PDA

View Full Version : Edinburgh - Dundee Route Test



Pug
November 26th, 2018, 11:37 PM
Session - Endinburgh to Dundee Sleeper

Route installed successful. First impression was that it looked good and the opening sequence was impressive.

Drove to 1st stop at Haymarket Central. Very difficult to maintain schedule, certainly on 1st attempt!

After leaving Haymarket the following messages appeared before arriving at Inverkeithing:

Unable to plot route - Junction is missing lever after junction KIRKCALDY SOUTH J10

Unable to plot route - Junction is missing lever after junction 1935996

After travelling across the Firth of Forth bridge and driving through North Queensferry you enter the tunnel. The North portal of this tunnel is sitting too high.

https://4wkkqg.ch.files.1drv.com/y4mqXTBxrrfCQrMr1WQwdJndn_mwtH9wHn7LiAbNCjH-_Li8iNvN0sjwNsNdX1cEjYf-gL9d4Go-NM3GK21bgDNxvB8HCbZPqwoXOcxmx6gISMgoUbpLnWaN1xM5gO UrQdV6AYpKGExFHcqHwjx4CAF5UwggPJPvGTNrBDj_5odIWUF4 fcFxETN8u9b6N1wgmb5jg6P-Hc4wmDzb6MU9MjBiA?width=1946&height=1769&cropmode=none

At Inverkeithing you are asked to stop train just short of signalbox. Mileage stop at 13.6 miles. However there is no indication of trip log, that used to be in the HUD, that indicates just how far you have travelled.

When allowed to depart Inverkeithing, signal 88540 does not give a green so if you try to pass it you receive a SPAD and the session finishes. Looking at the junction, 298512 in Surveyor, just after the signal, it is just noticeable that the trackwork has been incorrectly installed such that if the point motor is showing to the right you actually travel onto the left branch which is occupied. This needs to be corrected before the session can be completed.

https://4wilcw.ch.files.1drv.com/y4m2nIrCIe8A9hvEulE5FXLzi69z3LbgXYTPXttL4jcN4AmAUz ISzM6abUf6EAkpXhh0m2bqmHYq08L3-mQ1D_9MIa4xbmplKr5lDSjQw5XF5Xv7YYVwiFXIcs2Kcx6TUvl 6n0PAVWWPkniG7BkK8nH-SaFILSP5Hpzx7Z4XJUCtJK8FAcUHlo1_M_-SsCTMPkap8CBupuNdZimltCRIZWpgQ?width=1946&height=1769&cropmode=none

If you look closely at the screenshot you can actually see 2 tracks going from the point motor and the one on the right finally goes back across to for the branch line.

Will now try the Dundee to Edinburgh session.

Pug
November 27th, 2018, 02:22 AM
Session - 1E52 09:10 Dundee- Kings Cross

The 1st time I started this session it was very jerky /stuttering while the scene was being established. I figured this must be due to caching so when I restarted it was much smoother and quicker in loading the set scene.

Finally underway and discovered that this session is not like the other session in that there was no point score and stars showing at the top of the screen. I was told I either added points or lost points during the run but I had no continuous indication of what the total points were. Interestingly I was awarded 5 stars and a perfect run when, as far as I was concerned as it was only a 1st run and I had no idea of the route, it was a pretty poor run!

Several items on note that I noticed were.

1 The 2 level crossing on the track just north of Ladybank appeared to be sunk into the track until you got close and then they appeared at the correct height but they did not open.


https://4wjbxa.ch.files.1drv.com/y4mECnV7qAnYppuXHsCRhUmRiDBqLe6rYu7MQ1uVJBdL3Y27a4 0Z3SmybTt1cE1tQuqJArdqB7K41oDWFFF_1qMGVicppX3BmQsW S0BeMP8A7-61j0DqAZoplvgY9UOO6Gbd79Si5CbeP5HRjUWqcHoT0SdeInwL 0Y1utUrAkTR-E6USCgGYbVIX7k_QS6t6ZnIjeGIaRsxlnaJt1ZsddGbPA?widt h=1946&height=1769&cropmode=none

https://4wiela.ch.files.1drv.com/y4mQI5MT-saZIHgH9YHXveaB5Z5jzxhjbNaAzynri2XeJOhFCupws6F4Akh ovR_lLiaM0lvSC1pxcU6ZG11P0VM4lf4KnIcbU2QuP4QV7eTkR fVhIuwZQP7MwGv7BuScRriDM6agzA_6-Gw6OhLNsXQrf6LYSWv7KwjSdx_3ThH2Xgo21r5nxvda4m2MGE1 88xDm3iJczGRRboTTtqMjyNmBw?width=1946&height=1769&cropmode=none

https://4wla5w.ch.files.1drv.com/y4m1V7EVAE_v-ZauHFki2IJ8gXqY8ufUJAmvtpRZ4hBMsnc_8tKGN8RONMRRaIJ JZ4P7pr9YDxYGMZa6rP39e4s1CKZeD6nt5S4V2kVMqRE0kQ0R7 rk-Cl4kfxXvrLkj6gby0Wc20ej_zLdSr5aHxGyxLerrQAxBoppKf6 ZUegjqzeFOvZfPLymyXKBUzDzcocmgGUi1qUK8No-Ly3eZvr_Sg?width=1946&height=1769&cropmode=none

Eventually arrived at Inverkeithing and found that around 5 consists had banked up due to the inability to continue further north.

Crossed the Firth of Forth bridge an noticed this group of light headed passengers waiting on the up platform.

https://4wk5oa.ch.files.1drv.com/y4mWuJePGphIkPrfQ8btjL8x3OGkG9Tckp6mu4K1RV8cHTJX0V 4Khg89z6V9tkC7bt02mV9pHQGY_CAWzDzq2TvLobWQ1mYUxtiH bhuj41q4zjcTjDms0VnJUdnfV6NUAohmxhgxP0lxKk1YuT1SLM I_lbAbkUyOiqpp8PRyM3ckzOL_ZYaGljLBvQaQBWxbNgSJ-D57hM8mgNHD4UNVEsZOg?width=1946&height=1769&cropmode=none

Vern
November 27th, 2018, 03:19 AM
I'm not in the beta test, but has this seriously been pre-released with such glaring errors? Has the route builder not done a snagging drive and fly by of the route before offering it up for testing? I would be ashamed to put a freeware route out in that state, let alone something which will become a payware component of a commercial product. :)

matruck
November 27th, 2018, 04:24 AM
I'm not in the beta test, but has this seriously been pre-released with such glaring errors? Has the route builder not done a snagging drive and fly by of the route before offering it up for testing? I would be ashamed to put a freeware route out in that state, let alone something which will become a payware component of a commercial product. :)

Seconded Vern I am really looking forward to this one being not from the UK I was expecting big things from this Route, If the community has to re-build it we may as well of made it from the start.
Cheers Mick.:)

MarkNolan
November 27th, 2018, 04:57 AM
Has this route been constructed to TRS19 standards? I do not see any PBR textures or Turfx etc in the screenshots. If this is the case then I have to ask what is the point of having this route as built in TRS19? And further, many of the assets (ie platforms) are really dated now. Seriously, with the capability of TRS19 why is there not PBR standard assets like platforms at the very least?

Tony_Hilliam
November 27th, 2018, 05:22 AM
Firstly, note the name of the form you are posting to... "Beta"!

The team who have been working on the route for several years would be disheartened to hear these comments from people who (I think) haven't even seen the route yet. I personally think the route captures the feeling of the area perfectly.

The whole concept of beta testing is to find these things prior to release (and the reason it isn't released to "the masses" yet is so that they cannot pick holes in a yet=to-be-completed product).

More info:

It was a late decision to include the route as originally it wasn't going to be ready by our deadline then after the deadline slipped, Stuart requested that it now be included.

It has been extensively updated with TRS19 features, so I'm not sure where the idea has come from that it isn't. There were a couple of junctions shown in the video that had been missed during the procedural track update and given the route was begun over 10 years ago, yes, there are still some older assets included (although many also have been updated).

Our decision was that it is better to add more content for a route that will be very popular, than it would by withholding it.

