Request to BNSF50

[dnutter]

Hello BNSF50,

Hmm, I want to know that why there bit different? Because, see invisible tracks bit close with grade post but I was think that those need to bit more far more than to close..I know why those bit close with grade post?

Because, I want to bit more far away on grade post..on left

- David

 

[Gandalf0444]

Those crossings are meant to be used with the ATLS system.. Look up ATLS using the search function and you should find the thread.:wave:

 

[bnsf50]

here's the post
Go down to post #5 and look at the picture for a diagram of how they need to be set up and then read the instructions that come with the ATLS system by Boat in the ? mark link in surveyor. Somebody made a small board showing them set up too, can't remember who right now.

 

[dnutter]

Thanks Gandalf and BNSF50!

Now I need to learn how to work with ATLS system because those bit more different to me make me bit confusing because I never seen this before..

But I was thought that this grade with double for interchange with separate stay away from grade post about 5 or 6 feet away..as well..

Thanks!

- David

 

[dnutter]

Eh, it's still not success

Because, I was tried to work with Grade Xing NRC 2L Gated WSL, ATLS, ATLS spline tried to connect with Grade Xing NRC 2L Gated WSL but it's still not work because when trains come to cross on grade but those won't start light on or gate down nothing else...

But, I remember that last time I was like those BNSF50 grade crossing about last 1 year ago pretty so great to me till now those bit change make give me confusing how to work with ATLS connect with grades stuffs..

Because I never has my experience with ATLS

Last week you was suggest me need to read on "5 post" belong with ATLS so I read them but it's still bit I don't understand how to work with ATLS...

- David

 

[817TAYLOR]

if you are still interested i think i found the solution
contact me to find out how

 

[btvfd]

hi BNSF50
just wanted to say i love your grade xings, they work without fail in TRS09 however almost 90% won't show up in TRS12 because of outdated build number looks like 2.x, just woundering on how to address this because i plan to upload a route to the dls which uses these awsome xings.

thank you for your time

 

[bnsf50]

hi BNSF50
just wanted to say i love your grade xings, they work without fail in TRS09 however almost 90% won't show up in TRS12 because of outdated build number looks like 2.x, just woundering on how to address this because i plan to upload a route to the dls which uses these awsome xings.

thank you for your time

This is the first that I have heard of this problem, can you be more specific.

 

[cweis127]

The crossing system isn't that hard to set up. I found out how to do it with traffic stoppers involved.

 

[btvfd]

aw man, it turns out you have to check for error then after it validates the error goes away for almost all now but still some that state build numbers below 2.7 no longer supported.
thanks for having me check the above because that did help with some of them.
i guess anything without an update from 2.5 won't show up on map in trs12

thank you for your help

 

[bnsf50]

aw man, it turns out you have to check for error then after it validates the error goes away for almost all now but still some that state build numbers below 2.7 no longer supported.
thanks for having me check the above because that did help with some of them.
i guess anything without an update from 2.5 won't show up on map in trs12

thank you for your help

I'm glad you got that sorted. But are you trying to say that any thing that is no longer supported, IE below 2.7, even though it's error free will not work in TS12? If that's true then I'm sure glad I didn't waste my money on 12.

 

[btvfd]

hi bnsf50

yup it is a TRS12 problem for sure.... i am building the route in 2009 but wanted to test it in TRS12, thats when everything below 2.7 showed up with errors.. safe to say that 2009 is the better choice almost everything on the DLS works with it.

2012 has some cool stuff in it but it doesnt like the older content on the DLS very much.

thank you for your outstanding content, keep up the great work.



jim

 

[btvfd]

basically had to go through and check everything with a red (!) read the error and if after checking them no error shows then it resets and the content shows up on the screen as OK, however if the red (!) remains then it has not been updated to the new standards of 2.7 and above i.e. there is a chance it wont show on the map. all of your xing content is error free in TRS 2009 and works perfectly there but in TRS12 the content with no updates to 2.7 show up with the above error and show up red in surveyor and also wont show on map.


i think its a compatibility mode problem since there is the option in TRS 2009 so older stuff will work but its not in TRS12 and that sucks because it makes a lot of older content unable to be used without making mods to the original content file.

 

[backyard]

What to do...

In TS12, Open the assets with the low build number in Content Creator Plus using the Ctrl+Shift+C key, OK the upgrade notice and close saving changes.

 

[maruffijd]

In TS12, Open the assets with the low build number in Content Creator Plus using the Ctrl+Shift+C key, OK the upgrade notice and close saving changes.

I agree here. all anyone has to do is this, and these "outdated warning" assets run smoother than a bullet train. So TS12 is actually a good version. I myself have quite alot of thre ATLS run assets and was willing to put in the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears to make this my favorite program to use. I noticed that this franchise is one where the effort put into a project = the amount of final satisfaction you can receive.

