Page 2 of 2
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 24/06/2014 at 21:07 #61998 | |
kbarber
1742 posts |
I must admit I would have doubts about classifying Euston as merely intermediate. It may have covered only a small geographical area (about 3 route miles IIRC) but it was a double-manned class F job (highest grade under the old scheme) and, after some problems in the early days, required a third man present - no-one was permitted to work Station End for more than 4 hours so everyone shuffled round after 4 hours, with the former Station End man going spare. It became somewhat easier in the 1990s when push-pull working became the norm and there were no longer locos to deal with (invariably referred to as bankers, although it was rare for a train to be banked after electric working started). In-platform turnrounds also helped, reducing the amount of ecs working and allowing the down empty carriage line to become the down departure. But the almost-instantaneous electro-pneumatic points (not reproduced in the sim) made it a very tricky job to operate - with numerous exit buttons one above t'other it was very easy to catch the wrong one and impossible to pull up before the route had set and the signal cleared. Definitely one for the pros, I would say!
Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 24/06/2014 at 21:34 #62000 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:But the almost-instantaneous electro-pneumatic points (not reproduced in the sim)Ahem! Yes, they are. The points in the station throat operate faster than the rest - a feature added to the core code for Euston and not found in any previous sim. They operate in 2 to 3 seconds from call to proved, as opposed to the normal 3 to 5 seconds. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: jc92 |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 24/06/2014 at 22:04 #62001 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
Okay, here's my opinion. Don't try to classify sims as easy or hard. Simply give a factual table. I would list the sims in alphabetical order of title, with the following columns: * Three letter ID (sim authors will know this). * Pay/free (can just be a £ or 0). * Basic features: ARS, TORR, absolute block, paged/scrolly, AHBs, controlled level crossings, ground frames (all can be reduced to one or two letter codes; the last few could have numbers after them). * Screen size in design units (e.g. WembleySub is 156x40, Euston is 326x47, Cambridge is 768x45). * Number of workstations. * Number of controlled signals and via buttons (a proxy for how difficult it is; sim author can supply this). * Which sims it chains to. So some of my sims would be something like: [table] [tr][td]Euston [/td][td] EUS [/td][td] 0 [/td][td] T,S,3GF [/td][td] 326x47 [/td][td] 2 [/td][td] 148 [/td][td] [NLL],SBP[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Royston [/td][td] CBG [/td][td] 0 [/td][td] T,P,1A [/td][td] 128x40 [/td][td] 1 [/td][td] 20 [/td][td] KGX[/td][/tr] [tr][td]WembleySub [/td][td] SBP [/td][td] 0 [/td][td] T,S,1GF [/td][td] 156x40 [/td][td] 1 [/td][td] 51 [/td][td] [NLL],EUS[/td][/tr] [/table] (The [NLL] indicates that NLL doesn't have this chaining working yet.) (How do I make this forum put boxes round the table entries?) Last edited: 24/06/2014 at 22:07 by clive Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 24/06/2014 at 22:32 #62003 | |
|
JamesN
1607 posts 
|
" said:Okay, here's my opinion.+1 Vote on this idea - I'd only modify it by changing number of workstations / number of players - NLL doesn't need 17 players, each player would take multiple workstations. Again author's recommendation. Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 24/06/2014 at 23:14 #62004 | |
|
Finger
220 posts |
" said:[table] God, no! The only sin worse than not giving enough information is giving too much and irrelevant information. Please bear in mind that a typical player - or even a beginner - can't find much sense in any of these figures. And IMHO, he shouldn't. For example, the exe version of KX had no GFs; the current has 9: did that change the difficulty of KX much? Is Worksop harder than (in size similar) Carlisle because it has ABS? The moral is, there are many factors of difficulty which typically have something to do with entropy rather than sheer volume (although volume does matter too) and listing them all and covering them under fancy codes actually fudges the issue, rather than simplifying the issue. I think Steamer's proposal is just fine. Although we may quarrel about the precise rank of particular sims (by me, Worksop should be easy, WembleySub intermediate, and NLL can be almost as hard as Cross), it conveys the message clearly enough that an aspirant SimSigger can pick a sim for playing quite confidently. When you offer cars to customers, you don't dazzle them with a table of all the parameters including tire size firsthand. Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 00:43 #62006 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:" said:Agreed. The TLAs are OTT, except they're not even TLAs. To add to this, screen size does not have any factor in complexity - LivSt is very small but maybe 45% occupied; Brighton is much bigger but only maybe 20% occupied (lots of spare space), not to mention a lot of autos.[table] I would avoid using terms like easy/medium/hard and stick to beginner/intermediate/expert (or similar). The former gives a sense of pain; the latter a sense of achievement. One could also look at how NR grade boxes, averaging across a sim if there are multiple grades. They do factor in importance which is not relevant here but it tends to go hand-in-hand with other factors. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 05:50 #62007 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Firstly, the absolute beginner is going to just want a list of three or four easy sims, and be told to try a few before going any further. By that time, they'll have a better idea of what the various issues are. But my main point is that I'm not trying to directly indicate difficulty, because that's too subjective. I'm trying to give a rough idea to the potential player of how big the sim is. Perhaps the number of level crossings or ground frames isn't important. But the basic idea of how much screen has to be watched, how many people are expected to work it, and how many signals have to be managed gives them a basic idea. Much beyond that, they can look at a detailed page about the sim and judge from there. I added chaining information for the same reason I added pay v free; it lets the reader know a bit more about how the sim fits into the ecosystem. I don't think ARS makes a sim harder; I actually think it makes it easier. Some of my sims had ARS included while I was building them and testing the default timetable, then ripped out before it went to testers and release. I completely disagree with the idea of having a separate list of ARS sims. Quote: I've just bought a new car, after looking at a lot of options. Yes, they do. (Not always tyre size, but irrelevant details about the engine and body width in mm are usually there.) Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 05:53 #62008 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:I wasn't trying to give a formula for complexity. I know screen density varies, but just having to move around a large screen is an issue, and in general sims with a larger screen area have more on them. I accounted for autos by saying you only count controlled signals. I just think that *somewhere* we need a table of every sim with the basic information in that allows users to compare them. We may need to discuss exactly what that information is, but pay v free, chaining, and number of workstations (corrected for the NLL style arrangement) definitely should be there. Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 08:12 #62013 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
" said:" said:But the almost-instantaneous electro-pneumatic points (not reproduced in the sim)Ahem! My apologies Clive. However, my memory of them (from a pleasant Saturday afternoon visit in the mid-80s so rose-tinted specs may be a factor) was that they actually went over and locked in under a second, hence my mistake. Certainly they were so quick it was impossible to pull up a route called in error before the signal cleared, which was one of the main sources of angst for the bobby. Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 08:21 #62014 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
So, continuing the new car analogy, we need an attractive snappy overview to get people taking an interest then, not too far down but not needing to be read until they're taking a serious interest, the detailed description (for which a table is a pretty good format). Having said which, a new car = a lot of beer tokens. A SimSig sim (even a payware one) may equal quite a lot of frustration but, unless you're living on benefits, doesn't represent anything like the same massive investment. So we could easily fall into the trap, I fear, of overdoing the sales pitch. So - unless there's people who want to get all this data together and fashion it into a suitable set of pages - maybe we need to carry the whole thing fairly lightly. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: maxand |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 12:11 #62016 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
Clive wrote: Quote: I just think that *somewhere* we need a table of every sim with the basic information in that allows users to compare them. We may need to discuss exactly what that information is, but pay v free, chaining, and number of workstations (corrected for the NLL style arrangement) definitely should be there.Agree absolutely - there has to be some guidance. Best place I feel is in a subsection of Simulations - Comparison and Grading, maybe titled How to grade a sim. Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 12:41 #62017 | |
|
maxand
1637 posts |
I'd also like to add a comment about timetables. Right now I'm working through various Exeter ones, and notice that on the main Exeter page is a list of Timetables, some of which are links. Fine, only two problems here: 1) Below this table is a link named Timetables- Information on timetables available, leading to a separate Exeter Timetables page. The latter link is easily overlooked and IMO is unnecessary. We're not running short of web pages, so why not replace the Exeter Timetables page with a separate page for each timetable? Each TT page can now allow room for the idiosyncrasies of each TT (including TT writer's notes if so preferred), and can be linked to directly from the names of the TTs in the main table. 'Twill take some effort to sort out the main table and keep it up to date, but it can be done step by step, and IMO a condition of writing a TT should be that a separate page be created, or someone who is happy editing the Wiki asked to help out. 2) Without naming names, I discovered significant differences between the title of my current timetable as listed in the table and its title on the download page and also the title of the zip file, which contained more information than the other two. I had to get to the zip download window to confirm this was the same as the one I had already downloaded. So please ensure that all three have matching titles, as some TTs are very similar. It is conventional to replace spaces with underscores in filenames (a legacy of UNIX I believe), but apart from this and inclusion of the version number there should be no other differences between them. (added) Unfortunately only the admins can edit the TT name on the Downloads page. It might also be a good idea to move the Timetables table from the sim title page to a page of its own, with a link to it ("Timetables"  from the title page, just to keep them separate.
