Page 1 of 1
Multiplayer features 17/06/2014 at 22:09 #61791 | |
Muzer
![]() 718 posts |
I've been wondering whether or not the following features could be made available for clients in multiplayer: * Train list (for the purpose of authorising trains to pass signals at danger) * Timetable (maybe read only if having write access would be too hard?) * Ground frames (this one is probably the most important) * Performance analysis * Incident report I expect most of these are disabled for a reason involving protocol difficulties or something - but groundframes in particular strike me as a feature that certainly should be available for clients, at least, clients who have taken control of a workstation with that groundframe in its control area. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Hooverman |
Multiplayer features 17/06/2014 at 22:26 #61793 | |
LucasLCC
![]() 94 posts |
" said:* Train list (for the purpose of authorising trains to pass signals at danger)This feature is available in the current Loader version. Clients can view the train list, authorise trains past a signal at danger and reverse them. It's also worth noting that it always used to be possible to authorise a train past a signal through use of the connection control panel. " said: * Timetable (maybe read only if having write access would be too hard?)You can view timetables through the Train List, by use of a sticky or by interposing at a blank TD berth. Should you wish to view the timetable tab, then that isn't possible but the simplifier should provide enough information for a client. " said: * Ground frames (this one is probably the most important)As a signaler, you'd never have direct control of a ground frame in the first place. So this isn't entirely needed, as the host would simulate the frames operator to operate the ground frame. " said: * Incident reportThis one would be handy to have. But personally I'd only have it so that the client can view the incidents occurring on their panel that they have been notified about. It wouldn't make sense to have the info for a neighboring panel. Last edited: 18/06/2014 at 07:14 by LucasLCC Reason: Fixed Quotes Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 17/06/2014 at 22:52 #61794 | |
AndyG
![]() 1842 posts |
" said:I've been wondering whether or not the following features could be made available for clients in multiplayer:It was always possible for clients to force trains past red signals even pre-loader- but then I'd have to shoot you. ![]() I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 17/06/2014 at 23:15 #61795 | |
Finger
![]() 220 posts |
" said:" said:* Incident reportThis one would be handy to have. But personally I'd only have it so that the client can view the incidents occurring on their panel that they have been notified about. It wouldn't make sense to have the info for a neighboring panel. On the contrary - you typically know the failures of your equipment well enough, but a lot more can affect the working of your panel. Eg. a delay of a train leaving Cross can affect the way you regulate things at Finsbury Park. Not exclusively, failures relevant to your working are
Only giving people info about their panel means much of it still has to be conveyed by chat. Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 01:22 #61798 | |
Muzer
![]() 718 posts |
Apologies, it slipped my attention that the train list IS visible in loader sims. Excellent. WRT ground frames, having to control them at all as a signaller is unrealistic as you say, so you can't really use that argument IMHO. I understand the need to have ground frames, but it makes it much more irritating having to ask the host (who may be busy with other things, as opposed to the traincrew/yard staff who would really operate it who are much more likely to be free). If it's a complex ground frame, the host then also has to figure out exactly where the train is going (which they probably won't be familiar with, given it's not on their panel). It makes much more sense for the client to control the ground frame. Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 03:14 #61800 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
" said:" said:Correct.I've been wondering whether or not the following features could be made available for clients in multiplayer:As a signaler, you'd never have direct control of a ground frame in the first place. So this isn't entirely needed, as the host would simulate the frames operator to operate the ground frame. " said: WRT ground frames, having to control them at all as a signaller is unrealistic as you say, so you can't really use that argument IMHO. I understand the need to have ground frames, but it makes it much more irritating having to ask the host (who may be busy with other things, as opposed to the traincrew/yard staff who would really operate it who are much more likely to be free). If it's a complex ground frame, the host then also has to figure out exactly where the train is going (which they probably won't be familiar with, given it's not on their panel). It makes much more sense for the client to control the ground frame.The whole point of SimSig is to simulate being a signaller. Not to make it easy or convenient for game players. Your job as a signaller is to release the frame and liaise with the frame operator (ie the host). You are then at the mercy of the GF operator and driver until they've finished their job and can hand it back to you. This is why GFs will only ever be available for the host to operate. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 03:29 #61801 | |
Muzer
![]() 718 posts |
" said:" said:Huh? But the host isn't the frame operator, the host takes the role of a normal signaller controlling another panel in most games, surely? Arbitrarily deciding that the person who has a network setup that allows them to host should also be the frame operator makes no sense IMHO." said:Correct.I've been wondering whether or not the following features could be made available for clients in multiplayer:As a signaler, you'd never have direct control of a ground frame in the first place. So this isn't entirely needed, as the host would simulate the frames operator to operate the ground frame. If nothing else, you should be able to decide who becomes the frame operator, rather than it being essentially an arbitrary choice based solely on who has the easiest network setup to host with (which is usually how who hosts on games between my friends and I is decided). However, I still believe that (since signallers controlling ground frames at all is not realistic) this functionality should keep out of everybody's way, not distract the host or another player who is probably busy with their own panel. After all, in real life, you wouldn't have to distract another signaller to get them to operate the GF - you'd distract the frame operator, who probably wouldn't be a signaller. I agree that the signaller who unlocks the GF doing it is unrealistic, but so is distracting another signaller and getting them to do it - and the latter is much more irritating and can lead to errors. This would also be useful for the case where the host is not actually playing - they're just the only one with a network setup that allows them to host, and they'd prefer to be doing other things at that particular time than paying attention to the game in case someone asks them to release a GF. To conclude - I, as a client, would be quite happy to gain realism by asking someone without something better to do to operate a ground frame, but I, as a host, am not at all happy to be distracted by clients asking me to operate a ground frame when I have my own panel to concentrate on, and in real life that's not going to happen. Last edited: 18/06/2014 at 03:46 by Muzer Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 05:31 #61804 | |
GeoffM
![]() 6344 posts |
" said:Huh? But the host isn't the frame operator, the host takes the role of a normal signaller controlling another panel in most games, surely?That's making assumptions which aren't necessarily the case. Most games I participate in, the host does not take a panel (unless there aren't enough signallers). S/he takes a back seat and oversees the whole operation, altering timetables as necessary, issuing general regulation instructions to the signallers, etc. Basically supervising the whole lot in a managerial role. " said: Arbitrarily deciding that the person who has a network setup that allows them to host should also be the frame operator makes no sense IMHO.Two problems with that: firstly you've contradicted yourself. Secondly, by deciding who will host, you have already decided who is the frame operator, so it's far from arbitrary! " said: However, I still believe that (since signallers controlling ground frames at all is not realistic) this functionality should keep out of everybody's way, not distract the host or another player who is probably busy with t1heir own panel. After all, in real life, you wouldn't have to distract another signaller to get them to operate the GF - you'd distract the frame operator, who probably wouldn't be a signaller. I agree that the signaller who unlocks the GF doing it is unrealistic, but so is distracting another signaller and getting them to do it - and the latter is much more irritating and can lead to errors.Again, the host, not another signaller, operates the frame. " said: This would also be useful for the case where the host is not actually playing - they're just the only one with a network setup that allows them to host, and they'd prefer to be doing other things at that particular time than paying attention to the game in case someone asks them to release a GF.The host does not release the frame - the signaller does. " said: To conclude - I, as a client, would be quite happy to gain realism by asking someone without something better to do to operate a ground frame, but I, as a host, am not at all happy to be distracted by clients asking me to operate a ground frame when I have my own panel to concentrate on, and in real life that's not going to happen.Then I would suggest you're taking on too many roles. Take a step back and supervise, handling the situations I outlined in my first paragraph. Often I hear complaints that hosts are too busy to do whatever, and signal at the same time. It's not fair on your clients really. Of course, in the real world, training simulators work in exactly this way, for the reasons already stated. Signallers get to signal trains; assessors/trainers get to throw things at the signallers, manipulate timetables, operate ground frames, and assess at the same time. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following users said thank you: DriverCurran, BarryM |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 08:23 #61808 | |
kbarber
![]() 1725 posts |
" said:
In my experience, a GF operator was likely to be the guard or shunter who - once they had the release - regarded working the ground frame as the most trivial part of their task. If you wanted a release back, you first had to catch your GF operator and if he was down the yard under a train hooking on that wasn't going to happen particularly quickly! On the LM Region, a 'complex GF' was likely to be called a shunt frame and would be manned by (in those days) a Senior Railman (who might, on occasion, also join in the shunting although the frame was his proper place). When the shunting stopped he would most often join the lads in the messroom for a brew. If the box wanted a route into the sidings they'd have to work out that he wasn't in the frame and ring the messroom before they could get their release... It paid, if you were working a box like that, to ask for your release far enough ahead of time (which would depend how long since the last lot of shunting stopped, given the time needed to brew and drink a cuppa). Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 09:25 #61811 | |
Firefly
![]() 521 posts |
I'm with Geoff on this. The host should be hosting and not operating a panel. There is lots of things that a host can be doing to make a realistic simulation, being the ground frame operator is just one. The host is like a duty shift manager in a signalling centre. They sit back, look at the whole situation, let signallers know if they've wrong routed, make regulating decisions etc. I plan on hosting at some point and when I do I'ill be taking line blockages, simulating failures, technicians testing equipment etc. FF Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 11:27 #61814 | |
Stephen Fulcher
![]() 2061 posts |
A bit like the day I got bored hosting Exeter and "simulated" the S&T FPL testing all the points!
Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 11:41 #61815 | |
Hooverman
![]() 306 posts |
" said:A bit like the day I got bored hosting Exeter and "simulated" the S&T FPL testing all the points!No GZAC no block lol ![]() Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 12:05 #61816 | |
Stephen Fulcher
![]() 2061 posts |
Before I moved to Cornwall I would never have taken a block to FPL points, not worth the time wasted filling the form in when lookouts are adequate - for a starter by the time you were issued with an authority number the margin was gone and you would have to give it back if you picked the wrong time of the day.
Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 12:20 #61818 | |
Hooverman
![]() 306 posts |
Depends on the techs, time of day, level of train service wether they use GZAZs, lineside requests or just use look out protection, but your right, on quite a few occasions it took longer to do the paperwork then to do the work. Places like Croydon you can shut down a platform to allow the techs to get in depending on what set of points they are working on, if your lucky with the train service at the right time of day.
Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 12:27 #61819 | |
Stephen Fulcher
![]() 2061 posts |
Another reason against ROCs really - I personally like to go and speak to the Signalman in person to let him know what I would like to do and then we can agree together the best time to do each thing. With a ROC 200 miles away and now knowing any of the signalmen other than their names this will be a lot more difficult. Log in to reply |
Multiplayer features 18/06/2014 at 13:56 #61823 | |
Muzer
![]() 718 posts |
" said:" said:Fair enough, but I don't have enough friends who play SimSig to be able to do this (if I just want a game between my friends and I as opposed to a game through here).Huh? But the host isn't the frame operator, the host takes the role of a normal signaller controlling another panel in most games, surely?That's making assumptions which aren't necessarily the case. Most games I participate in, the host does not take a panel (unless there aren't enough signallers). S/he takes a back seat and oversees the whole operation, altering timetables as necessary, issuing general regulation instructions to the signallers, etc. Basically supervising the whole lot in a managerial role. " said: " said:I'm not quite sure how I contradicted myself. I'm effectively always the host in these games between my friends and I. This is because my friends either live in university halls (behind a firewall), or in shared houses where they don't have the router's password. Are you saying that I should never be allowed to be a signaller in games between my friends and I because I happen to be the only one who can host?Arbitrarily deciding that the person who has a network setup that allows them to host should also be the frame operator makes no sense IMHO.Two problems with that: firstly you've contradicted yourself. Secondly, by deciding who will host, you have already decided who is the frame operator, so it's far from arbitrary! " said: " said:Apologies, temporary brain failure. I do know how it works.However, I still believe that (since signallers controlling ground frames at all is not realistic) this functionality should keep out of everybody's way, not distract the host or another player who is probably busy with t1heir own panel. After all, in real life, you wouldn't have to distract another signaller to get them to operate the GF - you'd distract the frame operator, who probably wouldn't be a signaller. I agree that the signaller who unlocks the GF doing it is unrealistic, but so is distracting another signaller and getting them to do it - and the latter is much more irritating and can lead to errors.Again, the host, not another signaller, operates the frame. " said: " said:Yes, but I don't want to be a trainer or an assessor. I want to bloody well play!To conclude - I, as a client, would be quite happy to gain realism by asking someone without something better to do to operate a ground frame, but I, as a host, am not at all happy to be distracted by clients asking me to operate a ground frame when I have my own panel to concentrate on, and in real life that's not going to happen.Then I would suggest you're taking on too many roles. Take a step back and supervise, handling the situations I outlined in my first paragraph. Often I hear complaints that hosts are too busy to do whatever, and signal at the same time. It's not fair on your clients really. Log in to reply |