The importance of numbers

[OldProf]

Car numbers, that is ... duplicate car numbers, I mean ... for scenario writers. I've put this information into a post in another section of the forum, but I think that it also belongs here.

Here's the back story: I've been working on an AI-intensive scenario for the Horseshoe Curve DLC route and had successfully included my trick of having AI and player switching going on in separate but nearby segments of a single yard area. Then I decided to add that "one more" AI train, which would meet and pass the player on the way to the final destination. Everything worked ... once. I thought I was doing the final test of the scenario when the AI switcher that had been working perfectly suddenly started crashing into its first pickup. GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

This couldn't be a timing issue, since the last-added AI ran long after the switching AI, but what on earth was causing that crash? Then one of those cartoon light bulbs appeared over my weary head and I clicked on that little triangular warning icon that now appears perpetually in the lower-right area of the "timetable" editor. [It used to appear only to indicate duplicate car numbers and trains that shared a signal block, but now its there permanently to warn us about "Static Consist Clashes" -- whatever they may be.] Clicking on it revealed something that had not been there previously: a pair of duplicate car numbers. Clicking on each number in turn showed me that one of the duplicates was in the yard being switched by the AI train and the other was in the newly added AI train.

So as not to have to redo the AI switcher's instructions, I changed the number of the offending car in the last-added AI train. And ... yes! The crash went away.

Now, with the issue resolved, I turn to the culprit that caused it in the first place: an insufficient number of numbers. Perhaps. At least that's where I had always laid the blame previously. However, the cars with duplicate numbers in this case were PRR boxcars, which come with the HSC route. This car's numbers file contains a list of choices considerably longer than the number of PRR boxcars present in my scenario. So the fault must lie with the process used by whatever RW code selects numbers from that list. Had this "number-manager" simply started at the top of the list and used the available numbers in sequential order, I don't think that this duplication would have occurred. However, it seems that the "number-manager" selects a string of digits at random from those available in the car's numbers file without then excluding the randomly selected number from future choices. The more boxcars places in a given scenario, therefore, the higher the possibility of duplicate numbers.

I cannot repair the code and at this point I am not suggesting that RSC repair it, either. It is a minor irritation that only affects scenario writers and once we know the havoc that duplicate numbers can wreak and how to find and replace them, all is relatively well.

But, ... what on earth is a "Static Consist Clash" and what should be done about it?

Tom Pallen

[artimrj]

Static Consist Clash is a warning, no more than that. It is warning you that there might be a consist in the way of your path. If you are going to a siding to pick up a load, that is a Clash Warning also. Strange stuff.

[PapaXpress]

Hi Tom, I think you should send RSC support an email. We all should. They need to know we want to be heard. In fact we should flood them with (legit) bugs and suggestions. Bioware is the game company it is roday because they listened to their community and we need to help RSC become better by continualy talking to them.

Also if they don't know about a problem how can they fix it?

[Machinist]

Hi Tom, I think you should send RSC support an email. We all should. They need to know we want to be heard. In fact we should flood them with (legit) bugs and suggestions. Bioware is the game company it is roday because they listened to their community and we need to help RSC become better by continualy talking to them.

Also if they don't know about a problem how can they fix it?

For any serious developer of any game, keep eyes peeled in serious forums is a good, even better, and smart option because you know more about the circunstances of an especific (and suprised) problem then a support ticket can hold, wich probably will result in a better and more comprehensive solution. Most of time developers/creators are not as involved in effectively "play" the game as users, and a good example of this is the RW Scenario Editor: it looks like a technician creating an API based on informations of a scenario designer, but without knowing all the consequences that can result of a certain sort of feature.

In any company the support ticket can be used in both ways... good: "Oh! many users are complaining about this, let's fix it right now!"; and bad: "Hum... no one (or few users) complained about this, it's not our fault if we didn't fixed it yet!"

In other words, in the current age of internet with its forums, blogs etc. there is no excuse for a company say: "Doh! We were not aware of this and that!"

And Tom is pointing an important question for scenarios' creator: not always a prototypical stuff is desirable in virtual life, especially with a quite weak editor tool like we have so far.

Cheers,
Lisboa.

[PapaXpress]

Well, we really don't know what system of prioritizing they use, which leads back to "if they don't know...".

Honestly I don't think they have a stomach armored enough to take some of the criticism we have expressed here on RWA so they simply stop reading here (remember they are not entitled to come here). Not that I am trying to quieten anyone down. All the issues brought forth about performance are legit, but we have been pretty vocal.

Also, if we go through support we get a nifty little tool called a receipt (aka boiler plate that they have log the issue). With it they cannot claim its was not brought to their attention, because we have proof of that in our inbox from support that it was.

[Machinist]

(....) so they (RSC) simply stop reading here (remember they are not entitled to come here).

I see... what you mean.
Well, I've been working in professional area related to "consumer/user protection" in the last 30 years and I woulda say that not only they should be intitled to come here, but also they should have the right (if not obligation) to be present on here (is much cheaper and efficient to keep a good secret scout around), supposing that we have some value on RWA.

All the issues brought forth about performance are legit, but we have been pretty vocal.

Technical performance problems (mostly related to hardware, in this case I'm sure have to be reported to support) are much different of software features issues, and radically different of humanware expectations issues, huh? Not all sort of issues deserve ticket support...

Also, if we go through support we get a nifty little tool called a receipt (aka boiler plate that they have log the issue). With it they cannot claim its was not brought to their attention, because we have proof of that in our inbox from support that it was.

When it reaches this point, it is because the water has gone down into the drain long ago ...

[PapaXpress]

When it reaches this point, it is because the water has gone down into the drain long ago ...

I hear ya, I just haven't given up on RSC. I am a fond believer that the squeaky wheel gets attention, so we all start to squeak, they will fix the whole cart.

[Hawk]

From 'the other' forum:

Hi,
There are a number of issues RS.com are aware of and there are a number of fixes that are due for release soon.
New features can be requested to the support address, these get discussed on a regular basis for future updates.
lots in the pipeline.

This forum is not looked at much so please make sure folks email support.

Any problems with DLC should be reported to the support email address.

best regards
Derek

With that, my recommendation is to assume they never visit this forum.

[OldProf]

Sheesh!!!!!!!! I intended this as a simple "infomercial" for scenario writers ... sharing experiences ... that sort of things. I sincerely wish that those who want to spend their time trashing or praising or even just ruminating and guessing about RSC would start their own threads to do so and stay out of simple, practical discussions. Where do you think you are posting, T-S??????

Tom Pallen

[PapaXpress]

Hi Tom, I appologize for hijacking your thread. The information is helpful, which caused may thought process to wonder where it did.

[Chacal]

Here's the back story: I've been working on an AI-intensive scenario for the Horseshoe Curve DLC route and had successfully included my trick of having AI and player switching going on in separate but nearby segments of a single yard area.

Separate but nearby... that switching AI F7 came to within 5 feet of my GP7 !
Scariest switching job ever.

Tom this "scissors" scenario is the best RW scenario I have tried yet.
It has just the right amount of difficulty and pressure, and just the right tone between humorous and serious.

[OldProf]

Tom this "scissors" scenario is the best RW scenario I have tried yet.
It has just the right amount of difficulty and pressure, and just the right tone between humorous and serious.

Thanks, Chacal! It wasn't easy to create this one, but a compliment like yours makes it well worthwhile. I've got another HSC switching scenario in the hopper, but the AI engineers have gone out on strike against me! Seems that they are demanding clearer paths.

[OldProf]

I feel compelled to keep harping on this duplicate car number issue because I keep running into it while writing scenarios.

Currently, I'm working on a new scenario for the Woodhead route (which I re-baptized the "Woodenhead" yesterday!). In it, both the player and two AI drivers switch the immense Wath yard. Yesterday, errors started popping up where there had been none before, especially "couldn't find track" or track marker does not exist errors. Every time I fixed one to the editor's satisfaction and tried playing the scenario, another one appeared and blocked opening. Finally, I gave myself a dope-slap and realized that all the errors were being caused by duplicate or faulty wagon numbers. Yes, faulty numbers! It seems that the DSCV (is that correct?) files of some of the wagons that come with this route cannot be read by whatever part of the program reads numbers in connection with pick-up and drop-off instructions. I finally assigned new and ridiculous numbers (1234a, 1234b, etc.) in an attempt to work around the problem. The first time I tested this, the scenario failed to start again and when I returned to the editor I discovered that the former numbers had returned! Patiently, but with jaw firmly clenched, I replaced the numbers and rewrote the instructions again and the scenario started correctly, but that was yesterday and I won't be completely surprised to find it failing again today.

By the way, I had to do much the same thing with a scenario-level marker I had created. When I first used it in an instruction, everything went well, but after a few trial runs, the marker suddenly could not be found! I tried assigning it a new name and editing the instructions, but that did not work either (and let me add that I do put the same name in both naming boxes). Finally, I deleted the marker and put a new one in its place, with exactly the same name ... and that worked ... yesterday.

I have to say that I'm encountering more problems with the Woodhead than I have experienced with any other route, but if the "dispatcher" doesn't rebel against me again, this new scenario should be available soon.

Regards,

[robbit]

(and let me add that I do put the same name in both naming boxes).

That is good to hear because to many routes lately do not.
and speaking of that...
On the Woodhead Line, in the Ardwick Yard, you will notice that this is not done and in return there are 2 ARDW 6 sidings

[artimrj]

I do not use the same name in each box. Over 380 markers on the route and it would make you get lost if I left them with their default names. Go to destination 34 and then go to siding 280. I made it more personalized to the route. West End Yard track 1 and 2 and 3, etc, so you know where you are and where you are supposed to go. I dontunderstand why anyone would want the default designation, can you elaborate on that for me as I am considering making another route only smaller this time.