L6[09:34:37] <Darkelarious> @Trinsdar have you ever heard about "the lucky 10 000"?

L7[09:34:50] <Darkelarious> https://xkcd.com/1053/

L9[10:28:01] <liach> @Darkelarious please put that in #off-topic next time. thanks.

L10[10:48:01] <Darkelarious> ack

L11[10:48:48] <Darkelarious> though, for your consideration, I think it's unfair to call someone stupid for not knowing something -- this was just my citation

L12[10:49:41] <Darkelarious> @Trinsdar (see #off-topic) [Edited]

L14[15:45:35] <texaswriter> axel, can you explain your token signals picture in a little more detail? how does it ensure there are no collisions?

L15[15:48:05] <Forecaster> All the token signals will be red when a train has passed, keeping the connected locking tracks off

L16[15:48:27] <Forecaster> When the train leaves they turn green again

L17[15:49:14] <Forecaster> This setup doesn't have any interlocks so there's a risk multiple trains could be let in at once

L18[15:51:23] <texaswriter> Thanks Forecaster

L19[15:52:28] <texaswriter> So, maybe add an interlock to that design, kinda like what I am doing with the "spacing" zones or maybe a variant of this with the controller/receiver boxes?

L20[16:10:53] <CovertJaguar> Hmm so in a setup like that, each input line requires a locking track, a Detector, a Controller and a Receiver. Is that overkill? There are some changes that could simplify that, but it would mean combining functionality.

L21[16:12:44] <liach> you don't need a detector; you just need a signal

L22[16:13:20] <CovertJaguar> For the interlock you do right? The line input is whether a train is currently held

L23[16:13:37] <CovertJaguar> Which you need a Detector to determine

L24[16:14:20] <CovertJaguar> The token signal output would go to the interlock override input, locking all the lines

L25[16:15:42] <CovertJaguar> One idea, a Lockout Box which is both a controller and receiver that detects any cart next to it and sends a green aspect if detected, and which the receiver controls the locking track

L26[16:17:20] <CovertJaguar> I don't know, does that make it simpler or more complicated?

L27[16:20:22] <CovertJaguar> We could always build the interlock into the token Signals as well, and have the signals control the locking tracks directly, but while this makes the system less complex, it also makes it less transparent

L28[16:21:34] <Natesky9> Having switch motors adjacent to switch tracks is fine enough

L29[16:22:32] <CovertJaguar> Switch motors? I'm not sure how that is related

L30[16:23:01] <Natesky9> You're talking about junctions, right on

L31[16:23:09] <Forecaster> Yeah @CovertJaguar, that's correct, you need each of those things

L32[16:23:09] <Natesky9> You're talking about junctions, right? [Edited]

L33[16:23:49] <Forecaster> The token signals just reduce the number of boxes needed to input the override into the interlock

L34[16:23:55] <Forecaster> To one

L35[16:24:22] <CovertJaguar> @Natesky9 we are talking about controlling who can enter a junction area

L36[16:24:59] <Natesky9> I though you were talking about controllers -> track, lol

L37[16:25:18] <CovertJaguar> The locking tracks at the entrances to the junction

L38[16:25:21] <Forecaster> Locking tracks

L39[16:25:26] <Forecaster> Not switches

L40[16:25:56] <Forecaster> I think it's fine as it is

L41[16:25:57] <Natesky9> Right, gotcha. That's what I get for jumping in at halfway

L42[16:27:09] <Natesky9> Any time I've tried this, they always release at the same time, unless I use fifo with interlocks

L43[16:27:29] <Forecaster> That's what the interlock is for

L44[16:28:13] <Natesky9> I don't know if I made it more complicated than it needs to be, but I had to use 16 boxes

L45[16:28:30] <Forecaster> Depends on the intersection

L46[16:28:58] <CovertJaguar> I'm not thrilled with the idea of taking locking control away from the player so probably won't go the route of the signal handling locking track control, but the box idea has some merit. My only concern being whether it increases complexity needlessly.

L47[16:29:01] <Natesky9> Grand exchange needed a total of 20

L48[16:29:29] <Forecaster> Keeping up with this is difficult on my phone :P

L49[16:30:07] <CovertJaguar> A quick count in my head says a grand exchange only needs 13 boxes

L50[16:30:49] <Forecaster> If the new box is just an addition that allows more specialisation if you know what you're doing that seems fine

L51[16:31:05] <CovertJaguar> 8 on the lines, 5 for the interlock

L52[16:32:07] <CovertJaguar> It would basically just be combining the functionality of the Detector, receiver and controller on each line, and probably doing it cheaper.

