Page 1 of 2
| KX Challenge 06/01/2014 at 15:56 #53620 | |
GW43125
495 posts |
Hi all, Hope this is the correct category, Thought that since it is a new year, I would propose a challenge, so here goes: I think we should have a competition over the next year, and see who can score the most on KX 4 day TT. Feel free to disagree if you wish, but I believe we need a Slight element of challenge. Starting afresh now (Or since wednesday 1st), post your scores here. Good luck and Happy Signalling! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: LucasLCC |
| KX Challenge 06/01/2014 at 19:40 #53626 | |
CTCThiago
232 posts |
" said:Hi all,Hello, My opinion: 1st: We need to fix the 4 day TT, and put more information on it, as the this TT came with very basic informations. 2nd: King's Cross PSB is Operated by 2 signallers at Off peaks times and 3 signallers at Peak times. (Need to confirm this) 3rd: We may form groups for healthy competition and develop some rules too. 4th: We need to start to do Timetables including all locations. e.g: 2P00: London King's Cross to Peterborough. Make a Timetable for Kings cross and peterborough sims. 5th: More Important: I said this before and i'll say again, please read the manual of the simulator, study the simulator, before trying to open a challenge to SimSig community, I've been playing King's Cross since 2010, but only register at SimSig website in 2011, and join multiplayers sessions in 2012, so, I've seen many SimSig players operate panels that he/she have no idea of the area covered. We need to discuss about this first, before open a challenge. This is my opinion and i'm open to discuss this subject.  Cheers Thiago. Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 07/01/2014 at 10:57 #53641 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
" said:" said:Hi all,Hello, Point of information... unless my memory is much mistaken, the real-life Kings Cross has five panels each of which would be worked by one signalman. The physical layout would make it difficult for one person to work more than one panel, unless traffic were extremely quiet; moreover, my understanding is that the intensity of the work is such that signalmen were not required to work a full eight hour shift on a panel. (What I heard in the early 1990s was that, rather than three 8-hour shifts, the box was covered by four 6-hour shifts. As the signalmen were paid for 8 hours at the then grade F - the highest grade - this introduced a de facto grade G. If anything, the workload has increased since then.) Admittedly, Biggleswade is actually part of Kings Cross (but has been transferred to Peterborough by Simsig for technical reasons that, I believe, no longer pertain) but the workload there is relatively small so the difference can be discounted for manning calculations. Hope this is useful for setting things up. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: CTCThiago |
| KX Challenge 07/01/2014 at 11:31 #53642 | |
|
LucasLCC
94 posts |
Just curious. Is this individual submission, or as part of a group?
Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 07/01/2014 at 11:45 #53644 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
If you want to look at a score, and you want to pick a "winner", then I suspect this is an individual challenge. You'd also need to make sure every challenger had the same set of start-up options, including delay/failure settings. However, each user will have different incidents, and someone could be very lucky with how few problems they get, whereas someone else could have many major and chaotic incidents. Picking the first type of user as the "winner" may be considered unfair. " said: ... (What I heard in the early 1990s was that, rather than three 8-hour shifts, the box was covered by four 6-hour shifts.They were working three 8-hour shifts in 2001 when I was there (for a week of work experience). I was under the impression that NR signallers only officially work 8-hour (3 turns per day) or 12-hour (2 turns per day) shifts across the country. (NB: Not taking into account boxes that close regularly, eg: overnight) Log in to reply The following user said thank you: CTCThiago |
| KX Challenge 07/01/2014 at 18:11 #53646 | |
|
CTCThiago
232 posts |
" said:If you want to look at a score, and you want to pick a "winner", then I suspect this is an individual challenge.Agreed Matthew, In this case, the competition will be unfair, and we need to set standards of delays, track, signal, points failures aswell, so many things to discuss before taking into this challenge. Thiago. Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 08/01/2014 at 01:06 #53657 | |
|
dwelham313
139 posts |
The timetable information has been added to the wiki page for users to copy and paste into the F4 timetable options 'general' tab if they so wish. Perhaps the best way to go about the challenge and keep it as fair as possible would be to turn failures and delays off but run the game with one of the scenarios active, such as the new southgate incident. That way a high scorer won't be affected by a badly timed/located failure. Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 10/01/2014 at 19:42 #53767 | |
|
Finger
220 posts |
" said:You'd also need to make sure every challenger had the same set of start-up options, including delay/failure settings. However, each user will have different incidents, and someone could be very lucky with how few problems they get, whereas someone else could have many major and chaotic incidents. Picking the first type of user as the "winner" may be considered unfair. Exactly, but if you think that " said: we should have a competition ... I believe we need a Slight element of challenge. why not have a real competition? Two teams, two identical MP sessions running head-to-head, one winner. What do you think? Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 10/01/2014 at 20:02 #53770 | |
|
fsxfaulder
77 posts |
" said:If there are enough people online I think that has great potential... Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 10/01/2014 at 22:38 #53771 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
