**** Darjeeling Himalayan Railway creation team members. ****

John

Thank you for your comments

There is another real problem with the procedural track. It requires that all the converging tracks to be on the same plane and that plane must be absolutely horizontal, this was the major problem in adapting the track to the route. Bill, who did the relaying found that this need for absolute level track was a greater problem than the radius limitation. I think that the code reads and compares the track height. Even if the diverging angle is satisfactory the height difference problem remains. Tony's cure does not fix that problem. I think that the radius should be code-related to the gauge, not fixed at big rail standard.

I assumed that the proc track which was given the same KUIDs as the original would just slot in, I was wrong. It did 'just slot in' but needed a lot of work to make it fit and even then as the entire route is built on an incline the junctions still required a lot of fiddling because of the rail height factor, and there are many places where fiddling with the ground height is just not possible. My honest opinion is that moving to proc track was a waste of time.

I will look at my two missing items, they are both new items. Mikes waterfalls, I think I can fix as I'm using 3.6 CM.

Is the station you mention 'Rangtong' Was it listed as 'not found' when you installed the route? There is something strange here, I have that installed, visible without error in CM, visible and placeable in Surveyor, but CM can't see it.

Peter
 
If I am able to recover from a really, really strange TANE/HDD problem, I will do my best to get Dave's updated content out there to the DLS.I have an untainted backup, so it is only a matter of time.

Bill
 
John and Manuel

44700:35704 is a mesh library which is obsolete, I thought I had removed it from the route.

44700:100657 is another very old obsolete library and I don't understand how it was included in the CDP.

Finally, the waterfall from Mike Sutton. Because of the texture problem, he gave me permission to change the files and upload to the DLS as kuid:44700:25613. By the time you read this, it should have been accepted. Use find and replace in surveyor, or dig into the route config and change the reference.


In any case I will sort all this out here and hopefully just upload what is necessary.

What about Rangtong? Is that the one you refer to as "one station update"

Peter
 
Guys

I have decided that 44700:35704 should have been uploaded.

However my problem now is getting the file into your hands. My main machine has gone totally dead, don't yet know why, and my construction machine which is normally kept off-line refuses to write to a USB drive for me to get the file into this third computer which is obviously on-line.

Please be patient, I hope to find some way to fix this dilemma.

Peter
 
Yes Rangtong is the station. The TS12 version is :1 whereas the needed one is version :4. Best of luck in overcoming your problems.
 
I managed to coerce the stubborn machine into disgorging the CDP and you can find it here ftp://darjeelingtrainz.com/makeup-road-library-file.cdp. It is late and I am tired and I hope this works.

About Rangtong, why does the build of 1 prevent it loading? The Mahanadi Station is by the same creator and has the same build number and that loads without any fuss. There has to be another reason. Don't forget, the Rangtong asset works in Surveyor and shows no error in CM.

It just doesn't get loaded when the main route is committed. There must be something that CM sees as strange during the committal process. It would help very much if you could do some detective work, if it needs to be changed, I have permission to upload the changed file.

Peter
 
The config table expects :4 so won't load :1. Changing it to :1 works OK. Another point. I did a downhill run today and found a gap in the track just before junction Z#4 just above Tindharia works. I also found unfortunately that a lot of the vehicles on the road were floating several feet in the air (the Indian rope trick modernised?)
 
Gentlemen.

My main computer collapsed yesterday which is going to distract me considerably. If I don't respond to a message promptly, you will understand the reason.

John. Thank you for your detective work, but it introduces a puzzle. You found that the list in the config showed <kuid:126323:28005:4, when I packed the config file that entry would have shown :1 as do all the others by the same creator. Can that table get altered internally?

Blame it on T:ane!!!!

I'll look for the missing road section. I will ask that to identify any place on the route, I am given the North-South co-ordinates. The east/west figures aren't needed. It is so much easier and more accurate to find a spot. The floating cars are strange, I'll look into it. Can you give me a typical location?

Peter
 
More!

I cleaned any remnants of the DHR off my laptop. I then downloaded the current DLS version, installed it and downloaded the dependencies which included the #126323 buildings which included Rangtong station. No errors in any of them.

This should have given me an entire pre-T:ane installation.

I then installed the CDP's I posted recently. These do not include the Rangtong etc. bits but do include the latest version of the DHR route with the procedural track. I must point out that at no time did Content Manager report an error.

Result:-

All the Rangtong bits are missing with the red boxes visible.

I found the position where John reported the missing road. Nothing missing for me. I accept that his comment was valid.

I also accept that John found cars and buses in the air. None of these were evident when I was finalising the road. (John please give me co-ords)

Environmental textures missing all over the place.

My reluctant conclusion, drawn from the above and my experience over the last months, is that T:ane can't handle the DHR.

I'm also fed up with the whole project. Factor that into my conclusion.

