I've been trying to merge my Rockmount, PA route with the extension I'm building for that route. The issue is that even ever I try to merge the route, what should take only a few seconds seems to just drag on with no end in sight! the longest I've clocked it in at was 5 minuets before I just shut the game down.
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
route merging issues
- Thread starter STLSF4003
- Start date
Your post did not give any details on the sizes of the two routes. After reading your post I ran a merging test on two of my routes - the base route is 183MB (uncompressed in CM) and the 2nd route is 54MB (uncompressed in CM but it has not yet been populated with scenery and textures). On my 16GB RAM system the merge took 1 minute to complete. The combined (merged) routes are 236MB (uncompressed) in size.
From the Trainz Wiki at https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/How_to_Merge_Routes
The first place I would look is your virtual memory page size in Windows.
From the Trainz Wiki at https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/How_to_Merge_Routes
The merging process occurs within your computers on-board memory (RAM). If this is not large enough then your system will also use virtual RAM, i.e. your disk storage space as temporary memory, which is significantly slower. If your system does not have enough memory, both on-board and virtual, then merging large routes will become a problem (i.e. impossible or will take a very long time).
The Trainz forums contain several threads where attempts to merge very large routes (hundreds of Megabytes in size) have taken days to complete or failed to complete at all. In many of these cases the users did not have enough RAM (on-board and virtual) installed in their system. In one documented case, doubling the available on-board RAM from 16GB to 32GB and increasing the Windows virtual memory page size (disk based or virtual RAM) reduced the merge time for two extremely large routes from failing to complete in over 50 hours to successfully completing in 10 hours.
The first place I would look is your virtual memory page size in Windows.
Last edited:
Those figures seem good enough but how big is your virtual RAM or Memory Page size?
I copied the following from the Web.
My page size is 16000MB which is adequate for my purposes.
If your page size is similar then I would suspect that something else is causing the problem.
I copied the following from the Web.
How to Increase Virtual Memory in Windows 10: A Quick Guide
- Step 1: Go to Start Menu and click on Settings.
- Step 2: Now type performance on search bar and select Adjust the appearance and performance of Windows.
- Step 3: A new Window will open before you. Go to Advanced tab in it.
- Step 4: You’ll see a Virtual memory section in it. This will show a "Total paging file size".
My page size is 16000MB which is adequate for my purposes.
If your page size is similar then I would suspect that something else is causing the problem.
Those figures seem good enough but how big is your virtual RAM or Memory Page size?
I copied the following from the Web.
How to Increase Virtual Memory in Windows 10: A Quick Guide
- Step 1: Go to Start Menu and click on Settings.
- Step 2: Now type performance on search bar and select Adjust the appearance and performance of Windows.
- Step 3: A new Window will open before you. Go to Advanced tab in it.
- Step 4: You’ll see a Virtual memory section in it. This will show a "Total paging file size".
My page size is 16000MB which is adequate for my purposes.
If your page size is similar then I would suspect that something else is causing the problem.
Sorry for the late reply, But it seems that I've got 14717MB V-RAM on my system.
Sorry for the late reply, But it seems that I've got 14717MB V-RAM on my system.
V-RAM is your video card and doesn't count towards your system RAM because it's used for your video card to display the information on your display.
I suspect that by "V-RAM" he means "Virtual RAM", not Video RAM in the GPU.
If you have 14717MB of "Virtual RAM" then that should be sufficient and certainly more than enough for the routes you are trying to merge.
My next thought is that some assets or assets in those two routes are causing" issues".
I would try selecting two different small routes that have no errors or missing dependencies as reported by CM and trying a merge with them. If the merge succeeded then something may be wrong with one or both of the original routes.
There is guide to merging routes at https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/How_to_Merge_Routes
If you have 14717MB of "Virtual RAM" then that should be sufficient and certainly more than enough for the routes you are trying to merge.
My next thought is that some assets or assets in those two routes are causing" issues".
I would try selecting two different small routes that have no errors or missing dependencies as reported by CM and trying a merge with them. If the merge succeeded then something may be wrong with one or both of the original routes.
There is guide to merging routes at https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/How_to_Merge_Routes
Here we go:
https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?167645-TRS2019-SP5-Merging
My post is the 3rd one down. The route layer (that you're merging into) needs to be at the top of the layer hierarchy. It's a good idea to change the name of route layer for the secondary route to 'route layer 2' to distinguish it from the primary route layer; perform the route merge and then manually merge the two route layers. Interested to see if that works.
Paul
https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?167645-TRS2019-SP5-Merging
My post is the 3rd one down. The route layer (that you're merging into) needs to be at the top of the layer hierarchy. It's a good idea to change the name of route layer for the secondary route to 'route layer 2' to distinguish it from the primary route layer; perform the route merge and then manually merge the two route layers. Interested to see if that works.
Paul
I suspect that by "V-RAM" he means "Virtual RAM", not Video RAM in the GPU.
If you have 14717MB of "Virtual RAM" then that should be sufficient and certainly more than enough for the routes you are trying to merge.
My next thought is that some assets or assets in those two routes are causing" issues".
I would try selecting two different small routes that have no errors or missing dependencies as reported by CM and trying a merge with them. If the merge succeeded then something may be wrong with one or both of the original routes.
There is guide to merging routes at https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki/index.php/How_to_Merge_Routes
Just did a quick check on the Two route I've been trying to merge, and none of them show any errors, so I don't think that's the issue. I'll keep digging and see what I find.
No dice. Nothing was locked and I even removed all the consists from the Rockmount route before I tried merge it with the (so far) smaller interchange route, and i'm approaching the 3 minuet mark once more in trying to merge it.If there are any layers, make sure they are unlocked. I ran into an issue recently with a route that had a locked layer causing the process to take forever and prior to that an outright crash to the desktop.
Sorry for the entire year of radio silence ^^. Now, when you say, "The route layer (that you're merging into) needs to be at the top of the layer hierarchy." Do you mean merging the route layer with the route layer of the route/module you're adding to your preexisting project?Did you check the layer hierarchy to see if the route layer for the primary route is at the top of the list (and unlocked)?
Paul
There was a bug, recently fixed (although there has been one post that may cast some doubt on this), that caused problems when the primary route was smaller in size than the secondary route. My practice has always been to make sure that the larger route (the primary route) is loaded first and the smaller route (the secondary route) is merged into it so I had never encountered this bug.
When the merging process reports a conflict between layer names (i.e. both routes have a layer with the same name, usually the "route-layer" from each route) the layer names from the primary route will be shown above the layer names from the secondary route. You will be given the options of solving the name conflict by:-
When the merging process reports a conflict between layer names (i.e. both routes have a layer with the same name, usually the "route-layer" from each route) the layer names from the primary route will be shown above the layer names from the secondary route. You will be given the options of solving the name conflict by:-
- performing a merge of the conflicting layers,
- deleting one of the conflicting layers, or
- renaming one of conflicting layers
That's an interesting observation! Typically, I'll be merging into a smaller route as I have a route template that carries the TurfX assets as well as other useful things (if you merge a route with TurfX into a route without, then the TurfX does not appear in the merged route.) However, I do think that ensuring the route layers have different names between the two routes ('Route Layer 1' and 'Route Layer 2' for example) is helpful. Also, I'm not sure I've seen a problem with merging routes in TRS22.There was a bug, recently fixed (although there has been one post that may cast some doubt on this), that caused problems when the primary route was smaller in size than the secondary route. My practice has always been to make sure that the larger route (the primary route) is loaded first and the smaller route (the secondary route) is merged into it so I had never encountered this bug.
Paul
I've tried every trick in the book that y'all have suggested, and the rat still hangs!There was a bug, recently fixed (although there has been one post that may cast some doubt on this), that caused problems when the primary route was smaller in size than the secondary route. My practice has always been to make sure that the larger route (the primary route) is loaded first and the smaller route (the secondary route) is merged into it so I had never encountered this bug.
When the merging process reports a conflict between layer names (i.e. both routes have a layer with the same name, usually the "route-layer" from each route) the layer names from the primary route will be shown above the layer names from the secondary route. You will be given the options of solving the name conflict by:-
to allow the merge operation to proceed.
- performing a merge of the conflicting layers,
- deleting one of the conflicting layers, or
- renaming one of conflicting layers
So, just to put this mess to rest, I'm gonna PM you the CDPs of the two modules I'm trying to merge and see if you can do what my rig/game refuses to do.
You do still use 19, right?
No, I only have Trainz Plus and TRS22 (Standard) installed.You do still use 19, right?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 439
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 811
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 2K