Hi guys,
Just some initial replies and comments-
.. limiting the routes to which the sessions could be applied was a little restrictive?
It's definitely restrictive in the "you must do X" sense. It's not so restrictive in a genre sense- there's a moderate range of styles and locales represented.
Possibly allowing new routes that weren't included in the list, with the proper arrangements of course, and that were both well made and challenging would increase the incentive to enter.
There are a few reasons we didn't do this. I'm open to suggestions on how we could relax this restriction while keeping the following in mind:
* We want the sessions to showcase TS2010. This means that the route should properly utilise long draw distances, SpeedTree, and native mode.
* We don't want the end-users to have to download large amounts of content to be able to use the session.
* We don't want to turn this into a route-building competition. We feel that this would exclude too many potential entrants and would require a lot more work from entrants.
I uploaded it on the 31st anyway, but it didn't get approved until late on the 1st (AUS time), so I haven't proceeded with it.
We allowed a grace period here but I haven't seen any qualifying sessions go up. Could you specify which DLS item you're referring to?
Also the thought of uploading something that is not finished, and then tweaking for a month after, seemed strange from my perspective at least
We didn't want to be in a position where people were putting a lot of effort into a session which didn't meet one of the competition requirements. We also wanted the judges to have some input into the session development process as we usually have specific concerns that the average amateur developer would probably not consider until too late. The easiest way to solve this is for the judges to vet the sessions prior to completion.
You're right that this could lead to some people playing the session before it was completed, but appropriate disclaimers in the description of the session (and perhaps an appropriate splash screen) could easily resolve that.
Finally the techniques for using rules in session creation are not easily found. There was a TRS2006 guide to session creation, but is that available to anyone who doesn't have the TRS2006 disk?
A fair comment. I'll look into this.
- AI trains ignoring speed limits added to the session layer.
I'm not sure that I follow this remark. AI trains should obey speed limits. Are you aware of a reproducible bug with this behaviour?
- Geting some form of randomness into the session.
This was a recommendation, not a requirement. It's certainly possible to do, and some others here have discussed some of the possible approaches, but it's not necessarily suitable for everyone.
.. I have almost zero US railroad knowledge..
It's worth considering that there was no requirement for prototypical operation. That's not to say we are looking for a sloppily-made session, but there are probably alternatives to a pure prototypical driving simulation that could have been worthwhile. In the distant past, I seem to remember somebody even made a push-cart racing scenario
I actually thought about giving it a try, but it would have been my first ever real session, and I am currently in a trying and learning process.
Ironically, had you have given it a try, you probably would have won! Something to think about next time. Assuming that you won't have a chance because somebody else is always better can be a mistake.
Rules and driver orders are another type of content that could have made session designer lives easier: I suggested to allow using the ones available on the DLS, provided they work in 2010 with no need for correction, but no answer came from Auran.
Unfortunately your post came very late and nobody else spoke up in support of your proposed change, despite my invitation to do so. We will certainly keep your comments in mind for the future, as the request seems quite reasonable.
As anyone that ever published knows all too well, a session always runs flawlessy... until you release it
Very true- and this is a good example of why we had an extra month allowed for corrections.
My proposal, therefore, is to extend the time limit a until 10th December, so as to have the sessions ready as a Christmas gift for the Trainz Community.
If we were to consider reopening the competition, we'd need to know that people were going to take it seriously.
There are some very beautiful American (and Chinese) locos built in with empty number-boards. Useing the portals, these number-boards are staying empty, if the not built-in rule "number this loco" can't be used. That's why it was impossible, that an American session with portals could win the contest.
I'm not sure that I can follow your remarks here. What have the number-boards got to do with the competition?
You really expected any serious entry with this set of rules?
Indeed we do- the rules were designed to fair for everyone, and we feel that the prize is reasonable. Are you just trolling, or did you have some actual feedback?
kind regards,
chris
approve the "built-in only" rule, but this leaves very little content to use, since the competitors were also "invited" to use only recent content capable of showing Trainz at its best. Since I started to make a session for the "Detroit Connecting Railroad", I needed contemporay US rolling stock: the choice is restricted to the various SD-40s, a few (seven) 50ft boxcars with no roof walkway and and half a dozen other cars. I added Ocemy's magnificent B-36 since there are no high-quality US switchers. 
.