Page 2 of 2
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 04:31 #26036 | |
bfcmik
100 posts |
maxand:Quote:I'm no expert on any of these localities so can't comment on realism, but I do know when I find a sim enjoyable to play and when I don't. For example, signal 76 in the Bristol Modern Era sim desperately needs to be capable of automation, but isn't. If I could change it, I would. It's only a minor detail; I don't really care whether it's authentic or not.As has been mentioned previously, there are various signalling 'games' out there which have easier operations and brighter, less authentic, graphics which it sounds like you would enjoy more. If dealing with realistic operations and genuine timetable/layout peculiarities are not a motivating factor then try playing games from people like PC Rail, SIAM and the like. It is not a 'FAIL' if you don't enjoy the level of committment required by the larger SimSig simulations! The beauty of SimSig for most of us is in that very realism and complexity that you fail to value! Take a look at some of the simulated areas on Google Earth and try and work out why things were done the way they are (which was normally because of cost and/or the lack of modern style technologies in the 19th century when they were originally built as Britain's railway practices have evolved into what you see today rather than having had any radical rethinks or upgrades for the most part). Don't forget to factor in the often bitter and intense local rivalries of competing companies in those early days and the degree of Government interference in British Railways and the current DoT controlled Network Rail infrastucture spending plans and the conficting needs of the various ?independent? franchised train operators Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Prof Jolly |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 05:06 #26038 | |
Kage
65 posts |
Peter, you've explained everything very nicely. I've just two things to add, then I'll stop, as this thread has gotten hijacked a bit. (Wall of text hidden, probably not interesting to non-programmer\testers!) Just to be perfectly clear, I prefer realism. I like fiddling with ground frames, I like shunting things around, I like trying to navigate a maze of pointwork. I've tried every single signal simulation I could find, and nothing comes close, most of the rest being simplified to widen the appeal, or because it's easier for there developers to do. Why pay money for hamburger, when the sirloin steak is free?, and to be honest, I'd rather pay for SimSig then get any of the others free. I've got sims from '05 still lurking in my SimSig folder. I have ~15,000 pictures of various panels and equipment saved as reference, I've gotten copies of the IRSE green books. I've got copies of all the RSSB regs. I've got an archive of signalling notices, When a new sim comes out, I go on Google Earth, and see what the geography is like, why the rails are the shape they are, and how everything looks in real life (which is about as close as I will ever get to the real thing, what with having to cross the Pond, etc) I've learned a ton of stuff of signalling, railroading, history, and geography, all as a result from one program because I may not agree with every decision made, and I don't believe anyone else does either, nor do I think you need to consult with the end users in any way, nor even even have to provide anything at all. Please don't take anything I write as baseless criticism. In the end I only want the best for everyone. We all need time and effort to adjust to any new sim or feature. I'm able to grok new sims much better than I used to. I must have restarted Sheffield a dozen times before I could get past the first hour without screwing up. Now I'm almost beyond my irritation at manual level crossings ;D For what it's worth, Keep making it better and more interesting, and more realistic, but provide an option to simplify or turn it off. On large sims, it can be defaulted to on, as you need some experience, and most experienced user will know how to go into the Options panel and toggle a feature, so if that person either doesn't like that feature, or is still learning a new sim, they can turn it down a bit. Also some features, new and existing could be set to off as the default. Multiplayer hosts would set the options that they want, which the players program automatically respects. I am referring mostly to realism as it refers to gameplay. UI stuff is more of a personal preference than anything else. To give an example: I was playing Sheffield the other day, and I have a large sticky with a list of trains at Sheffield Station, and there departure times, and a few smaller lists scattered about with the contents and order of the various sidings. I mentioned I would like to be able to drag headcodes around, what I meant was that as a train was leaving a siding and shunting around the place, I'd like to be able to drag the headcode from a siding list and have a new temp note created so I could keep track of where the train is as its shunting. It may or may not be useful to anyone but me, but on the remote chance it was added in the future, no one would be forced to use it, would it affect anyone's realism but your own? It's hardly a priority even to me, just an idle thought of wouldn't it be neat if... A feature I really would like is to have a note that you could add columns too, and sort on those columns. I'd use it for my departure list, and it would make a great train ledger for those working mechanical boxs, for that extra bit of realism :D Maximum realism is preserved, and nobody has to use a feature they're not comfortable with. Maybe if you designate Royston\Drain(or any of the simpler sims) as the official beginner sim some of those options can be disabled by default, with a nice big "New? Start Here!" link on the front page, so a new user has a chance to gradually increase the realism to a level they're comfortable with. I'm guessing most experienced users either don't play Royston, or know enough that they can turn