I still am not clear as to why the signaling and safety systems in use by Metrolink, BNSF and Union Pacific are "impossible" to implement. TSW has ACS/ACSES, PZB, LZB, TVM and multiple other safety systems in game; what makes western US systems so hard to do? While we're at it, I'm pretty sure that before long doing any accurate German route will require ETCS
The fact it is GPS and Computer run instead of just magnets, its way more of a complicated system than ACES is in how the system is implimented. For drivers it simplier but not the way the system actually works in the background. You could always look up details on how it works but without GPS and radio functionality in the game it wpould be difficult to make it work as in real life. It as complicated as ETCS is and well Rivet gave that a shot and its not a realistic reproducrion at all.
I don't know about ATC/ACSES, but the way the European safety systems work is pretty much public information due to the railways being open access. Plus, the system is very simple - there are just three different types of data point. And those data points are visible out in the real world. All you need to accurately model PZB on a given route is some PDFs that you can (and, importantly, are allowed to) download from DB's website, and a cab ride video. ETCS would be much more difficult, but again, there is a good amount of public information on how it works, so you could probably do it. Similar public information on how US PTC systems work just doesn't seem to exist, plus they're GPS & radio based, so there's not even any physical infrastructure that could give you some hints.
As I understand it there is not just one PTC implementation but as many as 5 or 6. For instance the system used on the NEC is not the same as the one used on other Class 1 railroads. Not sure if they are interoperable, but simulating more than one would be a challenge. How would GPS be integrated into a simulator? Something like real time weather? And wouldn't you need to simulate local time zones? Sounds like a software nightmare.
Okay, but Rivet are the group that failed to simply set up the spring value of a buffer properly, causing derailments while braking on Arosalinie, then insisted on it being realistic. I don't doubt that PCT is not simple, but defending it by saying "Rivet couldn't do it either" is a funny argument. Regarding this, GPS data is already in the game in the form of well... having a 3D environment with coordinates and the game knowing the position of every rolling stock in said environment. And since we are talking about a computer software, obviously the computer part is also given. From what we've heard from modders, PTC could be very doable. Every information for it is available in the simulation already.
The explanation I’ve seen (which makes sense) is that there are multiple versions of PTC and the technical information required to simulate it is closely guarded/not public.
I wasn't defending anything I was explaining why it is different/more difficult than what we already have in the game. As for the Rivet mention have you heard of sarcasm. But hey your the expert so have at it, there is an editor. I've only been trying for over 8 months and am no where near a realistic implimintation because I'm missing radio funtionality. Also how do you expect to recrate the computer programing, which is updated for every run and weather situation daily. So its really simple that these modders are just flying the PTC routes off the shelf. I can give it to you but its not accurate or realistic unless you can get me the calculations for the computer system is uses for each different area of the US as it varies, which is not public domain. The others you can find easier as they are. So sorry but I have to disagree with you. And considering PTC was just implemented in 2020 so no one is really an expert on how it works yet.
Even Searchlight Simulations doesn't simulate PTC on Train Simulator Classic, should really be a good sign on why DTG can do it either.
So in a sense you could just make a placeholder PTC system based off of information that is indeed publicly available, since anyone who isnt a U.S rail driver or infrastructure expert wouldn't know if it was inaccurate and those in the field wouldn't be at liberty to disclose. It's literally better than an empty screen, jmo.
But the community will notice its not correct and it won't sell. Same reason US frieght was pulled back, it's not accurate enough is the biggest complaint on why they either didn't buy it or they refunded it.
Good point! Maybe I will ask the question on The Depot forum or in the Run 8 section at Trainsim dot com. Of course as regards Run 8, we don’t know what their licensing etc. arrangements are with the railroads or whether they take a more “publish and be damned” approach. Also think I read somewhere their routes are set either back in time or an indistinct time period. For example, their San Bernardino does not have the Metrolink flyover approach that we see in the TSW SBO route.
If so, they can give feedback or even DTG consulting the community for inner workings. The community can't just base what exactly IS wrong with information they do not have. If it's information they do have, then by extension DTG would have it too. Unless it's something that again, raildrivers can't disclose which in that case... tough luck.
We looked in to iETMS for example, the PTC used in a number of places such as Metrolink and elements of it are achievable with some relatively light core modifications, but some of it would require extensive set up work - iETMS for example has a full gradient and track plan on board, using specific visuals, and can do recommendations on how the engineer should operate based on various criteria including the upcoming track and such. Nothing is "impossible" of course, but, the team reviewed and it came back as an enormous amount of work - compounded by lack of clarity on the systems, plus, frankly, the operators are often not so keen on it - the US being far more strict on such things than most other places. It remains on my radar to try and make it happen at some point, but before that, there are other areas like fencing that can be looked at. But, suffice to say, iETMS is a *much* bigger and more broad system than something like LZB (and entirely different to something like PZB). Matt.
My attention was drawn to Matt's reference to fencing. Those of us who like US freight have been hoping for that capability for a long time - immersion in DP operations would be dramatically increased if US locos had fencing enabled.
What about ETCS? Rivet already made a passable try at it, which could be refined. AIUI, ETCS is essentially a balise/radio implementation of something not wholly unlike LZB.
From what I recall, ETCS (properly) needs a few not-too-difficult core changes. The inherent limitations in the Rivet implementation are largely due to these requirements not being in the game essentially. No plans to implement at the moment though. Matt.
