Turnout controlled by wrong trains.

[Questor9]

This posting has to do with a problem that seems to be built into the logic of the AI as to which train gets to control a switch that is just ahead of an approaching train?

Logic would suggest, be it a matter of indifference, it should be the closest train or the one who gets to the corresponding signal first. Observed is that the furthest train from that switch, that will be traveling that path, often is but not consistently, the one in control of that switch.

Is there a way to prevent this from happening by adding some item to the track that will isolate the turnout from control beyond that designed distance?

 

[mtldrm38]

Usually happens with to many signals controlling the junctions...sometimes a good rule works., you can use "trigger multiple signals rule" which will give the first train priority of the set area.....

 

[dnevans8]

Placing trackmarks either side of the junction then navigating to or via that trackmark will mean an AI train will not set a route through the junction until it passes the trackmark so giving you some control over which train takes control of the junction. This should work as long as you do not have too many problem junctions as the command list could become inconveniently long.

 

[Questor9]

It would be better for traffic control if trainz AI did not control the switches but just made the trains obey the signals in a similar manner found in older game called Dispatcher.

The way it seems to work is No 2 or No 1 signals allow the AI to find the path to the scripted destination. No 4 signals control only permission to enter next track section. I have not observed that the No 3 signal has any more AI relevance than a No 4. In a two finger branch then there would be three signals, a No 2 on the trunk and two No 4, one on each branch. A three finger branch would have a No 1 signal and three No 4, one on each branch.

Once the path has been determined by the AI using the No 1 and 2 signals, it then throws the switches. As to how many switches it may throw along the path may contain the solution to the problem, if it is an absolute number, one could build stub sidings to block long distance switching by the AI. We know it must see the entire path before it will begin traveling to the next destination. If you place a switch on a track with no corresponding branching of the track the AI is blocked from finding its way even though you could drive the train to that destination.

When two trains seek the same switch I suspect that the one who gets control is the assigned driver closest to the beginning of the alphabet.

As to having too many signals in control of a switch it should make no difference for the signals do not control the switches as far as I can tell. Of course, what we think we know often blocks us from finding the truth of anything, so the more light that can be shed on this, the better for all.

If my game behaves similar to others than you will see occasions where the AI controlled train will overlook orders in timely manner, be they trackmarks, destinations, or loading points, going right past where they should have stopped then waking up that they made an error and creating chaos as they try to reverse back to where they should have gone. While the AI no longer throws switches under passing trains they still can run into each other, but when they do, they do not forget their orders when uncoupled like in previous versions.

 

[boat]

It would be better for traffic control if trainz AI did not control the switches but just made the trains obey the signals in a similar manner found in older game called Dispatcher.

Hi Questor,

You could just use AutoPilot for this. There is a Rule and DriverCommand available on the DLS.

Autopilote Mode is the method I use in my ASB Turnout system..... but that only does Double track Turnouts.

Regards,

Boat