Track Marker Request

[dricketts]

I've brought this up before but I think there might have been some confusion so I thought I would start a new thread and hopefully clear the muddy waters.

Could someone create a simple track priority marker unlike what is available now?

A marker that doesn't use any priority assignments to trains. You simply place the marker where you wish and all trains follow the marker regardless of direction as long as the path is clear.

Why wouldn't this work?

 

[Retro00064]

Are you looking for the regular built-in red trackmark? :wave:

Regards,

Retro.

 

[dricketts]

Are you looking for the regular built-in red trackmark? :wave:

Regards,

Retro.

No. A priority marker that you don't have to assign values to. This would allow you to place it anywhere, save the route, and your done. It's always there.

With the built in priority markers you have to assign values that are only saved in each session. To me they are a little too much for what I'm looking for. I just want my AI to follow the main line/priority markers and quit taking the shortest path to the destination by using passing sidings. I don't want to have to set everything up with the existing built in priority markers every session.

I don't understand why no one sees the value in a marker like I'm proposing.

 

[Retro00064]

So you want a seperate priority marker for each priority that you can just plonk down and be done with? Hmmm...sounds like something that would need to be scripted, if it is even possible.

Regards,

Retro.

 

[dricketts]

So you want a seperate priority marker for each priority that you can just plonk down and be done with? Hmmm...sounds like something that would need to be scripted, if it is even possible.

Regards,

Retro.

No. I think you're trying to over think my proposal. Maybe I shouldn't use the word priority with these proposed markers.

There is no need for separate priorities. Just one priority. All trains follow the markers unless the path is not clear.

Think of it like this. The markers I'm proposing would not have to be used in the AI drive commands. If a user simply used one AI command "drive". The AI would follow these proposed track markers unless the path was not clear.

 

[colourlight]

I think I understand what you saying. You want a train to go from A to B along a particular path without going through a loop, opposite line etc!. You dont need a priority trackmark for that. I can achieve the same thing using regular track and direction markers. To save repetition you only need to write the schedule once and put it in the schedule library and use the "copy command" Youcan also copy the schedule from another driver.

 

[dricketts]

I think I understand what you saying. You want a train to go from A to B along a particular path without going through a loop, opposite line etc!. You dont need a priority trackmark for that. I can achieve the same thing using regular track and direction markers. To save repetition you only need to write the schedule once and put it in the schedule library and use the "copy command" Youcan also copy the schedule from another driver.

Yes that's what I'm saying. But...

I don't want to use schedule library in this instance. Schedule library has to be used with each session. Why can't a marker be created to save to the route? Simply give every train on any session the command drive, drive to trackmark, navigate to, drive via, or whatever. Every train always follows these proposed markers. This eliminates the need to deal with long schedules just to make sure the AI train avoids passing sidings as a shortcut.

 

[JCitron]

I understand what you want, but implementing it might be difficult. You need to "wire" the device somehow into the route so the AI drivers see it and take that route.

Perhaps the marker would be placed after a junction to a siding or yard, and turns that junction to a manual throw (human) operated one if this is possible that the AI can't operate.

John

 

[dricketts]

Thanks John.

It might well be harder to create than what it seems on the surface to someone like myself. If that's the case could someone smarter than me let me know for sure and I'll quit kicking this dead horse...

 

[JCitron]

Thanks John.

It might well be harder to create than what it seems on the surface to someone like myself. If that's the case could someone smarter than me let me know for sure and I'll quit kicking this dead horse...

I'm no smarter than you when it comes to this stuff. We can always come up with great ideas then leave it to the experts to create.

But having said that, I think this might be possible. This is on the lines of some of the other junction controller type rules that are out there. I haven't used them myself, no need to, but these rules require adding items to a list somehow so they know who they're working with.

