Let's Meditate on Improving AI Dispatcher

[Shortliner]

To truly be a useful AI dispatcher, I think it needs to be customized for each route. It would have to know which sections are single/double/triple track etc., where all the switches are and so on. Making dispatcher AI smart enough to handle single track freight traffic AND double track passenger timetable traffic seem like the wrong approach to me.

If there was a way to deliver dispatcher logic as a part of a route that would be ideal. Then the community could deliver DLLs (or however the AI would be scripted) that gave a truly dynamic driving experience. Driving too slow? Then you would be put into a siding for a faster train behind you, and meets with opposing trains would happen at different locations.

Something like this could really make the new "quick drive" concept shine, because I am guessing that even with "quick drive" they are attempting to generate a fixed scenario before you enter the cab, rather than dynamically adapting to what the player actually does.

So, here's what I'm wondering. We all know that each railroad have their own operating rules and their own signal system. We also know that we can't do anything about the current built in AI Dispatcher. However, would it be possible to create a program that would allow route builders & Scenario creators to import their own AI Dispatcher program? Basically tailor an AI Dispatcher to a specific route?

Here's what I think the AI Dispatcher program needs.

• Get rid of the bred crumb way of routing AI traffic. Give AI traffic an origin and destination and let AI Dispatcher handle the routing in real time.
• AI Dispatcher for Dark Territories
• Have AI Dispatch be tailor to the route. AI Dispatcher for a CSX route would follow different rules than an AI Dispatch for a NS route.
• Allow more than one locomotive/train to be in the same yard.

Anyone have any input on this topic?

[MattW]

I like the idea of a route-specific dispatcher setup, but perhaps we could take it a step further. I don't have any experience in route building mind you, but maybe enable the creation of dispatcher files to override the default dispatcher behavior. A route creator builds their route and sets up all the signals and such, but there's a LUA interface where people can write their own dispatchers and drop them into the simulator. Even on the same types of signals, there are differences in operations. For instance, Automatic Block Signals vs Absolute Permissive Block vs Automatic Block Signals plus Direct Train Control. All three systems would use the same signals, with the same signal aspects, but very different rules governing operations, and even what signals are what aspects. If no new dispatcher is found, then the present AI could takeover which while it isn't perfect, it does let other trains run with the player. One caveat is I don't know how well route builders, particularly payware route builders, will like having people able to alter the functioning of the route by just downloading a small file and plonking it in.

[BNSF650]

Also I would email.rsc.. I have beeen emailing them about all kinds of stuff. And they are talking about doing most of.it they just want.people to tell them what needs to be.added

[kin3]

How about a script mode. You write a script for the trains to follow. You could have a train in the yard doing switching while you drive in/out of yard. You have to wait on a siding for an AI fast special to come though. The script would trigger the AI train when you hit a certain spot on the route and then be removed when it was out of site.

[harryadkins]

I think the AI Dispatcher is a great idea and would be a great addition to the game. On the thought of tailoring specific Dispatchers for specific routes, why not develop a "generic" dispatcher that would read a route-specific file. The "generic" dispatcher could also have a list of options (ie. signaled vs dark; freight vs passenger; through train vs local switcher) that the scenario writer could set up in advance. I also like the idea of each AI having an origin and destination...in other words, keep it simple.

Harry

[Machinist]

Of course the most part of problems can be credit to RSC's dispatcher (it's really very poor), but also (let's say the true) an expressive part of faults in scenarios may be credit to route creators and scenarios writers as well.

If routes had signals at each siding (creating the due signal blocks), as in NERW Route, for example, you could place 3 or 4 (even more) trains switching side by side at same time in a large yard. Ah, OK, you can say: in real life the yard has not such individual signals. Oh well, there are such unrealistic things in a route (track layout, signals location, crossovers, crossing roads etc.) why not add a unrealistic signal with the purpose of making things work better in the virtual world?

Also more Portals close to yards and each (say) 2 miles, as in NERW Route (again a good example of well concieved and built route), to send AIs into would fix many of problems, including those related to game performance. That's an existing resource (place portals anywhere) that's not put in good use by routes' creators, maybe because some of them are not scenarios writers also.

A minimum "go via" (or "stop at" with speed higher than 0, whatever) is needed, in any other sim in which dispatcher works fine we have to add a kind of "go via" (or similar), that's easy and not a problem. If you let the AI path to be calculated further by Dispatcher it's quite sure (route's track layout and traffic complexity dependent though) that at some point/time you may get a meeting with two trains facing each other, therefore blocked. All of this because the path of AIs may be indirectly affected by Player movement (speed variations etc.) which is not always fully predictable, and the event may occour randomly (sometimes scenario will fail, others not).

Scenarios writers rarely use (so far I've been seing) existing features in Scenario Editor like: variation of speed of trains, waiting time delay, not allowing reversing, following work order, grouping or following grouped instructions, freight x passenger (yes, classes of trains already exist, and almost 10 of them!) etc. Some of these, if correctly used, would make dispatcher job easier.

Cheers,
Doc.

[eyein12]

Doc this is what ive been sayign for quite some time. some inventiveness is needed on the scenario writers behalf. I can manipulate a scenario to utilize alot of AI functions and can get Ai to perform work orders in yards with players(as long as there are signal blocks) work orders, combine the two/or more or seperate them, have Ai's meet, jump into portals, etc using those little things like %speed etc...

its interesting but alot of the stuff is there to make it work almost as good as we want. the locked switches are my only complaint

[Machinist]

the locked switches are my only complaint

I fully agree with you, and more... why can not Player stop closer to a (live, not dead engine) switcher engine in the same track (signal block)? Or a switcher engine drop an assembled consist off close to Player?

