Page 1 of 2
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 18:47 #80534 | |
norman B
111 posts |
Hi , I have for the past few months been trying out some of the older sims,which after enjoying them,I then purchased the New Street bundle and when playing this sim came across many problems which put me off for a while.I then downloaded the latest TT for New Street and so far so good. Would I purchase another offering - well no ,not at this stage. Why would I not do so is because ,if Liverpool is anything to go by, not enough care is taken while testing both the sim and TT which is sold with it.If offering the sim for purchase errors must be kept to a bare minimum. I have been Flight Siming for 20yrs and in that time products now being produced,when put on sale usually have very few glaring errors in them.I worked with a testing team which produced a 747 for all of the current FS offerings and when this was released,the only problem which surfaced was a VAS problem with one particular FS version. When you are asking people to support the hobby by purchasing products these products ,in this day and age should at least be of a descent quality so that the purchaser could run it in standard mode without having to edit this train or the other one for the sim to run without too many conflicts. I do appreciate that most people who produce the sims and TT do so after either working a full time occupation or are perhaps retired and you have my appreciation for your enterprise but please can we have a greater understanding of quality control when producing material for public consumption. The area which needs some additional care is to assume that every user has the ability to work through the menus etc in order to make any adjustments to ,say, a TT ,and the instructions contain abbreviated terminology.If you are advising someone please give the fullest explanation. I have used similar products from other vendors and whilst I will not offer any opinion as too which is the best,I will just say that you can use the other simulations without being worried that they will grind to a halt and one has to intervene. Norman Bowman Log in to reply The following users said thank you: KymriskaDraken, jc92, Steamer, tjfrancis, sunocske, TimTamToe |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 19:16 #80535 | |
Steamer
3986 posts |
I must admit, I've been disappointed with the lack of support given to Huyton and Lime Street. I've asked about half a dozen questions, and reported numerous bugs, but haven't received an answer to any of them. In fairness, this is the first time I've felt let down- overall I think the amount of support and speed of bug fixes has improved greatly since Payware simulations came along a few years ago. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 19:28 #80536 | |
GeoffM
6377 posts |
" said:Hi ,Can you explain these "many problems?" The issue tracker and the known issues (in the Wiki) don't list "many problems". Do you perhaps mean problems understanding how certain features work? Note that some timetable authors deliberately leave non-fatal errors in the timetable that comes from NR/RT/BR sources to mimic problems real life signallers have with the same information - platform clashes mainly. " said: Why would I not do so is because ,if Liverpool is anything to go by, not enough care is taken while testing both the sim and TT which is sold with it.If offering the sim for purchase errors must be kept to a bare minimum.This sim is nearly ready for re-release - perhaps later today or tomorrow. I can only apologise for the slightly higher number of issues. While all simulations are tested by a number of testers, somehow many issues escaped even these. Simulations are very complex with hundreds of thousands of data points and while I can't justify simple errors, if we were to test absolutely every sensible combination of variables, simulations would easily cost several times their current cost. Timetables are also complex and, in some ways, more difficult to test due to the randomness both built in to them, and that caused by player actions. We'll try to do better. 
SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 19:32 #80538 | |
|
AlexH
161 posts |
I would agree with Steamer here. Edge Hill & Lime Street is the only sim I am now somewhat regretting. There are a number of very obvious bugs, and like Steamer I have yet to receive feedback on one issue in particular and a couple of issues that others have raised were not addressed well either. All sims have bugs, but what sets - or used to set - Simsig apart is how quickly one normally receives a personalised reply and how fast bug fixes are put out. If the Lime Street issues aren't resolved - or at least addressed - it might be time to go down the refund route. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 20:06 #80542 | |
|
norman B
111 posts |
Hi, Geoff, In the 2009 TT which came with the sim,between 0500 - 0700 I was forever coming across platforming conflicts.On reading the forums many of these items had been noted earlier but when I purchased ,around Novenber time no corrections had been carried out.I gave up on this!!! When the 2015 TT became avaiable I have since used that and have found no issues to date with the TT.This one is a lot better!!! Norman Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 20:26 #80544 | |
|
Sidestick Priority
39 posts |
The platform conflicts are half the fun! I'd be very upset if the timetables were amended to correct any mistakes from the original. How does it go again? You can please some people some of the time.... Log in to reply The following users said thank you: officer dibble, JamesN, DriverCurran, norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 20:28 #80545 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
Sadly platform conflicts are something that happens in real life for signallers, sometimes the data we use is added verbatim (warts and all), other times, people have sat and painstakingly attempted to resolve the majority of them so that people (and ARS) can happily follow the supplied WTT without any clashes. The New Street timetable author had a good attempt at resolving the platform clashes, but it's quite a massive task and sadly it's possible that not all were caught before the original release. Some people prefer amended/tidied up timetables for their ease of use, others prefer to have them as original as possible, it's a discussion that's been had a few times. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 20:32 #80546 | |
|
GeoffM
6377 posts |
" said:In the 2009 TT which came with the sim,between 0500 - 0700 I was forever coming across platforming conflicts.On reading the forums many of these items had been noted earlier but when I purchased ,around Novenber time no corrections had been carried out.I gave up on this!!!http://www.SimSig.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&view=topic&catid=14&id=41029&Itemid=0#80542As I said before, some TT authors prefer to leave the platform allocations exactly as the real life timetable dictates. Is this a SimSig issue? Not really. The real life signallers have to deal with the same mistakes as part of their working day. So the TT is realistic in its "errors". " said: When the 2015 TT became avaiable I have since used that and have found no issues to date with the TT.This one is a lot better!!!So either NR got better at platform allocations, or the 2015 author decided to fix the NR errors, or a combination of both. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder if it's the TT author correcting the allocations. Basically there are two camps: 1. Include all the errors, warts and all, in order to make it as realistic as possible. -or- 2. Fix all the errors which makes for easier gameplay, especially for newbies, but is not realistic. As Sidestick says in his last sentence! SimSig Boss Last edited: 10/02/2016 at 20:33 by GeoffM Reason: Quotes Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 20:58 #80550 | |
|
norman B
111 posts |
I can accept all that has been said re the platform alterations etc however if you want to grow the uptake of the sims and draw in none railway operating people at least give them the easy version which has stuff done for them then with the harder options available by all means let them sort out the problems as the real world does on occasions!Perhaps the Wiki etc should be reworded with a passage which warns that the accuracy of the TT is not set at 100% and that you,the sim owner(signaler) will have to correct any errors as you progress the sim!!! It might just be me,but I think that it is not unreasonable to expect a product to perform in a reasonable manner,ie few errors.A sim TT with built in conflicts does not make it an enjoyable experience for non signalling background customers! Norman Bed time now-another 10 tablets to be taken!!!!!!!!!!! Norman Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 21:03 #80553 | |
|
WinsfordSaltMine
124 posts |
" said:I've made a few timetables now and find I like to think that mine are as realistic as possible, so if the timetable has real life conflicts then I will add them in, because at the end of the day this is a simulation and therefore not meant to be easy. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: officer dibble, norman B, sunocske, DriverCurran |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 21:03 #80554 | |
|
GeoffM
6377 posts |
" said:Perhaps the Wiki etc should be reworded with a passage which warns that the accuracy of the TT is not set at 100%But if we use the exact platform allocation specified by NR then it IS 100% accurate. " said: It might just be me,but I think that it is not unreasonable to expect a product to perform in a reasonable manner,ie few errors.A sim TT with built in conflicts does not make it an enjoyable experience for non signalling background customers!And what about the people that expect something to be accurate and realistic? One should not forget that market. Perhaps the answer is to provide an additional timetable - one that's accurate to NR, and one that's been heavily modified to provide a sanitised and "perfect" experience. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: sunocske |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 21:06 #80556 | |
|
WinsfordSaltMine
124 posts |
" said:That would make more work for the timetable developers, I can have 3 or 4 on the go sometimes and doing two versions of each would just be too much time consuming, as I have a life to live too, so therefore I not going to go through a timetable getting rid of all of NR's errors! Last edited: 10/02/2016 at 21:07 by WinsfordSaltMine Reason: Typo Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 21:07 #80557 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
