For awhile now I have been loosely involved with virtual railroads. For some time I have made some observations concerning the way they reward engineers for their participation. Having listened to the underlying assumptions and having created my own program, Activity Enhancer, I have formed an opinion of how VRs should reward engineers. Basically, my determination is our current VRs are using the wrong model for their operations. Unfortunately, to get an opinion out, you really have to have a tough exterior when opposition arises. And I use that term loosely because unfortunately, those who disagree, don't disagree on the merits of the discussion, they turn it into an anti-payware rant. So what I am doing here is voicing my observations here so I hope to compel reasonable people to reasonable discussion.
First, for all who don't know, a VR (virtual railroad) is simply guys taking activities they have run on select routes and turning them in so 'hours of running' can be tabulated. After so many hours you are rewarded by promotion based on these hours. This is an oversimplification but it's good enough.
Most VRs offer many routes to keep interest up. So if you get bored or choose to run another route, you just download the next route and do the same you did with the previous route.
Okay, you ask, so what's the beef? It's not a beef. It's an opinion. My opinion as stated earlier is they use the wrong model. They use the flight simmers model. I'm a flight simmer myself and I understand the virtual flight sim model being used the way they do. Virtual flight simming is limited because the program, Flight simulator, offers next to little in the form of an evaluation you can print and send. And flight simulator itself (and neither was Fly!), set up for route running. You have billions of routes to choose from, all are easy to setup. But it's an A to B type thing.
MSTS is more diversified because with MSTS you can create activities for many things right? And this is reflected in the evaluation which also adds more diversity because you can be penalized for bad train driving. And further, you can also go into the activity itself and read it to determine a bit more information such as number of cars and include that in some post-activity analysis. My own Activity Enhancer is an example how this extra information can be used. Basically, for those that don't know, Activity Enhancer is like adding career mode to MSTS.
In other words, it is my opinion that VRs are using the wrong model to underpin their philosophy. The flight sim model works very well for flight simming. MSTS VRs should be using their own model. Now for most of you, this covers the gist. I would like to cover the pros and cons in more detail in the following paragraphs.
------------------------------
In this next section, I want to explain what I've observed about the current VRs. Most don't last very long and for a number of reasons. Many of the reasons has nothing to do with the VR itself and I'm not going to get into those issues. We all have seen the VRs which have come and gone. The biggest thing I hear from those is after awhile, folks get bored with running the same route. And of course they do!
Running a route is no more than saying after you get home from work, 'Honey, I'm going for a drive.' It's a negative in the sense you do all the work and get nothing for it. Sure, I understand the aesthetics of the drive but I'm trying to make a point so let's skip over the reasons why we run routes in general. I'm talking about that poor fella whose competing for a higher rank. He's putting in hour after hour trying to reach that goal. Think about it, hour after hour looking at the same graphics.
And there's your problem. The flight model emphasises hours because in flight simulator, you only have hours to work with. It's the only tangible analysis after the flight is over to give to somebody else to reward you for your flight. Again, I understand we could talk about payload versus fuel, etc. But it's my goal to simplify the discussion to make the point that if you change the emphasis from hours to how well a person handles their train, you can enhance the experience of the train driver from a simple equation to one where even a person driving a short run, filled with pickups and drop-offs can experience a greater pleasure being a part of the VR.
How? It's real simple. Activity Enhancer already demonstrates this can be done. While Activity Enhancer isn't set up for VR exclusively, it has always been my point that a program could be set up to do as I'm suggesting. Frankly, a trimmed down Activity Enhancer like program would be perfect. Remember, Activity Enhancer rewards the engineer by both hour and performance. So the engineer doesn't have to run hours and hours on end to be promoted. If he wants to switch his hearts content out, he can, and be rewarded to a degree commensurate to those running a mainline. And this increases membership because a newbie can choose profitable short runs or switching that allows him to increase in rank and participate even if he has less time to run. The boredom factor becomes marginalized and retention goes up.
I've been discussing this at the engineer level, but how about the whole VR itself? Even better. Currently the different VRs either overlap or are exclusive to running certain routes. The draw is whatever the route is you want to run, that's likely the VR you will join. But if you expand the train model to include what I am suggesting, suddenly (I like that word) the experience of being in that VR takes new meaning. This is because you now have a set of numbers that qualify the productivity of the VR. Rather than just hours, now a VR can be graded on its performance. Just like in the real world the performance counts. So VRs could be even competitive against other VRs. VRs could be created with regional identities, even to duplicating prototype regions and those VRs prefering to compete in that sense, do so with realistic variables governing their rewards.
I got wordy there so let me say that again simply. A VR representing the southeast, for example, could compete with a north east region. Those VRs might only run routes depending on the region. The ramifications of this is you get a more prototype experience at both the engineer and VR level.
Summary:
I wish I had more time to expound with examples to demonstrate what I'm saying. For my part, this is theory as I have little intentions of being involved because my preference is to build routes. In the early stages of Ohio Rail I envisioned something had to be different for the route that when it was released, folks would either run the WV&O, or the OR&W. But other than through the storyline, how could I create the competitive element? Activity Enhancer was my solution. Having then learned what VRs are all about, I since then 'connected the dots' and saw that a better experience could be attained through a better model for which VR's could base themself upon. I think the rewards for the VRs and the people who make up those VRs would be tremendous.
Rich Garber
PS: This is open for discussion. I being the moderator will very quickly delete responses that I deem out of hand. While this is off-topic from typical All Aboard subjects, I hope for most this becomes stimulating for a genre of MSTS that I hope to see grow.
Full Version: VR Philosophy
Here's my take on VR's. Though I belong to the main 3, I think maybe it should be set up more like the real thing. The people that want to be Engineers and run trains and nothing else belong to the "engineer group", the people who like to make activities are the"dispatchers" and belong to that group. They can run acts (other than testing) but ARE NOT added to the callboard. Similarly there would be "The paint dept."(skinners), "The Maint.of way"(Route developers), and "the mechincal dept."(Eng./Wag. file modifcations). Of course you limit the number of each dept. and see where the real interest lies within the VR. Also start with one route and "only" connect with exsiting routes. If there are none.....MAKE IT!!! This would give everyone the chance to have a say in the VR and make it feel like they are a part of it. I should have put this at the begining but forgot to...REAL is REAL and go's where it should and FICTIONAL is FICTIONAL and can be placed anywhere and can be moved if the real thing replaces it.
Rich's suggestion has real merit. It is my personal feeling that a railroad, either private or one of the VR's should be run closer to the prototype. A person is promoted up through the ranks as that individual gains experience. They have a series of training runs where they get to know the portion of the line they are working on, where the crossings, curves and grades are, where the obstructions are so that their job can be carried out both efficiently and safely. Next they are assigned to work or a local or a switcher, to gain experience before, when they have show by their performance, not just time of service, that they are qualified to handle one of the more important trains.
If things were handled on the VR's in this manner, as Rich sort of suggests, since our routes don't come with Condensed Track Charts like the prototype has to help crews know where everything is. On a route it is hard to know just where a grad starts and stops without repeated trips over the road to gain the necessary proficiency. Both hours of service and proficiency need to be considered for promotions if we indeed what the VR's to be true virtual railroads and therefore that needs to be incorporated into the model as Rich suggests.
Paul
If things were handled on the VR's in this manner, as Rich sort of suggests, since our routes don't come with Condensed Track Charts like the prototype has to help crews know where everything is. On a route it is hard to know just where a grad starts and stops without repeated trips over the road to gain the necessary proficiency. Both hours of service and proficiency need to be considered for promotions if we indeed what the VR's to be true virtual railroads and therefore that needs to be incorporated into the model as Rich suggests.
Paul
I have been in and out and back into MSTS. The original routes and activities got boring and I left for a year or two; recently got back into MSTS when I discovered some of the new routes and eqiupment available. In between, I tried other Sims.
I recently looked into VRs and immediately though that simply accumulating time running the route was not interesting; there's no learning curve, no objectives to achieve.
If feel MSTS has advantages over other Sims, in that you have different types of activities: yard switching, local freight, long-haul freight, local passenger, express passenger, etc. Personally, I prefer switching to long-haul. So within the confines of a route (or several routes), each "engineer" can participate in the type of activity preferred, or progress thru the seniority hierarchy to the more prestigious assignments. However, each layer of activity should have rewards and penalties, based on parameters such as tonnage delivered/handled, and infractions/accidents/violations.
This approach would require establishing a set of groundrules for rewards, penalties, and advancement for the VR route(s), and a core group of "administrators" to run the VR route(s).
While I was "out of MSTS", I got into "Silent Hunter 2", a WW2 U-Boat Sim. I joined a group that formed virtual Flotillas to "refight" the Battle of the Atlantic. Members were required to select a Boat # and Captain appropriate to the year and month of "enlistment".
Each "Captain" was then assigned missions (Activities) created by the "Staff". As a captain, I ran the missions at my own pace. Thanx to time compression, most missions could be completed in a week of evenings. At the end of each mission, the tonnage that was sunk was added to your total; ship damage or crew casualties were subtracted from your tonnage based on a formula. The objective was to become skilled as a captain. Unfortunately, since we were required to run the Sim at 100% realism, we took realistic Casualties and soon over 80% of the original Captains had been lost at sea! (how's that for realism!!!)
What I'm getting to in sort of a round-about way, is that a VR needs to be more than simply "accumulating time" running the route. Railroading provides an inherent variation in Activity/Assignment that is NOT present in other Sims that can maintain interest and provide "advancement" goals and rewards.
The previous post regarding the various functions of Mechanical, Activity Writing, etc, was "right-on" in the respect that there is something in the VR world for everybody. However, there must be a core management group that is willing to devote time to "run" the VR by issuing the train orders, collecting the stats, maintaining the records, posting assignments and seniority; in short, doing the administrative portion. These duties can be periodically reassigned to keep the burden off of one group, but it is a task that MUST be done to keep the VR active.
I've been into 1:48 scale On2 model RRing for years and I look at VR as the Virtual equivalent to a group of Model RRers who have a monthly operating session. Except, you have the capability of running over 100s of miles of railroad! Even the biggest club layout can only represent a few actual miles or railroad. VR can be "model railroading" with NO boundaries!
HTH
I recently looked into VRs and immediately though that simply accumulating time running the route was not interesting; there's no learning curve, no objectives to achieve.
If feel MSTS has advantages over other Sims, in that you have different types of activities: yard switching, local freight, long-haul freight, local passenger, express passenger, etc. Personally, I prefer switching to long-haul. So within the confines of a route (or several routes), each "engineer" can participate in the type of activity preferred, or progress thru the seniority hierarchy to the more prestigious assignments. However, each layer of activity should have rewards and penalties, based on parameters such as tonnage delivered/handled, and infractions/accidents/violations.
This approach would require establishing a set of groundrules for rewards, penalties, and advancement for the VR route(s), and a core group of "administrators" to run the VR route(s).
While I was "out of MSTS", I got into "Silent Hunter 2", a WW2 U-Boat Sim. I joined a group that formed virtual Flotillas to "refight" the Battle of the Atlantic. Members were required to select a Boat # and Captain appropriate to the year and month of "enlistment".
Each "Captain" was then assigned missions (Activities) created by the "Staff". As a captain, I ran the missions at my own pace. Thanx to time compression, most missions could be completed in a week of evenings. At the end of each mission, the tonnage that was sunk was added to your total; ship damage or crew casualties were subtracted from your tonnage based on a formula. The objective was to become skilled as a captain. Unfortunately, since we were required to run the Sim at 100% realism, we took realistic Casualties and soon over 80% of the original Captains had been lost at sea! (how's that for realism!!!)
What I'm getting to in sort of a round-about way, is that a VR needs to be more than simply "accumulating time" running the route. Railroading provides an inherent variation in Activity/Assignment that is NOT present in other Sims that can maintain interest and provide "advancement" goals and rewards.
The previous post regarding the various functions of Mechanical, Activity Writing, etc, was "right-on" in the respect that there is something in the VR world for everybody. However, there must be a core management group that is willing to devote time to "run" the VR by issuing the train orders, collecting the stats, maintaining the records, posting assignments and seniority; in short, doing the administrative portion. These duties can be periodically reassigned to keep the burden off of one group, but it is a task that MUST be done to keep the VR active.
I've been into 1:48 scale On2 model RRing for years and I look at VR as the Virtual equivalent to a group of Model RRers who have a monthly operating session. Except, you have the capability of running over 100s of miles of railroad! Even the biggest club layout can only represent a few actual miles or railroad. VR can be "model railroading" with NO boundaries!
HTH
I'm "CEO" of the Ohio Valley System VR. So I'll relate some things from my perspective.
Where to start LOL.
Other VR's went out of business because they are a TON of work to run. You don't just paint a couple planes, write a couple of routes on a schedule, and boom, you have a VA. VR's take work. I have a VA and three racing sim series, and the VR is more work than the rest, combined.
You also gotta pick decent routes. You can't base a VR on a route that's 200 miles of nothing. Flatland routes are prototypical, but ones with scenery and interesting operations will keep everyone's interest after the first couple of runs.
Train Sim is a hobby. Different people see it different ways. Just like model railroading. You have the scenery guys, the model detailers, building builders, kitbashers, scratch builders, engine modifiers, more than I can list. And, you have the OPERATORS. Guys who just wanna switch cars or run trains from A to B.
Many VR guys are "operators". We don't have to build a layout, repower a locomotive, lay track, it's all right here of us. Scenery guys, building guys, they have no idea why we like switching the same five customers on the same model railroad, and getting nothing else done but trackwork and a couple kit buildings.
One thing a VR does is give us "operators" a place to log hours, so we can see an accomplishment. Nobodyt else would understand.
That's one thing a VR does. It is like a model railroad club. The scenery guys, track layers, building guys, they're there (route developers). The model painters are there. The engine modifiers. There's a lot of that going on with realism physics and stuff like that.
The thing is, within that club, someone might decide to try their hand at painting a model. Why should they be limited by a "craft" or "job description"? If he is, he doesn't get to try something new, and everyone else doesn't benefit from his creativity.
Guys getting tired of a route. I've asked over and over if the guys were bored with what we use, Ohio Rail, Canton/Suddenly, Northern Arkansas. They think I'm nuts for even asking. I put in "connecting" routes to run our trains on, in the same geographic region. Very little interest in that even. These are the "Operators" of the model railroad world. Give us something interesting, and we'll be happy for years.