IIRC with RW2 was even worse, an AI train could (sometimes) pass a red (that's not admissible, anyway, without an especial permission) till hit on you (or other AI). Fortunatelly was fixed on RW3.

[eyein12]

Locked switches are only an issue in standard mode though I believe. so maybe theres a line of code or string that has it locked in standard mode, that can simply be "taken out" or replaced with the line of code like in freeroam. Anyway like I said one function is needed and thats a flyout window for the switch that has a box that says "player override"

or

locked/unlocked


ian

[jamesphh]

One thing to remember is that AI's do not care about signals, only if the next block is clear or occupied. Signals in RW do not change immeadiatly. This often gives the impression that an AI goes thru a red signal. Some times signals are not placed correctly in a route causing these types of issues ( not functioning as they should). Also, when an AI stops for a red signal (next block occupied), they stop right on link (0). When they start up they trip the signal back to red right away, again giving a false visual impression.
As to an individual scripts for the dispatcher, it would need to be linked to the core program and disable the current dispatcher.
One thing that might help is for RSC to program a way to create blocks without signals.
RSC aslo stated that with the release of RW3 a new AI dispatcher would come later. Not seen yet!

[Machinist]

The locked switches are the automatic. Once I suggested to a route creator to place as much manual switches as possible at least close to yards even in mainlines (no need at all in long mainline sections).

But then shows up again the under used feature of Scenario Editor (scenario writers' fault again) to change any junction of route (end-to-end) to match the path you want for Player. And ten starts that unrealistic thing of changing switches from cab (G or Shift G) and the usual instruction to the poor engineer, like: "Mind your switches to reach your destination!". Every switch (not always of course, traffic dependent) can be pre set to the direction you want, but is not often used. In certain cases it makes most of time you drive by diagram (in Map View), that's intersting for a dispatcher function, not for an engineer IMHO.

As Chacal posted yesterday, I don't care to throw switches sometimes (it happens in real life as well), but I rather stop close to the switch, go outside and change it manually, for example, is much more fun (and realistic).

[OldProf]

The kind of dispatcher to driver messages suggested by Machinist can already be inserted very easily into a scenario. Some of the other "meditations" strike me as interesting, but as long as you fellows are just talking to each other (or perhaps even to yourselves), none of them are likely to appear in RW anytime soon. Why not send your suggestions directly to RSC by means of their blog or their facebook pages? Yes, I can hear the derisory replies now: "they never pay any attention ... they never answer me ... they don't care about me ... etc. Nevertheless, if you want RSC to change something, why not talk to RSC directly instead of to your buddies at the local bar? As we say in Italian, "a quale pro" "what good is that"?

Take this little message as an example: suppose I had sent it to RSC instead of to the forum? A quale pro?

Personally, I've come to enjoy matching wits with the mythical and invisible "dispatcher". Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, and--best of all--sometimes I find a way to work around him. If the "dispatcher" always did as I please, my enjoyment would be dimished. So bring him on! The easy road doesn't teach us anything.

[eyein12]

The locked switches are the automatic. Once I suggested to a route creator to place as much manual switches as possible at least close to yards even in mainlines (no need at all in long mainline sections).

But then shows up again the under used feature of Scenario Editor (scenario writers' fault again) to change any junction of route (end-to-end) to match the path you want for Player. And ten starts that unrealistic thing of changing switches from cab (G or Shift G) and the usual instruction to the poor engineer, like: "Mind your switches to reach your destination!". Every switch (not always of course, traffic dependent) can be pre set to the direction you want, but is not often used. In certain cases it makes most of time you drive by diagram (in Map View), that's intersting for a dispatcher function, not for an engineer IMHO.

As Chacal posted yesterday, I don't care to throw switches sometimes (it happens in real life as well), but I rather stop close to the switch, go outside and change it manually, for example, is much more fun (and realistic).

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

[Machinist]

This is the most lame excuse I've been reading (and seeing) since a long time, a Productor saying: "If you don't e-mail to my support, I can not know there is an issue or a new feature to be added". Come on! Simple and easy to throw the guilt to the users' shoulder, eh?

I never saw an Automobile's Magazine send to (say) Ford an e-mail with the problems in a model. If Ford wants to know how much its car is being well accepted on the market, go read magazins, releases, bulletins, and - especially - go to the users (or where they show their needs up).

To get fixes or new things to NERW route I don't need to e-mail Bob Artim's support, there is a Forum in which we say our needs and Bob just go there, note down and change at the time being. This is happening right now in an upcoming sim, the programmer (himself) is reading the Forum and implementing last hour features suggested by users this week, before the release. That simple! when you really want to listen to users.

I said that I long time ago, even before the FarseBook (thanks Jerry) age: if RSC wanna dig and grab useful information to enhance its game, nothing better than a "spy" crossing forums everywhere. Users are there... Easier, cheaper and - most important - smarter. 10% of time currently used to administrate FB (good for marketing purposes) would be enough for a spy do a good job (for technical features purposes)...

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, I'm not that ingenuous! They fixed because problem was very very huge, creating a pre-war state among US users, at the point they got the pack out of sell, and also had to release a public (bare and poor) explanation (in their dayly blog) to calm down users and reduce the bad impact caused in the other facebookers.

IMHO.
Doc.

[Machinist]

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.