another route for engine bots?
 

I gather that the new patch has been running into problems with getting the bots to go through all the required changes to run the engines.

What if there were 4 diesels instead of 2, and 4 electric engines instead of 2?

Only 2 diesel engines would run at a time, and only 2 electrics.

Which engines operate would depend on whether there's a player in the obermachinist role. If no such player is in that game at that instant, then the OTHER two diesels and other two electrics would be in operation.

The OBM operated engines we'd call "OBM engines" with the other pair "bot engines".

If "bot engines" are in use, them they are commanded directly from any of the helm stations, as now, using the current pre-patch code.

If there's an OBM playing, then he manipulates the controls and the EOT signals from the helm are just signals, having no direct effect on the engines, using the new code, but with no need to code the bots to operate the new engines.....

3rd party views would see whichever engines are running as normal. The seperation of engines in "bot" and "OBM" driven, using extant code for the former and working patch code for the manual operation, would short-circuit I believe most of the problems currently being experienced getting bot code to work these more complex engine evolutions. (if you'll pardon the electric puns!)

Naturally the fact that there's an additional two pairs of engines would be in all respects invisible.

A different way of looking at the bot problem?

I see no mentions of bots

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...226377&page=43

There was mention of difficulties with the bots/engines a couple of weeks ago by some of the testers, and it was implied that some simplification of the obermachinist role might be occurring in order to make getting the bots to work easier. All "rumour-mill" you understand.

I don't know if that's still a problem at all, or if simplification of the obermachinist engine control has been simplified due to bot programming issues.

It occurred to me that if the "double-engines" approach was used, it would be possible to do away with the need for programming bots in a very effecient way, by making the helm command and control the engines when no obermachinist was present on the boat, by using our current code for engines, and then to restrict the obermachinist to manual use only, using code optimised for that content.

I'm sure it would have thrown up some new problems, but on the face of it it seemed a neat solution...

Is obermachinist present on boat? Y/N
If Y, use new code for engine control with helmsman sending signals only
If N use old code, with helmsman actively controlling engine speeds as now. (which we know works well)

So there's no source for the statement, it's just hearsay.

The bots operating the machines correctly is an organic way to get players to learn how to do it via observation. Start in a game where the bot does it to see how it's done. To do the contrary would be irresponsible: people trying to follow the bots correct actions would keep failing without constructive feedback. That's just pure frustration.

That's a good point if true. I'm not sure that "watching bots to see how things are done" is actually a thing though. As a solo-player trying to figure things out, personally I'd look for training-films before embarking in "monkey-see, monkey do" via the bots. That said, I can now see how it might be possible, or indeed intended as a route to learning. As that is an area of the game that really needs supporting (training) I take your point.