John

 

[Deano5]

Why can't you just use the normal priority marker? So long as you are not setting track and train priorities, they will all remain the default setting and follow that one marker. :wave:

 

[trev999]

Why can't you just use the normal priority marker? So long as you are not setting track and train priorities, they will all remain the default setting and follow that one marker. :wave:

Because that doesn't work. What does work (but might not be the answer) is this:

Leave your train at priority 2 and set a priority marker 1 or 3 on every track where you don't want the train to travel.

Alternately, set your train to P1 or P3 and place a P2 marker where you don't want the train to travel. That way you don't have to remember to set all the markers, just set the trains to a priority other than 2.

Trevor

 

[fran1]

Because that doesn't work. What does work (but might not be the answer) is this:

Leave your train at priority 2 and set a priority marker 1 or 3 on every track where you don't want the train to travel.

Alternately, set your train to P1 or P3 and place a P2 marker where you don't want the train to travel. That way you don't have to remember to set all the markers, just tset the trains to a priority other than 2.

Trevor

I still can't see why the Op doesn't use t/m's and the schedule library to set who goes where.
The library may take time to set up but once done it's set for life. I've a route with 19 sets, ok it took time but to allocate a schedule to a driver is 2 clicks away.

 

[dricketts]

Why can't you just use the normal priority marker? So long as you are not setting track and train priorities, they will all remain the default setting and follow that one marker. :wave:

It doesn't work like that and any changes you make do not stay in the route only sessions. This means yo have to do this for every session.

I still can't see why the Op doesn't use t/m's and the schedule library to set who goes where.
The library may take time to set up but once done it's set for life. I've a route with 19 sets, ok it took time but to allocate a schedule to a driver is 2 clicks away.

Yes that is an option and I'm familiar with using the schedule library. But I thought it would be fairly easy to create a trackmark like I propose. I think this would be a valued asset to trains. Now my question: Is it possible and how difficult would it be?

 

[itareus]

.....Now my question: Is it possible and how difficult would it be?

The question of "priority" markers and their use keeps coming up on the forums. This is normally due to the fact that "Priority is somewhat of a misnomer for this marker - most people (correctly in my view) assume that priority 1 takes precedence over priority 2, and 2 over 3 etc. however this is not the case. Trains will only follow these markers if the train priority is equal to the marker priority - perhaps they should be called "Route Markers" or "Train Class Markers" ??

That said, back to your questions:

.....Is it possible .....

Anything is possible at a price !! but I am 99% certain this would need to be done as an enhancement to the in game code (AI logic) rather than as a user written script. (I would be happy to be proved wrong on this point!)

.....how difficult would it be.....

I think this is where the problem lies - if I am correct about the need to change the in game code then the "difficulty" comes from the fact that any such change is a very low priority in terms of all the enhancements Auran/N3V will have in hand for TS??

There are workarounds, depending on your exact track layout etc. Like the aforementioned Trackmark or directional markers. I do see the point of your suggestion, just can't see it happening anytime soon.

Regards

Chris

 

[dricketts]

The question of "priority" markers and their use keeps coming up on the forums. This is normally due to the fact that "Priority is somewhat of a misnomer for this marker - most people (correctly in my view) assume that priority 1 takes precedence over priority 2, and 2 over 3 etc. however this is not the case. Trains will only follow these markers if the train priority is equal to the marker priority - perhaps they should be called "Route Markers" or "Train Class Markers" ??

That said, back to your questions:



Anything is possible at a price !! but I am 99% certain this would need to be done as an enhancement to the in game code (AI logic) rather than as a user written script. (I would be happy to be proved wrong on this point!)



I think this is where the problem lies - if I am correct about the need to change the in game code then the "difficulty" comes from the fact that any such change is a very low priority in terms of all the enhancements Auran/N3V will have in hand for TS??

There are workarounds, depending on your exact track layout etc. Like the aforementioned Trackmark or directional markers. I do see the point of your suggestion, just can't see it happening anytime soon.

Regards

Chris

Thanks for the answer Chris. That's what I was looking for. Sounds like it's a bigger project than I expected.