AI and the useless "Drive" command issue ..Tony are you listening ???

What is the point of having the "drive" command if the AI train can only wait for a minute or two before having to select the same command for that loco ? How hard can it be for the programmers to make a delay of 5 to 10 minutes to allow for signal changes so the train can proceed ? For gosh sakes this is annoying as all hell. Sometimes I don't want to program a route for a train to follow when I have functioning block signal system. This issue I reported back in TMR2017 for christ sakes. Why even have that command if it is still useless ? To run around in circles , wow that's alot of fun....let me make an oval and watch it go round and round..........
I would rather have a functioning AI that works instead of update after update or version after version with better eye candy..........what good is it if it can't be used..............sure as hec looks nice but functionally useless.....

Tony are you listening, this is ridiculous....I really can't believe it is that hard to increase the delay before shutting down............is this rocket science ? Annoying annoying annoying..................nuff said....

I have read that several times and I still do not get the gist of it. It seems more like a rant than a coherent complaint.

Which "Drive" command - "Drive to Trackmark ..."? "Drive via Trackmark ..."? "Drive to ..."? "Drive via ..."? "AutoDrive"? "AutoDrivePastSignal"? In what circumstances are you using it? Give us a specific, concrete, coherent example.

I have been using the "Drive to Trackmark ..." command a great deal lately in testing a route. I have not experienced any problems using it.

More details needed please.

Hi pware - just 'drive'

Imagine this scenario. You set 5 trains to go, just to go and observe what happens. When a train with the 'drive' command assigned reaches a red light signal (as Railhead001 described) it stops, right? But it stops and after a period of time (one or 2 minutes) the command is abandoned. So the train will not contiue its ride even if finally the signal turns green. Because there is no command assigned anymore you have to asign it again. And if you see 5 trains stopped and wanted to see them interfere you are angry.

Thanks for the update. In that situation I have used the "AutoDrive" command. I have not used it recently in TRS19 but I did not have the issues described.

Addendum: I just did a CM search for the text string "Drive" (type = "script") and I got 83 matches but none were "Drive" by itself.

That's because "Drive" is not a separate command, but found by right clicking on the loco. I've used it for my own engine on long runs, but it is NOT intended to be used for AI trains to the best of my knowledge. For that, yes, you need to input a series of orders. Expecting that (Drive) to function for the AI seems totally unrealistic to me. That said, the AI in TRS19 seems dumber than Tane and frankly pathetic. It can't fathom 'run around', going away from it's consist and never returning or going into dead end sidings! If they don't improve the AI they need a kick up the backside, but using "Drive" for this is equally unrealistic.

Alikiwi said:

That's because "Drive" is not a separate command, but found by right clicking on the loco.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. There is another thread at https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?160900 dealing with problems experienced with commands found by right clicking on the loco. I have found that some of these "loco menu" commands don't seem to work when selected from the menu.

Alikiwi said:

That's because "Drive" is not a separate command, but found by right clicking on the loco. I've used it for my own engine on long runs, but it is NOT intended to be used for AI trains to the best of my knowledge. For that, yes, you need to input a series of orders. Expecting that (Drive) to function for the AI seems totally unrealistic to me. That said, the AI in TRS19 seems dumber than Tane and frankly pathetic. It can't fathom 'run around', going away from it's consist and never returning or going into dead end sidings! If they don't improve the AI they need a kick up the backside, but using "Drive" for this is equally unrealistic.

Click to expand...

What do you mean not intnended to be used for AI ???, that is its purpose, "Drive to" command is what your talking about with the other Drive commands not "Drive" . The original Trainz not the NV3 flavor actually worked. Think about it, why have all these different commands to use. "Drive to/via/schedule" is when you make a list of orders for the train to do, "Drive" by itaelf dosen't even show up for that.

Look below:


1. First pic is when you right click on the loco: Notice: "Drive" at the very top of the command box right under "View Details"....






2. if you start inputting orders such as "Wait till" the "Drive" command itself goes away and you have to use the alternate "Drive schedule/to/via" commands as seen below" Hope that clears things up for you.... and the purpose is as I stated when I "Do Not" want to program a bunch of commands and just want the signal system to function.....is this clearer ?