OK, to the actual topic at hand. Performance based promotions. Very good idea, something I wanted to do before, but thetre just isn't a system to do it right now. If someone had the time to look through each evaluation report he got back and do the "scoring", we would have it. But nobody does, with the amount of hours being run, we can't do it manually. It took hours each week just to total the run hours. So, until it beomes available, it just won't happen.
There's one word that will get you in trouble every time. "Mandatory". That type of thing isn't for everybody. We offer training courses for those who want to know more about prototypical operations, and how to do it within MSTS. It's not for everybody. I don't see a problem with collecting hours run, wuithout the evaluations, if they didn't count toward a promotion. You should have a choice. What's it hurt to count hours, it's an automated process. Just like payware shouldn't be mandatory, training courses shouldn't be mandatory, realism patches shouldn't be mandatory. Some will disagree, but I wanted the OVS to be less retentive about stuff like that. This is a hobby, not a profession. Different strokjes for different folks.
Run assignments. I originally had that on the site, seniority based, all set up. Nobody requested an assignment. I was part of another VR that assigned acts. I may have 45 minutes tio play with. Well, my assigned act was 2 hours long. So I could not run. Since then, another member asked for assigened runs, kind of confused me at first. But I went through the whole story. The activities are numbered, so I said just run them in order. Off he went, running the trips.
Like I said, we run a LOT of hours every week. It's very labor intensive to do it by hand. Automation allows me to go and paint models and write training activities and all the other stuff that adds to everyone's fun. IF we had someone to take care of the "scoring", or an automated way of doing it, we would do it yesterday. Or sooner.
Where to start LOL.
Other VR's went out of business because they are a TON of work to run. You don't just paint a couple planes, write a couple of routes on a schedule, and boom, you have a VA. VR's take work. I have a VA and three racing sim series, and the VR is more work than the rest, combined.
You also gotta pick decent routes. You can't base a VR on a route that's 200 miles of nothing. Flatland routes are prototypical, but ones with scenery and interesting operations will keep everyone's interest after the first couple of runs.
Train Sim is a hobby. Different people see it different ways. Just like model railroading. You have the scenery guys, the model detailers, building builders, kitbashers, scratch builders, engine modifiers, more than I can list. And, you have the OPERATORS. Guys who just wanna switch cars or run trains from A to B.
Many VR guys are "operators". We don't have to build a layout, repower a locomotive, lay track, it's all right here of us. Scenery guys, building guys, they have no idea why we like switching the same five customers on the same model railroad, and getting nothing else done but trackwork and a couple kit buildings.
One thing a VR does is give us "operators" a place to log hours, so we can see an accomplishment. Nobodyt else would understand.
That's one thing a VR does. It is like a model railroad club. The scenery guys, track layers, building guys, they're there (route developers). The model painters are there. The engine modifiers. There's a lot of that going on with realism physics and stuff like that.
The thing is, within that club, someone might decide to try their hand at painting a model. Why should they be limited by a "craft" or "job description"? If he is, he doesn't get to try something new, and everyone else doesn't benefit from his creativity.
Guys getting tired of a route. I've asked over and over if the guys were bored with what we use, Ohio Rail, Canton/Suddenly, Northern Arkansas. They think I'm nuts for even asking. I put in "connecting" routes to run our trains on, in the same geographic region. Very little interest in that even. These are the "Operators" of the model railroad world. Give us something interesting, and we'll be happy for years.
OK, to the actual topic at hand. Performance based promotions. Very good idea, something I wanted to do before, but thetre just isn't a system to do it right now. If someone had the time to look through each evaluation report he got back and do the "scoring", we would have it. But nobody does, with the amount of hours being run, we can't do it manually. It took hours each week just to total the run hours. So, until it beomes available, it just won't happen.
There's one word that will get you in trouble every time. "Mandatory". That type of thing isn't for everybody. We offer training courses for those who want to know more about prototypical operations, and how to do it within MSTS. It's not for everybody. I don't see a problem with collecting hours run, wuithout the evaluations, if they didn't count toward a promotion. You should have a choice. What's it hurt to count hours, it's an automated process. Just like payware shouldn't be mandatory, training courses shouldn't be mandatory, realism patches shouldn't be mandatory. Some will disagree, but I wanted the OVS to be less retentive about stuff like that. This is a hobby, not a profession. Different strokjes for different folks.
Run assignments. I originally had that on the site, seniority based, all set up. Nobody requested an assignment. I was part of another VR that assigned acts. I may have 45 minutes tio play with. Well, my assigned act was 2 hours long. So I could not run. Since then, another member asked for assigened runs, kind of confused me at first. But I went through the whole story. The activities are numbered, so I said just run them in order. Off he went, running the trips.
Like I said, we run a LOT of hours every week. It's very labor intensive to do it by hand. Automation allows me to go and paint models and write training activities and all the other stuff that adds to everyone's fun. IF we had someone to take care of the "scoring", or an automated way of doing it, we would do it yesterday. Or sooner.
Just a brief comment. What? From me? Yep. I think Rich is 100 per cent correct in his assessment of a real VR. What spin above is saying I don't feel is a real VR. Sorry, but it isn't. Listen the R is VR is reality. Just running route activities at your own liesure is not reality. Someone should assign what you do. Now, there should be no time limit imposed here. I think that should be done away with. You do it when you have the time, in other words. If it is a two hour run then you do the two hours, might be four half hour sessions if need be.
Look, one route should be enough if there are enough activities to be gleaned from it. The real guys run the same route every day. But.......and here is the but.......they don't run the same trains every time out, or do the same activities every time out. They aren't promoted based on time in the engine, but on how they perform on the job. So, this is why I agree with Rich's assessment of what a real VR should be. Now, if you run something other than that then it should be called something else. It ain't VR.....because the R is being left out of the equation. Sure, no one has time to run a real VR, unless they have a program to do it with, which Rich's program, cut down some and a few things added, I think could serve as a model for the real VR.....
Just my own opinion. Not meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to cause a ripple in the community. This is just a test......please don't adjust your sets.........this is only a test...
Good topic Rich. I bet you will get a lot of responses too. Whether you want some of them or not!!
Look, one route should be enough if there are enough activities to be gleaned from it. The real guys run the same route every day. But.......and here is the but.......they don't run the same trains every time out, or do the same activities every time out. They aren't promoted based on time in the engine, but on how they perform on the job. So, this is why I agree with Rich's assessment of what a real VR should be. Now, if you run something other than that then it should be called something else. It ain't VR.....because the R is being left out of the equation. Sure, no one has time to run a real VR, unless they have a program to do it with, which Rich's program, cut down some and a few things added, I think could serve as a model for the real VR.....
Just my own opinion. Not meant to hurt anyone's feelings or to cause a ripple in the community. This is just a test......please don't adjust your sets.........this is only a test...
Good topic Rich. I bet you will get a lot of responses too. Whether you want some of them or not!!
Great discussion so far, but I got to clear up some misunderstandings.
First, my opinion post was simply my opinion of how VRs could work. It's a long held opinion but it is one that causes controversy because many think it's my goal to sell Activity Enhancer. This is not the case. You as a potential buyer would have probably noted that there is no link given to purchasing Activity Enhancer, and nor did I suggest where to get it. That's because the intent of my post was not to sell Activity Enhancer but to propose an idea. Activity Enhancer isn't written exclusively for VRs. There is some VR material in it but both Mike and I agreed it wasn't enough of what he needed. And earlier this year when the subject became a fierce controversy, I said no to the idea to help calm the waters. Anyway, those features I added for VR capability were added at the very last second into the program as my 'guess' of what a VR might need. But I was only guessing and I didn't guess well enough.
