Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Inviso-Car/Loco Ghost Consist

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baldwin View Post
    The OR team is starting to look at randomising activity events, perhaps doing this for signals will remove the need for invisocars entirely.


    I'm okay with obliterating the need for Invisocars entirely, once OR code catches up. This signal delay feature was added to the Trello board, but it was shoved way down into the Future list (as in, not to be done in version 1.x or 2.x). Seems to be a prioritization problem, as one would think adding something that could break activity timings should be done sooner than later, before a shiteload of OR routes and OR-specific activities comes along. How features like a new shape file format took priority over an activity timing-critical feature is a question I would love to ask the powers-that-be.

    As for randomizing other events, lets randomize the stopping distance away from a red signal. Either that, or allow us to define in the consist or in the activity where we, as activity creators, want the clearance point to be. As in, if there is a red signal stopping an AI, allow us to specify that the AI stops before a road crossing so as to not block it unnecessarily.

  2. #22

    Default

    Gentlemen... lots of good stuff being posted here................ for Open Rails. This is an MSTS forum.... at least it was the last time I looked. I have serious doubts that the good stuff posted here would provide any real advantage to MSTS users, however , keep up the good work boys.

    Peter

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterman View Post
    Gentlemen... lots of good stuff being posted here................ for Open Rails. This is an MSTS forum.... at least it was the last time I looked. I have serious doubts that the good stuff posted here would provide any real advantage to MSTS users, however , keep up the good work boys.
    Peter
    Peter, I can appreciate the polite admonition, however, from OP #1 post:

    What was the purpose of using these? I did a search in my routes and consists and found a few of them. I am running Open Rails, does OR treat these consists differently than MSTS did?
    (my emphasis)

    So naturally all posters with experience in both sims would be welcome to reply?

    Perhaps, the speculation regarding inviso-cars in OR, would be better taken up in the OR forum section.
    Cheers, R. Steele [Gerry] It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.


  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    1,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterman View Post
    If you really want to see how poorly OR handles this... try running in Auto-Pilot. The player train starts moving before the AI train is completely through the switch.


    And just to refresh everyone's memory, this is a consequence of OR having to follow its predecessor's behavior in lock step, because, unfortunately, OR had to be made exactly compatible with MSTS. Somehow, I think OR could have made better strides in performance in certain areas if we all spent less time making the two platforms 10000% compatible. An OR player train in auto-pilot meeting an AI train was made to behave just like 2 MSTS AI trains passing each other.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •