Page 1 of 1
| Interesting..... 10/06/2015 at 12:06 #73119 | |
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
I noticed this morning that a new WIki page has been created for "Timetable Decisions" which will result in a Loader update from v4.4.3 to v4.4.4: http://www.SimSig.co.uk/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=usertrack:ttuse:ttdecisions The Loader update could also be hopeful for other things of course (new sims?) but, of course, IWBRWIIR. (Think you know what that stands for: I couldn't be bothered to write the whole lot.  )Dave Last edited: 10/06/2015 at 12:07 by DaveHarries Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 10/06/2015 at 13:06 #73121 | |
clive
2789 posts |
(1) It's not causing the update to 4.4.4, it's just one of the things that will be in 4.4.4. (2) That page is very much under construction. Don't trust anything in it yet. Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 10/06/2015 at 13:14 #73122 | |
|
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
Don't worry Clive: I wasn't trusting anything in it. I was writing more out of hope than anything! Dave Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 11/06/2015 at 13:49 #73145 | |
postal
5265 posts |
Clive Is it envisaged that the Decision process will replace the use of Rules governing entry in some circumstances? If that is the case, is it envisaged that it will handle the case where a train due to enter may be formed from one of two alternative trains which leave the sim (e.g. into a Yard or Carriage Sidings). For a single in and out move the "must not enter until X minutes after" rule does exactly what is required. However, for the alternative trains leaving the sim there is no way I can find to use rule(s) to govern the entry of the next train. If the Decision process will not handle that sort of scenario, is there any appetite for having the option to select whether Rules can be applied as an OR construct as well as the existing AND construct? “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 |
| Interesting..... 11/06/2015 at 19:53 #73152 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
" said:I noticed this morning that a new WIki page has been created for "Timetable Decisions" which will result in a Loader update from v4.4.3 to v4.4.4:The loader and the sims are completely separate. Loader updates could be released to fix generic bugs that affect all sims or include feature enhancement/additions that apply to all sims including those already released. There have been occasions where the loader requires updating for a new sim to work BUT not it's not every time a new sim is released. Bottom line is that the release of a new loader shouldn't be used as an indicator that a new sim is on the horizon. Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 11/06/2015 at 21:53 #73156 | |
BarryM
2158 posts |
SimSig Loader Version History Version 4.5 Released (7th June 2015)? Very interesting! Has your clock stopped in the Uk/USA Geoff? Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Last edited: 11/06/2015 at 21:59 by BarryM Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 11/06/2015 at 21:54 #73157 | |
|
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
I saw that as well, Barry. Tried to update but no success. Dave Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 11/06/2015 at 22:25 #73159 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts 
|
Just getting things ready for tomorrow.
SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 01:52 #73163 | |
ozrail
197 posts |
Your tomorrow is our yesterday (in Australia) can't wait.
Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 02:17 #73164 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts
|
" said:Your tomorrow is our yesterday (in Australia) can't wait.Oh my head hurts! :woohoo: SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 10:09 #73169 | |
|
BarryM
2158 posts |
" said:" said:Don't hold your breath!Your tomorrow is our yesterday (in Australia) can't wait.Oh my head hurts! :woohoo: 
Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 10:35 #73170 | |
|
DaveHarries
1285 posts |
" said:Your tomorrow is our yesterday (in Australia) can't wait. Having read Geoff's post that he was "Just getting things ready for tomorrow." I can't wait either! Sooner I get home from work the better. Dave Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 12:45 #73173 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Right. In fact, a loader update is very unlikely to be because of a sim release. If a new sim requires a change to the loader, that will have to be provided to the relevant developer months ahead so that he can make use of it. I can say for certain that the "decisions" feature is not related to any new sim. Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 12:54 #73174 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:Some, yes. Quote: So you want something like: * Either 5A01 or 5A02 enters, but not both. * If 5A01 enters, 5B01 should enter X minutes after it leaves. * If 5A02 enters, 5B02 should enter X minutes after it leaves. Yes, it can do that. Create a decision with two choices. Have 5A01 and 5B01 be conditional on one choice and 5A02 and 5B02 be conditional on the other. Add to "must not enter until X minutes after" rules. It can also do: * 5A00 enters. * At station S, 5A00 might become 5A01 or might not. * If not, then at station T it becomes 5A02. (S can be, but doesn't have to be, T.) * If it becomes 5A01, 5B01 should enter X minutes after it leaves. * If it becomes 5A02, 5B02 should enter X minutes after it leaves. In this case only 5B01 and 5B02 would check the decision on entry. 5A00 would have a Next:5A01 activity that is conditional on the same choice as 5B01 entering. The Next:5A02 remains unconditional. Again you have two rules. I have other ideas to be added to decisions in the future, but they'll have to wait until I have the time. Quote: That would be a completely different matter that would have to be raised on Mantis. But, off the top of my head, it would be very hard to do. Log in to reply |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 13:32 #73175 | |
|
postal
5265 posts |
" said:The situation I am actually trying to work through is where 5A01 and 5A02 are alternatives. When one of the two alternatives has run, I then want 5B01 to enter either X minutes after 5A01 has left the area or Y minutes after 5A02 has left the area. If that can be resolved using the Decision process, then my question about a possible OR construct for the rules becomes irrelevant. “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 |
| Interesting..... 12/06/2015 at 17:37 #73190 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:" said:Yes, what you (and others!) are after is:The situation I am actually trying to work through is where 5A01 and 5A02 are alternatives. When one of the two alternatives has run, I then want 5B01 to enter either X minutes after 5A01 has left the area or Y minutes after 5A02 has left the area. * Either 5A01 or 5A02 enters, but not both. * If 5A01 enters, 5B01 should enter X minutes after it leaves. * If 5A02 enters, 5B01 should enter X minutes after it leaves. Log in to reply |