Second, I am not trying to start my own VR. Good gracious I have no idea where that idea is coming from. Please note that all my posts here as of late have been pictures of buildings to go on the next expansion of Canton-Suddenly.
Third, please note that I also have very strict rules for posting. You must be civil. The even smallest appearance of a backhanded slap at anybody and I'll delete the post. But yes, a post was deleted. In regards to this incident, this poster had made a backhanded comment against one of the VRs (VR sibling rivalry I guess...) back earlier this year and I just would rather not have that individual posting in my All Aboard forum. I generally view this forum as a bulletin board so I can put out information quickly and easily as well as fixes and/or links to updates to the many people who have downloaded or purchased what I did. I don't really see this as a 'chatty' board but folks are welcome to talk as long as the subject matter clears my approval. I truly believe that the cynicism and caustic remarks seen on many other forums have been a great contributor to the loss of many friends who used to acquaint our forums. Honestly, I get alot of emails from alot of people about alot of things. Too many of them are people giving up the forums just because of the acrimony. Gee, I could write a novel about this topic and it's a terrible shame that frankly we all could. While I have opened this can of worms, please keep this thread topic to the discussion of VRs though.
Rich Garber
First, my opinion post was simply my opinion of how VRs could work. It's a long held opinion but it is one that causes controversy because many think it's my goal to sell Activity Enhancer. This is not the case. You as a potential buyer would have probably noted that there is no link given to purchasing Activity Enhancer, and nor did I suggest where to get it. That's because the intent of my post was not to sell Activity Enhancer but to propose an idea. Activity Enhancer isn't written exclusively for VRs. There is some VR material in it but both Mike and I agreed it wasn't enough of what he needed. And earlier this year when the subject became a fierce controversy, I said no to the idea to help calm the waters. Anyway, those features I added for VR capability were added at the very last second into the program as my 'guess' of what a VR might need. But I was only guessing and I didn't guess well enough.
Second, I am not trying to start my own VR. Good gracious I have no idea where that idea is coming from. Please note that all my posts here as of late have been pictures of buildings to go on the next expansion of Canton-Suddenly.
Third, please note that I also have very strict rules for posting. You must be civil. The even smallest appearance of a backhanded slap at anybody and I'll delete the post. But yes, a post was deleted. In regards to this incident, this poster had made a backhanded comment against one of the VRs (VR sibling rivalry I guess...) back earlier this year and I just would rather not have that individual posting in my All Aboard forum. I generally view this forum as a bulletin board so I can put out information quickly and easily as well as fixes and/or links to updates to the many people who have downloaded or purchased what I did. I don't really see this as a 'chatty' board but folks are welcome to talk as long as the subject matter clears my approval. I truly believe that the cynicism and caustic remarks seen on many other forums have been a great contributor to the loss of many friends who used to acquaint our forums. Honestly, I get alot of emails from alot of people about alot of things. Too many of them are people giving up the forums just because of the acrimony. Gee, I could write a novel about this topic and it's a terrible shame that frankly we all could. While I have opened this can of worms, please keep this thread topic to the discussion of VRs though.
Rich Garber
Rich and Mike both have very valid points in their posts. However, I tend to fall more on Mike's side of the fence. I look on MSTS as a substitute for model railroading. The reason I have never pursued mrris that I have none of the time. patience and almost none of the talent to build a decent sized mrr and I certainly don't have the money to have someone build it for me to run trains on. So I spend my time running trains - long haul, passenger and freight, switching and all things in between. Any VR that required me to do a specific activity, in a specific time frame and in a specific way would hold zero interest for me. I guess it all depends on what you want this hobby to be. Just my humble .02 worth. And, Rich I have no idea where anyone could get the idea that you were trying to sell Activity Enchancer; I certainly didn't.
The Genius Speaks ( 
) :
Interesting topic. I don't have time to share my input at length right now, but I will just note that what you guys are discussing has different vantage points. I can't speak from personal experience in the managerial sense, but I can from a train crew's perspective. The vantage point from a managerial standpoint and a traincrew, are vastly different:
Management: Profit-loss/efficient equipment-crew utilization
Train crew: Paycheck/work load/time expended
The two are not completely compatible.
I will be back later to elaborate. Got to run pretty quick.
Andre
) : Interesting topic. I don't have time to share my input at length right now, but I will just note that what you guys are discussing has different vantage points. I can't speak from personal experience in the managerial sense, but I can from a train crew's perspective. The vantage point from a managerial standpoint and a traincrew, are vastly different:
Management: Profit-loss/efficient equipment-crew utilization
Train crew: Paycheck/work load/time expended
The two are not completely compatible.
I will be back later to elaborate. Got to run pretty quick.
Andre
Well, I skipped posting to this thread earlier, because I thought I would just observe. Now that this thread has been "discovered", and is being "discussed" on the OVS forums, I will now post.
We attempted to have this discussion on the OVS forums earlier this year. Unfortunately, the discussion moved away from the topic ( the topic was about whether or not OVS would try to use Activity Enhancer, and if so, how would we use it. Before the thread became personal, Rich was involved in discussing possible changes to Activity Enhancer that would make it more useful to our VR. That dialog got lost when the tone and topic of the thread changed. All the officers felt that Activity Enhancer had great potential to enhance the "scoring" system used by our VR. There was some discussion with members that Activity Enhancer could "take the place of" a VR. This is not true. It can perform one of the functions of a VR, and do it in an enhanced, perhaps more realistic, way. What it does not do is provide the support, friendship, and sense of community that a VR does.
The decision by the officers of OVS not to use Activity Enhancer was based on the fact that if we were to use it to analyze the activity reports from members who had not purchased Activity Enhancer, we would be inappropriately and illegally using Activity Enhancer. We were not comfortable with either requiring every member to purchase Activity Enhancer, or with using it in an unapproved manner. Thus, were we to use it for some members ( those who purchased a copy ), and not for others, we would have been maintaining two "scoring" systems.
Rich is right. Spin is right. VR's will need to "mature" to the point where what they both are saying "comes together". VR's do need to have a VR version ( members just submit the reports generated by MSTS ) of a program that has the "functionality" of Activity Enhancer. Perhaps one that offers even more "in depth" analysis. During the OVS discussion mentioned above, Rich had some interesting ideas about expanding the capabilities of Activity Enhancer.
As an officer in a VR, I am very interested in the thoughts of everyone about these ideas, but especially from those who are NOT VR members. Perhaps they can supply ideas to the VR community that will help us expand our number of active engineers.
We attempted to have this discussion on the OVS forums earlier this year. Unfortunately, the discussion moved away from the topic ( the topic was about whether or not OVS would try to use Activity Enhancer, and if so, how would we use it. Before the thread became personal, Rich was involved in discussing possible changes to Activity Enhancer that would make it more useful to our VR. That dialog got lost when the tone and topic of the thread changed. All the officers felt that Activity Enhancer had great potential to enhance the "scoring" system used by our VR. There was some discussion with members that Activity Enhancer could "take the place of" a VR. This is not true. It can perform one of the functions of a VR, and do it in an enhanced, perhaps more realistic, way. What it does not do is provide the support, friendship, and sense of community that a VR does.
