|
|
Post by littlecog on Feb 12, 2009 3:14:34 GMT
I spent a few hours on Sunday toddling around the museum in Covent Garden with some new acquaintances, and found myself quite disappointed with the 96TS cab simulator they'd built on the ground floor. The TBC was inconsistent (I think!), there was no speedometer, you couldn't see a side view - and hence stopping marks - in the side "window" (monitor), and none of the other controls seemed to work!  It was almost enough to have me propositioning people at SMD for spares to build my own... (Has anyone done this? Used BVE4 to run a fully functioning cab design of their own construction that has reasonable monitors?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2009 5:56:51 GMT
yes i agree it shame it dont all work  maybe this thread would be better in "Signal & Railway Simulations and Modelling forum" Just a thought.  :8 |
|
|
|
Post by maxtube on Feb 12, 2009 18:28:06 GMT
I was also disappointed on my visit. As well as the huge queue of spoiled 7-year-olds, the simulator itself felt nothing like a real train! I haven't driven a real train, but when I had XP I was great on BVE, complete with Joystick simulating the TBC.
|
|
|
|
Post by ek583 on Feb 12, 2009 19:02:24 GMT
I haven't visited the museum myself yet but I get a feeling that this whole simulator thing was done on the cheap. I may well be wrong, but I believe that by spending proper money, it is more than possible to create a very realistic simulator.
The other day I came across a newspaper article, which was from a few years back, about how an aviation enthusiast made a boeing 747 cockpit simulator in his own house. He did spend thousands of pounds and a lot of time building it, but the article said how it was just like the real thing with all working switches and nobs, and that flying it was just like flying a real 747.
So if TFL would be ready to spend enough money on it, then it could be a lot more realistic than what it is now. But given the fact that the majority of museum visitors using this simulator is probably under the age of 12, it's probably not worth spending all that money making it realistic. They rather made it durable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2009 20:30:49 GMT
I was also disappointed on my visit. As well as the huge queue of spoiled 7-year-olds, the simulator itself felt nothing like a real train! I haven't driven a real train, but when I had XP I was great on BVE, complete with Joystick simulating the TBC. oh good im glad im not only one who uses a JOYSTICK |
|
|
|
Post by maxtube on Feb 12, 2009 20:58:11 GMT
The cab in question was originally in Acton Depot. I believe it was originally used to train Jubbly Line drivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 12, 2009 21:14:05 GMT
As some of you will know, I was quite heavily involved in the development of these simulators. Unfortunately, miracles can't be worked - much as those involved try. Many hours went into the projects - I did a couple of 12 hour days (unpaid, I should add) in advance of the opening. However, there are various issues which ought to be considered... - It's something which I'm not aware has been done before - therefore we were working 'blind' and had to make mistakes, find pitfalls and solutions ourselves. It's not like someone else had done it all before and we could ask them.
- The team working on it were a mixture of volunteers, and LTM staff. The latter were and are extremely over-stretched, with other exhibits to consider too.
- It's now a working museum and so taking the simulators offline is best done outwith normal hours; plus with any such work, it is invariable that people will get called away on other things - other exhibits failing, children dropping things down the back of a train etc!
- Side views with BVE are very difficult to do. There is a way of doing this which I'd like to integrate in the future - however, again, this requires time and experimentation.
- The layout and space available is limited by other factors - 3 full cab simulators wouldn't fit in.
It's not perfect, I agree, but it is improving as time goes on. These things don't simply pop out of a box and work - especially when time is short, and a lot of the development is done by volunteers who have other commitments. However, it's there, and hopefully we'll see more improvements over time. I also am not sure how you can judge that it's "nothing like a real train" when, then, you admit you've never driven one! |
|
|
|
Post by maxtube on Feb 12, 2009 21:17:38 GMT
I get the idea of 'not being like a real train' from the Jubilee line Driver's Eye View, it shows shots of the driver compared to the train's movement. Glad to hear the sim is improving. After going on it twice, about three months apart, the second time there was a noticeable improvement, and the sim didn't break down as much, so keep up the good improvement works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 12, 2009 21:19:12 GMT
Some issues were experienced early on with the software. As much as you anticipate what can go wrong and build in safeguards to prevent it - something else will promptly also go wrong.