things on of off as they want. Everyone here was a beginner at one point, as long as it doesn't impose on your game, why not make it as easy as possible for new users to get up to speed? Everyone here has had the common experience of getting over that initial learning curve, the more users we can transition from the new-kind-of-interested-willing to try it for 10 mins to a full fledged forum member\host\TT writer\tester\ Another future possibility is a dedicated Tutorial sim, that can actually start off simple, but have a built in tutorial, explaining basic routesetting, and gradually adding more and more features as the tutorial progresses, ie 1st add shunt signals, then junctions, stations, level crossings, yards etc, possibly using the existing 'era' functionality... Danny252: Quote: User generated content is inevitably going to produce some buggy, low-quality products - take a look at any "moddable" game.That's not quite fair. Timetables are user-generated here, and thoroughly tested, and produced some really great stuff. Look at the computer game Half Life. It produced several of the most popular games ever, Counterstrike, Team Fortress and Portal, all started as mods, all now produced professionally, with multiple sequels. Of course the old rule 90% of anything is crap applies to mods. One final note, that moving block stuff, they don't even have signals as far as I know, just cab signals, wheres the fun in that? 
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 07:36 #26040 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Therefore as SimSig evolves to cope with an increasingly wider range of localities and technologies, it is important that its developers and timetable writers not get carried away with macho complexity but keep a regular eye on whether their creations stay within the capability of single players who use the game to relax, rather than attempt the impossible.It's not a case of "macho complexity" - it's a case that the real world is moving to bigger and bigger control areas. Quote: Even some of the "smaller" sims I feel should be also be made available as workstation-sized chunks which could be chained together, and with timetables to match.That's not an unreasonable idea, but it's up to the individual sim developer to decide whether to offer such a thing. Quote: Maybe if I can't break down the sim to my size, I can at least write a timetable for part of it that enables me to concentrate on a particular area, and enjoy that. But since nobody else seems to be doing this, I guess I'll have to work at this myself.Why don't you? Timetable development is open to anyone. Quote: Is there any reason not to have a "test sim" area in the downloads section? Remember, Royston never existed at all; 'twas ever only in the mind's eye. As for the Drain...Drain exists for real, including the automation. What would such a test sim include that a small layout like Royston or Drain, or WembleySub, doesn't? Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 07:40 #26041 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
It won't surprise anyone to learn that I'm in the "keep it as realistic as possible" camp. There are numerous improvements that I'd love to see implemented in SimSig but they all fall into the category of making it more realistic. I want people playing SimSig to have the closest possible experience to the real thing, after all that's what simulation is all about. On the subject of graphics there is nothing to change, it already looks like the real iecc. Look Here Of course it would be fantastic if something that looked like an NX panel could be produced but we have to be realistic in our expectations. I'm not against things to make life easier however I believe anything that is not completely authentic should be in an options menu under the heading of cheats. These could include:- Automatic raising and lowering of all level crossings Anchored train descriptions so that there's no way the description can be lost and it updates whenever the train changes it's description, splits or joins Hover tags showing next reporting location of trains Zero faults and zero late running Additional TD bays and Auto Code Insertion at sidings and yards I'd find any of the above acceptable if it resided in a cheats option menu, however there should also be the authentic option for those that want it. FF Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 07:57 #26042 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
Game VS Simulation? SimSig : The answer to that question is in the name, why are we even having this discussion? I started a two year computing course at college about 18 months ago, it centers around programming in Visual Basic, with a little bit of PHP and C# on the side. Until I started the course I had no appreciation for how long it took to program something as complex as Simsig, not only that but I also didn't realize how hard it can be to collect the quantity of data that some programs require. I've played on the training simulator at Rugby SCC (Made by Tresim) SimSig certainly gives us a fantastic way to reproduce what signalers do all over the country, with the realism of the real thing. I won't deny the steep learning curve that comes with Simsig, but hey that's what the forum, Teamspeak, and multiplayer are for, asking the questions and getting any help you need. I don't really think I need to say much more on the subject. Apart from to the Devs and Testers, it's been a great year and you lot have brought us a new batch of fantastic sims, keep up the great work, and thanks for the work you've done so far. "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: postal, TimTamToe |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 08:24 #26043 | |
|
delticfan
476 posts |
" said:Game VS Simulation? SimSig : The answer to that question is in the name, why are we even having this discussion?Heartily agree with your comments Headshot. And a Very Happy Christmas and a super Simsig New Year. All the very best and a big thank you to Geoff and the team. Cheers. Mal. 
Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 08:44 #26044 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts 
|
On the matter of Sim size I have three relatively small ones in the pipeline- Cowlairs being the one I've publicly announced (carve out from CSCOT). Cowlairs is a two signaller box but should be in the moderately easy category. I could carve out Greenhill, Grangemouth and Polmont too as well as Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen from NESCOT (all one signaller boxes) but the traffic is such, (certainly in the case of the latter) that it'd be a bit quiet which is why I did what I did. Carving out is a bit time consuming as you have to delete all the unwanted stuff carefully as it may not be obvious if you delete in error something you want to keep. In retrospect I'd have built them differently! Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 10:05 #26046 | |
postal
5265 posts |
" said:A feature I really would like is to have a note that you could add columns too, and sort on those columns.Is something like what you want not already available? On sims built on recent versions of core code the F8 option enables you to do something like that. “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 Last edited: 22/12/2011 at 10:07 by postal Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 11:04 #26049 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Clive asked in post #28 Quote: What would such a test sim include that a small layout like Royston or Drain, or WembleySub, doesn't? I was thinking what a great idea it would be to have a series of tutorial/test sims that displayed most problems beginners would encounter. For example, one that contained all the common types of level crossings, another that demonstrated slots and tokens, etc. Currently the workaround is to take an existing sim with a feature you want to demonstrate, start it going just before a train arrives that will use that feature, and then practise that feature. Just means one has to download a number of sims, find the feature in each, etc. Also as each sim is upgraded, any notes relating to that sim may get out of date. For a test sim to include one of each, the locale must be fictitious, but it's not too difficult to invent authentic-sounding names. The main downside is that creating all these test sims means a lot of extra work for the developers, to create and debug. There seems to be never enough time to write sims - maybe it should be made easier for others to share this burden. The secret to success, IMO, is the documentation. Such tutorial sims should be accompanied by a great deal more illustrated documentation than one would expect to find in a standard manual for experienced users who already know this stuff. I believe that people attracted to SimSig would far rather download a zip pack of maybe half a dozen tutorial sims (no more that a single screen per sim) and work their way through them, than download a whole heap of full-blown sims in the hope of finding one that's not too difficult. After working through a "course" they could immediately tackle more complicated sims with far greater confidence. Royston isn't a bad start as it has two main stations, two LCs, a loop and a siding, but you couldn't add much more to Royston without reducing what authenticity it has, whereas a tutorial sim should not be built around a real area, thus making it far more flexible, now and in future development, and be clearly marked as fictitious. It doesn't need a 24-hour timetable, maybe 20 trains at the most. Peter Bennet wrote: Quote: On the matter of Sim size I have three relatively small ones in the pipeline- Cowlairs being the one I've publicly announced (carve out from CSCOT). Cowlairs is a two signaller box but should be in the moderately easy category. That's great to hear. I'm all for smaller sims. Last edited: 22/12/2011 at 11:07 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 11:04 #26050 | |
|
Kage
65 posts |
Yes, I know of the simplifier. great when you need to find an alt platform. It does take up a lot of screen space, when I usually only have dep times and sometimes codes like J or RR when that train needs an engine or running around. Also, it seems I can't click on the headcodes in it or copy them.
Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 12:45 #26054 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts
|
" said:Clive asked in post #28Somewhere recently in response to a similar point (by yourself?) I commented that I had built a dummy Sim for someone to do tutorial videos etc, but they never took it forward and I was not inclined to waste my time doing it again. I might be persuaded to dig it out and see if it needs any fixing for new Core Code on a what it contains is what it contains and what it omits is what it omits basis. Peter Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 16:37 #26058 | |
|
BoxBoyKit
166 posts |
In response to "training" sims, is there not a suggestion somewhere of making the NR training NX panel? I forget it's name. That can surely be edited or extended to contain any features it doesn't already have (such as adding one type of every level crossing and the token/slot system).
Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 22/12/2011 at 16:49 #26060 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts
|
Bit annoying- I can't find the data anywhere, nor a build save that I did find a couple of files named "Tutorial" so I know the name of it. If anyone has a copy, forget who I sent it to, then can they let me have it back and at least we have something that works in part. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Last edited: 23/12/2011 at 06:32 by Peter Bennet Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 23/12/2011 at 00:03 #26084 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
BoyBoxKit wrote: Quote: In response to "training" sims, is there not a suggestion somewhere of making the NR training NX panel?Would you mind explaining what you mean? I know NX stands for "eNtry-eXit" but what is NR training? Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 23/12/2011 at 00:25 #26086 | |
|
Hpotter
205 posts |
That would be Network Rail training 'NX' panel. As for a tutorial simulation, start with a basic sim like Royston, and then progress your way up to a larger, more complex simulation at a later date. You wouldn't try and run before you can walk, so why try with SimSig? Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 23/12/2011 at 08:03 #26091 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:In response to "training" sims, is there not a suggestion somewhere of making the NR training NX panel? I forget it's name.Hornby Junction, I think. The usual comments apply - we need the data. Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 23/12/2011 at 11:41 #26092 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Maybe James May can supply some...
Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 23/12/2011 at 22:59 #26108 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
hornby junction is the absolute block simulator i think?
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 24/12/2011 at 09:36 #26112 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:hornby junction is the absolute block simulator i think?I thought that was Stopem Junction. (I managed to get the first train through, but failed miserably when dealing with one coming from each direction at the same time.) Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 24/12/2011 at 12:25 #26117 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
The Absolute Block simulator was called Hornby Junction. I *think* it fringed with boxes called Weatherall, Gatestown and A.N.Other that I can't remember. The NX simulator was called Gatestown, and fringed with Lostham, Foundham and 2 more, one of which might have been Stopham. (It didn't fringe with Hornby Jn!) Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 24/12/2011 at 12:52 #26120 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
LOL with imagination like that you don't need to model Sodor!
Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 24/12/2011 at 16:51 #26128 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
" said:" said:hornby junction is the absolute block simulator i think?I thought that was Stopem Junction. In my day Kensington Olympia was Stopem Junction 
Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 25/12/2011 at 19:59 #26171 | |
|
taffy
28 posts |
If I recall these two simulations were Flash based using the .swf extension
Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 25/12/2011 at 20:11 #26172 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
The flash based simulations do exist, but are a relatively recent addition. At signalling school we had full size lever frame (Hornby Junction) and NX panel (Gatestown) for training. Gatestown is also the NX flash-based sim, and I used it in my most recent rules refresh. The AB version is not Hornby Junction, but somewhere else (memory fails me again). Log in to reply |
| Re: On Game vs Simulation... 27/12/2011 at 12:39 #26234 | |
|
BoxBoyKit
166 posts |
My biggest failing on the AB sim when I had a play on it once was giving the driver an ACOA at the Starter, as I wasn't at that time used to levers not being in sequence....another great use for lever collars!
Log in to reply |
.JPG){kind=link}