"Drive" is just a simple "move forward and switch junctions to keep on going" type command. There are a number of other options for giving commands to drivers so that they do what you want them to do and go where you want them to go.

Interlocking towers allow you to set up blocks where trains have unique access to a block. Trainzscript allows you to add more functionality. The possibilities are endless.

Tony_Hilliam said:

"Drive" is just a simple "move forward and switch junctions to keep on going" type command. There are a number of other options for giving commands to drivers so that they do what you want them to do and go where you want them to go.

Interlocking towers allow you to set up blocks where trains have unique access to a block. Trainzscript allows you to add more functionality. The possibilities are endless.

Click to expand...

Am I speaking a different language.......is it so hard to comprehend that some people just want to "watch" trainz like on a layout and not have to take the needless time to program the darn game ? You wonder why EEP by Trend is the #1 seller worldwide for train software ????

Again the point is not to have a loco time the hec out, how hard is it to add code to change the delay factor ? I love programming trainz but I also like just "watching" them go like in the original version. And why even bother to have the "Drive" command if it is useless...so much for allowing multiple trainz to run at the same time without having to waste time programming each one just to watch them go around a model railroad. Utterly frustrating and pointless.

EEP on Steam shows as having 5 active users today. Is this the #1 seller or is there something else.

I'm pretty sure the train stopping is the least of your worries as you have no idea where they are goign to go (which sounds rahter pointless).

Have you checked out Schedule Library? Set it up once, your trains will run for hours.

Tony_Hilliam said:

EEP on Steam shows as having 5 active users today. Is this the #1 seller or is there something else.

I'm pretty sure the train stopping is the least of your worries as you have no idea where they are goign to go (which sounds rahter pointless).

Have you checked out Schedule Library? Set it up once, your trains will run for hours.

Click to expand...

EEP is sold mainly on Trend's website, steam versions have just been released and I am sure being in the industry you have access to their numbers. It's main user base are Europeans not the US Market as you can see by the routes/layouts. Anyway agian why is the delay so short and not fixable. Seriously I would think since the code is their to time out it can be modified are make it accessible in the config file for users. Your missing my whole point... and yes i would know exaclty where the trainz are going. I will give an example:

I added a block system to my Modified Coal Country. I have 2 trains at Parker. I simply click "DRIVE" on train #1 which is 40 covered hoppers and 2 locos pulling it, it starts heading out. right after that i click on "DRIVE" for train #2 which has 2 locos and is behind #1 but has only 20 cars and it starts heading out as well stopping at signals until Train #1 passes the block ahead of it. no problems so far. (Most blocks are spaced out to allow 20 or 50 unit trains.) Anyway Train 1 makes it to Richmond from Parker with junctions changing as needed and same for train #2 since Coal Country is actually a giant loop just with reversing junctions.

Anyway the speed restrictions at Richmond yard on opposite way back slow train #1 down along with a stop at a red signal, waiting for a junction to change which does happen and it takes off again but train #2 is stopped at the previosu block and instead of progressing after train #1 to the next block it just sits at a signal saying it needs new instruction because it times out.


Why should I have to bother making a schedule when just 2 clicks would suffice ???????? Completely idiotic. I can't just watch 2 trains run a route, god forbid if more were added and bring it to a screeching halt with the lack of "AI" or does "AI" stand for "Asinine Intelligence" You would think with a programming divison that can make pretty textures they could just extend the delay time..............is that to much to ask for ?? Or maybe you can explain the purpose for the just "DRIVE" command that is available ??? My previous screenies show it is not for a chain of commands, just for what it says I would think ??? Am I wrong ?

Again for those still not getting the concept, I come home from a long day at work and want to unwind by just, again, just, watching trains and not having to actually program a schedule regardless how it easy it may be but I am positive it is not easier then clicking 2 "DRIVE" Commands to achieve that simple goal....Why even have access to a feature that is defective ???? Reincarnated in every version since TMR17 if not prior........again why have it if you cant use it ????

The only way I would use this "Drive" command would be with a single loco/consist and I would be riding along with it in one of its attached camera modes. That way it takes care of obeying the signals and speed signs and i just enjoy the ride. I would also there to fix any issues with switches and/or red signals.

If the multi-billion $ rail transport industry cannot get a fully automated AI system that drives trains (real ones), sets switches and signals and who knows what else without human supervision and frequent human intervention (that's why they still use dispatchers and drivers even if they are located in an air-conditioned building thousands of kms away) then why do you expect a small gaming software developer to do so. Their "programming divison [division]" is not as huge as you obviously think.

I also remember the "good old days" before TRS2004/2006 (or whenever the AI was introduced) and I also remember the trains that were set running on loops also ran into problems but unlike today, they didn't stop at signals or obey speed signs - they just ran at the set throttle speed.

Railhead, I also sometimes come back from a hard day and want to unwind by "playing" Trainz but I do not take out my frustrations on the software or the developers. Ranting never helps.

My opinions.

pware said:

The only way I would use this "Drive" command would be with a single loco/consist and I would be riding along with it in one of its attached camera modes. That way it takes care of obeying the signals and speed signs and i just enjoy the ride. I would also there to fix any issues with switches and/or red signals.

If the multi-billion $ rail transport industry cannot get a fully automated AI system that drives trains (real ones), sets switches and signals and who knows what else without human supervision and frequent human intervention (that's why they still use dispatchers and drivers even if they are located in an air-conditioned building thousands of kms away) then why do you expect a small gaming software developer to do so. Their "programming divison [division]" is not as huge as you obviously think.

I also remember the "good old days" before TRS2004/2006 (or whenever the AI was introduced) and I also remember the trains that were set running on loops also ran into problems but unlike today, they didn't stop at signals or obey speed signs - they just ran at the set throttle speed.

Railhead, I also sometimes come back from a hard day and want to unwind by "playing" Trainz but I do not take out my frustrations on the software or the developers. Ranting never helps.

My opinions.

Click to expand...

My Opinion:

Ranting on a defective command ? Really...I guess you do not grasp the step by step example i gave................or maybe you like paying for features you can't use............and since you seem pretty knowledgable, who then would be responsible for fixing the issue ? The end user ? Really, I can rant about people who easily complain about other people ranting vs solving an issue that makes a product useless for the users who choose to use that feature. Of course this is my opinion as well but let me make the point, I outlined a specific problem and was told by the Company Rep to use something else, avoiding the issue itself completely and then I gave a simple example of what I was trying to do to document the "bug" but instead of any constructive help you then pipe in, in your opinion of course, that its a rant.......I guess taking ownership of a problem is old school now a days and so what if a bug exists and you do not want your developers to fix it.. Great .......brings to mind TSW. Who cares about taking ownership of a problem anyway, guess its just bad pr.....and as an FYI, the last part of this was a rant, lol.


Cheers !

@Railhead Ever since AI was introduced it has stood for Artificial Idiot and must be treated as such. In all honesty the output is only as good as the input and the more complex you want to make things, the more commands you are going to have to give. In your example, the AI acts as expected because you have increased the complexity and so a simple drive command is not enough and obviously more commands are required. In my example, I wish to operate a train and have AI traffic against me. For the AI trains I simply use drive to trackmark, going progressively back up the line. Anything more complex than that will require a variety of the many available AI commands.
Graeme

grazlash said:

@Railhead Ever since AI was introduced it has stood for Artificial Idiot and must be treated as such. In all honesty the output is only as good as the input and the more complex you want to make things, the more commands you are going to have to give. In your example, the AI acts as expected because you have increased the complexity and so a simple drive command is not enough and obviously more commands are required. In my example, I wish to operate a train and have AI traffic against me. For the AI trains I simply use drive to trackmark, going progressively back up the line. Anything more complex than that will require a variety of the many available AI commands.
Graeme

Click to expand...

Actually its not hard at all for what I want to do. The signals and junctions work fine as they should, the issue is the command "drive" ending after only a moment or two of waiting at a signal. This not a complex switch manuever, one train following another does not get much simpler other then only one train.

If the wait/delay in the "drive" command was set to a bit longer then no problems would occur. This is simple function where all the complex routines work fine that being the block signal system itself functions like a champ. So no to your suggestion more commands are needed when their dosen't need to be. That's the point of the "drive" command. I understand signals can be complex but they work fine. The loco on the otehrhand just sits and sits instead of proceeding and last time I checked, Trainz does not have a "wait till green to proceed" command which would be the only alternative.

Maybe the concept of just watching multiple trains go from one end of a route to the other and then return is hard to understand, although it works pretty much the same way in real life....................red signal stop, green proceed and onto the next block......looks great when it works. Also the same as going to a specific railfan site and watching the trains go by you, is it to hard to select a spot on a trainz route in the game and watch multiple trains go by you ?


Tony states, "Drive" is just a simple "move forward and switch junctions to keep on going" type command." Which does not work and that's all I want the trains to do. (As stated x times previously and gave a specific example of)

And the frustrating part is that the developer wont acknowledge the issue yet suggests a more complicated alternative or that they could fix it and have it operate as intended.

Here's a simple solution. Remove "Drive" completely from the loco popup menu - problem solved. But then that would disadvantage people who would actually use it properly.

By the way, don't assume that people who disagree with your views or with your aggressive style are stupid ("you like paying for features you can't use") or incapable of grasping your step by step example. The command is not defective, it does exactly what it says it does.

pware said:

Here's a simple solution. Remove "Drive" completely from the loco popup menu - problem solved. But then that would disadvantage people who would actually use it properly.

By the way, don't assume that people who disagree with your views or with your aggressive style are stupid ("you like paying for features you can't use") or incapable of grasping your step by step example. The command is not defective, it does exactly what it says it does.

Click to expand...

I did not make any assumptions as you yourself are assuming. Some people did not grasp the concept I was describing and I did state my opinion, furthermore the command does NOT work as intended...............my example proves that. Where does it state in any documentation anywhere that the "drive" command is soley for 1 loco at a time??? Show me that and then your claim it "works" holds water but as in other instances with this software it fails.

As for my "you like paying for features you can't use" I still stand behind it, again for you i will break it down, I did not just make a complaint without any supporting information, I showed screenshots where it is and how it is not used for mulitple commands as some thought and I gave a specific example that is also extremeky basic in nature, click "drive".....1st train stops and waits for signals to change and moves on, train behind stops and times out in about 2 minutes if signal does not immediatly change...pretty basic........

Do you work for the developer, are you on their QASI team or a programmer? If not then your opinion on it working fine is just that an opinion.

Again we focus on eye candy instead of a solid functioning AI................obviously somewhere in the coding their is a time frame value that can be changed to a longer waiting period if the developer was so inclined to do so but of course that would take time and money when said money could be better spent on the next great texturing capability.

Thanks for your 2 cents , be nice to get it from the actual programming team that made the software.....


And for the record, I brought this exact issue to Tony back when TMR17 was released and made a video showing it. I was told back then it was put on a "Bug" report but obviously not high enough to warrant any changes. Which contradicts your statement "The command is not defective, it does exactly what it says it does." If that were true no bug report would be needed.....

Just my 2 cents...,.


Update: The myth of schedules....so decided to let train #1 just use the "drive" command since it had no issues and then program train #2 to go to one end of the route and back again (drive via) with it repeating so it is in a loop, and just as suspected, train #2 instead of going around the route in a loop like train #1 (drive command) train #2 decides to just stop and reverse which is not what I wanted, so making a schedule breaking down each section for the second train to pass so it follows the route correctly is no way "easy" its time consuming and ineffective. And this is suppose to be better then the "drive" command ????

Thanks, but you can enjoy your koolaid, I'll pass........

Who hurt you....?

bentrain14 said:

Who hurt you...?

Click to expand...

Rhetorically or philosophically ?

Enjoy the koolaid....cherry flavor is supposedly the bomb......kaboom

And since nobody from the developer wants to take ownership of having another bug to deal with which is one that is really going on the way back to TMR2017 nor state whether it is a fixable issue, let's just call it what it is, reality.
I will use 2019 to create cool mods and use EEP for my virtual railfanning needs until I can learn German and start making cool things for that platform.............. Genießen !