I see platform conflicts like this (both historical and current). when a timetable is released it is bound to have clashes and errors, however in the first couple of weeks these will be weeded out, simplifiers and Station working books amended etc. therefore If I set a timetable mid period it shouldn't really feature any clashes, unless signallers nowadays blindly follow TRUST or WTT's and dont make their own amendments? Is 15th october 2009 at the beginning of the timetable period? "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 21:15 #80559 | |
|
GeoffM
6377 posts |
" said:" said:Indeed! I should have said it's not the easiest of tasks.That would make more work for the timetable developers, I can have 3 or 4 on the go sometimes and doing two versions of each would just be too much time consuming, as I have a life to live too, so therefore I not going to go through a timetable getting rid of all of NR's errors! " said: I see platform conflicts like this (both historical and current)."Couple of weeks" - make that "several months, perhaps never". I have received timetables in various forms over the years on various extract dates and they have all had many, many errors no matter how long ago the timetable significantly changed (ie May and December generally). I can assure you the electronic CIF for Oct 2009 is no exception to this. What doesn't help is when additional information like stock books and platform books are available, these often differ from the TT as well, even for the same week. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Meld, norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 21:48 #80563 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts 
|
My evening train home according to RTT (of NR data feed) is booked off P5 (at KGX) but so far this month it's been on P5 only twice and otherwise on 4 others. Why it's not as booked I don't know but I'd guess it's because of a platform clash earlier in the day. I remember from when I did the KX 1977 timetable I had to work out the platforms myself and that's by no means as easy a task as you might think. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Frustration! 10/02/2016 at 22:00 #80565 | |
Andrew G
552 posts |
Interesting thread - thanks to Norman B for starting it - Steamer for commenting on a recent release and Geoff for responding - and of course anybody else who has contributed, Having been fortunate enough to test occasionally for a couple of developers I can understand how issues can slip though. Equally as a customer I can also understand the frustration when a simulation is released with several issues - particularly when I have paid for it. There are occasional issues when customers might wonder how rigorous the testing has been, notwithstanding Geoff's comment regarding the complexity of some of the simulations. To avoid just focusing on the most recent release, which appears to have a high volume of issues, a good example might be the initial public release of Wembley Mainline where it wasn't possible to signal a train down the single line to Acton Canal Wharf Junction - despite a train appearing quite early in the timetable. I must admit I find it hard to understand how that one slipped through testing. Another important factor we all need to consider is the reasonable price of SimSig simulations and the fact add on timetables are freely contributed by the community. I also use have some simulations from another supplier who have released a complex simulation relatively recently (not bug/issue free) which cost just over £75! I am hoping that consideration will, as Geoff has stated, be given to looking into what steps can be taken to increase the quality of future releases. There is one other factor troubling me, which might best be dealt with in a new thread, around the accuracy of some simulations. While I accept assumptions and/or compromises might need to be made occasionally, depending on the source data available and/or the ability of the core code to simulate all nuances, it would be good if these were made public at the time of release. This will allow customers to make a more informed decision before purchasing a newly released simulation. Last edited: 10/02/2016 at 22:22 by Andrew G Reason: Grammar Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 04:54 #80573 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:I see platform conflicts like this (both historical and current).MELD has spent a lot of working collating together information to do a set of 8th of April 2015 timetables for my currently released simulations, as well as ones that are in development. Now April is towards the end of the timetable period (New one comes out in May) and the amount of platform conflicts at a major station is horrendous, and it's taken a long time for us to test and resolve them, but some just can't be resolved, and even towards the end of the WTT a lot of delay minutes each day went down on TRUST because of it. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply The following users said thank you: norman B, Meld, TimTamToe, GeoffM |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 10:35 #80575 | |
|
norman B
111 posts |
Thanks to all who have expressed a view. My aim was to just make all of us aware that we have to cater for many expectations when the purchase is made. I think it is important that serious errors are eliminated before the sim is offered for sale ,and ,this in turn will stop sims having to be re-issued within a very short time frame. Thanks everyone Norman Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 10:43 #80576 | |
NCC1701
129 posts |
Out of curiosity, as I have never been involved with sim testing, how does testing proceed? You have your shiny new sim with a few ground frames, some out of use sidings, maybe a few semaphore areas, a bunch of yards of varying sorts, some electrified lines etc. etc. Do you use a special test timetable designed to test ALL the possible routings and entry / exit points, all the permutations that the layout offers? Do you link it it to another sim that it fringes and test the fringes work properly in all possible ways? Or is it just using the timetable that is to be supplied to the end user, as this often does not cover all the varied possibilities?