If I am not mistaken, two teams playing simultaneously on the same sim(s) was done at a meet. I don't recall which but it wasn't that long ago. The problem you still have even doing that is as Matt has already pointed out....you'd have to get the two sims or sets of sims to have identical failures so you compare like with like. Otherwise, you simply can't say if one team was better than another as getting the best score isn't an indication of a better performance. Putting it another way, imagine you are the owner of a racing team and you want to analyze the performance of two drivers with a view to employing them.....you'd want the best one right? So which one would you pick if you had a single test at Silverstone but one driver drives round in a Porsche 911 while the other drives round in a Ford Focus? How would you know which driver is best? You can't choose on pure speed because you'd expect the Porsche driver to be faster but it's not the cars you are evaluating....it's the drivers. Now, you could put them in the same car and compare lap times and that would be a fair assessment. In SimSig terms, that means running the same TT which runs identical trains in exactly the same conditions. If you have failures or delays on, the randomness will mean you won't get a fair comparison on a one-off attempt. Perhaps a better option would be to run a series of challenges with the using the same people in the same teams each time and making the assumption that over time, the failures would even themselves out. The results of all the challenges be added together in some way to find a winner. I'm even tempted to say (and I suspect I'll get some derision from some quarters or even suggesting it....) devs/testers vs everyone else.....I'll get my coat shall I? Last edited: 10/01/2014 at 22:42 by Lardybiker Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 10/01/2014 at 22:59 #53774 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:The problem you still have even doing that is as Matt has already pointed out....you'd have to get the two sims or sets of sims to have identical failures so you compare like with like. Otherwise, you simply can't say if one team was better than another as getting the best score isn't an indication of a better performance.Probably be best to turn failures/late running off altogether and have an identical custom failure/scenario instead. " said: Leave your coat on, Lardy, I think it's a fun idea. :cheer: I'm free all day Sunday and Monday? Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 10/01/2014 at 23:20 #53775 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
" said:I'm even tempted to say (and I suspect I'll get some derision from some quarters or even suggesting it....) devs/testers vs everyone else.....I'll get my coat shall I?I'm up for that! Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 10/01/2014 at 23:54 #53777 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
For better of for worse...mark me up for the devs team....
Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 00:00 #53778 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
" said:For better of for worse...mark me up for the devs team....Your our team captain! (Your silly idea  )
Last edited: 11/01/2014 at 00:00 by JamesN Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 18:14 #53788 | |
|
CTCThiago
232 posts |
Who is going to host? And how can we get the guaranteed of alterations to failures in the mid of the simulation? We need to define a person to host for both teams. Thiago. Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 18:30 #53789 | |
|
LucasLCC
94 posts |
You could make it so that the host fails certain sections manually, and can edit the minutes late on the timetable if need be.
Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 18:30 #53790 | |
|
tjfrancis
359 posts |
devs/testers vs everyone else it a good idea Lardybiker but what about if a team need a break will the other team have to have a break as well
I am dyslexic so please consider this when reading my posts Last edited: 11/01/2014 at 18:30 by tjfrancis Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 18:54 #53791 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:... how can we get the guaranteed of alterations to failures in the mid of the simulation?In the interest of fairness it's probably easiest to switch off failures/late running and just give both teams an identical line blockage. Editing the timetable (stepping-up, fast running, turning short of destination etc) would be banned. " said: ... what about if a team need a break will the other team have to have a break as well?As there would be no interaction between teams it would make no difference. Last edited: 11/01/2014 at 18:54 by John Log in to reply The following user said thank you: CTCThiago |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 19:00 #53792 | |
|
tjfrancis
359 posts |
well if they no interaction between teams that will be fine then
I am dyslexic so please consider this when reading my posts Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 19:27 #53793 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
You could even try to find enough "Pro's" to have real signallers vs devs/testers vs "normal" users
Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 19:33 #53794 | |
memorialstingray
21 posts |
I'm game
Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 21:33 #53795 | |
Guts
604 posts |
I think that the hosters, should be the moderators and impartial.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: CTCThiago |
| KX Challenge 11/01/2014 at 21:34 #53796 | |
|
CTCThiago
232 posts |
" said:I think that the hosters, should be the moderators and impartial.Agreed Guts. Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 12/01/2014 at 08:42 #53797 | |
|
GW43125
495 posts |
We could have failures set to zero (developer mode) and we use F11 to create the same troubles on both sims. I also think that devs vs others would be a little unfair, as the devs would have a clear advantage. We should appoint someone to choose teams (E.G: Me, as I started this) and make sure the teams have an equal number of devs/testers/pros/others. It only seems fair. Last edited: 12/01/2014 at 09:18 by GW43125 Log in to reply |
| KX Challenge 12/01/2014 at 12:28 #53805 | |
|
John
884 posts |
" said:I also think that devs vs others would be a little unfair, as the devs would have a clear advantage.:huh: I'm not sure I understand your logic there. Even if it were true, Isn't that the whole point? Last edited: 12/01/2014 at 12:34 by John Log in to reply |