Page 3 of 3
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 16/11/2011 at 20:31 #23089 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
Mine works using fingers. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 16/11/2011 at 23:53 #23103 | |
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
Not attempting to be divisive or anything, but I have a simple question: WHAT IS THE POINT TO THIS THREAD? As far as I am aware, there is no problem with SimSig and its core coding, nor has SimSig outgrown such coding. Therefore, why would Geoff, Clive and possibly others want to waste their time rewriting it into another programming language? Log in to reply The following user said thank you: andyb0607 |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 01:14 #23105 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Clive said earlier Quote: Max: you're probably unaware of this, but SimSig development runs on two levels. Firstly, there's the core code, which is written in Delphi. Geoff and I are the only people who touch this. This then defines a language in which individual simulations are written. The various developers write in this language and a compiler links it with the core code to produce the final simulation. Changing from Delphi to something else won't help those developers. (There's a small amount of custom code in Delphi in each simulation, but we aim to minimize that.)Thanks for clearing that question up for me. And also Quote: Max: why are you so bothered about the signal numbers? It's my experience that (a) you don't actually use them that much in play, and (b) you soon learn where the significant ones are. The numbers tend to be in order from one end to the other; usually odd numbers are in the down direction and even in the up. Shunt signals have a separate numbering sequence, and so on.I could see they followed some sequence, but didn't know about the odd/even system, so thank you for that info. If it's not in the Wiki, it's worth adding. Steamer said Quote: Maxand, signal numbers are on the sim- just right click on the signal, providing you've unticked 'right click cancels route' in F3. Making them permentantly visible would, in my opinion, just add a lot of clutter to the sim that isn't needed, especially if you want to fit more track on one screen!Thanks, I was aware of that hint and agree that numbers certainly clutter the sim - just look at the PC Rail sims. Frankly, I don't really need the signal numbers are except for two things: If the timetable calls for the train to stop at a particular signal, I need to locate that signal fast; and If I get an unexpected message saying that a train is waiting at a red signal, I need to locate that train/signal even faster. It's true that, as Clive says, as one gets to know a sim one gradually memorizes the most-used signal numbers. But when there are a lot of trains with very similar TDs on the map, having to look up a signal just to find a train is no joy. Sure, one can pause the sim at this point, though I believe some sims are pauseless. (If that's so, how can anyone learn how to play a pauseless sim?) Two solutions that occur to me are (1) to incorporate signal numbers into the display (preferably in a smaller font, if that's possible at this late stage), with the option of disabling them (similarly block lengths), and (2) to create hotkeys in the core code to "Jump to train" and "jump to signal", as I suggested elsewhere. Selecting a train/signal and pressing the hotkey would jump the map to that location, and doesn't require editing the map graphics. As Steamer says, if confirmation is required that one is at the correct signal, right-clicking it will display its number. However, right-clicking doesn't help you find it. To whoever asked about sims that can be used for DCC control, Train Dispatcher was written to include this and apparently works well for model layouts, though I've no personal experience. Last edited: 17/11/2011 at 01:15 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 01:49 #23108 | |
postal
5265 posts |
Maxand It is good to see people taking an active interest in trying to develop SimSig and taking positive steps to try and move things forward. However, I think we are getting in danger of polarising the debate and moving away from the issues to the personalities. This would take us back to the very uncomfortable place the Forum was a few months ago when one user had a very decided view about what SimSig should be. This ultimately led to a very unsavoury situation. There appears to be a fundamental disconnect between what you see as the aims and objectives of SimSig and the aims and objectives that I would hazard a guess that most of the 2000-odd other people registered for the Forum would look to hold. I can only speak for my own point of view, but my take on SimSig is that: 1. It is not a game; it is an attempt to put the user into the position that a real-life signaller would be in operating a real-life box. 2. The displays attempt to replicate what a real-life signaller would see. Signal numbers, for example, would be a nice-to-have, but the real person doesn't have them so SimSig doesn't have them. If a real-life signaller has to learn his/her patch, then so do I. If that means that I occasionally make catastrophic errors, then that is down to me and not down to software that tries to make me face the same decisions as would happen in real life. 3. All of the software, both in the Delphi core-code and the individual sims have been put together as a result of lots of hours of unpaid time in development and testing. The time commitment means that the documentation is often not high on the priority list for those doing the developing and testing. As well as the developers and testers, everyone else has the opportunity to improve, refine and update the Wiki. Although the Wiki has many faults, as GeoffM, the ultimate owner of the intellectual property rights vested in SimSig has acknowledged, it is still a valuable resource created by the community who hold SimSig dear. Therefore, your comments and questions have made (and I hope will continue to make) a valuable contribution to what we all hold dear and will enable us (and yourself if you care to get involved in things like for example improving the Wiki) to improve the "SimSig experience". However, it would be good if we could all draw back and take breath. You clearly feel that SimSig is inadequate in many respects in terms of what you want to see in operating a simulation. However, I would hazard a guess that you hold those views rather more strongly than most (and even in a diametrically opposed fashion to a lot) who also operate the simulations. For those people, it is not a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", it is more a case of "that is what I want to see and 'fixing' it to help someone else would detract from my enjoyment". Please keep the comments and questions coming, but also please reflect that many of the things which you see as significant faults in the software and documentation are seen as significant benefits by many who use the simulations. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply The following users said thank you: jc92, MikeW, andyb0607, Forest Pines |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 07:20 #23115 | |
|
Forest Pines
525 posts |
" said:Sure, one can pause the sim at this point, though I believe some sims are pauseless. (If that's so, how can anyone learn how to play a pauseless sim?)The "pauseless" sims still have a pause button, but you can't do very much when the sim is paused. You can click on a headcode to check a train's timetable, but I think that's all; you can't right-click, so you can't check signal numbers. You can't talk on the phone either. Personally, I very rarely look up signal numbers. Each sim tends to have about 2 or 3 heavily used locations which include a signal number, for particular reversing moves, and no more than that, so I've never found it a problem. The sim I've come across which uses them the most is Sheffield, because of the particularly restricted layout of Sheffield station south end (because of the track layout, if you move a train to a different platform, and that train is loco-hauled, you often have to edit the loco's timetable to get the run-round movement to work). In many cases - Kings Cross for example, or Bristol - an important reversing location covers several signals, so the exact signal numbers don't matter because you will use whichever track is most suitable. For example, a commonly-used location on Bristol is "Bristol Temple Meads East Inner Reverse", which means "the closest shunt signals to the east end of Temple Meads station" - there are five tracks, three of which have shunt signals just before the platforms, and a train with that location in its timetable can be stopped at any of those signals. But then, I'm me, I guess, and I find a lot of this stuff self-evident - when I first looked at Bristol, I saw that location in the timetable and thought "oh that must mean those signals there", and it did. I can't really tell you why, because I'm baffled when other people don't find things like that self-evident. " said: There appears to be a fundamental disconnect between what you see as the aims and objectives of SimSig and the aims and objectives that I would hazard a guess that most of the 2000-odd other people registered for the Forum would look to holdI do wonder sometimes how many people are Simsig users but just download it and don't bother reading the forums on here. According to my antivirus program, "hundreds of users" (of the same antivirus program) have downloaded the system files since they were last updated. Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 07:23 #23116 | |
|
ralphjwchadkirk
275 posts |
" said:Signal numbers, for example, would be a nice-to-have, but the real person doesn't have them so SimSig doesn't have them. If a real-life signaller has to learn his/her patch, then so do I.All IECC systems I have seen have all signal numbers and point numbers on the detail screens. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 14:23 #23144 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
NX panels have signal numbers shown on the panel, as well. But there's no "find this signal" feature with a panel; I suspect there isn't with an IECC either. So you can confirm you've found the signal, but it doesn't have any way to help finding it. You just need to know your "patch". Quote: But on a big simulation you're not going to be able to find stuff quickly anyway in these situations, because you don't know where to look. While you're learning, make yourself a crib sheet giving some key signals and sequences. So, to pick Cambridge as an example, you would write: ODD IS DOWN, EVEN IS UP, MAIN SIGNALS 1-499, 800-999, SHUNT SIGNALS 500-799 1-100 screen 1: 44-47 Audley End, 57-60 over B boundary. 103-116 on screen 5 stripe 3 117-210 screen 2: up to 145 at top left, 161-164 at mid-platform crossover, 193/195/200/210 at top right 211-295 screen 3: 249-252 over J boundary, 270-287 are Ely platform starters, 259 and 498 on branch bottom left 298-399 screen 4 Ely and Littleport routes: 301 on loop 401, 402, Dx on screen 5 stripe 2 483-495 on screen 5 stripe 1 500-549 on screen 1 551-559 on screen 5 stripe 4 600-699 south side of Cambridge station 700-749 north side of Cambridge station 751-769 on screen 3 771-799 on screen 4 800-899 on screen 4 Shippea Hill route 900-999 on screen 4 Manea route: 915 on loop CMxx on screen 5 stripe 1, left end Kxx on screen 5 stripe 4: K978-K984 at Royston station Mxx on screen 4 Manea route MExx and MSxx on screen 6 SHxx on screen 4 Shippea Hill route SWxx on screen 5 stripe 1, left end and then perhaps add any specific signal numbers at timetabled locations or that you have trouble with. (Hmm, I think there's an error in the map on the Wiki: from memory the branch signal at Coldham Lane Jn is 400, not 200.) Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 15:14 #23146 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
IECC and WestCad have detailed views which show the signal numbers, but these can be turned off by the Signalman, and from what I have seen they often are because they clutter up the screen and the Signalmen know where all their signals are in any case. It all boils down to experience and in the case of SimSig practice - if you play a sim for long enough you will get to know where the signals are - if not all of them certainly the ones that trains keep getting stopped at. Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 15:53 #23151 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
Some sims did have a tendency to have locations simply in terms of signal numbers and no other geographical information which I remember having difficulty with when I started. As a developer I always try and put some geographical information in locations and I am sure others do the same (without checking). E.g. "Rev Sig 22 (Station North)" or whatever. I remember Didcot stand-alone Sim I think it was had entry points that were simply Signal numbers and no automatic TD insert and in those days I'm not even sure there was the ability to ID signals by mouse click. Now that was difficult. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 17:28 #23153 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
"Back in my day..." descriptions of old SimSigs now eh? Now I do feel old! :lol:
Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 20:43 #23162 | |
|
Forest Pines
525 posts |
" said:"Back in my day..." descriptions of old SimSigs now eh? Now I do feel old! :lol:I remember when you wrote to Geoff and he posted you a CD. I think you paid by cheque, too. I still have the CD somewhere! (for the version of Didcot Peter is talking about, in fact!) Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 21:19 #23165 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts 
|
" said:" said:Yeah. Not the most enjoyable days of my life... the P&P of the CD I mean."Back in my day..." descriptions of old SimSigs now eh? Now I do feel old! :lol:I remember when you wrote to Geoff and he posted you a CD. I think you paid by cheque, too. I still have the CD somewhere! SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 17/11/2011 at 21:28 #23166 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts
|
" said:I could see they followed some sequence, but didn't know about the odd/even system, so thank you for that info. If it's not in the Wiki, it's worth adding.Slightly misinformed there. Many real life areas have particular sequences that start at one end and increase to the other. The Western region have a system where numbers increase in opposite directions. Outside the Western, areas with four-track main lines might have 1-199 on the Fast lines and 201-399 on the slow lines, for example. But in general they follow a sequence, but not the same from area to area necessarily. It's a case of learning the area. Incidentally, in the last decade, to avoid miscommunication the system requires adjacent signals to have at least two digits different. So a fast line signal might be 123 but the adjacent slow line cannot be 323 or 125 as it's too similar. In practice they tend to add a base to the first digit and 2 to the third digit, so in this case it might be 125 next to 327. More recently, they use four digit numbers. " said: (similarly block lengths)The signaller has that neither on his screen and not (officially) on the panel. They tend to be booklets or pieces of paper, of which the Wiki is a perfect replacement for simulation purposes. Talking generally now, what you have to remember is that what you think is valuable is not necessarily what everybody else thinks is valuable, useful, or realistic. Bear that in mind with some more replies I'm about to make. SimSig Boss Last edited: 17/11/2011 at 21:53 by GeoffM Reason: Clarification Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 18/11/2011 at 02:37 #23184 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Thanks Geoff.
Log in to reply |
| Re: Getting SimSig to .NET (SimSig "maker" included) 18/11/2011 at 11:26 #23214 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Signal numbers are an area where different schemes have been used over the years. The 1923 automatic signalling between Marylebone and Neasden South was footage based (I kid you not... and I worked with it B) - well it lasted until the end of the 1980s). The LNER and Eastern Region (and later, I think, the Western) used a sytem based on mileage (and line name where relevant) for auto signals, with controlled signals numbered in accordance with one of the other schemes that existed. The LMR boxes of the mid-60s used separate sequences for controlled and automatic signals. By the mid-70s all running signals were being numbered in a single sequence. Apart from the distance based schemes, all numbers incorporated identification of the signalbox concerned. Nowadays they're using a scheme where the identification letters relate to locations on the line of route; I'm not too sure how the numbers are derived. I'm afraid it's just another example of having to learn the local area(s) and their foibles. But the amount of learning involved does underline the degree to which railway staff used to be (and in the case of signalmen maybe still are?) underpaid and undervalued. I heard a story some time ago that an exchange was negotiated between Eurostar drivers and Virgin Atlantic pilots, to shadow each other. Apparently the pilots were utterly staggered at the amount of route information a driver has to learn. It emerged that, when approaching an airport, the normal procedure is to hold a briefing with the charts/instructions/whatever for that location. Every time. (And it was suggested airlines aren't too keen on their pilots flying in & out of any given airport too much for fear they'll become over-familiar and not take that kind of briefing so seriously.) Drivers, on the other hand, need to know not only the location of every signal but possible indications of each and their meaning in that particular location, together with such things as stations, crossovers, gradients, speed limits & restrictions... you name it. Log in to reply |