L53[16:33:04] <liach> i really want better signalling like the signalling in signals mod

L54[16:33:30] <Forecaster> ...

L55[16:33:33] <CovertJaguar> You mean unrealistic TTD style signalling?

L56[16:34:26] <Forecaster> I dont know if it should be cheaper

L57[16:35:08] <Forecaster> could just have it take each of those boxes and a detector (maybe type of detector determines what it detects) plus an additional circuit board

L58[16:42:40] <CovertJaguar> The main difference I see between our signals and the Signals mod is that blocks are defined simpler, which is something we could probably fix, and the signals control the stop/starting of Carts directly.

L59[16:42:43] <Forecaster> or I know, you assemble the interlock input with the detector, controller and receiver box in-world, then tap it with a wand I mean crowbar and it turns into the new box :D

L60[16:42:57] <CovertJaguar> Lol

L61[16:45:09] <CovertJaguar> Our routing system is more powerful and versatile by far, but requires a tiny bit more setup

L62[16:45:47] <Forecaster> I think that's fine

L63[16:45:52] <CovertJaguar> So really the biggest difference is not needing all the locking tracks and interlocks etc

L64[16:46:09] <Forecaster> I prefer having more control

L65[16:46:44] <CovertJaguar> We can do pre-signals with a bit of creativity

L66[16:53:40] <CovertJaguar> Considering the largely unsolvable issues with Token Signals and the over engineering of the block signals. I've have been tempted to try a graph based signal that would fill the roles of both and require less setup (no pairing)

L67[16:54:13] <Forecaster> might be interesting

L68[16:55:38] <CovertJaguar> The main issue is see is one of performance. Put down a single signal on a huge railway and suddenly its scanning a couple thousand blocks for entities

L69[16:56:11] <CovertJaguar> Probably would have to define max block length or something

L70[16:56:54] <CovertJaguar> But it would still be doing thousands of entity searches on a fully signaled system

L71[16:57:15] <CovertJaguar> And entity searches aren't cheap

L72[16:58:16] <CovertJaguar> The system would have to condense search areas into straight sections to reduce the number of searches

L73[16:58:33] <CovertJaguar> It's all very complicated

L74[16:59:06] <Forecaster> yeah

L75[17:02:19] <CovertJaguar> Hmm... It might be better to have Carts lookup which block its in and inform the system thats its there. That would be a single map lookup per cart

L76[17:05:06] <Forecaster> oh, yeah probably

L77[17:06:38] <CovertJaguar> I could probably make this work hmm

L79[18:10:07] <Natesky9> Also, I have a question

L80[18:10:19] <Natesky9> How do you craft iron plates

L81[18:10:49] <Natesky9> This has bugged me for a while

L82[18:12:30] <Forecaster> rolling machine

L83[18:21:23] <liach> @CovertJaguar what i know about signals signal is that they can identify consecutive signal blocks while we can't in real life, yellow signals are used to indicate occupation in a few signal blocks in front instead of moving cart in the next block to the direction we move. we need consecutive signal blocks at least.

L85[18:32:08] <Jokaero> Hello poeple!

L86[18:32:24] <Jokaero> How is everyone? I have a general question and idk where to ask.

L87[18:32:37] <3TUSK> don't ask to ask

L88[18:32:38] <3TUSK> just ask

L89[18:32:46] <3TUSK> so long as it is about railcraft

L90[18:33:14] <Jokaero> It is not about railcraft. Its about forge and IDk what to ask.

L91[18:33:30] <Jokaero> Forge is not cooperating when I try and install it.

L92[18:34:32] <CovertJaguar> What is the benefits to consecutive blocks? We can already do that.

L93[19:35:31] <CovertJaguar> I don't see any way we could ever have path based signalling. Not without scrapping the entire aspect logic and routing systems

L95[19:36:31] <CovertJaguar> Because for PBS you need to know the intentions of the train

L96[19:37:08] <CovertJaguar> The signals mod does some of that

L97[19:40:59] <CovertJaguar> It's kind of cool what PBS can give you but you give up a lot of flexibility and control. And you can mostly achieve the goals of PBS with clever block layout

L98[19:41:52] <CovertJaguar> Yeah it increases junction throughput, but that's about it

L99[19:50:07] <CovertJaguar> You might be able to dynamically construct blocks based on projected behavior and of any switches in the block, but there is no guarantee that by the time the train gets to the switch the conditions are the same

L100[19:50:28] <CovertJaguar> You might be able to dynamically construct blocks based on projected behavior of any switches in the block, but there is no guarantee that by the time the train gets to the switch the conditions are the same [Edited]

L101[19:50:54] <CovertJaguar> Which could lead to collisions

L102[19:54:54] <CovertJaguar> The signals mod and TTD are more based on modern signalling systems whereas Railcraft's is based more on pre-transitor systems.

