Skully

I'm not having much luck with this update. I keep getting disconnected while the log spews: [2023-03-11 12:51:22]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at ReasonsStoppingCarsCustom.CarInView (CarAIControllerCustom car, UnityEngine.GameObject go, UnityEngine.Rigidbody rigbody, System.Single distance, System.Single startSpeed, System.Single& moveSpeed, System.Boolean& tempStop, System.Single& keepOmmitingOposingCarTo, System.Single& reverseTime, System.Single distanceBetweenCars) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at CarAIControllerCustom.CheckCollisions () [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at CarAIControllerCustom.Update () [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 Followed by: [2023-03-11 12:51:34]: Disconnecting connId=0 to prevent exploits from an Exception in MessageHandler: ArgumentException An item with the same key has already been added. Key: 08/13/2022 10:34:07 at System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[TKey,TValue].TryInsert (TKey key, TValue value, System.Collections.Generic.InsertionBehavior behavior) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at TrainAnnouncement.AnnouncementController.AddHighPriorityAnnouncement (System.DateTime date, TrainAnnouncement.TrainAnnouncementData announcementData) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Assets.Scripts.PersistantWorldData.StationAnnoucements.StationAnnoucementsControllerClient.AddHighPriorityStationAnnouncementToQueue (System.String dateTime, Assets.Scripts.PersistantWorldData.StationAnnoucements.StationIdentifier stationIdentifier, Assets.Scripts.PersistantWorldData.StationAnnoucements.AnnouncementData announcementData) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Assets.Scripts.PersistantWorldData.StationAnnoucements.StationAnnoucementsControllerServer.InvokeUserCode_RpcSyncHighPriorityQueue__StationIdentifier__String__AnnouncementData (Mirror.NetworkBehaviour obj, Mirror.NetworkReader reader, Mirror.NetworkConnectionToClient senderConnection) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.NetworkIdentity.HandleRemoteCall (System.Int32 componentIndex, System.Int32 functionHash, Mirror.RemoteCalls.RemoteCallType remoteCallType, Mirror.NetworkReader reader, Mirror.NetworkConnectionToClient senderConnection) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.NetworkClient.OnRPCMessage (Mirror.RpcMessage message) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at System.Action`1[T].Invoke (T obj) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.NetworkClient+<>c__DisplayClass47_0`1[T].<RegisterHandler>g__HandlerWrapped|0 (Mirror.NetworkConnection _, T value) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at BestHTTP.WebSocket.OnWebSocketIncompleteFrameDelegate.Invoke (BestHTTP.WebSocket.WebSocket webSocket, BestHTTP.WebSocket.Frames.WebSocketFrameReader frame) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.MessagePacking+<>c__DisplayClass7_0`2[T,C].<WrapHandler>g__Wrapped|0 (C conn, T msg, System.Int32 _) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at System.Action`3[T1,T2,T3].Invoke (T1 arg1, T2 arg2, T3 arg3) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.MessagePacking+<>c__DisplayClass6_0`2[T,C].<WrapHandler>b__0 (Mirror.NetworkConnection conn, Mirror.NetworkReader reader, System.Int32 channelId) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.NetworkClient.UnpackAndInvoke (Mirror.NetworkReader reader, System.Int32 channelId) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.NetworkClient.OnTransportData (System.ArraySegment`1[T] data, System.Int32 channelId) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at kcp2k.KcpTransport.<Awake>b__22_5 (System.ArraySegment`1[T] message, kcp2k.KcpChannel channel) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at kcp2k.KcpClient.<Connect>b__7_1 (System.ArraySegment`1[T] message, kcp2k.KcpChannel channel) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at kcp2k.KcpConnection.TickIncoming_Authenticated (System.UInt32 time) [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at kcp2k.KcpConnection.TickIncoming () [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 at Mirror.NetworkLoop.NetworkEarlyUpdate () [0x00000] in <00000000000000000000000000000000>:0 SimRail_log_2023-03-11_12-49-29.txt

And there we have it: a new dispatch station "Grodzisk Mazowiecki", this time up north. Well the hint was pretty strong. 😄 Now it becomes interesting as we may also want to take a look at what else is there up north. But also given Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice ends up on number 1 each poll I'm very curious to how it is progressing. Again the rules remain the same, you can vote for any station you would wish to see, even multiple or all if you so desire. If your favorite is not on the list post it so it can be added next round. So let the voting kick off for the most desired dispatch station.

Unless I missed something and they have implemented my totally brilliant idea of having the avatars graffitied on the trains, there are no avatars in-game. (Just as I was thinking of suggesting custom horns... 😁) Maybe adding a feature to the forum in which users can disable seeing avatars is more than enough?

Train Driver 2 with its teleporting gates can hardly be described as a proper traffic dispatching simulation. The timetable generating algorithm uses those teleports to add every new train to the end of the timetable leaving no gaps. So there is no choice in the matter. (You can even get two trains coming and going to the same stations but from opposite directions...) I was hoping there was some gem out there which I had missed. As for the topic at hand rule § 48.1 would apply here: Which Google will translate as: Now the 14s catching up to the 401s at Sosnowiec Główny is always the interesting one to watch. Technically (and probably) your best option is to hold the 14 at entry while you deal with the 401. Alternatively you can bring the 401 to the opposite track on the same platform. If they had crowd modelled you would really want to bring the 401 to platform 1 and watch the crowd run from platform 2. 😁 So that would be a good example of an operational consideration. As for the OP, what would be the operational consideration to hold any train running in sequence early for whatever time?

In Idzikowice when you give a straight path to line 573 over track 2 it'll still show a 40 km/h restriction as opposed to vmax. Maybe a bug? Maybe a that's how it works IRL? Same goes for signal G to line 574 over track 1.

First out of curiosity, what simulator are you talking about? Second, I don't see any changes upcoming for a different point distribution. If dispatching can affect point scoring of a driver all hell will break lose. Punctuality does not come into play, efficiency does. As a traffic controller you have no reason to hold a train which can be send in sequence. Any train which has the option to be send out of sequence should be communicated and agreed upon. You may wish to read Instrukcja Ir-1 (R-1) chapter 51 to ensure you're doing the proper thing. Last, as per OP holding up a Pendo at Psary will get you on report. Possibly followed by a kick and ultimately a ban. You have been warned. (Or any other station for that matter. 😄)

And thus we get to what I would say is the station for week 8 although @uetam seems to hint at more surprises. 😁 While Idzikowice did not score high on the poll it looks to be an interesting addition. With it I'll replace it's entry with Strzałki as we move further north. Again I'll keep Sosnowiec Południowy to allow for voting for the mechanical version. You can vote for any station you would wish to see, even multiple or all if you so desire. If your favorite is not on the list post it so it can be added next round. Let the voting once more commence until we have our next station (although I will keep it open if we get surprises this week (hint hint 😁)).

20230221-buzzer.mp4 I was expecting the buzzer to sound when I got the WBL from Idzikowice.

Hehe, maybe @uetam knows?

Note I do not have a good screenshot, but I can ZKB to Opoczno Południe on track 2 when it is inbound. Now that Opoczno Południe is a panel it can no longer acknowledged.

As can be seen on the screenshot, the WBL on track 2 did not light up.

As already noted here (but not in patch notes 😄) we now have Opoczno Południe as a panel instead. I think the work needed to get dispatchers stations in play has been seriously underestimated. One station per week sounds too ambitious to me and even 1 station every two weeks might be overpromising. Work on the north end of Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice is progressing steadily but the south end is where the real complexity lies. For now I'll keep the poll open as I think it would make more sense to have more stations as opposed to reworked stations to better reflect reality. But in the more stations I would rather see the final iteration as opposed to an intermediate solution. Having developers work on an intermediate solution is doubling the effort put into a station. Then again I could be wrong and we might want to open a poll on it. 🤔 As a wild alternative maybe we could have the community create computer stations. I have no clue how feasible this is in terms of complexity and access to the definitions (which currently live on the traffic server). Maybe there is already an editor to assist in this. What do you all think about this? And maybe developers want to comment on feasibility?

That is the professional edition of SimRail. 😄

I think the 3rd button on the screen gives you a big speedometer.

Well you would have to do it yourself then. 😁 20230127-whistle - 480p.mp4 Have we not been here before? 😄

No restriction.

At 126.4.

How is this handled in real life? It currently works as a regular route cancellation.

Now that Sosnowiec Południowy has been unlocked as a dispatcher station we can boot up the next round of votes. I will keep Sosnowiec Południowy on the list though as we don't have the final version yet. This is a temporary placeholder to show that we players can do so much better than the AI managing this station. 😁 And thus the wishing for the next station can commence. Note that I'll keep this poll open until the next dispatcher station is revealed as it turns out that pesky players can create a bundle of bugs that need to be taken care of as well. 😄 To make things a bit different you can vote for any station you would wish to see, even multiple or all if you so desire. If your favorite is not on the list post it so it can be added next round.

1:44:19 it remains to be a nuisance, right @SurvivorSean? 😄

We already have shift plus&minus to put the throttle (in the EU07) between "notches". Maybe something similar can be done for the brakes? And I fully agree that it is way too easy to slip into emergency braking on some locomotives.

When using substitute signals be aware they carry a 90 second timeout by default. So if you give a substitute signal to a stack of closely queued trains you may see multiple trains pass the signal. Hence ensure to use OSZ at the right time (as I got reminded to by @firleju 😁).

With week 4 being over we have yet to see the unveiling of the next dispatcher station. We already saw Dąbrowa Górnicza Ząbkowice and Sosnowiec Południowy appear on the radar at times so these are strong contenders. Even some spoiler imagery came up of Sosnowiec Południowy and Stawiska (!): However now that kojonek2 has done some fixing to the AI we may not need Sosnowiec Południowy too badly. We can even say that players may disrupt testing the AI too much. https://forum.simrail.eu/topic/3534-system-rule-do-not-route-a-train-down-a-single-track-without-asking-for-clearance/ 😁 Anyway, let the speculation commence and the wishing for the next dispatcher station continue as we enter week 5.