Signalman Exeter West & Llangollen Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 11:00 #80577 | |
|
derbybest
274 posts |
As a timetable writer this poses a bit of a dilemma. Yes i agree that timetamles should be accurate but what is accurate. It only takes one train to be late to screw everything up. I remember being at New St when i was spotting and there were many platform alterations particurly on a summer saturday and soif that timetable were written and the platform conflicts were left in would that be an accurate tt or not? I don't think there is one of us that have not been catching a train and had to cope with a platform alteration. As from a siggnallers point of view he sees that he has not got the advertised platform available (late trains/point failures)etc and has to use his judgement as to where to put the train remembering that that platform may be reqd in 10 min. As for my tt's i will continue to leave the platform clashes in as we are doing what the station book/simplyfiers say.
Log in to reply The following users said thank you: BarryM, Meld |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 11:40 #80578 | |
|
norman B
111 posts |
In my day,a while ago now,the station working books which I dealt with did not get produced with conflicts.It was just not allowed!!!!!!!!!!
Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 11:52 #80579 | |
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
It depends on the tester, and of course the developer. I test sims by playing them normally - I don't deliberately try to break something (unless that's what the developer wants). Doing that I can usually spot errors like overlaps being in the wrong place, or block instruments not working properly, and so on. A tester has the ability to parachute a train into the sim at any signal so we can see how trains behave runbning through the sim, and of course keep an eye on the signals behind him to check that they are displaying the correct aspects. If the test sim can be chained I look at that to make sure that the test train will go from one sim to another without breaking anything. Of course some things will be missed, but most can usually be fixed fairly quickly - perhaps a condition has been missed (or more likely mistyped). On the other hand you mnight get a showstopper that is a bit more involved, and shows up under unusual circumstances. Timetable testing has its own problems, and again depends on how the timetable writer wants it tested. Pascal, for instance, writes quite complex timetables and testing those involves many run throughs over several weeks, to try and catch all of the errors and clashes before the timetable is released. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: tjfrancis, whitetigger, sunocske, norman B, NCC1701 |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 12:59 #80581 | |
Dick
387 posts |
Interesting. In a previous life I used to find many problems when testing kit because the manaufacturer tests to ensure the kit does what it is supposed to do, whereas I concentrated on ensuring it didn't do what it wasn't supposed to do, a huge difference.
Log in to reply |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 13:09 #80582 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
When I have tested things for Karl and Peter in the past, I have always gone out to break the signalling part of the simulation. Timetable run-through will only ever find so much, especially as not every route or piece of track will be used, more-so in the modern era where the timetable tends to be a lot of trains going to the same place. I know Karl has his testing team run any timetable he releases with the simulation through many times before he will consider asking Geoff to release the sim, and it is surprising how many minor tweaks are made fairly late on. We also always test the timetables both chained and standalone to rule out any issues, and in multiplayer to make sure all the phone calls and messages go to the right place. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: NCC1701, Meld |
| Frustration! 11/02/2016 at 14:17 #80584 | |
|
Steamer
3986 posts |
" said:" said:As the author of the 2015 WTT, I can confirm that I tweaked the platforms so that they worked correctly. I don't recall having to do a lot of this though- most of the time they were correct. RTT sometimes consulted to see what happened in reality.When the 2015 TT became avaiable I have since used that and have found no issues to date with the TT.This one is a lot better!!!So either NR got better at platform allocations, or the 2015 author decided to fix the NR errors, or a combination of both. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder if it's the TT author correcting the allocations. Some stations are worse than others- I'm currently writing a 2016 TT for Edge Hill, and the allocations on RTT are all over the place, certainly in the early morning- quite often the next working of an arriving train is booked to depart from a different platform. In this case, I've abandoned the booked platforms entirely, and am using an RTT snapshot of a particular day, which has a set of allocations that works. "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |