Page 1 of 3
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 14:18 #134593 | |
VInce
579 posts |
Hi all, This thread is a spin-off from here https://www.SimSig.co.uk/Forum/ThreadView/52557?postId=134591 . I see User-Produced timetables as a major advantage to Simsig as it enables users to feel part of the community and to "put something back". However, it is also an Achilles heel too. How discouraging is it for a user (especially a newcomer to Simsig) to download a user-produced timetable (UPT) and find it is pretty much unusable due to errors which could have been found by more testing? Over the years I've seen countless UPTs produced of hugely varying quality. Some are excellent and magnificent pieces of work, hugely detailed with countless months, sometimes years, spent on their production. However, in my view, many are nowhere near the quality that should be required by Simsig. Just read some of the threads associated with UPTs and see how many have simple errors that could (and should) have been found before release. The easy way would be to place a disclaimer on the download page to the effect that Simsig does not take any responsibility for the quality of the UPTs - much better though, and also aligning with the desire to improve the general quality of the product on offer is to ensure that timetables contributed by users have had at least a measure of testing. I'm not suggesting for a moment that all errors can be shaken out of a timetable even by months of testing, so great is the number of un-planned variables available to the user, but the general quality ought to improve. I'd like Simsig users to think about this. You may believe there is no issue - that UPTs are fine and there is no problem to solve. Or you may believe, like me, there is a need for something like a "testing panel", for want of a better name, where experienced Simsig users could contribute their time and expertise is testing timetables before release, thus improving the quality of the product on offer. I'm not suggesting for one moment that it should be compulsory for all timetables to be submitted to a "panel". There should be some measure of discretion here, especially for those known to produce high quality, rigorously tested timetables. But for inexperienced writers they should be encouraged to submit their work to someone to test and who can offer help and guidance. For this to be effective it would need the backing of senior members of the Simsig hierarchy. Without that we are wasting our time. The drawback to all of this, of course is that it would be reliant on the willingness of those experienced Simsig users (and there are a lot of them) to donate their time and expertise to such a project. The more there are, the less of the workload for everyone. Would you be prepared to to become part of this? All constructive thoughts and points of view welcome. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 11/12/2020 at 14:29 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 15:03 #134595 | |
Edgemaster
332 posts |
The point regarding variability of timetable quality is well-founded, I've found that this stems both from the age of some of the available timetables (eg, published before SimSig introduced seeding) which haven't subsequently been updated, as well as the levels of attention and care that authors put into their works. Thinking about other methods that might be less time intensive than a full testing panel, but offer similar benefits: Would it be useful to more closely tie the timetable downloads section into the discussion forum, allowing potential issues to be more easily discovered and read by potential users prior to downloading? Could a simple voting system allow users to boost the better timetables to the top of the downloads list? Last edited: 11/12/2020 at 15:04 by Edgemaster Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 15:18 #134597 | |
DavidSplett
142 posts |
From the point of view of a timetable writer, a testing panel would certainly be of some value, as for me the limiting factor in sharing timetables is the time taken to test them. There's some timetables which couldn't be shared in this way, however on others I wouldn't expect too many issues.
Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 15:21 #134598 | |
Hap
1039 posts |
[/quote] I'm not suggesting for one moment that it should be compulsory for all timetables to be submitted to a "panel". There should be some measure of discretion here, especially for those known to produce high quality, rigorously tested timetables. But for inexperienced writers they should be encouraged to submit their work to someone to test and who can offer help and guidance. For this to be effective it would need the backing of senior members of the Simsig hierarchy. Without that we are wasting our time. [/quote] On the contrary, If one timetable is subject to a certain standard of testing then IMHO they all should. Then you avoid the discriminating and equality aspect of things. There're a full list of testers available for SimSig and (in theory) could be utilised to run through submitted UPTs several times before being available for use. That way SimSig Standards are achieved. Granted that the TT may not make it out for use until that process had be done but the user submitting it would be alerted to this when uploading their TT and also disclaimer that testers are a subject to real life commitments etc, so a realistic expectation should be expected for when it would be released, notwithstanding that it can't be an indefinite time. This would of course be up to Geoff and Co. to make a decision on it all. Advice and guidance would be given within some sort of "feedback" report regarding the TT weather it's how to fix something, do something differently or even just a well done for a good TT. Anyway, just my tuppence worth. Craig How to report an issue: www.SimSig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=usertrack:reportanissue Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 16:04 #134599 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1413 posts |
Edgemaster in post 134595 said:The point regarding variability of timetable quality is well-founded, I've found that this stems both from the age of some of the available timetables (eg, published before SimSig introduced seeding) which haven't subsequently been updated, as well as the levels of attention and care that authors put into their works.As time goes on though, how much of what you see today is loader and sim changes breaking timetables that once worked ? I currently have 2 of mine deleted (Motherwell) and 2 'less than ideal' (CSCOT/COW 84) and have only just repaired Motherwell 93 due to Loader alterations. There is no obligation on authors to keep updating their timetables, and as per the coyright discussions no-one else should be doing so for public consumption. As for UPT testing... I would say try to start fialy light so as not to get heavy on folks who are after all are hobbyist volunteers. We would want to avoid having timetables stuck in limbo just because nobody has tested them and ticked a box. That would really annoy the writers. This is not the same as sim testing for sale and is closer to self-help. As a start maybe suggest that before uploading timetables that they can be put into the forum for testing as v0.9 for a couple of weeks? So 'timetabling' would gain a 'final test this' thread - I think that is better than in each sim subfolder. Equally some guide on the expectations and policies of the writer would help, eg 'It is a CIF deal with it' through to 'this should all work hands off ARS and score 100%'. That would save a lot of v1.1's and mean less people need to update (or come back in years with a bug on v1.0) given UPT do not automatically update themselves. Last edited: 11/12/2020 at 16:05 by bill_gensheet Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: whatlep |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 16:33 #134601 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
So much to unpick. I will try to address the main points raised. 1. A tester panel for user-contributed contents is not going to work. Some users will get a bad reputation (perhaps deservedly) and no testing panel will want to bother with them once they've experienced a few less-than-stellar contributions from that person. At the other end of the scale, you risk gold sign-off without proper testing. 2. User comments/reviews, akin to the mini "forum" that each hosted game currently has, would be quite feasible, with the addition of a rating system. 3. Disclaimers already exist on the Download page, so I don't see the need for anything further there (but open to ideas). 4. All users' submissions should be held to the same standard. All or none. The only difference is the "official" timetables that come bundled with a simulation: these are tested rigorously by the same testers for the simulation, and has testing documentation attached to it internally (Mantis and our own tracking system). 5. Stop the inferences that "CIF is bad; hand-written is best" nonsense (second day in a row). It's massively disrespectful to the people who use them and has no basis in fact. 6. If there is a history of the Loader or of sims "breaking" existing timetables, then start a new thread discussion about each issue individually. We can't investigate or learn when a vague moan is thrown out with no specifics. SimSig Boss Last edited: 11/12/2020 at 17:09 by GeoffM Reason: Changed a word from "exception" to "difference" to reduce ambiguity Log in to reply The following users said thank you: y10g9, Hap, Meld, agilchrist, Stephen Fulcher, jc92, Simdmuk, BarryM |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 16:49 #134604 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
Thank you all for your considered views. Pretty much what I expected. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 17:53 #134607 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1413 posts |
GeoffM in post 134601 said:
Assuming that is aimed at my comment: "Equally some guide on the expectations and policies of the writer would help, eg 'It is a CIF deal with it' through to 'this should all work hands off ARS and score 100%' then I suggest you are on the wrong end of that stick. There are timetables which are intentionally 'exact to data' (whether that is from CIF or paper WTT is irrelevant), and do therefore contain known problems with the source data as part of the signaller task / entertainment. Anyone testing a timetable to those principles should not criticise them - whether they agree or not. Equally if expecting "this should all work hands off ARS and score 100%" then feedback on trains losing a minute here or there or getting stuck in bay platforms would be valid. Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 18:14 #134608 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 134607 said:GeoffM in post 134601 said:Note my use of the plural: inferences and the phrase "second day in a row". bill_gensheet in post 134607 said: "Equally some guide on the expectations and policies of the writer would help, eg 'It is a CIF deal with it' through to 'this should all work hands off ARS and score 100%' then I suggest you are on the wrong end of that stick.That's not the part I referenced. What difference should it make if a paper WTT has a questionable platform allocation, compared to whether a CIF has a questionable platform allocation? Why does anybody need to know this? bill_gensheet in post 134607 said: Equally if expecting "this should all work hands off ARS and score 100%" then feedback on trains losing a minute here or there or getting stuck in bay platforms would be valid.I'm not sure where you're going with this. No timetable is perfect. ARS is an aide, not a solution - in real life too - never has been, never will be, and anybody expecting more needs to alter their expectations. SimSig Boss Last edited: 11/12/2020 at 18:14 by GeoffM Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 18:58 #134611 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2080 posts |
If I may add one minor comment, every time any tester or developer, worse still Geoff, look at user supplied content they cannot write and test the new simulations everyone likes to see released by Simsig.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: whatlep |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 18:59 #134612 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1413 posts |
My point is only that anyone testing a timetable will need to know the design intent of the timetable. Beyond the necessary of no unseeded/invalid/unjoined/misruled trains some of the test criteria will be intentionally and legitimately variable such as platforming routing or timekeeping. The examples are two extremes to show the contrast. If a timetable writer has claimed a timetable will run perfectly on ARS (indeed as you say that is between unlikely and impossible) then that is still a test criteria that particular writer would wish testers to report bugs against. Equally if testing a 'to data' timetable where some trains are underpowered and lose time to reflect the real railway, then the poor timekeeping of such trains is not a test criteria that particular writer would wish testers to report bugs against. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: jc92 |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 11/12/2020 at 19:34 #134616 | |
|
Albert
1315 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 134599 said:As time goes on though, how much of what you see today is loader and sim changes breaking timetables that once worked ?I think Motherwell is a special case here given it needed already manual intervention to make many reversing moves, so it was rather obvious that the sim needed some changes. About any other sims... well, it probably depends on who maintains the sim in question. For simple changes like a change of entry point for a specific line, I'd just open the TT as XML and do a find/replace for the TIPLOC code in question. AJP in games Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 09:32 #134629 | |
|
VInce
579 posts |
GeoffM in post 134601 said:So much to unpick. I will try to address the main points raised.I've slept on this and and I wasn't going to add to what I originally said - but I've changed my mind. In the vast scheme of things at the moment, its about as important and interesting as what I'm having for breakfast. Geoff, for crying out loud, all I'm suggesting is that timetables are tested before release. The sky isn't falling in and it doesn't mean the end of Simsig. The aim is to improve the product - that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. How its done does not bother me one bit and all I was doing was suggesting ways this may be achieved. It doesn't mean that the control of the way Simsig is going changes in any way. You're still in control and and well.....just what is all that psyco-babble about in Point 1? As for Point 5 I don't have factual evidence and neither do you. You're going on your gut feeling just like me. Others my wish to comment on the other points - I've addressed the ones which seem to be pointing my way. Look, you may think otherwise, but I'm not a fool. As a mere user, rather than a member of the inner circle, I know that I'm wasting my time making suggestions that might help Simsig become better. I know I risk being cast into outer darkness but that's unimportant. I believe there's a problem here and clearly you don't. You're in charge. Whatever you say goes. Oh.. and I'm expecting that will be removed this 'ere long, so read it while you can. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 12/12/2020 at 09:47 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 09:59 #134630 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
Might I suggest that, whatever processes are decided on for testing or not, there needs to be better information (and perhaps some sightly more explicit sub-division) for the timetables that are uploaded. Personally I think Vince's proposal has a great deal of merit, but is probably impracticable to implement for every submitted timetable. Bill, too, is saying something important - if there are errors and problems with the original data, those 'errors' should appear in the published SimSig WTT. But Geoff's points about practicability are rather important. Tying in newly-released timetables to the forum might be a partial solution but my observation of the forum suggests there are users (often relatively new) who (because they're still finding their way around?) don't get to the discussions that could actually help them, so the problems persist. If I'm right, and I hope Vince will correct me, the proposal is not that we add testing user-submitted timetables to the existing testers' workload. Rather, it is to create an entirely new testing panel for this specific purpose. To me, that seems perfectly sensible. In the longer term it might also prove a fertile recruiting ground for the existing testing crews; Geoff, Clive et al will be able to see how testers perform and headhunt accordingly. (Not that it should be the only way in, I hasten to add, and nor should progression ever be seen as automatic. I believe one sim was tested by someone who has no presence on this forum, but whose particular experience and background qualified them pretty uniquely to take part in the process.) I would assume the groups of testers pulled together by folk such as Pascal (I'm sure many others too, who are less public) would be regarded as de facto members of the panel and timetables produced by them would be regarded as fully tested. Some kind of re-organising of the user-submitted section feels desirable in any case, and all the more so if the testing panel idea is adopted. The intention would be to strengthen the existing disclaimers and perhaps manage expectations a little better. So at the very least, timetables that are no longer being maintained should be separated out from those whose writers remain active and engaged. Probably timetables broken by core code or sim updates but capable of modification (that is to say, the breakage is not beyond repair) should have a separate category. That would allow the addition, if the test panel were to happen, of a 'tested' category (though that, too, might need a 'current' and a 'broken by updates' section). There should be nothing to stop users uploading timetables to an 'open' section, without testing of any kind if they choose (some clearly do), but the disclaimer for that section should be strong and explicit: that quality of offerings is very variable and although some timetables will work very well, others may be full of bugs. If that is adopted, I'd see nothing to stop users submitting an already-uploaded timetable to the test panel. In fact, forum discussions might help make the testing easier as it directs the panel's attention to areas of 'interest'. I would assume an experienced tester would be able to give more specific feedback than a less-experienced user, probably invaluable if a writer has fallen into some kind of 'generic' error (and also supporting users to develop their timetable writing skills). But it shouldn't be seen as a way to short-cut the actual testing process. It should, of course, be completely normal to move timetables between categories. And of course a writer's decision to delete a timetable that has become broken would be final; it would only be those whose writers wanted to keep them available that would go into the 'broken' section. (There might even be provision for writers to authorise rebuilding of their timetables, with appropriate acknowledgement, so that copyright considerations don't force the deletion of old & broken timetables.) As for the technicalities - whether there would be subdirectories within the user-submitted directories or what - that is something to be thought about. I'm sure there are lots of ways to do it and lots of arguments for all of them. I hope that might offer a useful addition to the thinking that's going on here. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 10:55 #134631 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
Discussions more closely linked to timetables, yes. Voting system maybe; you’d have to be careful it wasn’t abused. Mandatory/Strongly Encouraged testing panel - no. There aren’t standards for user contributed timetables, and even “good” timetables are inconsistent between their approaches, so one would retrospectively fail testing or another. There’s also how you handle rejecting work to consider - Timetable goes through hours of testing by its creator and some close friends, issues found are documented and ironed out, but the new all powerful testing panel says no. So you have in your eyes, a ready or almost ready to go “product” in one hand, but no route forward to publish it now in the other. Meanwhile the same testing panel might give a free/easy ride to Joe over there because they produce a lot of timetables quickly or he’s close to a few people on the testing panel; but actually when you sit down and play Joe’s timetable it’s full of errors. What’s the mechanism to prevent the testing panel blocking a good quality product from being released? Or to ensure they’re testing every submission fairly and equally? If I were in the habit of regularly producing timetables, mandated testing or some other kind of vetting of these timetables before publication would be ringing alarm bells; and have me question whether I wanted to continue anymore. While it is a business to SimSig, it is only a hobby for everyone else. Last edited: 12/12/2020 at 10:57 by JamesN Reason: Rewording in 4th paragraph for clarity. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Edgemaster, Simdmuk, Temple Meads |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 11:50 #134633 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2080 posts |