Youtube trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBlgGtsHoRU

We'll be posting screenshots of the route when we get some time.

Lastly, we could have gone down the "$49.99 for one route" road, but decided that $69.99 for 6 routes was a better option for our customers. We hope that people who understand the magnitude of creating routes of this scale understand that a few passengers ending up higher than planned (or perhaps it was the platform lower than planned) is not an unusual occurence - quite likely due to an attempt to fix some other bug in the area.

Ultimately, commercial realities dictate that if you want complete perfection, you will need to pay more than $15 per route.

matruck
November 27th, 2018, 05:32 AM
You should run for politics Tony, And yes i do know what section i am posting in Beta for TRS2019 not Beta for a Route that has been supposedly years in the making by a supposed team who cant get a crossing correct or has a couple of American cowboys on horse's waiting to cross at that crossing, Let alone their track work correct.
Give Joe ( Socal ) a call or Andy Turnbal ( Dermmy) and get them on board this stuff is just route building 101 I would of thought.
But please don't try to sell me this we only paid so much but should of paid a whole lot more to get the proper route rubbish Tony.
Cheers Mick.

MarkNolan
November 27th, 2018, 06:40 AM
Tony,

This is a screenshot of my QR Route taken near Gatton ( I just happen to be working on it now). I do not claim to be a great modeller and I have been working on this route for many years as well. But you can see that I have updated to TRS19 standard as much as possible. My question is why in the screenshots above do we not see any of the materials available in TRS19? forgive me if the screenshots are not indicative but I see splines for grass, not turfx for instance.http://images.n3vgames.com/trainzportal/mytrainz/94703/screenshots/94013/1000/My-Trainz-Screenshot-Image.jpg

Vern
November 27th, 2018, 08:03 AM
Second that about the PBR etc. While noting Tony's response, the version of Edinburgh to Dundee released for RW/TS20xx by Just Trains quite some years ago, incorporated quite a few of the older Kuju assets. However it still managed to convey an up to date and largely error free impression when it came to driving. It's not like this is a huge route for length. Not belittling the builder(s) at all, but if you are going for commercial level content then you need to be on top of the game. That means checking, re-checking and going over every inch of the thing until you may be sick of the sight of it, but are content it's ready for the spotlight.

All this beta exercise has done is indicate that standards at N3V and among their associates are not quite what they ought to be (IMHO).

Tony_Hilliam
November 27th, 2018, 05:35 PM
I'm just trying to provide the facts here. N3V spend the majority of our resources on development, testing, support and marketing. We have content partners who provide the majority of the content. We do provide support to those creators and this does include creating sessions, updating assets, polishing, updating routes etc.

Would we like to have a team of 10 people working on each route - absolutely. Can we afford to do that? No.

We're more than happy to receive top quality content from anyone, and you can make a decent amount of money from it too. So rather than providing us screenshots of your work, why not become involved in the next version of Trainz now and have your route included?

Check our site at: contentcreators.trainzportal.com

JCitron
November 27th, 2018, 07:07 PM
Tony,

As someone who does beta testing, although due to some major time restrictions here I did not sign up for route testing this time, I do know what a beta is. Beta means it works, but it might be broken too, and it's best to report the faulties now before they make it into the final product.

With that said. From looking at the screenshots above, I do see the route creators need to fiddle and fuss with the details. Among them are the usual candidates that get caught up in the process of route building. The same crossing needs a bit of straightening out too if possible. It's a couple of degrees out of alignment causing the tracks to swing a bit as the cross through the crossings.

Looking at the roads some more, there are some that are floating and need tamping down. This is more obvious now with the shadows appearing under splines. Believe me these were always my peeve with my own routes, and with the shadows it's more obvious.

If I were working on the route, I would not only check the roads, but also buildings too. There's nothing worse than noticing levitating buildings, or those that are sitting precariously on the edge of a slope. A little tapping down, tamping, squishing there, and that takes care of that. The same with fences, walls, and other splines. There's nothing worse than seeing the underbellies of spline objects, and houses without cellars floating in space.

Tunnels again... Is it a tunnel spline issue, or is it a route issue? I've come across this in a few places here and there on various routes I brought into TRS19, and I'm not sure if it was my fault, the content creator's fault, or the program, thus, nothing was reported in that area.

Other things like grass splines. They could be replaced with procedural Turf-FX grass. This is a big undertaking on older routes, I know since I started this on a route of my own and yikes that's a lot of grass! With that said, perhaps Stuart and the crew can plan on that in a future update.

But... it's the attention to the little details such as these which really make or break the quality of a product no matter what the cost. If the route, or whatever it is, is done well it will stick out in the consumer's mind, and the purchasing public will be more willing to go back for more. Take Jointed Rail's various routes for instance. The Coal Country and Eagle River, for example, are two truly outstanding works by Rich (Scratchy). There's a lot of attention to the details here to ensure stuff isn't floating, too obviously among other things.

And finally, during the beta, a critique is a critique, and use this opportunity to get these things fixed. We know it's hard work, and the better the quality in the long run will mean that you can justify the price that you really want to charge for the route and fewer qualms will be made over the price.

My two cents...

philskene
November 27th, 2018, 07:51 PM
Vern --

Just to throw in my two cents worth. I'd actually be happy with no included routes. I've always been slightly disappointed by all of them and these long routes I find incredibly tedious.

All that I want is the tool box that provides me with the equipment to do my own routes and layouts.

Having said that, though, the absolute minimum requirement for routes included in TRS19 should be:


All TRS19 procedural track.
All PBR textures.
All TurfFX grasses.
All SpeedTrees.


My instructions to any individual or group offering a route for inclusion would have been "Make it so."

Phil

martinvk
November 27th, 2018, 10:40 PM
Opened the route, created a new session and went for an end to end drive from north to south using the default switch settings. That worked everywhere except for one place where I ended up in a siding. I don't know what the real route looks like but the one I drove looks and feels real. The landscaping is very well done with many small touches that add to the experience. Adding the extended runway lights at the end of the runway, the flowers in little corners, etc., it all adds up.

One area I feel needs some work is the track alignment or rather the lack of it at many turnouts. My vehicle would suddenly lurch sideways when traversing many of them indicating that two sections of straightened track were placed without a non-straightened section between them. If the two straightened sections are perfectly aligned, it would not be noticeable but any skew in the alignment makes it very obvious.

I also noticed the elevated tunnel portal but not any of the light-headed people along the route I traveled. Obvious but easy to fix.

The new PBR ground textures are nicely used near the tracks which really adds to the overall look. Too bad that in some of the higher embankments, the "lava flow" because of those textures is a bit visually jarring. I suggest that it would be better to use the older textures in such places to give a more stable ground at the expense of a less aesthetically pleasing look.

chris2001trainz2010
November 27th, 2018, 11:16 PM
Somehow, this route looks worse than Kickstatart County. That's impressive.

Tony_Hilliam
November 27th, 2018, 11:23 PM
Phil - those instructions are pretty much the way it is right now (and in fact, pretty much the way the routes are being delivered).

Regarding the "include no routes" that would work for the route builders like yourself, but that's still a [albeit significant] minority.

I have taken a close look around the route today and I agree that there are some areas that need more work (which was already ongoing, but has now been allocated further time).

Chris - while I totally disagree, do you really need to say that? Please consider how to make constructive comments or don't make them at all.

To those providing constructive feedback, thanks - it's easy to fix "track aligment at crossings" but impossible to do anything with comments like "looks worse than Kickstarter".

Vern
November 28th, 2018, 03:11 AM
Dare I say that part of the problem is that many of these routes are being built in versions of Trainz before that of the current or intended future version. It is stated this route has been under construction for some years and I'm assuming it has been broken off from the behemoth but sadly dated ECML project to serve as a standalone section. That means its origins were probably in TRS2006 or to be kind TRS2010, ergo the floating roads and dated looking platforms from that era. You need to break that cycle so those offering to support the product by supplying "official" content have a SDK that advances the toolset, assets and any new techniques in the target version.

