Let's Meditate on Improving AI Dispatcher

[eyein12]

manual switches still lock when an AI approaches in standard mode. but work fine in freeroam.

Sigh! haven't test lately... Maybe what I meant is that if at least manual switches could be thrown, even when locked by an AI (in certain safety cases, of course, at Player discretion), it would be great. It should be an option (if manual) once being automatic there is no way to change it in standart scenarios.

thats why I create mostly freeroam scenarios for times where I need to jump a switch ahead of an incoming AI path.:) otherwise standard scenarios for less complex things. at least in free roam I can create multiple complex work orders and interactions. example: you start with the player path work order. fill that and while thats being done an Ai is working on its work order. I can eithertake over for the AI by jump in cab and finish the job or I can work on some of it and jump back in another cab. the AI will still finish the work order regardless as long as you are still en route.

IAN

[Machinist]

Great Ian!

I found quite recently a standart scenario (from Frank to NE PA-Div) with no Player train, amazing. Then I realized to create a freeroam with instructions and it worked also, same results (in 10-Engines packs there are a couple of them).

A "Standart without Player" or a "Freeroam with Timetable" are likely the same thing, but in fact the biggest difference is that in freeroam you can control any switch, in standart you can not throw the automatics. It's just one difference, but it makes all the difference!

I'm loving to create and play freeroam with timetable, a lof of fun and flexibility, makes me remember my childhood, when some toys plus imagination and freedom to act was enough to keep me (and my friends) busy, very busy the whole summer vacation (three months long on here, Dec-Feb).

Cheers,
Doc.

[jamesphh]

Actually I have been able to change automatic turnouts in a standard scenario (at least partially). I was experimenting with extending a std scenario on the NSAND. An AI had used the track to the right of the player train and had terminated down track. I was waiting at a crossover for the signal to change. The 2D map would not let me change the crossover. I used the cursor gizmo and was able to change half of the crossover. The real issue was that I had stopped the AI too soon and the trail path of the AI was locking the second half of the crossover. Note that the signal further down track was showing green. Never tried this again, so it may not work every time.

[Chacal]

RSC didn't fixed Dash 9 just because some few users (among the "few" users with problem, as they stated) sent e-mails to support,

Actually yes. They have said so on their blog. THey have received numerous e-mails and the support team worked with some of those users (presumably, those users who could describe the problem intelligibly and seemed to know how to handle a computer).
The Dash-9 situation has demonstrated that the RSC support process works, and that posting on forums doesn't.

[Shortliner]

RSC didn't fixed Dash 9 just because some few users (among the "few" users with problem, as they stated) sent e-mails to support,

Actually yes. They have said so on their blog. THey have received numerous e-mails and the support team worked with some of those users (presumably, those users who could describe the problem intelligibly and seemed to know how to handle a computer).
The Dash-9 situation has demonstrated that the RSC support process works, and that posting on forums doesn't.

I guess the problem is that we need to present a unified front like we did on the Dash 9 problem, but with the things that we actually want in RailWorks.

[Hawk]

I guess the problem is that we need to present a unified front like we did on the Dash 9 problem, but with the things that we actually want in RailWorks.

Unification would probably be a big help, as well as diplomacy and respect when writing support.
You can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can vinegar.