VInce in post 134629 said:GeoffM in post 134601 said:I don’t get the issue here. Geoff’s statement is correct, there are some good timetables that have been produced using manual input methods, and some good ones produced using CIF import methods. Equally both methods have produced some bad timetables over the years.As for Point 5 I don't have factual evidence and neither do you. You're going on your gut feeling just like me. I have “dabbled” in both methods, most recently for Peter Bennet when Plymouth was released as I wrote two of the bundled timetables, one with a CIF import and the other with manual input from various sources. These were both tested by the same people to the same standard and produced roughly equal numbers of tickets to fix so I wouldn’t conclude either method was more or less prone to introduce bugs. What I will say is the notion that CIF is easier isn’t something I agree with. The amount of background work Meld in particular has done with the 2015 data set that comes with the vast majority of new sims these days would easily have kept him in employment for months, and that is not an exaggeration. There is quite rightly a distinction between official timetables that are bundled with a sim and those contributed by users, and it would be disproportionate to apply the same rigourous standards to user contributed timetables as to those bundled officially. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Meld |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 12:44 #134636 | |
|
AlexH
161 posts |
I'm not sure I empathise with this issue with the strength of feeling of the OP, and think it's very clear that these are user-contributed timetables. However, perhaps with more instruction/tuition on timetable writing the quality might improve? I am someone who might enjoy timetable writing, though I have never fully understood how this can be done. On the other hand, the creation of timetables could more closely follow the creation of simulations. The transition to paid-for software appears to have resulted in the creation of a number of rather high quality simulations and resultant timetables. Could there be a team who could produce timetables available for 'sale' - either directly or out of the general revenue from each simulation? The question remains unanswered on how to select which timetables to produce, but this can be done with votes/down payments etc. Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 13:34 #134639 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1413 posts |
AlexH in post 134636 said:On the other hand, the creation of timetables could more closely follow the creation of simulations.For some sims and to some extent this already happens. As an example most of my timetables are for the Scottish sims because I have a couple of sets of (vaguely) compatible WTTs. For that reason I also help test the sims using the eras and timetables can come out near to the sim releases. They are however still free and classed as user timetables, not bundled. I'd hope they add to the attraction of the Scottish sims. The same applies to some others I am sure. AlexH in post 134636 said:
One for a new thread I suspect. Does https://www.SimSig.co.uk/Forum/ThreadView/39076 help, or is it more using the F4 / import side ? Just beware that a lot of the older threads and the dustier corners of the wiki refer to using significantly older versions of SimSig and the likes of CONVDATA which no longer work. Bill Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 14:19 #134640 | |
Dick
387 posts |
Just to add my two pennyworth as a user. I think it is just a case of caveat emptor, at the end of the day these timetables are produced in good faith by people giving up their time for the enjoyment of others, they are not expected to be works of perfection. Timetables bundled with paid for sims are a different kettle of fish and I would expect them to have been thoroughly tested before release. If a particular timetable writer consistently produces poor timetables, you learn not to download them. I fully understand Vince's frustration but at the end of the day nobody dies if the timetables aren't 100% Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Simdmuk, whatlep |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 15:22 #134641 | |
agilchrist
258 posts |
I do not like this thread, there is one user who is trying to hammer home his point of view being the only course of action. We all know that user contributed timetables may not be perfect, if the originator of the TT wants to test his TT then he is more than welcome to host or ask others to host and test his TT before public release, but I do not feel it should be mandatory. It has worked fine for 20 years, and its not caused many issues, however some basic improvements would be great like knowing when the TT was submitted, some are up to 20 years old and were based on previous major loader releases or very early releases of some sims and if we knew the age we would at least stand a better chance of realising it may not be as good as the newer ones. These user contributed timetables are done in peoples free time and without cost to users who download them, we all know this when we download, so why is this such an issue, not everything has to be 100% perfect. Blessed are the true believers, for only they shall walk the Path, and they shall be welcomed unto the realm of the Ori and made as one with Them. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Meld, mickev, Stephen Fulcher, Hap, andyallen4014, JamesN, whatlep, broodje, Simdmuk |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 17:02 #134643 | |