Peter
 
I feel your frustation, Peter. I've essentially done the same thing and came to the same conclusion about TANE and the DHR. When I cruise down the tracks looking for "bad stuff", and find something, I do a Save As.. and back out of Surveyor. Then, I go back in and choose the just-saved route. Presto! The "bad stuff" is gone and back to normal.

It is gratifying to see my darkened content looks much better now under TANEs glaring spotlight, but according to what I hear in the Froum, TANE is going to have some sort of lighting adjusting setting in the tools. If so, this negates virtually everything I've done.

I'm not surprised TANE can't handle the DHR. Given it was originally created with/for TS2004 and adjusted upward through each new version, I've concluded the changes were just too much.

Now that I've dug myself out of the phantom directory quagmire TANE gave me, I'm back to whatever passed for normal. My drive to finish the adjustment of content just isn't there any more.

Bill
 
Peter I've been away all day so, if possible, I'll try to find the information tomorrow if I have time. If not it will be at least Wednesday before I shall have time. I'll also give Bill's idea of save as (as my kuid) and see what happens. I can well sympathise if you just say "to hell with it, I've had enough".
 
Guys

From now on I intend to work on the following basis. T:ane and the DHR are an unpredictable combination so I will not try and fix individual problems. If three or more people report precisely the same problem at the same coordinates, I will do what I can to solve the problem. I can't fix a problem that I cannot reproduce.

Peter
 
Regarding the DHR and our work to update it.

I have decided that my remaining years are too valuable to me to continue the fight with T:ane. I will no longer work with or support the DHR with the current T:ane version. When the next version appears then, hoping for a miracle, I will test it and the DHR again. To be honest, I don't have much hope and if the current lack of interest in the update, 3 people, that is all who expressed an interest, continues with the new version then I give up completely.

If someone else wants to have a go, I will hand them the baton and give them all the files, and help where I can.

I can not speak for Hiballer here. It is possible that he may continue with his update tasks, it is his decision. The assets he has been working on are amongst those affected by the DHR related T:ane problems.

Peter
 
I agree with Peter entirely. My alteration of Dave Drake's (dmdrake) content was only to the brightness of each piece of content. I've finished that task for over 1200 items. If I'm able, I might upload them to the DLS. I've been having failure after failure with my build (90948) of TANE. For each attempt to work on a given route, I spend at least a half hour getting TANE to run properly. No game worth anything should have the user scrambling to make it work properly. That isn't the point of a game. But, I'm ranting.

From what I've been able to find out of the new, improved version of TANE is there will be a 'brightness control', or perhaps it will be called a 'gamma control'. In either case, my efforts at reducing the brightness of content originally created for the 2004 version of the DHR will be negated. Frustrating, but that's the price of development.

I will not be making any more updates for the DHR either.

Bill
 
ADDENDUM TO MY LAST: I just now found out I cannot upload Dave's content without changing their build number to at least 3.5 because that's the minimum build acceptable to the DLS. I am NOT going to go back through all 1200 items just to change the build number. I changed a few, and was rewarded by warnings and outright errors in some content. Sorry, not going to happen.

Bill
 
Thank you both of you for what you have tried to do. In my correspondence with Peter I have appreciated your efforts and his frustration and as the level of interest is so low why bother. Enjoy your well earned rest.
 
teddytoot said:
Thank you both of you for what you have tried to do. In my correspondence with Peter I have appreciated your efforts and his frustration and as the level of interest is so low why bother. Enjoy your well earned rest.
Click to expand...

It was a long run, that's for sure. We started in TS2004 with a crew of around 15 hard-core and another 10 supporters. It took us over 2 years to complete version 1. Each new iteration of the route left us with fewer supporters. It is a natural thing to lose support and I don't hold any grudges at all. In fact, I welcome the continued support for the route. I'm afraid what happened is the game changed under us. New "rules" for content changing with no or little notice which we found only when we received warnings or errors we had to fix. Then, the game engine changed far enough to give us more grief. Now, with TANE SP2, we've reached the end. There is no way to fit our admittedly old route to the "new" vagaries of TANE. Nobody knows what the next-greatest version of TANE will bring in the way of killing off routes with a proven track record simply by ruling our content as "outdated" even though it still functions perfectly as content with a build number of 2.7. What is odd to me is a game which makes functioning content stop functioning simply by legislating it out of existence by rules. The original content is visible in-game and functions as it ever used to, yet without changing a great deal of the text in the Config file, we cannot keep it going.

Sorry, I'm ranting and I didn't intend to.

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Asking for some DLC purchasing advice
Replies
2
Views
981
PortLineParker
P
D
Real Life Model Railroading
Replies
16
Views
1K
OddRails
O
M
TransDEM Questions
Replies
6
Views
715
MickC57
M
P
It was 20 years ago today....
Replies
7
Views
528
JCitron
J
M
easy base-route creation for TransDEM using KML files
Replies
7
Views
943
Dinorius_Redundicus
D
Back
Top