NB: There are some FMA UK platforms in both "MS" and contemporary style which would look much better if used to replace those the route author appears to have used. Small things like that can transform the TRS2010 look into something worthy of the current standards. Likewise, replace those awful dated level crossings with the newer TRC/DMT UK versions.

pware
November 28th, 2018, 06:42 AM
Dare I say that part of the problem is that many of these routes are being built in versions of Trainz before that of the current or intended future version.

I agree but the problem is the lead time (in my case years) needed to develop a new TRS19 route from scratch particularly when many/most route creators are yet to master the new tools and techniques plus the very sensible reluctance of creators to start a new project in a beta version of the program.

I am currently in the process of upgrading an old TRS2006 route of mine to TANE standard and then, when I have enough confidence in using TRS19 Surveyor (the retail version when released), I will convert it to TRS19 hopefully with all the "fancy" addons but it will probably take an upgrade to my aging desktop before that can happen.

While I like the idea, I suspect that an TRS19 SDK may take too much time and effort to develop.

Tony_Hilliam
November 28th, 2018, 07:32 AM
I would like to remind users that this will be the first version of Trainz (apart from v1) that uses the latest technology in the builtin routes that ship with the product. We;re way ahead of where we have been in the past (although short of where users would like us to be of course).

Historically the technology has been introduced and the updated routes would follow. For example, TS2009 delivered 5m grid capabilities, but no 5m grid routes etc.

Thie time around, we have new techniques, new materials, new lighting, and new tools all being used in the new routes.

From here on, things will only get better.

Add to that the ability to edit and share the builtin/payware routes and those of you who would like to see more of this, or less of that, can do so, and upload your own version to the DLS for the benefit of others.

In the future, lots of people will be able to collaborate on a single route and work together to produce a masterpiece that everyone in the team can be proud of!

Rik81
November 28th, 2018, 08:45 AM
Sometimes it helps to not have as good an "eyesight" as one might once of had, LOL. I did note some "floating track" out East of Dundee, also some stray "blue lines" laying in a field West of Dundee. But I made a little session to run a test train South from Dundee all the way down, set back and watched the scenery, saw many areas of marvelously complex track work, etc. It's nice to expect perfection, but sometimes I think people protest too much. I agree with Tony's latest post. This is a new engine, I suspect those clever people who have worked the route over x years, when given another year with the new tools we will be saying WOW. My eyes are already saying Wow!

clam1952
November 28th, 2018, 08:51 AM
Well I have done a complete flyby in Surveyor, may not have caught every little glitch however.
Appears to be a lot of TurfFx from what I've seen, however some of it appears to have been used over traditional splines.

Airborne passengers at:

Culpar - Platform 1.
Inverkeithing - Platform 1
North Queensferry - Platforms 1 & 2
Dalmeny - Platforms 1 & 2

Note. Not an excuse but easy to miss if checking in surveyor if you are not looking for it due to the overlays for the invisible platforms obscuring the view of the actual platform.

Sunken boat, spotted investigating smoke rising from water at Forth Bridge, south end.

No seen any issues with tunnels or bridges or floating roads apart from the edge of a plane being rather obvious on one tunnel or bridge, forgot to note however a slight tweak on the terrain would fix that.

Some slight track tweaking required, I've seen far worse and this is at present a Beta.

I'm pretty sure the ECML team is now down to just 1.

lovetrainzloathen3v
November 28th, 2018, 12:46 PM
Where is the merge point with the ECML route proper please.

Looked at both routes a few times but cannot work out where it is.

lovetrainzloathen3v
November 29th, 2018, 09:21 AM
Thanks for nothing N3V, found a good merge point south of Edinburgh.

Deleted the necessary boards on both routes (very tedious, needs to be a better way).

Tried to merge the 2 ECML sections and i get told it is not permitted, as one of the routes is payware.

They are both clones of the originals.

So i guess this being able to edit and do as we wish with a cloned copy, is just a fallacy :eek: :eek: :(

Laurinlaki
November 29th, 2018, 11:02 AM
So I only really had time to look over the route now, and my first impression was... Meh. But its only beta and this has been discussed often enough, I'll forward the issues I encounter the usual way over the bug report forms.

But one thing I wanted to specifically ask about, because I already spotted this on the Niddertalbahn in TRS19 and submitted it in the feedback form, why are you using this desert-like sand texture around the tracks again?
Europe is much more green than that, as you can see on some real life pictures of the Niddertalbahn here http://www.bahn2001.de/nidder/k634-2007/k634-2007b.htm we mostly have green grass around the tracks on the route sections (and some muddy/grassy/ballst mix in yard areas).
I imagine a simmilar style in Scotland as well and not yellow sand below the ballast.


Greets, Mika

pware
November 29th, 2018, 04:28 PM
So i guess this being able to edit and do as we wish with a cloned copy, is just a fallacy :eek: :eek: :(

Your earlier point in the same post disproves part of that ...


Deleted the necessary boards on both routes (very tedious, needs to be a better way).

Merging DLC routes has always been a "no-no" but you can now edit as much as you like.

Rik81
November 29th, 2018, 05:30 PM
"Merging DLC routes has always been a "no-no" ... -- Well never having tried to do that I wasn't aware, and doubt it would upset me. But with the new claim of edit ability I can see the point. Also, it made me think of a related question: Could one add a baseboard to route A, and a baseboard to route B, and then merge A-B at the added baseboards?

pware
November 29th, 2018, 05:36 PM
To paraphrase a political slogan - "Yes You Can".

The Trainz Wiki link at http://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/How_to_Merge_Routes has a section on common problems and their solutions which covers that.

You can merge different DLS routes and bridge the height gap by adding baseboards to both or, better still, create a bridging route with the "in-between baseboards" to bridge a height gap in a two step merge process.

I just tried your suggestion of adding baseboards to each of two cloned DLC routes and attempting to merge that way but it still does not work.

lovetrainzloathen3v
November 29th, 2018, 07:47 PM
Merging routes is a piece of cake normally.

But in 17 years of Trainz, i have never been told i couldn't merge two compatible routes together.

pware
November 29th, 2018, 09:21 PM
That has always been the case with routes from the DLC. I suppose it is unusual for one DLC route to be a continuation or extension of another DLC route, at least I have never heard of it happening before.

n3vpolsen
November 29th, 2018, 10:00 PM
https://4wjbxa.ch.files.1drv.com/y4mECnV7qAnYppuXHsCRhUmRiDBqLe6rYu7MQ1uVJBdL3Y27a4 0Z3SmybTt1cE1tQuqJArdqB7K41oDWFFF_1qMGVicppX3BmQsW S0BeMP8A7-61j0DqAZoplvgY9UOO6Gbd79Si5CbeP5HRjUWqcHoT0SdeInwL 0Y1utUrAkTR-E6USCgGYbVIX7k_QS6t6ZnIjeGIaRsxlnaJt1ZsddGbPA?widt h=1946&height=1769&cropmode=none



Very strange that there is no turf in the route you're testing. There was a bug in a while back that might have caused this. What is your Launcher -> Trainz Settings -> Performance -> Detail scenery value?

n3vpolsen
November 29th, 2018, 10:02 PM
This is the current in-house version to give you some idea on what it will look like:

https://forums.auran.com/trainz/attachment.php?attachmentid=1700&d=1543546889

For those wondering why grass splines still exist, it is because turffx isn't supported on Mac currently so it allows mac and hardware that can't run turf to have ground detail still.

Pug
November 29th, 2018, 11:16 PM
Very strange that there is no turf in the route you're testing. There was a bug in a while back that might have caused this. What is your Launcher -> Trainz Settings -> Performance -> Detail scenery value?

As I had seen some hesitation and stuttering on some other more complicated routes, I had turned the Detail scenery to Off. Also, I am not a perfectionist as far as scenery requirements are concerned and usually always have it set to Off so that I have good operating performance. Looks like I will have to turn it on to Clutter + TurFX when testing so I don't cause anymore problems!

PharmboyNorth
November 29th, 2018, 11:25 PM
If you need to keep those ugly splines why not do the sensible thing? Put them all in a separate layer which could be turned off by those of that don't need or want to look at them. Please quit watering down all the graphics to support the least common denominator. We are already shown blinking shrubs and track even with ultra settings because the LOD transitions need to be set conservatively to maintain FPS instead of providing this option to the user.

Glenn

Vern
November 30th, 2018, 03:26 AM
In that last screenshot, signal is "off" against the level crossing gates still closed. Wrong side failure incoming...

heimdall
November 30th, 2018, 04:29 AM
In that last screenshot, signal is "off" against the level crossing gates still closed. Wrong side failure incoming...

I spotted that late last night testing the session from Dundee towards Edinburgh, the crossing gates did not open and I went straight through them. Maybe I am a bad driver... I have submitted a bug report.

lovetrainzloathen3v
November 30th, 2018, 05:51 AM
In that last screenshot, signal is "off" against the level crossing gates still closed. Wrong side failure incoming...

Most of the people on here, do not even know what you are talking about.

As for merging, not a problem i deleted the whole sorry mess last night.

That's me done with Trainz after a very long and painful experience.

Delete my bogus forum login N3v.

IsambardKingdomBrunel has left the building.......................for good.

Vern
November 30th, 2018, 11:21 AM
Well after sampling that the lovely new Class 33 in TSW (compare its cab* with the one being shown with the Class 27 bundled in TRS2019), it is a bit of a struggle to find much enthusiasm for TRS2019.

* Apologies for external link - hope it works. http://railworksamerica.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=20696

DTG seem to have taken on board criticism of their product and have released an add on which is not only an excellent graphical model but has superb cab, sounds and accurate physics. Take heed, N3V.

martinvk
November 30th, 2018, 11:47 AM
Most of the people on here, do not even know what you are talking about.really, you know what other people know and understand?
...

That's me done with Trainz after a very long and painful experience.

Delete my bogus forum login N3v.

IsambardKingdomBrunel has left the building.......................for good.bye-bye.
Any bets he'll be back?

martinvk
November 30th, 2018, 11:59 AM
Well after sampling that the lovely new Class 33 in TSW (compare its cab* with the one being shown with the Class 27 bundled in TRS2019), it is a bit of a struggle to find much enthusiasm for TRS2019. with little to no interest in BR rolling stock, I'll take your word for what looks good / bad in that area. Personally. I find all the rest of TRS19 very good, even if there are still a few rough spots.


...

DTG seem to have taken on board criticism of their product that has got to be an historic event, considering how on DTG centric sites there is an an almost constant bemoaning their lack of response to obvious flaws and missing features.

pware
November 30th, 2018, 04:03 PM
Most of the people on here, do not even know what you are talking about.

As for merging, not a problem i deleted the whole sorry mess last night.

That's me done with Trainz after a very long and painful experience.

Delete my bogus forum login N3v.

IsambardKingdomBrunel has left the building.......................for good.

Is that all it took?

Well, if I had only known :wave:

jeffmorris
November 30th, 2018, 08:41 PM
I tested the route. I wish that I have a PC with the fastest CPU, fastest GPU, fastest and biggest SSD, and a lot of system memory so that the route runs very smoothly. I have some screen jerkiness and the route creator made some mistakes: the railroad crossing gates are across the tracks instead of the roads and a tunnel portal is too high.

martinvk
December 1st, 2018, 12:57 AM
I think that those crossing gates are supposed to work that way. I've seen similar types in the East Asia where the gates swing either across the road or across the tracks, depending on which one is has the right of way which is very obvious just by looking at them.

ColPrice2002
December 1st, 2018, 02:15 AM
The swing gate type of level crossing is (for the era) quite correct. Many crossings were manually operated by the staff, and I can remember them closing each gate in turn. Normally set for road traffic to pass, they would only be closed as a train was due.

There are still some of this type around, though not on busy lines.
IIRC, there is an occupation crossing nearby with this type of gate (though normally closed to road traffic).

jeffmorris
December 1st, 2018, 12:55 PM
Are those gates supposed to be animated? I drove the train right through two sets of gates.

clam1952
December 1st, 2018, 02:12 PM
Are those gates supposed to be animated? I drove the train right through two sets of gates.

Should be but don't seem to work!