Multiplayer features

* Train list (for the purpose of authorising trains to pass signals at danger)

* Timetable (maybe read only if having write access would be too hard?)

* Ground frames (this one is probably the most important)

* Incident report

I've been wondering whether or not the following features could be made available for clients in multiplayer:

" said:

* Train list (for the purpose of authorising trains to pass signals at danger)

" said:

* Incident report

This one would be handy to have. But personally I'd only have it so that the client can view the incidents occurring on their panel that they have been notified about. It wouldn't make sense to have the info for a neighboring panel.

• delays of trains running to your panels, or trains from which they are formed


• points failures of points traveled by trains running to your panels...


• points failures of points traveled by trains running from your panels (eg. a PF at Bathampton Jct means trains from Westbury should eventually be held, or they'll clog the Trowbridge line)


• trains delayed in platforms needed by trains running to your panels (eg. a delayed train at Hitchin DS means no stoppers toward Peterborough)

" said:

I've been wondering whether or not the following features could be made available for clients in multiplayer:

* Ground frames (this one is probably the most important)

As a signaler, you'd never have direct control of a ground frame in the first place. So this isn't entirely needed, as the host would simulate the frames operator to operate the ground frame.

WRT ground frames, having to control them at all as a signaller is unrealistic as you say, so you can't really use that argument IMHO. I understand the need to have ground frames, but it makes it much more irritating having to ask the host (who may be busy with other things, as opposed to the traincrew/yard staff who would really operate it who are much more likely to be free). If it's a complex ground frame, the host then also has to figure out exactly where the train is going (which they probably won't be familiar with, given it's not on their panel). It makes much more sense for the client to control the ground frame.

" said:

" said:

I've been wondering whether or not the following features could be made available for clients in multiplayer:

* Ground frames (this one is probably the most important)

As a signaler, you'd never have direct control of a ground frame in the first place. So this isn't entirely needed, as the host would simulate the frames operator to operate the ground frame.

Correct.


" said:

WRT ground frames, having to control them at all as a signaller is unrealistic as you say, so you can't really use that argument IMHO. I understand the need to have ground frames, but it makes it much more irritating having to ask the host (who may be busy with other things, as opposed to the traincrew/yard staff who would really operate it who are much more likely to be free). If it's a complex ground frame, the host then also has to figure out exactly where the train is going (which they probably won't be familiar with, given it's not on their panel). It makes much more sense for the client to control the ground frame.

The whole point of SimSig is to simulate being a signaller. Not to make it easy or convenient for game players. Your job as a signaller is to release the frame and liaise with the frame operator (ie the host). You are then at the mercy of the GF operator and driver until they've finished their job and can hand it back to you. This is why GFs will only ever be available for the host to operate.

Huh? But the host isn't the frame operator, the host takes the role of a normal signaller controlling another panel in most games, surely?

Arbitrarily deciding that the person who has a network setup that allows them to host should also be the frame operator makes no sense IMHO.

If nothing else, you should be able to decide who becomes the frame operator, rather than it being essentially an arbitrary choice based solely on who has the easiest network setup to host with (which is usually how who hosts on games between my friends and I is decided).

However, I still believe that (since signallers controlling ground frames at all is not realistic) this functionality should keep out of everybody's way, not distract the host or another player who is probably busy with t1heir own panel. After all, in real life, you wouldn't have to distract another signaller to get them to operate the GF - you'd distract the frame operator, who probably wouldn't be a signaller. I agree that the signaller who unlocks the GF doing it is unrealistic, but so is distracting another signaller and getting them to do it - and the latter is much more irritating and can lead to errors.

This would also be useful for the case where the host is not actually playing - they're just the only one with a network setup that allows them to host, and they'd prefer to be doing other things at that particular time than paying attention to the game in case someone asks them to release a GF.

To conclude - I, as a client, would be quite happy to gain realism by asking someone without something better to do to operate a ground frame, but I, as a host, am not at all happy to be distracted by clients asking me to operate a ground frame when I have my own panel to concentrate on, and in real life that's not going to happen.

WRT ground frames, <snip> but it makes it much more irritating having to ask the host (who may be busy with other things, as opposed to the traincrew/yard staff who would really operate it who are much more likely to be free). If it's a complex ground frame, the host then also has to figure out exactly where the train is going (which they probably won't be familiar with, given it's not on their panel). It makes much more sense for the client to control the ground frame.

A bit like the day I got bored hosting Exeter and "simulated" the S&T FPL testing all the points!

" said:

Huh? But the host isn't the frame operator, the host takes the role of a normal signaller controlling another panel in most games, surely?

That's making assumptions which aren't necessarily the case. Most games I participate in, the host does not take a panel (unless there aren't enough signallers). S/he takes a back seat and oversees the whole operation, altering timetables as necessary, issuing general regulation instructions to the signallers, etc. Basically supervising the whole lot in a managerial role.

" said:

Arbitrarily deciding that the person who has a network setup that allows them to host should also be the frame operator makes no sense IMHO.

If nothing else, you should be able to decide who becomes the frame operator, rather than it being essentially an arbitrary choice based solely on who has the easiest network setup to host with (which is usually how who hosts on games between my friends and I is decided).

Two problems with that: firstly you've contradicted yourself. Secondly, by deciding who will host, you have already decided who is the frame operator, so it's far from arbitrary!

" said:

However, I still believe that (since signallers controlling ground frames at all is not realistic) this functionality should keep out of everybody's way, not distract the host or another player who is probably busy with t1heir own panel. After all, in real life, you wouldn't have to distract another signaller to get them to operate the GF - you'd distract the frame operator, who probably wouldn't be a signaller. I agree that the signaller who unlocks the GF doing it is unrealistic, but so is distracting another signaller and getting them to do it - and the latter is much more irritating and can lead to errors.

Again, the host, not another signaller, operates the frame.


" said:

This would also be useful for the case where the host is not actually playing - they're just the only one with a network setup that allows them to host, and they'd prefer to be doing other things at that particular time than paying attention to the game in case someone asks them to release a GF.

The host does not release the frame - the signaller does.

" said:

To conclude - I, as a client, would be quite happy to gain realism by asking someone without something better to do to operate a ground frame, but I, as a host, am not at all happy to be distracted by clients asking me to operate a ground frame when I have my own panel to concentrate on, and in real life that's not going to happen.

Then I would suggest you're taking on too many roles. Take a step back and supervise, handling the situations I outlined in my first paragraph. Often I hear complaints that hosts are too busy to do whatever, and signal at the same time. It's not fair on your clients really.

Of course, in the real world, training simulators work in exactly this way, for the reasons already stated. Signallers get to signal trains; assessors/trainers get to throw things at the signallers, manipulate timetables, operate ground frames, and assess at the same time.