TS2010 Session making competition - feedback

[celje]

I just want to say thanks to Auran/N3V for identify and fixing the DLS problem.
hert:wave:

Hello WindWalkr again

Thank's from my side too.
My route DBpro-Fen-Keg F with session and sessions Avery-Drexel Ai trains and ECML Ai freight, which were only on CMC3.3, are now on DLS too. I report this 8. Sept 2010.

And i will be much more happy, if i will get the answer on this thread too (helpdesk 1. Aug 2010)
Am I waiting enough time

regards
celje

 

[Dean_Forest]

My issue was more to do with the restriction on built-in content, there are some very good rules out there which would have formed an essential part of my session and the choice of UK locomotives for the ECML would be very limited unless we could have used locomotives such as the class 03 which is error free in TS2010, is good quality and provides for much more varied operations.

As for the scoring/objective thing, what about sessions which are "ride" sessions, and would offer the chance of just letting the player sit back and watch the scenery go by.

 

[JamesMoody]

My issue was more to do with the restriction on built-in content, there are some very good rules out there which would have formed an essential part of my session and the choice of UK locomotives for the ECML would be very limited unless we could have used locomotives such as the class 03 which is error free in TS2010, is good quality and provides for much more varied operations.

The rules allow for a single submission to consist of several assets - HTML and achievement assets are specifically mentioned, but it also says "etc.". I read this as meaning other similar dependency assets to HTML and achievement dependencies.

The intent of the restriction to built-in content is to make downloading quick and simple. The idea is to allow TS2010 owners to add additional gameplay quickly and easily with a small extra download, and have the graphical experience at a similar level to the sessions that shipped with the game.

Using whole new locos or rolling stock from the DLS wouldn't be permitted, and if you submitted an entry that relied on new stock, it's something we'd be asking you to change before final submission at the end of November to ensure you are eligible.

As far as rules and driver orders go - as Chris noted, we asked for discussion on this point, and very little was forthcoming.

My personal opinion is that I'd treat a rule or a driver order like I'd treat a HTML or achievement dependency - using that 'etc.' clause. If CM automatically downloads it with no significant waiting time, there are no errors or warnings, and I can go straight from downloading the session asset in Content Manager and jump into driver and drive the session, then I personally wouldn't mark you down or disqualify you on the basis you've used a DLS asset. Please note, however, this is my personal opinion, it's a fairly significant stretch of the rules, and it isn't the most natural interpretation. I don't know how the panel of judges would treat this case, though I think this is why Chris was asking for some discussion on the subject.

As for the scoring/objective thing, what about sessions which are "ride" sessions, and would offer the chance of just letting the player sit back and watch the scenery go by.

While 'ride' sessions have their place, a 'ride' session isn't what we are looking for in this competition. We are looking for a session that sets the user a task to perform, and checks up on whether and/or how well they manage to do it. Ride sessions don't do this, and wouldn't be considered for this competition.

 

[philskene]

The WOW!~! factor

Hi James --

I must admit I was quite excited when I saw your original announcement.

My first reaction to your post was that you are looking for sessions that have the WOW!~! factor - that something that makes us seasoned users, newcomers and those who have never before tried Trainz to actually sit up and take notice.

I was hoping to see the sort of sessions that I could show to friends who swear by one of the competing railroad simulations and see their eyes open in disbelief and hear them mutter "I just gotta try that."

Compared to my expectations I am, I must confess, a little bit disappointed now that I've tried the two entries.

What happens next?

Phil

 

[Davie_UCF]

I used to make a few sessions for my own routes in the style of scenarios and I remember they take a lot of testing. I also remember it took me quite a long time to get used to how it works, mostly figuring things out by trial and error.

I personally think (I might be wrong here) that most people don't really havea clue about sessions or how to set them up. Maybe there needs to be a more obvious guide or example on a session?

I enjoy making sessions, but I didn't even consider entering the competition because I just didn't think I could do it well enough to make it worth it, especially with the routes included.. I'd have used the ECML, but thats quite a long route to make anything decent for in a short time..
I'm still not sure about the layers... you can add triggers and trackmarks for sessions ina session layer right? So nearly anything is possible?.. this is something i'm not clear on because I only make sessions for my own routes.



