly played that...in part because the signals weren't designed by game designers trying to trap players. There was another game I used to play a long time ago that was (I think) mostly US routes and the signalling was spot on. The graphics were rather basic (solid, no shading IIRC) but that didn't really matter - to me, at least. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 29/03/2014 at 21:08 #57997 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
dmaze wrote: Quote: ...so...you're saying you're tired of the character-cell IECC display, and you want a fully 3D rendered PSB wall-panel display?I'm sure you meant that in jest! Unless the real-life IECC display is upgraded, SimSig's panel should not change in the interests of authenticity and low CPU usage. Thanks GeoffM for disclosing your involvement with MSTS2 and other signalling/driving simulators and giving us an insight into how difficult this is to implement with any degree of accuracy. If this idea was to go ahead, it would require so many people to set it up that it would not be cheap to purchase, or else made open-source and left in the hands of a group that would take a long time to produce anything concrete - more likely it would languish forever in alpha or beta versions, as we know from many other games. Last edited: 29/03/2014 at 21:13 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Something to think about... 29/03/2014 at 21:52 #58003 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2025 posts 
|
I cannot see IECC-type interface being changed fundamentally by Network Rail any time soon. It works and is efficient for its purpose. As someone who has sat at in a few and seen professional Signallers operate them, I know them to be an effective design. I have even worked a proper simulator of one myself. With the correct number of screens to view the full layout, appropriate overviews mounted behind, and a good knowledge of the relevant keyboard commands (which I only partly had) it is second nature to the people who operate them day in day out, and encounter very few, if any, of the problems which are often cited on this forum. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |