Beta Update 97556 to 97923 Now available

AI session with up to 16 trains


In buildno 96000 I was very satisfied with the performance in my AI session.
Stuttering appeared only sometimes and lasted not more than 200-300 Milliseconds.


From the next following buildno:s I have HUGE problems with the performance,
i.e. not usable.
Yes, I have sent a bug report a long time ago, around November 12th.

Check attached video snapshot:
[video]http://www.mediafire.com/file/1vlglx1lojjxro1/97923_Liten.mp4/file[/video]


And yes, I have checked that the brakes are ON i CabMode, but so they were in buildno
96000!

So, I am very confused and do not understand WHY!

Has it to do with my PC i.e. I need a more powerful one?
But why does it work good in 96000?

Have there been any changes regarding Engine specs after 96000?


Am I the ONLY ONE having this problem with MANY AI trains running simultaneusly??
Or is there anyone else experiencing same problem with AI trains.


So, the only way for me is to keep 96000, which I have done!
 
vovven47 said:
AI session with up to 16 trains


In buildno 96000 I was very satisfied with the performance in my AI session.
Stuttering appeared only sometimes and lasted not more than 200-300 Milliseconds.


From the next following buildno:s I have HUGE problems with the performance,
i.e. not usable.
Yes, I have sent a bug report a long time ago, around November 12th.

Check attached video snapshot:
[video]http://www.mediafire.com/file/1vlglx1lojjxro1/97923_Liten.mp4/file[/video]


And yes, I have checked that the brakes are ON i CabMode, but so they were in buildno
96000!

So, I am very confused and do not understand WHY!

Has it to do with my PC i.e. I need a more powerful one?
But why does it work good in 96000?

Have there been any changes regarding Engine specs after 96000?


Am I the ONLY ONE having this problem with MANY AI trains running simultaneusly??
Or is there anyone else experiencing same problem with AI trains.


So, the only way for me is to keep 96000, which I have done!
Click to expand...

Don't stay at 96000 you need to keep testing and reporting! The more bugs you find the better it is for all of us including you.

Regarding the current build, there is a reported bug with AI drivers moving very, very slow due to the brakes being stuck on while driving diesels.

In other builds, you may have come across other things, but I noticed no decrease in performance in the builds. I recommend doing some PC maintenance, which helps after updating and database rebuilding. In fact an extended database repair (Press CTRL+click on Rebuild database on the menu), helps a lot with performance as it cleans out "stuff" not used and reindexes the data.
 
JCitron said:
Don't stay at 96000 you need to keep testing and reporting! The more bugs you find the better it is for all of us including you.

Regarding the current build, there is a reported bug with AI drivers moving very, very slow due to the brakes being stuck on while driving diesels.

In other builds, you may have come across other things, but I noticed no decrease in performance in the builds. I recommend doing some PC maintenance, which helps after updating and database rebuilding. In fact an extended database repair (Press CTRL+click on Rebuild database on the menu), helps a lot with performance as it cleans out "stuff" not used and reindexes the data.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your advice (Press CTRL+click on Rebuild database on the menu), but the result is same.


Anyhow, I inserted the AI command "Wait for 1 hour" as first command for 10 trains, leaving 6 trains Active
from startup.
It helped and the performance was much better for the 6 trains.

In any case, I am VERY VERY satisfied with TRS2019(96000) and hope the problem with AI drivers will get solved,
or at least an explanation WHY my session fails.
 
vovven47 said:
Thanks for your advice (Press CTRL+click on Rebuild database on the menu), but the result is same.


Anyhow, I inserted the AI command "Wait for 1 hour" as first command for 10 trains, leaving 6 trains Active
from startup.
It helped and the performance was much better for the 6 trains.

In any case, I am VERY VERY satisfied with TRS2019(96000) and hope the problem with AI drivers will get solved,
or at least an explanation WHY my session fails.
Click to expand...

Sure you want to stay at the version that works, but you need to report the problems with the other versions. That's the reason for the early access and testing. These are test versions and essentially late beta versions. Keep in mind that beta means mostly works, but there are problems too.

I neglected to answer fully the question on the large number of drivers due to me needing to take a phone call from my doctor's office regarding an upcoming appointment. Yes this does impact performance, but that was a bigger issue with T:ANE and worse in TS12. One of my routes has over 35 drivers in operation at once plus hundreds of static consists in addition to the train I am manually driving. This route is 300 km end to end and there's ton of content in addition to the the trains. With all this extra stuff, this is a lot for the program to track, and as time goes on the session does get slower as AI drivers get stuck due to them being AI drivers. I find going in and removing these drivers speeds things up quite a bit. I have also found that saving the session, exiting, and coming back seems to help as well as it clears the memory. This was the same results I had with TS12 and T:ANE.

Waiting a bit does help considerably and that makes sense as it decreases the load of everyone starting up and running at once. One of the "old tricks" I've used since TRS2004 days is to give my drivers between 20 seconds and a minute or two waiting time. This gives the program a chance to initialize, load up the scripts, and load the graphics data. After that, the AI start running and there's not so much of an impact.

But... It has been discovered there's a problem with the brakes with some diesels, I can't remember which ones, and it's something that was introduced recently and will be fixed soon (tm) in addition to what appears might be a bug with the Wait... and Wait Until commands. These things I'm sure too will be addressed, but in order to address them they need to be reported through the official bug report. The brake issue causes "some diesels" to run at 3 km or slower when driven by AI, and the wait commands don't initialize all the time.
 
JCitron said:
Sure you want to stay at the version that works, but you need to report the problems with the other versions. That's the reason for the early access and testing. These are test versions and essentially late beta versions. Keep in mind that beta means mostly works, but there are problems too.

I neglected to answer fully the question on the large number of drivers due to me needing to take a phone call from my doctor's office regarding an upcoming appointment. Yes this does impact performance, but that was a bigger issue with T:ANE and worse in TS12. One of my routes has over 35 drivers in operation at once plus hundreds of static consists in addition to the train I am manually driving. This route is 300 km end to end and there's ton of content in addition to the the trains. With all this extra stuff, this is a lot for the program to track, and as time goes on the session does get slower as AI drivers get stuck due to them being AI drivers. I find going in and removing these drivers speeds things up quite a bit. I have also found that saving the session, exiting, and coming back seems to help as well as it clears the memory. This was the same results I had with TS12 and T:ANE.

Waiting a bit does help considerably and that makes sense as it decreases the load of everyone starting up and running at once. One of the "old tricks" I've used since TRS2004 days is to give my drivers between 20 seconds and a minute or two waiting time. This gives the program a chance to initialize, load up the scripts, and load the graphics data. After that, the AI start running and there's not so much of an impact.

But... It has been discovered there's a problem with the brakes with some diesels, I can't remember which ones, and it's something that was introduced recently and will be fixed soon (tm) in addition to what appears might be a bug with the Wait... and Wait Until commands. These things I'm sure too will be addressed, but in order to address them they need to be reported through the official bug report. The brake issue causes "some diesels" to run at 3 km or slower when driven by AI, and the wait commands don't initialize all the time.
Click to expand...

Do not worry, I will not give up!

In stead, it makes me more and more curious to find out or being informed about the bottleneck.

Testing continues on latest release 97923 and I will today send my route/session to N3v for further investigation
and comparison 96000 against later versions.

By the way, brakes are also ON regarding my vehicles in build 96000, and it seems to have no impact.
 
Sebino Lake is using "<kuid2:661281:44137:1> TRS19 Trk Jarrah Tunnel - Not Seasonal", which is invisible in build 97923.

Peter
 
I was prompted to download several add-ons this morning, but six of them won't ("Download All" has no effect, like for Healesville a few days ago): Nickel Plate High Speed Freight, VR M-Class 4-4-0 - Early 2 Tone Green, Fall Harvest Nebraska, Settle and Carlisle, VR Type 2 DD Class Pack, CRM - Rogers Pass.
 
Everything downloaded except the S&C update for me.

Cornish Mainline Route is inaccurate.

Too much lineside vegetation for the era.
Yellow cast speed boards incorrect, should be white pre 1963.
Or non existent pre-1948
Station platforms with the yellow safety line are too modern, late 1970's.
Track spacing is all wrong, too wide on the mainline. Where the unrebuilt (most) BG station platforms are spaced as per standard gauge railways..
The loading gauge between platforms should be much wider. My local station here is a good example of ex-BG platform spacing.
King class loco placed in QD scenario at Penzance. When Kings were route restricted west of Royal Albert Bridge.

Mike.
 
I commend the author (robert3a0) of the 1930s Cornish main line route. An excellent job, but there is always somebody to find errors. No wonder route builders give up.
Cheers
Bob
 
Robert65d said:
An excellent job, but there is always somebody to find errors. No wonder route builders give up.
Click to expand...

It depends on how those errors are reported to the creator. As a route and session creator myself, I always welcome constructive criticism or reports of the many things I missed. But you are correct. It can be the odd mindless ...

"I spent my valuable time and money downloading this @#$%^&* rubbish from the DLS/DLC - fix it NOW!"
Click to expand...

... type of comment that can be discouraging. Fortunately, I have yet to experience this type of nonsense response from people who have never created anything in their lives.
 
Robert65d said:
I commend the author (robert3a0) of the 1930s Cornish main line route. An excellent job, but there is always somebody to find errors. No wonder route builders give up.
Cheers
Bob
Click to expand...

It's completely wrong and saying anything different is lying.

Oh and the GWR ATC ramps are missing. They were in use until the 1970's

Quite a few Ex-GWR & BR-WR loco's were dual fitted ATC & AWS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

n3v_laurence
  • Locked
Trainz Plus Beta Mac & PC - 122776 & 122777 (TLR Beta Release)
Replies
19
Views
2K
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
  • Locked
Trainz Plus Beta PC & Mac -122861 & 122865 (TLR Beta Release)
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
  • Locked
Trainz Plus Beta PC & Mac - 123059 & 123077 (TLR Beta Release)
Replies
13
Views
1K
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
  • Locked
Trainz Plus Beta PC & Mac - 122909 & 122912 (TLR Beta Release)
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
n3v_laurence
Trainz Plus Beta Mac Update - 122071
Replies
12
Views
840
majortom100967
M
Back
Top