TRC Triggers Displaying Multiple Channels

[AdvancedApproach]

Is there a way to detect why it's doing this? I've never had this problem before.

 

[JCitron]

I've seen this when there's a conflict with the TRC crossing numbering system. Try using a different numbering system for the crossings that's not as "close" to each other. It could also be a bug, but once I fixed a conflict due to merging in a route, the issue went away on my route.

 

[AdvancedApproach]

I've seen this when there's a conflict with the TRC crossing numbering system. Try using a different numbering system for the crossings that's not as "close" to each other. It could also be a bug, but once I fixed a conflict due to merging in a route, the issue went away on my route.

The problem still hasn't gone way John.

 

[JCitron]

There's been a recent update to the TRC4 triggers. I recommend installing that. I'm not sure if this will fix the problem, but it may.

 

[AdvancedApproach]

There's been a recent update to the TRC4 triggers. I recommend installing that. I'm not sure if this will fix the problem, but it may.

I have the current one and it's still acting up.

; <kuid2:458053:100686:28> : Validating <kuid2:458053:100686:28>
; <kuid2:458053:100686:28> : Script Compile
! <kuid2:458053:100686:28> : TrainzBaseSpec::RestoreAssetLibrariesFromPrebuilt> <kuid2:61392:4050:72> forced rebuild
! <kuid2:61392:4050:72> : VE272: cdhelper.gs(77) : No overridden function found when calling inherited().
! <kuid2:61392:4050:72> : VE272: cdhelper.gs(84) : No overridden function found when calling inherited().
! <kuid2:61392:4050:72> : VE220: commonlibv3.gs(88) : 'inherited' not yet called within mandatory function, line 88.
! <kuid2:61392:4050:72> : VE220: commonlibv3.gs(97) : 'inherited' not yet called within mandatory function, line 97.
! <kuid2:458053:100686:28> : TrainzBaseSpec::RestoreAssetLibrariesFromPrebuilt> <kuid2:61392:8191:13> forced rebuild
! <kuid2:61392:8191:13> : VE267: trcinterlockingtowerpath.gs(124) : Inherited function is obsolete (InterlockingTowerPath::SetObjectStateForActivation(InterlockingObject)).
! <kuid2:61392:8191:13> : VE267: trcinterlockingtowerpath.gs(152) : Inherited function is obsolete (InterlockingTowerPath::SetObjectStateForCancellation(InterlockingObject)).
! <kuid2:61392:8191:13> : VE267: trcitlib.gs(38) : Function GetName is obsolete in object Asset.

 

[JCitron]

Have you tried changing the numbers of some of the triggers by placing leading zeros?

10&n, where n= the item number in 10 group, gets updated to 010&n.

I had to do this with some channels that had 4&n and 40&n. putting a leading zero on 4&n helped.

 

[AdvancedApproach]

There's been a recent update to the TRC4 triggers. I recommend installing that. I'm not sure if this will fix the problem, but it may.

I'm doing an extended database repair. Perhaps that'll solve my problem. It's the last resort.

 

[AdvancedApproach]

Have you tried changing the numbers of some of the triggers by placing leading zeros?

10&n, where n= the item number in 10 group, gets updated to 010&n.

I had to do this with some channels that had 4&n and 40&n. putting a leading zero on 4&n helped.

I'll give it a try.

 

[AdvancedApproach]

Have you tried changing the numbers of some of the triggers by placing leading zeros?

10&n, where n= the item number in 10 group, gets updated to 010&n.

I had to do this with some channels that had 4&n and 40&n. putting a leading zero on 4&n helped.

It actually worked, thank you.

 

[JCitron]

It actually worked, thank you.

Awesome!

 

[skittlekicks]

One note about the TRC close assets. You do not need 4 for two tracks. You need only one per track, and you can place them in the center of the crossing, then adjust the distance (front and rear which is in in meters). I always set the tail to 300 (that number gives me good clearance from the crossing to the end of the last car in the consist).

The close asset is directional so it will catch the head and tail of a train. Also according to the creator of the TRC system vincenth, it can cause lag issues in the game using so many. Also it doesn't matter which way the arrow is pointed, because as I mentioned it is bi-directional.

Now how do I know this works? I used to do the exact same thing, using two TRC close assets per track. Dropped that notion once I read what the creator stated.

 

[justinroth]

One note about the TRC close assets. You do not need 4 for two tracks. You need only one per track, and you can place them in the center of the crossing, then adjust the distance (front and rear which is in in meters). I always set the tail to 300 (that number gives me good clearance from the crossing to the end of the last car in the consist).

The close asset is directional so it will catch the head and tail of a train. Also according to the creator of the TRC system vincenth, it can cause lag issues in the game using so many. Also it doesn't matter which way the arrow is pointed, because as I mentioned it is bi-directional.

Now how do I know this works? I used to do the exact same thing, using two TRC close assets per track. Dropped that notion once I read what the creator stated.

I have just begun using TRC after years and just use one set to automatic. Is there a reason not to do it this way?

 

[skittlekicks]

If you mean is there a reason to only use one close per track? It causes lag (this was confirmed by the creator of TRC) and has been know to glitch out the crossing (that's my past experience). If you are talking about leaving the distances at 0. Sure you can do that without issue, for me it all about clearances and approach speeds.

If you're speed zone is set at 55 or 80 mph, then the crossings won't have proper time to activate and lower the gates. The faster you train goes the longer the distance you want to have (this is based on real world crossings and how far the triggers placed to a crossing. Automatic is probably better used in very slow (5 to 10 mph) areas where a crossing is. Like said I just set distances based on my own observations.

 

[justinroth]

If you mean is there a reason to only use one close per track? It causes lag (this was confirmed by the creator of TRC) and has been know to glitch out the crossing (that's my past experience). If you are talking about leaving the distances at 0. Sure you can do that without issue, for me it all about clearances and approach speeds.

If you're speed zone is set at 55 or 80 mph, then the crossings won't have proper time to activate and lower the gates. The faster you train goes the longer the distance you want to have (this is based on real world crossings and how far the triggers placed to a crossing. Automatic is probably better used in very slow (5 to 10 mph) areas where a crossing is. Like said I just set distances based on my own observations.

This is how I used to use them. I have a document that I made to tell me the trigger distance based upon track speed. Since then I haven't messed with TRC and now automatic is an option. Are you saying the automatic detection doesn't work properly?

 

[skittlekicks]

I never use auto detection so I don't have a base line to know if it works or not. The way I set the close triggers is how I have always done it. All I can suggest to you is set up a new route run 2 separate tracks (several feet apart), set up one track as your auto detection. Then on the other track set that detection to 120 for the front and 300 for the rear. Set out a couple locos on those two track and then test which works best for you.