How does one close a loop of track completely?

[JonMyrlennBailey]

The following picture shows a small break in the red invisible-in-driver track where there is only one spline point. Why didn't the track come together solid? What is the solution? This is important. Though AI drivers can, in fact, drive across this track gap on a loop endlessly when given the Drive command, they can't get to a track mark placed on the OPPOSITE side of this gap without backing up and driving all the way around the loop to the other side of this gap. I suspect the track has to be closed solid in order for AI navigation to function normally on a closed circuit of track. I need a lesson on properly setting up a closed-loop track with no breaks in the track. The AI drivers seem to think of this gap as a dead end or line termination when given "to" or "via" commands to specific points on the other side of this break.

I have seen a similar phenomenon with other spline objects as telephone poles and wires. I would cut out a section of telegraph line for editing then try to fill it back in later and have two phone poles doubled up together like siamese twins at a spline point or have a gap in the wire at one spline point where a pole should be.

 

[BuilderBob]

Though AI drivers can, in fact, drive across this track gap on a loop endlessly when given the Drive command, they can't get to a track mark placed on the OPPOSITE side of this gap without backing up and driving all the way around the loop to the other side of this gap.

AI will prefer track direction over distance. The gap you can see is not part of the problem - you can prove this by moving the spline point and noting that both pieces of track move together. You need a track direction marker at some other part of the circuit to make that other route unusable.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

Well, I had a direction maker placed but the AI driver stopped and backed up right against it when he came to the last track mark on the schedule BEFORE the next track mark on the drive schedule with the gap in the track just BEFORE this marker he would NOT drive forward toward. I have given him Drive Via commands too for these markers.

So I suspect the problem is with the visible gap. I am going to try a new experiment: I am going to move the track mark (he failed to get to last time) to the near side of the questionable gap (this time) with a command to drive via another mark on the far side of the gap and see if he does not stop at this mark and back up at the track mark short of the gap. If he stops at the last mark (a via command track mark on the drive-test schedule) short of the gap again my suspicions will be confirmed. Better yet, I will place the train vehicle just short of the gap and order him to drive via a mark over the gap to see if he is willing to cross the track gap in a forward direction all the way. I will place a yellow cone on the track right before his train vehicle as a true test.

 

[butler57]

I swear that before answering this thread that I have done a few tests on completely joining tracks and invisible track, splines (trees), etc. and by putting in at least 3 spleen points managed a rough circle each time.

With the running of a train - well it may actually see it's own rear end and say I cannot go there in a circle (tell me I'm wrong - I can take it!) or you could put in a stop sign (end of section) so that it will not see it's own rear end. (still I could be wrong here too!)

But short of someone writing a "Trainz for Dummies" book I can only suggest that like many of us that the OP read the appropriate Trainz Version Manual found as a PDF in the Trainz install or look up track laying issues on the forum or look closely at routes with examples to discover and pull apart to see what make it all tick - oh! And there are also YouTube guides on track laying and route building as well.

We could pull up all the OP's threads and that would cover most of what one would need for a "Trainz for Dummies" style of book -no pun intended whatever helps Newbies is a good thing.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

Well, Bob, you are right about the gap: it is NOT the issue indeed. The AI driver went right over it on the last test. I do think AI favors the shortest DISTANCE between two points over direction of travel on a closed circuit, however. On a closed loop, a driver can go one of two directions (forward or reverse) to get back the the same starting point. What I need are more track markers (waypoints)! The driver (of an airplane) has to be made to continue completely around the circle forward without ever stopping and backing up in mid air.

I will have to lay red markers to at least past the half way point of the looped "flight plan" for my "pilot" to follow. Once he passes the "over half way there mark" he should be able to then march forward back to the landing strip without a hitch.

 

[trev999]

Instead of "Drive to", use "Autodrive" or "Autopilot". Those commands never allow the vehicle to reverse.

 

[Mappak]

Instead of "Drive to", use "Autodrive" or "Autopilot". Those commands never allow the vehicle to reverse.

I never knew this, great news.

 

[BuilderBob]

So I suspect the problem is with the visible gap.

It has nothing to do with the visible gap.

 

[cascaderailroad]

Are the tracks joined ?

Is there a vehicle on the track, that will stop splines from joining ?

 

[JIb228]

Use the "Drive VIA Trackmark."

Example of some track where a train going form A to C would see D as the shortest route.


===A=\==B==/=C===
_______==D==

Telling the AI driver to dive VIA B then to drive to C will yield the driver ignoring the shortest route. The AI will also not slow down and rethink the path once it reaches B. Unlike a player driven train where the player will think and plan way a head. Using the Drive to command the AI only plans how to get to the track mark. It then must stop and rethink and find a new way to the next track mark. Yet the Drive VIA causes the AI to think more, making it think about how to get to C from B. Thus it plots a better path, and probably the one you wanted.

But if all you wanted was a train to go in a loop all day, use STW drive. This will allow you to line any switches and set the path the AI just follows the speed and signals.

 

[oknotsen]

/ Moderator mode

"Flooding the Forum" with countless redundant new threads ... when you could simply use the search pane, and find a related thread !