The decision by the officers of OVS not to use Activity Enhancer was based on the fact that if we were to use it to analyze the activity reports from members who had not purchased Activity Enhancer, we would be inappropriately and illegally using Activity Enhancer. We were not comfortable with either requiring every member to purchase Activity Enhancer, or with using it in an unapproved manner. Thus, were we to use it for some members ( those who purchased a copy ), and not for others, we would have been maintaining two "scoring" systems.
Rich is right. Spin is right. VR's will need to "mature" to the point where what they both are saying "comes together". VR's do need to have a VR version ( members just submit the reports generated by MSTS ) of a program that has the "functionality" of Activity Enhancer. Perhaps one that offers even more "in depth" analysis. During the OVS discussion mentioned above, Rich had some interesting ideas about expanding the capabilities of Activity Enhancer.
As an officer in a VR, I am very interested in the thoughts of everyone about these ideas, but especially from those who are NOT VR members. Perhaps they can supply ideas to the VR community that will help us expand our number of active engineers.
Joe, please do not take offence at this.
I have looked at a lot of the VR's, both here and across the pond. One thing I have found - if they didn't come up with it, it is not any good. And if you comment, you WILL get slammed. That is a fact. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Rich get hit that he wants to sell his program. But I have a very funny feeling that if he sells it or not, it really doesn't matter to him. I don't think he will lose his house or starve if he doesn't.
I have looked at a lot of the VR's, both here and across the pond. One thing I have found - if they didn't come up with it, it is not any good. And if you comment, you WILL get slammed. That is a fact. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Rich get hit that he wants to sell his program. But I have a very funny feeling that if he sells it or not, it really doesn't matter to him. I don't think he will lose his house or starve if he doesn't.
Joe and Kev, I agree with you both. My suggestion seems to have an explosive effect for a reason I don't understand and I guess it's time to get back to work. In this forum the thread is doing quite good and I appreciate the comments given. However, in the VR world this idea can't be talked about without it getting ugly. Mind you, from what I see, it's just a few and the same people who are having such a cow over this. And really, out of respect for the cow I should use something else because cows generally don't behave like what I'm seeing. I'm not going to lock this thread out of defference to Joe's wanting to see more comments so please continue to discuss if you choose to. I'll fiercely monitor this thread though and unless someone needs clarification I'll do my best to stay out of it. I got some buildings to build and the time it's taking to watch this merry-go-round happening elsewhere is taking up too much time.
Joe has given an excellent synopsis of what happened back then with Activity Enhancer possibly being used or modified for a VR. But because it's intended purpose all along was meant for the single user, it's really not a viable option for a VR without changes. And I really don't want to make those changes because creating routes is what I like to do. The one VR has come up with its own system and for them it apparently works well because it does a number of things administratively they need to get done. But, it only tabulates hours based on that old flight sim model and I just think that can and should be improved. The other VR uses the same system too I should add.
My feelings after having watched and even participated in this sideshow going on elsewhere, is that Kevin is right on. It ain't going to get done if it isn't done or voiced by them so while I still my idea is better, I best leave them alone. One in particular wrote something to the effect that who knows better what a VR wants than a VR? Certainly not me! And nor do I really care to.
Back to route building.
Rich Garber
Joe has given an excellent synopsis of what happened back then with Activity Enhancer possibly being used or modified for a VR. But because it's intended purpose all along was meant for the single user, it's really not a viable option for a VR without changes. And I really don't want to make those changes because creating routes is what I like to do. The one VR has come up with its own system and for them it apparently works well because it does a number of things administratively they need to get done. But, it only tabulates hours based on that old flight sim model and I just think that can and should be improved. The other VR uses the same system too I should add.
My feelings after having watched and even participated in this sideshow going on elsewhere, is that Kevin is right on. It ain't going to get done if it isn't done or voiced by them so while I still my idea is better, I best leave them alone. One in particular wrote something to the effect that who knows better what a VR wants than a VR? Certainly not me! And nor do I really care to.
Back to route building.
Rich Garber
for whatever it's worth, count me in agreement with those who favor performance related advancement, although we all know that the results can be 'fudged' - there are no 'save' and 'restart' points in real life...
again we seem to be coming up against the V scale railroader vs gamer mentality - for the gamer, merely staying alive long enough to accumulate various levels is reward enough, whereas those of us with a model railroading background tend to expect more realism out of our virtual railroading efforts. I remember having a card system that I intended to use to generate train orders and consists on my HO layout . Unfortunately, life intervened, and it was never implemented. the HO layout is but a distant memory...
good discussion...
Tim B
again we seem to be coming up against the V scale railroader vs gamer mentality - for the gamer, merely staying alive long enough to accumulate various levels is reward enough, whereas those of us with a model railroading background tend to expect more realism out of our virtual railroading efforts. I remember having a card system that I intended to use to generate train orders and consists on my HO layout . Unfortunately, life intervened, and it was never implemented. the HO layout is but a distant memory...
good discussion...
Tim B
I have been following this thread with interest, and I'd just like to add my two cents' worth. I am a member of several active VRs, and I was a member of several VRs that have become extinct or dormant. I joined those VRs and run the trains because I like having activities that I know will work (and VRs produce quality activities) on routes that I know have been run by a lot of others and will work (and not all routes are that way). I like the route scenery. I like having the help available that VRs provide in their forums (and I just ignore the garbage!). I don't belong to those VRs because of the rank structure, and I don't have any burning ambition to get to the top of the tree. I use MSTS as a hobby - if I want stress and intense work, I'll go to my office!
And, from comparing the number of members of VRs who run their activities with the much smaller number of people who post in their forums, I suspect that there are a number of people around who share that viewpoint. And I guess, from the discussions in this thread, there are a lot of people who have different ambitions.
So I guess that people are VR (Virtual Railroad) members for all sorts of reasons. No one has the monopoly on being right, and no one is wrong. So let's get back to doing what, for me, is the main point of a VR - to run trains. I hate seeing us waste energy on arguments - as opposed to expressing an opinion. Let's use that energy to make the MSTS even better.
If you have read this far, thanks.
And, from comparing the number of members of VRs who run their activities with the much smaller number of people who post in their forums, I suspect that there are a number of people around who share that viewpoint. And I guess, from the discussions in this thread, there are a lot of people who have different ambitions.
So I guess that people are VR (Virtual Railroad) members for all sorts of reasons. No one has the monopoly on being right, and no one is wrong. So let's get back to doing what, for me, is the main point of a VR - to run trains. I hate seeing us waste energy on arguments - as opposed to expressing an opinion. Let's use that energy to make the MSTS even better.
If you have read this far, thanks.
There are so many people in this hobby that are passionate about it. That is generally a good thing. I am not a route developer, but I know enough about the RE to both stay away from it, and appreciate the efforts of route developers. I am sure that Rich's routes wouldn't be what they are if he were not passionate about them. I am not an activity creator, but again, I know enough about the process to realize the amount of work required to create a challenging activity. I am sure Kevin's activities would not be what they are were he not passionate about their quality. All of us who are working on physics and couplers also have our desire to make MSTS better and more realistic. And members of VR's are also passionate about their part of the hobby. The only problem with "passion" about this hobby is that sometimes one group's passions seem to conflict with another group's desires. The same thing occurs when you get Windows and Linux users together in a forum.
When I joined the MSTS community, Kevin was getting lots of grief about "Default is for Dummies" over at Train-Sim. Some didn't understand that Kevin was saying ( in as few words as possible ), that we should strive to make MSTS better than it is just out of the box. It was because of Kevin that I decided that I should learn as much as I could ( and I am still learning ) about MSTS, to make it better for me, and to help others as I had been helped when I was just beginning.