|
bill_gensheet
1413 posts |
agilchrist in post 134641 said:I do not like this thread, there is one user who is trying to hammer home his point of view being the only course of action.Vince was *asked* https://www.SimSig.co.uk/Forum/ThreadView/52557?postId=134590 to expand on his *opinion* so provided it. agilchrist in post 134641 said: Something like two new fields for 'tested OK on sim v x.x' and 'tested OK on loader v x.x' ? Is there scope to automate that by the timetable containing the versions it was last edited on ? OK people submitting .zip not .wtt would have to enter versions manually but I'd live with that. Submission date is shown at the point of download, so could be moved up a level of visibility, but who will remember if 'Jan 2020' means a Loader v4 or Loader v5 tested timetable ? While OK starting now and forwards, covering the back catalogue would be a bit of a mission for the more prolific timetable authors. Some bugs will only showing up on a run rather than from a quick check out of TTanalysis.txt and for some sims/timetables quite old versions will run just fine while any that made more use of 'since deprecated' techniques will not. Some kind of archive for older timetables without a sucessor version would be worthwhile regardless as they provide both a resource and a start to ask the author about helping to update it. Bill Log in to reply The following user said thank you: njimiller |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 17:27 #134647 | |
|
agilchrist
258 posts |
bill_gensheet in post 134643 said:
I am more than capable of reading things for myself, my first language is english and I can see when opinions are trying to be forced onto others, we are all entitled to a say. We however do not all have to agree. There are a few things which could be done to "improve" visibility along the lines of what you said and what I mentioned, I have already added a core ticket to look at implementing a few things I know helped on other sites. Being able to see age and version they were checked with would be beneficial and provide the downloaders with a choice of whether to give it a try. Feel free to add your thoughts to that ticket. Blessed are the true believers, for only they shall walk the Path, and they shall be welcomed unto the realm of the Ori and made as one with Them. Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 17:28 #134648 | |
|
Dionysusnu
577 posts |
GeoffM in post 134601 said:This could very easily be fixed by making timetable testing anonymous. Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 18:00 #134650 | |
Chrisrail
384 posts |
Interesting. I have an Exeter Timetable which is being tested by a small goup of people. The data is taken from cif / TRUST / Engineering Haulage / OTM sheets. The scenario is based on last September and there was a week long Blockade between Taunton and Exeter ( I can give the precise posession points if required). The data produced an alarming amount of schedule clashes. If this Timetable went before a "Timetable disciplinary Panel" 1. Would it be classed as a bad timetable due to the clashes. 2. Should I replatform trains in the timetable to get rid of the clashes 3. Should I leave the clashes in and let the "Bobby" sort it (As in real life). How would this be rated? Log in to reply |
| User-contributed timetables - a fresh approach needed? 12/12/2020 at 18:04 #134651 | |
|
whatlep
377 posts |
I'm slightly surprised by the vehemence of some of the arguments in this thread. I'm a habitual timetable writer, simply because my interests are almost exclusively in the BR era which isn't, AFAIK, the prime focus of the simulation developers. That's not a criticism by the way. All timetables work as best they can, within the limits of a simulation. I don't expect the simulation writers to rewrite to my peculiar demands (though they sometimes do!). Neither, I hope, would anyone slam a timetable because it has known "work rounds". Some users of my timetables have provided feedback, pointing out issues and/or suggesting different ways of doing things. I release a timetable thoroughly tested as far as I am able to do so. My free time is not infinite. Things do get missed: sometimes because of lack of understanding of a simulation's features (I'm usually producing for a simulation just released); occasionally changes in the way SimSig works and once in a while a good old-fashioned foul-up. I'm sure other writers have the same constraints. I've learned a lot over the past 3-4 years, often through the patience and generosity of others including SimSig core staff. That's led to multiple versions of some timetables, both as more/ better data came to hand, or as I learned new techniques. I value the community, cooperative approach that I've experienced. Getting told "sorry, no good" would not have stopped me writing timetables for my own use, but it might well have stopped me releasing them for wider enjoyment. Thank you, to all those making the effort to produce user timetables. I know your pain! Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Steamer, bill_gensheet, Dick, Mikhail |