 

[bnsf50]

I agree here. all anyone has to do is this, and these "outdated warning" assets run smoother than a bullet train. So TS12 is actually a good version. I myself have quite alot of thre ATLS run assets and was willing to put in the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears to make this my favorite program to use. I noticed that this franchise is one where the effort put into a project = the amount of final satisfaction you can receive.

How can they run smoother just because the build number is changed? Which is all you're doing in this case.:hehe: IE your not fixing any errors because there are none.

 

[btvfd]

i agree with BNSF50, his content doesn't have any errors at all, the build number shouldn't matter as long as the content is error free. changing the build number in TRS12 is kind of stupid because the program should have been designed to work with all content that is error free. like i said before BNSF50's content was not faulty as i did not open it in the CMP editor, i saw no reason to change anything, all i did was right click the item and ran the check error and fault program which runs a validation program,once that was done everything checked out good. no mods made to anything and they still retain the original build number.
there were a couple of build 2.5 that still show up in TRS12 that have the build error but my route is being made in 2009 and i was testing it in 2012 only to find potental problems that may arise latter on.

as a matter of fact changing a build number can actually screw up otherwise error free content, it's actually better to have the original creator post an updated version which would solve the problem for low build numbers . i want to thank BNSF50 and a few others who pointed that out to me on another issue and i am glad they did because without their insight i would have made a lot of trouble for myself, so with their advice i was able to avoid a lot of headaches.

the only content out there that really should be fixed is those that creators fail to include all of the files in their content, like when you find references to dependencies that don't exist due to the fact that they are custom content dependencies not included but still referenced in the upload to the DLS or hosting website.

 

[backyard]

Let us calmly advance...

i agree with BNSF50, his content doesn't have any errors at all, the build number shouldn't matter as long as the content is error free. changing the build number in TRS12 is kind of stupid because the program should have been designed to work with all content that is error free. like i said before BNSF50's content was not faulty as i did not open it in the CMP editor, i saw no reason to change anything, all i did was right click the item and ran the check error and fault program which runs a validation program,once that was done everything checked out good. no mods made to anything and they still retain the original build number.
there were a couple of build 2.5 that still show up in TRS12 that have the build error but my route is being made in 2009 and i was testing it in 2012 only to find potential problems that may arise latter on.

as a matter of fact changing a build number can actually screw up otherwise error free content, it's actually better to have the original creator post an updated version which would solve the problem for low build numbers . i want to thank BNSF50 and a few others who pointed that out to me on another issue and i am glad they did because without their insight i would have made a lot of trouble for myself, so with their advice i was able to avoid a lot of headaches.

the only content out there that really should be fixed is those that creators fail to include all of the files in their content, like when you find references to dependencies that don't exist due to the fact that they are custom content dependencies not included but still referenced in the upload to the DLS or hosting website.

That is exactly why the build numbers are advancing, due to obsoleted tags, containers, etc. Backdating TS12 precludes the ability to apply advancing technology to all assets used in the game.

The requirement of 2.7 or greater is quite a bit of leeway. I download an import all content through TS2009, so it get's a sufficient build number if I need that content in TS12. Remember that using an obsolete build number is an error on the part of the Content Creator. Some of the most advanced assets used a build 2 until lately, for compatibility in all games...but they were so advanced the Legacy games could not run them anyway.

When coding changes occur they may be major or minor however the use of advanced technology is the antithesis of "stupid." Using C vs C# is antiquated...C++ was the beginning of content creation methods becoming obsolete.

A good example of advancing technology is to remember that in all versions of Trainz up to the service packs of TRS2004 did not even require a config.txt file! Imagine the heat generated when our beloved Content Creators had to learn how to build a config.txt files from the then new TRS2004 Content Creator's Guide!

 

[Dermmy]

It might be worth straightening out our terminology. In TS12 an unsupported build number is NOT an error, it is a warning. Changing the build number will have absolutely no effect on performance and could actually break the asset if higher build numbers require features not included in the original.

There is no problem whatsoever running 'low' build numbers in TS12 provided there are no actual errors.

Warnings do not stop an asset from working, errors do...

 

[bnsf50]

It might be worth straightening out our terminology. In TS12 an unsupported build number is NOT an error, it is a warning. Changing the build number will have absolutely no effect on performance and could actually break the asset if higher build numbers require features not included in the original.

There is no problem whatsoever running 'low' build numbers in TS12 provided there are no actual errors.

Warnings do not stop an asset from working, errors do...

I agree this is the way it should be. In fact they shouldn't even show a warning if the build number is obsolete, 10 dosen't. But then why are my crossings not showing up in ts12 surveyor if the build number is 2.5, as btvfd stated?