Backup=Screwup

Can not get screen shot, but SD35 WM the cab red shell is faulty, the list is huge of problems. can not figure out how to post?
 
Curious, was the rolling stock in the route layer? I am wondering why the locos would have been backed up with a route and then the restore would overwrite what was in CM? Have you tried the obvious EDBR?
 
Make sure content manager has no Open for Edits, that may be a cause of problems and faulties that arent actually faulty, they are just missing because things are stuck open for edit. As others have said not sure how locos would be affected from a route reinstall.
 
Also viewing errors and warnings will refresh the cache and the errors will disappear. The view errors and warnings will say 0 errors and 0 warnings. (zero and zero). You may have to exit the screen and come back in to refresh the database, but once done the errors will disappear.
 
This is whats killing my sd35 payware
; <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : Validating <kuid2:45324:91244:1>
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'c_interior_shell.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'mesh_body/c_exterior_shell.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'door1.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'door2.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'visorl.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'visorr.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'win1l.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'win1r.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'win2l.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE84: The file 'win2r.lm' is provided in LM format despite containing only a single mesh. This may have a negative impact on performance.
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : VE107: The high-detail meshes total more than 10000 polygons. This may have a negative impact on performance: 0: 99360, 1: 133
; <NULL> : Performing asset precache
; <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : Loading asset <kuid2:45324:91244:1>
; <kuid2:45324:100391:1> : Loading asset <kuid2:45324:100391:1>
; <kuid2:45324:100391:1> : Validating <kuid2:45324:100391:1>
! <kuid2:45324:100391:1> : VE107: The high-detail meshes total more than 100000 polygons. This may have a negative impact on performance: 0: 113349, 1: 58990, 2: 34217, 3: 1379, 4: 345
; <kuid:506034:759018> : Validating <kuid:506034:759018>
! <kuid:506034:759018> : VE48: This asset uses an obsolete trainz-build number. Trainz-build numbers below 3.5 are no longer supported.
! <kuid:506034:759018> : VE73: Image file 'corona_green.tga' is incorrectly used as both a texture.txt source file and a raw image file.
; <kuid:506034:759017> : Validating <kuid:506034:759017>
! <kuid:506034:759017> : VE48: This asset uses an obsolete trainz-build number. Trainz-build numbers below 3.5 are no longer supported.
! <kuid:506034:759017> : VE73: Image file 'corona_yellow.tga' is incorrectly used as both a texture.txt source file and a raw image file.
; <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : Validating <kuid2:45324:91244:1>
! <kuid2:45324:91244:1> : Skipping validation as asset is in validation elsewhere
 
Are these actually errors with red icons, or just warnings? Other than maybe the last line, which I don't quite understand, I am not really seeing anything here that should cause it to be faulty, but I may be missing something....
 
Back
Top