Cheers
David

 

[Pendolino]

@ WindWalkr:

If we were to consider reopening the competition, we'd need to know that people were going to take it seriously.

I think that the lack of submitted sessions just proves that competitors were already taking very seriously and attempted to make serious sessions, otherwise we would have seen plenty of "drive the train non-stop from A to B" sessions. Unfortunately, in my opinion making sessions "of a high standard", containing "some meaningful form of scoring" or "novel gameplay elements" or "gameplay that changes slightly between each run", requires more time than just 30 days. This is especially true for our British Friends, as the ECML is not exactly a shortline .

I have thought about the use of built-in content only, and I must acknowledge that - despite all the issues submitted by "rivet counters" as myself - this is the only way to be 100% sure that any new member of the Trainz Community can download it and begin playing it in a few minutes.

I would like very much to see the competition reopened (provided a suitable timeframe is allowed), as sessions are one of the most interesting features of Trainz since TRS2004, that is still unknown to many Trainz users: the most common remark we receive at Trainzitalia after releasing a session is "I didn't know Trainz could do that!" .

@ Davie UCF:

I'm still not sure about the layers... you can add triggers and trackmarks for sessions ina session layer right?

Yes, you can add triggers, trackmarks and even scenery objects to the session layer. It does not matter anymore if the creator of a route didn't place trackmarks or triggers: now you can add all them at will .

I personally think (I might be wrong here) that most people don't really have a clue about sessions or how to set them up. Maybe there needs to be a more obvious guide or example on a session?

The old "Rule and Session Guide" for is still valid: of course it does not explain the rules that are built-in in 2010 only, but it does provide a clear picture of the structure of a session, which has remained the same in 2010. I personally would like some information about the use of the achievement system and how to implement it in a session.

Regards

 

[Davie_UCF]

@ WindWalkr:



I think that the lack of submitted sessions just proves that competitors were already taking very seriously and attempted to make serious sessions, otherwise we would have seen plenty of "drive the train non-stop from A to B" sessions. Unfortunately, in my opinion making sessions "of a high standard", containing "some meaningful form of scoring" or "novel gameplay elements" or "gameplay that changes slightly between each run", requires more time than just 30 days. This is especially true for our British Friends, as the ECML is not exactly a shortline .

I have thought about the use of built-in content only, and I must acknowledge that - despite all the issues submitted by "rivet counters" as myself - this is the only way to be 100% sure that any new member of the Trainz Community can download it and begin playing it in a few minutes.

I would like very much to see the competition reopened (provided a suitable timeframe is allowed), as sessions are one of the most interesting features of Trainz since TRS2004, that is still unknown to many Trainz users: the most common remark we receive at Trainzitalia after releasing a session is "I didn't know Trainz could do that!" .

@ Davie UCF:



Yes, you can add triggers, trackmarks and even scenery objects to the session layer. It does not matter anymore if the creator of a route didn't place trackmarks or triggers: now you can add all them at will .



The old "Rule and Session Guide" for is still valid: of course it does not explain the rules that are built-in in 2010 only, but it does provide a clear picture of the structure of a session, which has remained the same in 2010. I personally would like some information about the use of the achievement system and how to implement it in a session.

Regards

I think there should be a more obvious session tutorial around, on the forums or something, I bet if people realised how easy it really is (althoug time consuming) there would be so much more scenario kinda sessions around.
The achievements.. funny they are, I recently hit the 1000 stations visited or something and it was because i've been testing my routes session over and over and over haha.

Off topic ish.. theres a scenario button on the TS10 menu, but I thought scenarios were now defunct.. unless you can change a session so it appears as a scenario to make it much more user friendly?

 

[Pendolino]

I think there should be a more obvious session tutorial around, on the forums or something, I bet if people realised how easy it really is (althoug time consuming) there would be so much more scenario kinda sessions around.

I wrote several tutorials (in Italian) and I also translated the Rules & Session Guide (88 pages!) in Italian: the only result I got was a series of posts saying "wonderful!", "amazing!", "I must absolutely try this!", but not even a single session . I think that most people is not interested in creating something, no matter how easy the task is...

theres a scenario button on the TS10 menu, but I thought scenarios were now defunct.. unless you can change a session so it appears as a scenario to make it much more user friendly?

Scenarios can still be written for 2010: we at Trainzitalia just released one (after 10 months of ruthless betatesting ). Unfortunately, it is a user-hostile procedure, requiring high scripting skills: the session system (rules+driver orders) is much simpler and flexible.

 

[WindWalkr]

I think that most people is not interested in creating something, no matter how easy the task is...

You may be right. It may also be that people are happy to try something at home, but are less willing to share the results of their tinkering. (Feeling that they are not as good as the power-users.)

Scenarios can still be written for 2010: we at Trainzitalia just released one (after 10 months of ruthless betatesting ). Unfortunately, it is a user-hostile procedure, requiring high scripting skills: the session system (rules+driver orders) is much simpler and flexible.

TS2010 lacks some of the tools necessary to make serious scenarios. You either need to live by some fairly tough restrictions, or use unsupported tools
in order to build a scenario in TS2010.

I should also make it very clear that we are completely dropping scenario support, very soon. We announced that we were phasing out scenario support when we added sessions back in 2006. Any scenario made at this stage is going to have a fairly limited compatibility life-span.

chris

 

[stovepipe]

Hi Chris,

You asked me a couple of questions further up, my comments as follows:

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?

I decided not to approve the upload, as I had by then realised there was a train was getting stuck at Kings Cross. It was also not as well developed as I would have liked, but it does at least have some challenge elements.

I will probably upload it at some point anyway - I just ran out of time last week.

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?

Okay I encountered two problems with AI speed limits/behaviour - 1) the built-in class 105 DMU only ever does approx 3/4 of line-speed up to its maximum speed of 70mph. So, on a 70mph line it will max out at 53mph. On a 100mph line it will reach it's maximum speed. This is with an AI driver following navigate to/via commands, under clear signals.

2) Where I have added a speed limit in the session layer, just beyond an existing speed limit placed on the route layer, the new session-layer speed limit is registered and then forgotten as the train passes through, and the route-layer speed is re-registered. Yes I can reproduce it.

Does this mean therefore that the session-layer speed limit has to be placed beyond the route-layer speed limit, by at least the length of the longest train that will use the section?

regards
Charles

 

[Davie_UCF]

The 105 has an enginespec issue i'm pretty sure. I remember I mentioned in its creation thread and was told what part of the config to change.. It now runs fine for me. But shouldn't be like that out of the box!

 

[stovepipe]

Indeed there is a fix for it running slow when you are the driver, but this is slightly different issue. It will run at full speed under AI control, but only when the linespeed is 100mph or more.

Of course building a session for upload, that relies on a local fix isn't such a good idea...

 

[olpe]

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.

kind regards,

chris

That was not why I decided to let it go. I found out that I simply wouldn't be able to make a session in that time. Not because it isn't possible to make a session in the time we had, but because I need to learn how to do pretty much every little detail before I can do it. To do something an experienced sessionist does in 15 minutes, I could easily spend a whole day of searching, reading, learning, trying and failing.

However, if I am ever able to make a proper session, I could always primarily use the layouts from this competition, if there are few sessions for these in the first place.

I think that most people is not interested in creating something, no matter how easy the task is...

You may be right. It may also be that people are happy to try something at home, but are less willing to share the results of their tinkering. (Feeling that they are not as good as the power-users.)

chris

A third possibility, which goes for me, and I'm sure it goes for others as well, could be that people start their work with the best of intentions, but simply aren't able to finish what they started / intended to do. This may be for several reasons, in my case, I am still learning how everything works, and I can use several days just figuring out one simple little thing, like how to make images work in HTML-files (which I FINALLY cracked this morning ).

 

[JamesMoody]

2) Where I have added a speed limit in the session layer, just beyond an existing speed limit placed on the route layer, the new session-layer speed limit is registered and then forgotten as the train passes through, and the route-layer speed is re-registered. Yes I can reproduce it.

Does this mean therefore that the session-layer speed limit has to be placed beyond the route-layer speed limit, by at least the length of the longest train that will use the section?

This isn't a layer / session thing, it's a speed limit thing.

As I understand it, you've got a line that looks like:

      Train                    75         50 
[_______________>              |          |
-------------------------------------------------------

Let's assume the line speed is currently 100.

As the train moves along, the front will hit the 75 board, at which point the line speed will be dropped to 75.

Then the front will hit the 50 board, which will drop the line speed again to 50.

Then the back will pass the 75 board.

Trainz sees the back of the train pass a speedboard which is of a higher value than the current linespeed.

In more normal arrangements, this means the speed limit has gone up (raised limits take effect at the end of train, remember), so the limit goes up.

It's nothing to do with layers in the session - it's to do with speedsigns being placed too close together. You can reproduce this all in one route layer.

Unfortunately, the longer the train, the easier it is to encounter this problem...

HTH

James

 

[stovepipe]

Yes that is indeed the situation and the behaviour observed, and I take your point as to why.

I can also see why when I tried it the other way round, that is with a 50 mph speed limit before the route-layer speed limit (75mph) I get the same result.

Of course it's not something I would normally need to do, save for the purposes of a making a session for upload. However, the workaround does make my intended session a little trickier to set-up.

So, any ideas as to why the 105 DMU behaves the way it does?

regards
Charles

 

[Lots_Trains]

James that sure is how it works and I regard it as bug (it has annoyed me for years) any chance of fix.

Cheers

Lots

 

[Davie_UCF]

Indeed there is a fix for it running slow when you are the driver, but this is slightly different issue. It will run at full speed under AI control, but only when the linespeed is 100mph or more.

Of course building a session for upload, that relies on a local fix isn't such a good idea...

I've got 3 Dmu's running on one of my sessions and they always reach the top speed which is up to 70mph. So I'm pretty sure its the config change I was advised to do in regards to AI not human

David

 

[jadebullet]

I originally wanted to enter. Then I ran into a serious problem. The restriction on only using high quality, built in stuff was, well, limiting. There really isn't that much in the way of built in assets to begin with, and once you get rid of alot of the older, lower quality assets, you barely have anything.

Also, it cuts down on the rules which would help make the session better. Also, the routes are a bit restrictive.

Thinking back now, I wish that I would have entered. I could have gotten a clean $1k.

 

[JamesMoody]

Future of this competition

We're currently considering what to do about this competition.

We don't currently consider the two submitted sessions to be 'substantially complete'. Neither has in-game instructions, or tracks whether and/or how well the player performs the task set. (We will be contacting the individual authors with a thorough list of where the sessions do not meet our expectations soon.)

While we could simply declare both to be 'not substantially complete', and the competition over, this would not encourage the creation of interactive sessions, nor for that matter faith in N3V run competitions.


So we are considering rebooting the competition, in the expectation of a greater number and quality of submissions.

The key issues we can address are:

* Lack of time. We propose to change the final date for the submission of a substantially complete session to 31st January 2011. This would give people about 11 weeks from now, including the holiday period. We would again allow four weeks after that for corrections and bugfixing.

* Lack of available driver orders and rules. We propose to add session rules and driver orders to the list of asset types we allow from the Download Station. They would need to download automatically with the session (i.e. ensure all dependencies are in the KUID table) and not require any modification (i.e. must not have flagged errors in Content Manager). The use of other asset types from the download station would still be prohibited.

* Missing map. It has been pointed out to us that we missed 'Downtown Traction' from the list of suitable maps. We propose to add this map to the list of allowable maps.


What do people think about this as a course of action? Would this tempt you to enter this time, whether you are completing a started but abandoned session, or starting a new one from scratch?

 

[JamesMoody]

I originally wanted to enter. Then I ran into a serious problem. The restriction on only using high quality, built in stuff was, well, limiting. There really isn't that much in the way of built in assets to begin with, and once you get rid of alot of the older, lower quality assets, you barely have anything.

Looking for the moment at a north American diesel era session:

* I can see eight suitable maps to set the session on. Adding 'Downtown Traction' which we forgot to include last time would mean nine in total now.
* I can see 43 north American diesel locomotives of a sufficient exterior quality level, plus of course the excellent Chinese ND5 (which for the purposes of a north American session is a GE C36-7 with a curious paint job), and that makes 44 in total.

You might want to be a bit picky about which of these 44 you give the player to use, as I suspect while some of these look acceptable from the outside, not all will be up to standard from the inside. A respectable looking cab interior is an important consideration when using them as the player's locomotive. All 44 would be suitable as AI traffic, or parked up in a yard or roundhouse, though.

That's quite some choice, so I suspect when you say "You barely have anything" you already have other unstated restrictions you have placed on what you are willing to use in the session.