TRS19 Service Pack 3 Official Release

Do you have Trainz+? If so, It happens when in player mode, you turn the turn table. Then go to edit mode and just move something, any thing on the route level, it doesn't mater. that save and exit the game. When you reload the turntable is wacko.

Yes Trainz plus however I have done a lot of route editing on my WIP and the turntables haven't been affected, only the ones I've just added to my test board.



This I think makes it clearer what's happened. There is actually a metal plate with track on it under that ballast

 
Last edited:
Yes, I have had this happen in both the last two builds when modifying something quite unrelated, mainly in older routes. I think it was reported early on, but is as yet unresolved. I delete the turntable, delete missing assets, save the session and route, reload and renew the turntable (with the original asset). Eventually stability returns, although I have no idea what went awry in the first place. All the more reason to back up before making changes.

ingha
 
Quick update - the non-beta patches are now all updated.

John - after 20 years there have been a few changes, but you're right, it's time for a complete rework.

You didn't see this w.i.p. shot ;)

The one major new feature I would like to see in Surveyor would be the ability to copy between routes. From the screenshots you provided it looks like you might be supporting that. Is that the case here?

Bob
 
A new beta edition is coming soon with a range of fixes. This includes turntables (new rotation info wasn't being saved).

Re: Allowing to copy between routes
>>
Well now, I'd be starting to spill some beans if I went into too much detail, but let's just say for now we'll be introducing a new feature called "Scrapbook". (Cue the rumour mill about what that means...). :D
 
Ahhh! So we have Tony eluding to a possible new feature below:
A new beta edition is coming soon with a range of fixes. This includes turntables (new rotation info wasn't being saved).

Re: Allowing to copy between routes
>>
Well now, I'd be starting to spill some beans if I went into too much detail, but let's just say for now we'll be introducing a new feature called "Scrapbook". (Cue the rumour mill about what that means...). :D

So I thought long and hard about how a Scrapbook feature might work - a scrapbook is a range of items cut from an original source and pasted into a new source a book for example (map in Trainz).
Could this be like when we do - Hold CtrlC and then do a CtrlV and paste - but expanding on this idea by doing a Ctrl/Shift select then do a paste (ie: multiple items).
Or area select a map section and assets and then paste - the rumour mill is turning here!
 
This would also imply an ability to open two routes at the same time and being able to toggle back and forth between them otherwise copy / paste will be a rather clumsy operation. Oh well, we can dream.
 
Hmmmm, let's see. Open a route, copy selection to scrapbook, close route 1, open route 2 or blank boards and paste from scrapbook. That would be the basics of it I reckon.
Graeme
 
Re: Allowing to copy between routes
>>
Well now, I'd be starting to spill some beans if I went into too much detail, but let's just say for now we'll be introducing a new feature called "Scrapbook". (Cue the rumour mill about what that means...). :D

Thanks for the reply! Such a new feature would be good news indeed!

This would be especially helpful to anyone creating a new route. They could just copy various scenes they like from one route and paste into their new route. What a time saver that would be, especially for newbies!

As an example I create farms from a lot of different component content items, and I use farms a lot on my various routes. It is very tedious to re-create these farms for a different route as currently I have to do it from scratch each time. With a between routes copy and paste function it would be much simpler. The same also goes for towns, industries and cities. I really look forward to this new feature!

Bob
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a "snippets" library to me. Not just copy and paste but copy selection to "snippet" library (scrapbook) and then open the library and use at any time later, same route or different route. Just another guess... we'll have to wait and see.
 
A new beta edition is coming soon with a range of fixes. This includes turntables (new rotation info wasn't being saved).

Re: Allowing to copy between routes
>>
Well now, I'd be starting to spill some beans if I went into too much detail, but let's just say for now we'll be introducing a new feature called "Scrapbook". (Cue the rumour mill about what that means...). :D

Consider the "sailor-proofing" of existing features and catching-up on the documentation of the existing sim versus adding new features. The exposition in post #193 revealed documentation is lagging further behind. Consider fixing and refining of what is there before adding new things to be fixed/refined/documented.
 
As long as I can rotate and paste beyond the standard 90, 180 and 270 degrees this would be a very much appreciated feature!

Paul
 
Consider the "sailor-proofing" of existing features and catching-up on the documentation of the existing sim versus adding new features. The exposition in post #193 revealed documentation is lagging further behind. Consider fixing and refining of what is there before adding new things to be fixed/refined/documented.

Sadly, real documentation has been lacking from at least TRS2004, which came with an extensive user-guide and content-creator-guide, and other nice quick guide. I'm glad I still have books and PDFs tucked away. Even with the updates and changes made, much of that information is just as relevant today as it was back in 2003-2004 era.
 
A new beta edition is coming soon with a range of fixes. This includes turntables (new rotation info wasn't being saved).

2021-05-09-163334.jpg


Thank you Tony, looking forward to trying that out. Don
 
Sadly, real documentation has been lacking from at least TRS2004, which came with an extensive user-guide and content-creator-guide, and other nice quick guide. I'm glad I still have books and PDFs tucked away. Even with the updates and changes made, much of that information is just as relevant today as it was back in 2003-2004 era.

While I totally agree, I don't think that many users fully realise the problems involved in providing and maintaining adequate user documentation, which is probably why many software developers skip it or provide it at a very minimal and/or inadequate level. There will, of course, be many different interpretations of what "adequate user documentation" is.

Going from printed (on paper) to digital (e.g. PDF, Web) documentation is not as great a saving in time and effort as one might think. I speak from experience in the commercial production (writing and editing) of both paper and digital documents. The development time (writing, editing, proof reading, fact checking, getting permissions, etc) involved in both forms is much the same. While the digital form does not have the extra delays involved in the printing and distribution, it has other "delay factors" such as ironing out the differences between different platforms and software packages. PDF, Web and Wiki are not the universal "one size fits all" display formats that some may believe them to be.

Keeping existing documentation up to date is not a simple process either. In the case of software documentation each new version release or Service Pack can force entire sections (even chapters) to be rewritten and new sections added. Each change requires the usual checks (proof reading, corrections, etc) but also "back checking" with the rest of the documentation for consistency. One of the issues I always had when editing the work of multiple writers into the one document was enforcing a consistent style. There were times when I had to rewrite the entire contribution of an author.

In short, adequate documentation is expensive to produce - it takes resources and it takes time. Unless you are Micro$oft, Apple, Adobe, etc, both could often be better used in improving and updating the product. I think that most users would argue that getting a feature to work is more important than documenting why it doesn't.

And what happened to the often quoted claim that "real geeks don't read manuals"?:D

PS: I quite like the Trainz Wiki but it is very under utilized, both in creating new entries and reading those that are there. As I have found, keeping it updated takes time and effort.

My thoughts.
 
I agree with what you've said here as well. I was involved with both sides of this process over the years. For nearly a decade, I worked as a typesetter and later desktop publisher who set the type and assembled the artwork. In my tech career, I wrote step-by-step guides and assisted the tech-writers in setting up versioning systems and dedicated servers strictly for their work. With that said, I understand the complexity of managing the jobs you described and as you said, getting multiple peeps to write in the same style is quite difficult as well some of the other aspects such as supplying the camera-ready artwork and ensuring that the in-pos are replaced before the job was sent to the printer for printing.

Yes, the digital world has helped with a Wiki environment and for some tasks that is useful. The problem with the Wiki environment, however, is it's community driven and like many community driven projects this falls on the shoulders of a dedicated few. With that said, this may as well then become a regularly published work as well since so few people do contribute to the publication since this product really doesn't change a whole lot between versions. TANE and TRS19, perhaps being the exceptions, but most other changes are minimal. The regularly published work then could be supplied as a PDF rather than sent to a publisher for printing in order to save our trees and environment.

As far as Microsoft, Adobe, and the other big players go, they too have gone away from the tech-writers and there are no longer actual manuals with their products. Today, all of their content is on the web and some of it is pretty poorly organized and much worse then it was when it was once in a user manual. Gone too from Microsoft is their wonderful Tech-net library which was once supplied on disc complete with a fully searchable database of information on their latest releases. That too is yet another link on their website and difficult to search just like everything else.

As it stands now, much of what we have been given is a big secret with TRS19 until we discover the new features. This actually has been the way since TANE. TS12 and prior were more or less the same product with under-the-hood changes and some minimal updates which really didn't matter. This to me is a shame because this makes it difficult not only to create new content, but also to troubleshoot issues and provide tech support. A list of known-issues is a plus, but as always we need more since the company relies on the community for its life and blood. Without understanding changes, and without knowing pitfalls when creating content, this makes the product look poor as well as makes it difficult to progress. And with that said, I understand that a small organization such as N3V has to manage its expenses and employees' time carefully, and it's best to focus on the fixes and new products, yet some time needs to be spent on better documentation as well.
 
Consider the "sailor-proofing" of existing features and catching-up on the documentation of the existing sim versus adding new features. The exposition in post #193 revealed documentation is lagging further behind. Consider fixing and refining of what is there before adding new things to be fixed/refined/documented.

There is ever present the danger of "Tribal Knowledge" setting in when documentation is too far behind the development. Trainz is particularly susceptible to this danger having both developer and content creator factions: developer faction has a mental image of the basis of a Trainz convention while a content creator may develop a separate set of rationales for that entity, because neither has documentation wording to refer to that anchors their perceptions. Different parts of the "tribe" evolve different understandings of a given Trainz convention or entity based on their experience. A case in point currently are the standard "Asset Categories" (aka "ACHC" , "ACHG" , etc..) Trainz uses to determine an asset's behavior in the simulation. From my investigations, there is no documented coordination between the developer's and content creator's use of these parameters (only a half-completed and abandoned Wiki Page [are they even still in use by TRS19 et al?]). The result could be broken assets with no apparent rationale for the breakage.

And so given Trainz's susceptibility to the dangers of "Tribal Knowledge", I urge Tony to concentrate on documenting the existing Trainz conventions and features over creating new features that need to start from square 1 with their documentation/fixing/sailor-proofing cycles.
 
I have experience in this area also. Simple answer: People don't read the docs! Just look at the forums for games that do have great docs. It's obvious that people don't read them. First thing they do is post to a forum.

Example: It's very frustrating building a HELP section on a website detailing how to "Install an eBook download on a Kindle" (or whatever) and yet getting floods of emails asking how to do that very thing. There's even a "Kindle Help" link on each download page just under the Buy button. But analytics shows that very few people click the Help/Doc links. Do I wish there were great docs? Yes. But I understand fully why there is not.
 
Back
Top