As for the cab - it was used prior to the opening of the line to show videos etc as an exhibition piece and for some time resided at Acton depot.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlecog on Feb 14, 2009 13:17:19 GMT
I'm not wishing to disparage your hard work, Tomcakes - I had no idea, tbh  I suspect failings can be laid at the door of money people as much as anything else! (Are LTM being required to charge silly amounts for heritage runs because they're lottery-funded and hence must raise matching funding?) - It's something which I'm not aware has been done before - therefore we were working 'blind' and had to make mistakes, find pitfalls and solutions ourselves. It's not like someone else had done it all before and we could ask them.
Do LU or Tubelines not have internal-use simulators for training drivers on the stock? I realise the company which produced them may well not want to talk to other developers about the techniques they used, but... um... I query whether doing it on the cheap, and not just buying a simulator for the museum was the right idea. Not that I'm asking for three of the things, you understand - just one, that did it all properly, would have been nice! - Side views with BVE are very difficult to do. There is a way of doing this which I'd like to integrate in the future - however, again, this requires time and experimentation.
That's unfortunate, and a real shame (Yes, this probably should have been on the simulations board... oops! ) |
|
|
|
Post by happybunny on Feb 14, 2009 14:05:57 GMT
How come they didn't just get a simulator like the ones at Neasden and install that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Feb 14, 2009 15:36:34 GMT
I know they do have simulators at for example Neasden - I've never seen one in the flesh mind - I presume it was some sort of fiscal consideration. When I was saying about it not having been done before, I was on about interfacing BVE with a full-sized cab.
I didn't say it was impossible to do side views! Indeed, I did have a working side view up in the offices when testing - it's just getting it set up in situ. Since I will have more 'free' time this year, I'm hoping that the side view can be sorted out.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxtube on Feb 20, 2009 17:46:22 GMT
I was at the museum today, I must say, what an improvement! It hardly ever broke down, compare to last time I went and it broke every five minutes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2009 17:56:01 GMT
I went on this simulator not long after the museum reopened - and promptly spadded the station starter!
The "proper" simulator at Neasden is in a completely different league - it is a proper cab built at the same time as the train fleet and very realistic. I think LU could make a fortune renting out the Neasden simulator at weekends!
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 20, 2009 20:40:15 GMT
[quote author=adw board=jubilee thread=10194 post=192063 time=1235152561
The "proper" simulator at Neasden is in a completely different league - it is a proper cab built at the same time as the train fleet and very realistic. I think LU could make a fortune renting out the Neasden simulator at weekends![/quote]
Can't resist ... must ... nit-pick ... .. .
''The Neasden simulator'' implies only one.
There are two identical simulators at Neasden.
--
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by afarlie on Apr 3, 2009 14:22:17 GMT
OK In relation to one of the points raised above... [/li][li]Side views with BVE are very difficult to do. There is a way of doing this which I'd like to integrate in the future - however, again, this requires time and experimentation. [/quote] Hmm, Does OpenGL support 'mutli-head' displays? If so than patching the render engine in OpenBVE would be one possibility... (And before anyone asks OpenGL IS also used by high-end million dollar training sims, amongst others) On another note, I am more than willing to let a new version of the Beck line plans be used to generate an 'exhibit', provided various people and documentation can be traced... |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 3, 2009 21:43:04 GMT
I am more than willing to let a new version of the Beck line plans be used to generate an 'exhibit', Mention of Beck and LTM exhibits reminds me that there is a glaring mistake on the museum's display showing how the network developed. Anyone else see it? (It may have been fixed since I was there two months ago) |
|
gantshill
I had to change my profile pic!
Posts: 1,371
|
Post by gantshill on Apr 3, 2009 21:53:19 GMT
I certainly filled out a comment form when I looked at the chronological network map: I think it was that Old Street (GN&C) did not interchange with Old Street (C&SLR), but I recall that there were other mistakes too.
There was also a tube stock given the wrong year: I think it muddled up 1960 with 1959/62 stock on a photo caption.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 4, 2009 18:08:03 GMT
No, it wasn't that - a bit more far out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2009 10:51:27 GMT
No, it wasn't that - a bit more far out. It still has the Ongar branch on the map...? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 23, 2009 23:00:41 GMT
That's the one. It actually closed the same day as Aldwych, and as that was otherwise a fairly quiet period, I was looking for those two events on the map for in 1994 and only saw one of them disappear.
|
|
maybe this thread would be better in "Signal & Railway Simulations and Modelling forum" Just a thought. 
:8 
I suspect failings can be laid at the door of money people as much as anything else! (Are LTM being required to charge silly amounts for heritage runs because they're lottery-funded and hence must raise matching funding?)