May I strongly suggest your next 10 replies to Jon start with one or more links to topics that cover the problem he is posting about together with a short description on how you found that thread?
This can learn Jon how to quicker find an answer to his problems.
/ End moderator mode

 

[stagecoach]

This happens from time to time. The invisible track is raised which is why the spline point is where it is from that angle. You have attempted to join the new track to the raised spline point and it has in fact joined at a different height. The gap is caused by the track connecting at a differing height than the track spline points highest point. Break the spline point and check that the two ends have the same spline point height and then join them together.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

I am not having trouble with the track gaps regarding the AI mode after all. What has worked for me is to have enough red markers placed around the loop strategically and have "these markers spaced not too far apart. My flight loop is about 200 miles all the way around and I have 12 markers spaced all the way around the loop more or less evenly spaced, about 15-20 miles apart. If the AI pilot gets to a track marker (gotten to by the Drive Via command) that has the mark immediately following about 35 or more miles ahead, he likes to stop and back up around the much longer part of the loop for some ungodly reason. Keeping the waypoints close enough together keeps him moving forward without hesitation, on a LOOPED track system. Yellow direction markers don't stop him from doing this stop-and-backup routine either. I have discovered that by this method the AI pilot will continue forward all the way around and stay up to speed. I think the closed loop otherwise confuses the AI mode. Not so many track markers are needed to AI to drive a long way non-stop with no markers in between on as on an open-ended railroad line that terminates on either end.

Since this is an Air Force One airplane route on a closed circuit, I could just simply give him, the AI "captain" in the "cockpit", the DRIVE command and he will continue to go around and around the loop indefinitely nonstop. However, since I need him to stop on the apron following landing to park the aircraft to refuel for a certain amount of time, load/unload passengers (the American President, the First Lady, the First Children and the First Dog with SS guys in suits, a black limo and escort police waiting on the ground), back out on to the taxiway, taxi to the end of the runway and hold short about 30 seconds real-world airliner style, pull onto the runway, take off, fly the route loop (pattern), approach the same airport and land, turn back on to the taxiway and repeat the whole process over again using the Repeat command, a complex schedule or battery of commands is needed for the whole flight plan.

 

[butler57]

Sorry - but I must disagree with you Oknotsen!
You are basically requesting that forum members do all the work (searching) for answers to the OP's endless questions - when the OP should be the one to conduct their own search, and then and only then if that is not fruitful post the question.

Also in the first instance the basic question related to the inability to join a spline to make a 'closed loop' - but then the OP goes on further and decides to give us all his solutions to related or non-related problems(s) along with more issues. And in further posts goes on to vivid description of what he is doing in the route/session setup that has nothing really to do with the question asked.

It seems to me and others from what I have read in a variety of 60 plus posts that the OP is not always actually seeking answers to questions but posing some non-issues and non-relevant discussion to what was intended in the thread description in the first place - I wonder sometimes weather or not the OP actually takes any advice seriously - I suspect not!

Feel happy to delete this if you wish - offer a warning - but consider the nature of the OP's posts and the multitude of help others have offered to the OP in the past before doing so.

 

[oknotsen]

Sorry - but I must disagree with you Oknotsen!

You are basically requesting that forum members do all the work (searching) for answers to the OP's endless questions - when the OP should be the one to conduct their own search, and then and only then if that is not fruitful post the question.

No, I am asking Cascade to do that in reaction to his overkill comment to Jon, not "forum members" in general. For the record: I removed about 60 lines of text, quotes and images, not just the 1 line I left in my quote.

Feel free to disagree with me, yet I hope you don't mind I agree with you: Jon should indeed search for his answer first.
However, Jon apparently is not going to change by us telling him to search (as we have been doing that for about 50 or so of his topics by now).
Maybe showing him how to search is a new attempt at getting him to do so.
Note though that not all the things Jon asks about are easy to find; I have removed my "go search" reply ones or twice after figuring out I knew the answer and there was a post about it but I simply could not find it with "search".

Next to that: Nobody is forcing you (or Cascade or anyone) to respond to Jon or even read his posts.
You choose to do so, I choose to do so, just like Cascade had chosen to post over 60 lines of text with a day-by-day count of Jon's posts together with some other irrelevant material.
If you are one of the many people that dislikes the amount of topics Jon starts, stop responding to him, easy as that. I am sure that when enough people do so he will start searching eventually. Or he will move on to a new hobby. Or he turns into the next person moaning about how bad or negative this forum is. If you however thinks he breaks the CoC, please report it, preferable with a reference to the rule in the CoC you think he is breaking, and I am sure it will get our attention.

Feel happy to delete this if you wish

Let me get another misunderstanding out of this world:
The moderators can not delete anything. We can hide text in posts, but the owner of the post (plus all moderators and administrators) can still see it. We also can not delete posts, but only move them to a hidden forum where stays visible for other moderators and administrators. So if you complain to Zec, he can still see the original posts.
So even if I would "wish" to delete things, I can't.

 

[butler57]

Thanks Oknotsen - a fair and honest moderation and reply - I am sure we all enjoy helping members with issues as I know you do - I would hate the fact that folks stop doing so based on this and other recent incidents. Short of spamming the forum with posts I agree we should encourage the OP to do more or less their own leg work.