Last edited: 25/06/2014 at 13:11 by maxand Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 20:25 #62052 | |
|
peterb
452 posts |
" said:The guidelines here stipulate that new timetables should be clear on the simulation and version written for, and the timetable period and version. This includes the file title, and upload title and upload description (so at least the file and upload titles should be the same). This is policed by Peter Bennet. It's possible that this timetable was uploaded before the guidelines were introduced. To this end, I would appreciate it if Peter Bennet would amend the name and description of his own timetable to clarify what simulation it is for. Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 21:10 #62054 | |
Steamer
3984 posts
|
" said:Clive wrote:We've been discussing for several days and no-one's yet worked out How to grade a sim, so I don't think we can start a Wiki page on it! To be honest, I think doing both would be the best solution. A set of pages with a qualitative description (tables rammed with acronyms and codes don't do it for some people), with that information tabulated for those who want it. Quote: Each TT page can now allow room for the idiosyncrasies of each TT (including TT writer's notes if so preferred), and can be linked to directly from the names of the TTs in the main table. 'Twill take some effort to sort out the main table and keep it up to date, but it can be done step by step, and IMO a condition of writing a TT should be that a separate page be created, or someone who is happy editing the Wiki asked to help out.Isn't that essentially the timetable description? For one of my timetables, I can't think of anything I'd put on the Wiki that wouldn't be included in the TT description. "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 |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 21:21 #62056 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
" said:" said:1. I only police the high-level titles not the contentThe guidelines here stipulate that new timetables should be clear on the simulation and version written for, and the timetable period and version. This includes the file title, and upload title and upload description (so at least the file and upload titles should be the same). This is policed by Peter Bennet. It's possible that this timetable was uploaded before the guidelines were introduced. 2. The policing is not retrospective 3. What timetable are you referring to and I'll look into it? Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 21:39 #62057 | |
|
peterb
452 posts |
" said:'M-F 2009 v4.1.3' Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 25/06/2014 at 22:32 #62061 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
Thanks, should have said "fixed default" added. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 26/06/2014 at 11:17 #62075 | |
|
peterb
452 posts |
What simulation is it for though? Looking at the latest repository ('remository' is misspelled) I've no idea what simulation the timetable is intended for, unlike all the others listed.
Log in to reply |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 26/06/2014 at 11:33 #62076 | |
postal
5264 posts |
" said:'remository' is misspelledBeen discussed previously (for example here). This Forum runs on Joomla templates and Remository is the name of the Joomla Extension for a download area. No idea for the rationale behind that naming (or its similarity to Repository) but Remository is a correct spelling in this circumstance. “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 |
| Wiki pages- voice your opinion! 26/06/2014 at 14:04 #62086 | |
CTCThiago
232 posts |
" said:Do you find them useful? > In my opinion, no, because we already have manuals pages for these simulations, but, if possible to make some rules, (i saw Clive and Geoff posts) for example the table they are showing. Quote: Do they have further potential.> No (Not for me). Quote: Should similar pages be created for the simulations which don't currently have them?> I think we can merge with the actual specific simulation pages if possible and agreed. Quote: Or should the be removed?> Not removed, moved. Regards, Thiago 
Log in to reply |