I gravitated towards Rich's routes ( this was before Canton was released ), primarily because they had self installers and complete equipment packs. I wanted to have more than the default MSTS offered, but being new to the hobby, Rich's routes were easy for me to use, allowing me to begin to learn what I wanted to learn. Then, I gravitated to OVS because it was a VR based on Rich's Ohio Rail route. The rest is history.
All VR's will have to "grow" with the hobby. If you are standing still, you are really going backwards. I hope that OVS ( and other VR's too ) will be open enough to use the ideas available. That is why I hope to get ideas from those who are not VR members. I want to keep our members ( and we must keep things interesting to do that ), and I would love to attract new members, which will require that we have fresh ideas as well.
I know that I might be "stealing" some of Rich's ideas, but one day, I hope that OVS can incorporate some of the concepts in Activity Enhancer into an automated system ( necessary because of the number of members ). I want to warn everyone that I am open to new ideas, and I will "steal" yours if they can be adapted to my needs. I am intelligent enough not to miss out on something good just because it came from outside my regular "group" of people. So please post all your ideas. Rich had a wonderful idea with Activity Enhancer, but there is no reason all the good minds out there can't come up with either improvements or alternative ideas to it. I personally welcome the new ideas, and thank all in advance for their participation in what I hope will be an open, respectful discussion.
When I joined the MSTS community, Kevin was getting lots of grief about "Default is for Dummies" over at Train-Sim. Some didn't understand that Kevin was saying ( in as few words as possible ), that we should strive to make MSTS better than it is just out of the box. It was because of Kevin that I decided that I should learn as much as I could ( and I am still learning ) about MSTS, to make it better for me, and to help others as I had been helped when I was just beginning.
I gravitated towards Rich's routes ( this was before Canton was released ), primarily because they had self installers and complete equipment packs. I wanted to have more than the default MSTS offered, but being new to the hobby, Rich's routes were easy for me to use, allowing me to begin to learn what I wanted to learn. Then, I gravitated to OVS because it was a VR based on Rich's Ohio Rail route. The rest is history.
All VR's will have to "grow" with the hobby. If you are standing still, you are really going backwards. I hope that OVS ( and other VR's too ) will be open enough to use the ideas available. That is why I hope to get ideas from those who are not VR members. I want to keep our members ( and we must keep things interesting to do that ), and I would love to attract new members, which will require that we have fresh ideas as well.
I know that I might be "stealing" some of Rich's ideas, but one day, I hope that OVS can incorporate some of the concepts in Activity Enhancer into an automated system ( necessary because of the number of members ). I want to warn everyone that I am open to new ideas, and I will "steal" yours if they can be adapted to my needs. I am intelligent enough not to miss out on something good just because it came from outside my regular "group" of people. So please post all your ideas. Rich had a wonderful idea with Activity Enhancer, but there is no reason all the good minds out there can't come up with either improvements or alternative ideas to it. I personally welcome the new ideas, and thank all in advance for their participation in what I hope will be an open, respectful discussion.
This has been a very interesting topic. Very eye opening for sure.
I spend a lot of time asking the MEMBERS what they enjoy, what they want. But there aren't many NON-MEMBERS on the forum taking those polls and leaving feedback.
in this forum, I can hear what those outside the VR world think, what they want in a VR.
ASSIGNED ACTIVITIES keeps coming up. That would be very easy to put together. I can simply "hand out" assignments as they get done, or I can set up a bid where once a week or once a month, you bid on the assignments you want. For each assignment, the bidder with the highest seniority gets it. Prototypical.
I can have activity assignments started tonight on the forum. If that's not doing the job, I can set up a page for them. It's a simple addition. A prototypical operation.
Performance based scoring, you have no argument with me. Like I said, if there were a system in place we could use, or someone who could do it manually, we would have it yesterday.
By the way, V stands for Virtual and R stands for Railroad. It comes from our friends in the FS world, and their Virtual Airlines.
Now, if you're looking for learning prototypical operations, "graded" activity evaluations, and updated physics, check out our Training Institute. Another optional program the OVS offers. There, your activities aren't "scored", you have to do the act with no speed limits or durability limits exceeded, on time, in order for it to count.
A VR cannot be closed minded about new ideas. We know that. And gettting ideas from outside the VR is an excellent way of bringing new members on board, and adding theior talents to the mix.
I spend a lot of time asking the MEMBERS what they enjoy, what they want. But there aren't many NON-MEMBERS on the forum taking those polls and leaving feedback.
in this forum, I can hear what those outside the VR world think, what they want in a VR.
ASSIGNED ACTIVITIES keeps coming up. That would be very easy to put together. I can simply "hand out" assignments as they get done, or I can set up a bid where once a week or once a month, you bid on the assignments you want. For each assignment, the bidder with the highest seniority gets it. Prototypical.
I can have activity assignments started tonight on the forum. If that's not doing the job, I can set up a page for them. It's a simple addition. A prototypical operation.
Performance based scoring, you have no argument with me. Like I said, if there were a system in place we could use, or someone who could do it manually, we would have it yesterday.
By the way, V stands for Virtual and R stands for Railroad. It comes from our friends in the FS world, and their Virtual Airlines.
Now, if you're looking for learning prototypical operations, "graded" activity evaluations, and updated physics, check out our Training Institute. Another optional program the OVS offers. There, your activities aren't "scored", you have to do the act with no speed limits or durability limits exceeded, on time, in order for it to count.
A VR cannot be closed minded about new ideas. We know that. And gettting ideas from outside the VR is an excellent way of bringing new members on board, and adding theior talents to the mix.
Ok, first let me say I wasn't suggesting that Rich was trying to sell his program if any of you or Rich thought that is what I was saying. I just thought it might be a good model to work from and expand upon and delete from. That's all I was saying there. And I used the R in VR as Reality instead of Railroad only because a lot of people seem to put the two terms together or substitute one for the other. At least on a lot of forums it seems that the R stands for reality to many VR members. Now I have nothing against the VR's. Each to their own. If someone wants to join a VR then by all means join. You have every right to do that and I would never down anyone for that choice.
For me, however, the current structure just doesn't hold my interest. If it were changed to what I suggested in my first post it may not hold my interest either so my opinion is just that, an opinion, because I am too much of a loner type of train person than a group joiner. I feel it restricts me too much to join a VR. Sorry, just how I feel.
That being said though, and I suppose now my opinion carries no merit since I probably wouldn't join one either but I still think the VR's have to come up with something a little more realistic (yeah, there is that word again) as far as handing out the assignments. I mean, I could join a VR and do what I am doing now and just accumulate hours. So, why bother, unless of course it is for those that like to join groups and be in a group activity kind of situation. That is fine. I have no problem with that. Some people enjoy the sim more that way and that is great. I don't, however. Groups tend to restrict me, I find, and I don't like to be restricted in what I do. And I am not a very sociable animal, I am afraid. I am always willing to help. I have many friends here, but to restrict me to a VR would put a damper on that I think. But, then again, I may be all wrong.
But back to what Rich stated in his opening remarks about the way that VR's just tally hours as opposed to the ability to score other things important on a railroad for an engineer to be able to do. As he said. Canton is small and has many activities possible, but doing those will not get you many hours, which is what is needed, as I understand it, and I may be off here, if so, my apologies, but if hours are the basis for going up the ladder then that is not a true test of ones abilities as an engineer on any railroad. Granted there is nothing at the moment to fit the bill, so to speak, to get this other part of the engineers job a merit score, but if a VR wants to be what I consider to be a real VR, then someone ought to create a program for scoring this part of an engineers job. And I know we have the talent here for someone to be able to come up with something viable. It just hasn't been done yet, because everything seems to be status quo with VR's at the moment. Most people that are members are quite happy with the current system so it continues as such. I just think it would be more realistic to go further than hours only. And even I might then become interested. I say might. I don't know. But I would certainly be more interested in joining a VR than I am under the current system.
Look, you VR's that are holding on and making it work, I take my hats off to. Many have not been as fortunate and folded like a deck of cards. That says much about the leadership that those remaining VR's have. So I say, great. I have the utmost respect for people like Joe Morris. I know he is doing all he can to make the VR work. So this is not a negative post by any stretch of the imagination.
Rich was simply trying to get ideas out here for people to discuss, and so far I think it has been positive in that no one is calling anyone names or suggesting that someone is an idiot or anything like that. So I think it is a good topic and it can remain a good topic as long as we don't let emotions get in the way of it.
I still think this is a good thread. And Rich is right, he is a Route Creator, first and foremost and certainly we all know one of the best around. And I know he is not trying to sell his other program. I am sure he was just testing the waters to help him in his route creations of the future with respect to how his routes are being used by VR people and non VR people. A route creator should be aware of that and everything else going on in the community. And personally, he and Andre seem to be listening better than others because the activity on this and Andre's area is certainly going strong and continues to hold interest, where others have not.
Anyway. To all you VR people out there. I salute you for your being able to hold together. You must be doing something right that those that failed were not doing. You have every right to run your trains as you see fit and join any group you see fit. As I have my right not too. Doesn't mean I am against you though. Not at all!
For me, however, the current structure just doesn't hold my interest. If it were changed to what I suggested in my first post it may not hold my interest either so my opinion is just that, an opinion, because I am too much of a loner type of train person than a group joiner. I feel it restricts me too much to join a VR. Sorry, just how I feel.
That being said though, and I suppose now my opinion carries no merit since I probably wouldn't join one either but I still think the VR's have to come up with something a little more realistic (yeah, there is that word again) as far as handing out the assignments. I mean, I could join a VR and do what I am doing now and just accumulate hours. So, why bother, unless of course it is for those that like to join groups and be in a group activity kind of situation. That is fine. I have no problem with that. Some people enjoy the sim more that way and that is great. I don't, however. Groups tend to restrict me, I find, and I don't like to be restricted in what I do. And I am not a very sociable animal, I am afraid. I am always willing to help. I have many friends here, but to restrict me to a VR would put a damper on that I think. But, then again, I may be all wrong.
But back to what Rich stated in his opening remarks about the way that VR's just tally hours as opposed to the ability to score other things important on a railroad for an engineer to be able to do. As he said. Canton is small and has many activities possible, but doing those will not get you many hours, which is what is needed, as I understand it, and I may be off here, if so, my apologies, but if hours are the basis for going up the ladder then that is not a true test of ones abilities as an engineer on any railroad. Granted there is nothing at the moment to fit the bill, so to speak, to get this other part of the engineers job a merit score, but if a VR wants to be what I consider to be a real VR, then someone ought to create a program for scoring this part of an engineers job. And I know we have the talent here for someone to be able to come up with something viable. It just hasn't been done yet, because everything seems to be status quo with VR's at the moment. Most people that are members are quite happy with the current system so it continues as such. I just think it would be more realistic to go further than hours only. And even I might then become interested. I say might. I don't know. But I would certainly be more interested in joining a VR than I am under the current system.
Look, you VR's that are holding on and making it work, I take my hats off to. Many have not been as fortunate and folded like a deck of cards. That says much about the leadership that those remaining VR's have. So I say, great. I have the utmost respect for people like Joe Morris. I know he is doing all he can to make the VR work. So this is not a negative post by any stretch of the imagination.
Rich was simply trying to get ideas out here for people to discuss, and so far I think it has been positive in that no one is calling anyone names or suggesting that someone is an idiot or anything like that. So I think it is a good topic and it can remain a good topic as long as we don't let emotions get in the way of it.
I still think this is a good thread. And Rich is right, he is a Route Creator, first and foremost and certainly we all know one of the best around. And I know he is not trying to sell his other program. I am sure he was just testing the waters to help him in his route creations of the future with respect to how his routes are being used by VR people and non VR people. A route creator should be aware of that and everything else going on in the community. And personally, he and Andre seem to be listening better than others because the activity on this and Andre's area is certainly going strong and continues to hold interest, where others have not.
Anyway. To all you VR people out there. I salute you for your being able to hold together. You must be doing something right that those that failed were not doing. You have every right to run your trains as you see fit and join any group you see fit. As I have my right not too. Doesn't mean I am against you though. Not at all!
Some late breaking news here folks. Does my original opinion have some merit? Maybe not, but maybe so. This from an insider who informed me about one a current VR thread. These clips are from the owner himself. (These are partial clips btw):
We have discovered ways for the user to be able to upload data. What data? An Evalution report. Wouldn't it be cool to go through an attachemnt sequence like for a pic in the forums and attach your evalutaion and (the program's name) pulls the data from it?
There is other info in the eval report. All your broken speed limits, freight factors, emergencies, etc. All your performance is there.
You want to be evaluated, we will evaluate you ...
If this sounds familiar then let me remind you this is basically what I proposed in my opinion.
However, even with this in mind, please continue to discuss ideas because this thread is being read (apparently) and maybe even changing some opinions.
Rich Garber
We have discovered ways for the user to be able to upload data. What data? An Evalution report. Wouldn't it be cool to go through an attachemnt sequence like for a pic in the forums and attach your evalutaion and (the program's name) pulls the data from it?
There is other info in the eval report. All your broken speed limits, freight factors, emergencies, etc. All your performance is there.
You want to be evaluated, we will evaluate you ...
If this sounds familiar then let me remind you this is basically what I proposed in my opinion.
However, even with this in mind, please continue to discuss ideas because this thread is being read (apparently) and maybe even changing some opinions.
Rich Garber
OK, there is a "Bid Assignment" system in place at the OVS. It's a start. If it seems we need a seniority based system, no problem. If it needs to be on it's own web page, that's simple. We just need to work with the system a little bit and find what works and what doesn't. Including lots on input from the members.
Limitations of routes. There are two types of runs you can enter into your "hours". You can enter runs on our route, or you can enter runs on other routes. The system is set up so right now, you draw "virtual pay" for runs on our route, but not on the other routes. All of your hours accumulate. I log all of my hours there, I can scan my log by route, and see which acts I have already done. That pay was meant to be used in places like the VA stock market, where you buy "stocks" in VA's and VR's and support businesses. There's an offshoot VASM lottery too. THey haven't gotten to the point of allowing pay yet to add to your VASM account, but when that time comes, it'll make it more interesting.
So, while we support the routes we have, you are free to run any train on any route and log it.