L103[20:02:35] <liach> i suggested an approach in https://github.com/Railcraft/Railcraft/issues/871 which we catalog all the stations in a network and use shortest path to calculate a path

L104[20:02:48] <liach> dunno if it applies here

L106[20:17:37] <travis-ci> Railcraft/Railcraft#191 (mc-1.12.2 - 22f928d : CovertJaguar): The build passed.

L107[20:17:37] <travis-ci> Change view : https://github.com/Railcraft/Railcraft/compare/e76d3585fcbc...22f928d21d73

L108[20:17:37] <travis-ci> Build details : https://travis-ci.com/Railcraft/Railcraft/builds/95918111

L111[20:31:10] <CovertJaguar> We don't really want to do that though as it is less flexible than our current system

L112[20:32:37] <CovertJaguar> It's also has more points of failure.

L113[20:37:25] <liach> uh, then i'd prefer no signal

L114[20:38:35] <Natesky9> So, something that has bugged me about many mods, is that they have a crafting recipe for iron plates, using a hammer. But why, I ask, why isn't this recipe done in an anvil?

L115[20:52:03] <liach> cuz anvil eats levels

L116[20:55:14] <Natesky9> You can set custom recipes. Enderio does this with their dark steel upgrades

L118[22:31:45] <CovertJaguar> you'd rather have no signals than our current system?

L119[22:35:51] <CovertJaguar> I mean I know its not perfect and is probably harder to setup than it needs to be, but its flexible and powerful and its not a black magic box

L120[22:41:26] <CovertJaguar> it would be a lot better with Graph Signals replacing Block and Token Signals probably, and the Lockout Box would make junctions a lot simpler and quicker to build. I'm pleased with the routing system, its simple and straight forward, though it could benefit from a concept of "repeating routes" for trains, but that would be a minor improvement to make.

L121[22:42:01] <CovertJaguar> automatic shortest route routing has a lot of problems, like sending trains down loading tracks it shouldn't

L122[22:44:39] <CovertJaguar> yeah, if we took complete control of routing and start/stop we could do PBS, but then we lose control and flexibility, no color based or condition based routing

L123[22:52:54] <Natesky9> I think one of the main survival issues that I've encountered is that trains don't feel guaranteed and reliable

L124[22:54:13] <Player> for that to happen the trains have to stop being real entities, turning them into mere a display of a solid hidden simulation

L125[22:55:33] <Natesky9> yeah, that's part of the problem. The issue is that trains can exist in two different blocks simultaniously, which causes issues, and the solutions to prevent that are bulky and expensive

L126[22:56:51] <Natesky9> also, the big problem of multiple lines releasing at the same time, leading to jams

L127[22:57:17] <liach> @Natesky9 what is multiple line releasing?

L128[22:58:38] <Natesky9> something that is eliminated with interlock boxes

L129[22:58:54] <Natesky9> but that isn't really common knowledge

L130[23:01:33] <liach> it sounds like race condition in programming

L131[23:13:35] <CovertJaguar> if you hook all your token signals up directly locking tracks on a junction, without interlock boxes, yeah you will get everything being released at the same time

L132[23:14:58] <CovertJaguar> the reason people's junctions and signaling systems have problems now is mostly because Railcraft gives complete control over the logic to the user

L133[23:15:12] <CovertJaguar> bad logic = bad junction

L134[23:16:22] <CovertJaguar> as for the unreliability of trains, I have some ideas for dealing with carts getting shuffled and stuck in other trains, which is one of the big problems

L135[23:16:41] <CovertJaguar> I think I can "fix" that issue

L136[23:16:47] <CovertJaguar> though I know there are others

L137[23:17:58] <CovertJaguar> @Natesky9 you mention trains being in multiple causing issues, what kind of issues?

L138[23:18:10] <CovertJaguar> @Natesky9 you mention trains being in multiple signal blocks causing issues, what kind of issues? [Edited]

L139[23:18:32] <CovertJaguar> is deadlock a common problem?