We're also doing some intersting operations where our trains run over other routes via "run throughs". Passenger service to other cities. A coal train starting on Ohio Rail and going to a power plant, on Hamilton Norfolk. A trainload of steel going to a GM plant in Indianapolis. A couple cars of who-knows-what going from the Military Works in Zanesville to the Proving Ground on the Full Bucket Line. Sort of "thinking outside the box" and more of a feeling of being part of the national railroad system.
Rank is neat for some people, certifications from the training courses mean something to some people, some just like the "community". Are there better ideas? Sure. We wanna try them. it doesn't do anybody any good to thump our chests and scream "We are doing it the only right way" or to be satisfied with what we have.
Limitations of routes. There are two types of runs you can enter into your "hours". You can enter runs on our route, or you can enter runs on other routes. The system is set up so right now, you draw "virtual pay" for runs on our route, but not on the other routes. All of your hours accumulate. I log all of my hours there, I can scan my log by route, and see which acts I have already done. That pay was meant to be used in places like the VA stock market, where you buy "stocks" in VA's and VR's and support businesses. There's an offshoot VASM lottery too. THey haven't gotten to the point of allowing pay yet to add to your VASM account, but when that time comes, it'll make it more interesting.
So, while we support the routes we have, you are free to run any train on any route and log it.
We're also doing some intersting operations where our trains run over other routes via "run throughs". Passenger service to other cities. A coal train starting on Ohio Rail and going to a power plant, on Hamilton Norfolk. A trainload of steel going to a GM plant in Indianapolis. A couple cars of who-knows-what going from the Military Works in Zanesville to the Proving Ground on the Full Bucket Line. Sort of "thinking outside the box" and more of a feeling of being part of the national railroad system.
Rank is neat for some people, certifications from the training courses mean something to some people, some just like the "community". Are there better ideas? Sure. We wanna try them. it doesn't do anybody any good to thump our chests and scream "We are doing it the only right way" or to be satisfied with what we have.
Good post Mike. Apparently there have been some changes since I was last over there peeking around. Guess I will have to go over and peek some more. You make some valid points. Let's hope we are learning something here.
And that is interesting Rich and one I hadn't thought of but makes sense. And that is what I thought you were trying to say initially! So who knows. Change is good as long as it benefits the community. Even being a loner type of person, I still believe in community!
Still a good thread in my opinion!
And that is interesting Rich and one I hadn't thought of but makes sense. And that is what I thought you were trying to say initially! So who knows. Change is good as long as it benefits the community. Even being a loner type of person, I still believe in community!
Still a good thread in my opinion!
I just happened back on this old thread (5 YEARS LATER) while searching for the "Did OVS Move?" thread to reply to it.
Since the time of that debacle, another VR was started that used a lot of the ideas here.
Assigned work
You have to work up through yard, local, etc
Performance based system (completely error free activity logs must be turned in)
I belong to it, and have completed several runs, although with assigned mandatory activities, you're really at the mercy of the activity writer and trying to get into his head what he wants when the documentation and switch lists are not clear. Or contradicts.
They don't make their statistics available, or even the most recent run each engineer has made. But it hasn't hurt us. We've had a few members who started there and came to the OVS. I'm sure some went the other way.
The thing is, with a VR like the OVS, you can do what you want. You can work toward a perfect Activity Eval, and only log the ones that are. You can assign yourself to one division and be assigned a "mandatory" run though the activity system. You can track your own performance, how many times caught speeding, freight damage, red lights ran.
You can also come home from a long day at work and take a trip through a scenic area. Try a new route. Take a break from the diesels and run a steamer. Or an interurban. You can try your hand at writing an activity, or paint a piece of equipment.
An open VR is what YOU make it.
We all know in real life there is no hour counter, no ranks. You go in as a conductor, and when they need engineers and your at the top of the list, you get promoted. Speed too often, or run a red, and you're docked pay or fired.
Some railroads you start out in the yard and locals and progress to the road trains. A couple years ago, you could bypass all that. Many times, it's the guys with seniority who work the yards and locals and helpers, cuz they like the regular hours.
So, to have a realistic system, takes so much away from what the majority of people want. Mandating what you think the hobby should be, or what I think it should be, really limits who will take part, which limits the number of people contributing tech help and new activities and equipment and everything else.
Since the time of that debacle, another VR was started that used a lot of the ideas here.
Assigned work
You have to work up through yard, local, etc
Performance based system (completely error free activity logs must be turned in)
I belong to it, and have completed several runs, although with assigned mandatory activities, you're really at the mercy of the activity writer and trying to get into his head what he wants when the documentation and switch lists are not clear. Or contradicts.
They don't make their statistics available, or even the most recent run each engineer has made. But it hasn't hurt us. We've had a few members who started there and came to the OVS. I'm sure some went the other way.
The thing is, with a VR like the OVS, you can do what you want. You can work toward a perfect Activity Eval, and only log the ones that are. You can assign yourself to one division and be assigned a "mandatory" run though the activity system. You can track your own performance, how many times caught speeding, freight damage, red lights ran.
You can also come home from a long day at work and take a trip through a scenic area. Try a new route. Take a break from the diesels and run a steamer. Or an interurban. You can try your hand at writing an activity, or paint a piece of equipment.
An open VR is what YOU make it.
We all know in real life there is no hour counter, no ranks. You go in as a conductor, and when they need engineers and your at the top of the list, you get promoted. Speed too often, or run a red, and you're docked pay or fired.
Some railroads you start out in the yard and locals and progress to the road trains. A couple years ago, you could bypass all that. Many times, it's the guys with seniority who work the yards and locals and helpers, cuz they like the regular hours.
So, to have a realistic system, takes so much away from what the majority of people want. Mandating what you think the hobby should be, or what I think it should be, really limits who will take part, which limits the number of people contributing tech help and new activities and equipment and everything else.
In an ideal world, there would be a range of VRs catering for all types of participants - prototypical fans, gamers, etc etc. But most VRs have started quickly and gone out of business quickly for a variety of reasons, one of the main ones being the amount of work that it takes to run a VR.
There few VRs around now - I belong to 5 of them, and I'm the day-to-day admin person for one of those - one of the "open" ones, to use Mike's definition. 3 of the VRs are open, 1 uses mainly payware routes, and 1 uses just one route and mandates the sequence of activities.
I'm always interested in talking about ways to enhance the experience of being part of a VR for the members. But I have to be honest and say that I would want enhancements to be part of an automated system if at all possible. I rarely get the time to run trains now, as the spare time from my RW work is taken up with answering questions (email and forums), inducting new members, managing certification/training courses, adding new items to the database, and so on. And we have an automated record keeping system for recording the hours run. The former manual way used to take me a couple of hours each day just to record the hours run! If someone can automate my job and have the system do more to enhance the experience for the range of members in our VRs, it would be great.
There few VRs around now - I belong to 5 of them, and I'm the day-to-day admin person for one of those - one of the "open" ones, to use Mike's definition. 3 of the VRs are open, 1 uses mainly payware routes, and 1 uses just one route and mandates the sequence of activities.
I'm always interested in talking about ways to enhance the experience of being part of a VR for the members. But I have to be honest and say that I would want enhancements to be part of an automated system if at all possible. I rarely get the time to run trains now, as the spare time from my RW work is taken up with answering questions (email and forums), inducting new members, managing certification/training courses, adding new items to the database, and so on. And we have an automated record keeping system for recording the hours run. The former manual way used to take me a couple of hours each day just to record the hours run! If someone can automate my job and have the system do more to enhance the experience for the range of members in our VRs, it would be great.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.