Atomic Systems

Just downloaded the improved physics for the HST and 66 but there are no installation instructions?? All I have is a load of folders that look like replacements for the original RS folders but I have no idea what I need to do.

Any help much appreciated.

There are instructions, you just need to look a bit harder! Search in the unzipped folders for "HST_Update_README.txt" and "README_class66_update.txt"

Andy L

Where are these downloadable from please?

Could anyone who has downloaded and installed the 66 physics update confirm that the keyboard controls are NOT working please.

Mart

Mart

You're correct, the keys won't work. See your other thread for details.

Dave B

Thanks managed to find the readme file but think I will give this one a miss. Sounds way too complicated to try and install with way too much tweaking involved for my liking.
After 3 complete re-installs already under my belt from trying to install complicated 3rd party add-ons I'm too scared to try anything that doesn't have a simple 'double-click' to install option.

One thing I have found with a lot of RS downloads, be they stock or scenarios, is a lack of an obvious read me. Things are getting better but a lot are not up to the standards many have come to expect from downloading MSTS items.
Yes there was a readme with the HST physics but buried deep enough that even Indiana Jones might have given up.
"Jimmyshand" installing these physics is simply a case of moving the folder into your appropriate drive. It's modifying other HST's that requires a bit of work. These physics do indeed change the HST's driving characteristics and are an improvement on the default stock. I like them, apart from the vigilance monitor. This turns the loco into purely a driving machine. I can't venture out of the cab for more than a minute. For some though, that;s what they want and for them it's perfect.

Michael

codrivermike wrote:One thing I have found with a lot of RS downloads, be they stock or scenarios, is a lack of an obvious read me. Things are getting better but a lot are not up to the standards many have come to expect from downloading MSTS items.
Yes there was a readme with the HST physics but buried deep enough that even Indiana Jones might have given up.
"Jimmyshand" installing these physics is simply a case of moving the folder into your appropriate drive. It's modifying other HST's that requires a bit of work. These physics do indeed change the HST's driving characteristics and are an improvement on the default stock. I like them, apart from the vigilance monitor. This turns the loco into purely a driving machine. I can't venture out of the cab for more than a minute. For some though, that;s what they want and for them it's perfect.

Michael

Well maybe someone will simulate the TPWS override, iso etc, that normally disables the DVD too.

I'm getting confused myself over these downloaded files, even with instructions, and just WISH whoever makes these, would be able to use a self-installer to do it for you in a foolproof manner, so you don't make any mistakes and stuff up your installation. We're not all bright sparks, unlike some, you know ! How about it ? Re-upload the physics updates with a self-installer and make a lot of us happy chappies.

Regards...

Jim McDermott

codrivermike wrote:One thing I have found with a lot of RS downloads, be they stock or scenarios, is a lack of an obvious read me. Things are getting better but a lot are not up to the standards many have come to expect from downloading MSTS items.
Yes there was a readme with the HST physics but buried deep enough that even Indiana Jones might have given up.
"Jimmyshand" installing these physics is simply a case of moving the folder into your appropriate drive. It's modifying other HST's that requires a bit of work. These physics do indeed change the HST's driving characteristics and are an improvement on the default stock. I like them, apart from the vigilance monitor. This turns the loco into purely a driving machine. I can't venture out of the cab for more than a minute. For some though, that;s what they want and for them it's perfect.

Michael

Not JUST a lack of ReadMe's, but rather a lack of thought and careful planning (and wording) related to them. I feel the Smoke Effects file just uploaded again, could have had the ReadMe.txt file modified to give more detail and not to just overwrite the original folder even if you back it up first. And I'd have loved an auto-installer for this as well !

Regards...

Jim McDermott

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding of the purpose of the physics files I have uploaded here, and why I have done it. Perhaps if I make a few points it might make it clearer:

1 I am not a commercial developer.
2 You have not paid for these files.
3 I don't do "auto installers", "help files", "blueprint editing training", etc. Both zips contain README files with sizeable amounts of information. To be frank, if you find this information insufficient then these files are not really intended for you.
4 I uploaded these files purely in response to the discussions which took place here http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 24&t=87664. In this thread users with detailed train knowledge were complaining about the lack of accurate driving controls in the default trains, and asking if RSDL could provide software updates to enable this. I indicated in the thread that such simulation was already possible, and offered to upload some files to provide examples.
5 These updates do not overwrite any files or modify the default installations. If you try them and don't like it then just don't use them. Similarly if you've downloaded the zip but can't work out how to install it then just delete the zip and move on to something else.

Dave B

Dave,

Many thanks for the files you have uploaded, I for one find that they greatly enhance the driving experience and my enjoyment of RailSim. The Readme files are very comprehensive and convey a lot more information than I would consider necessary and are not hard to find, some people seem to want everything served up on a plate.

I'm only sorry that the unjustified criticism you've received in this thread has made you feel it necessary to defend yourself. I hope that this experience does not put you off sharing any more of your work for the benefit of the community.
Andy L

Edit:

P.S. Perhaps rather than criticising the efforts of those make their work freely available, a more productive use of bandwidth would be to lobby RSDL to produce self-installing upgrades for all the stock to add features such as tail lights and the improved driving experience Dave has provided for the HST and Class 66.

Yes it is a shame that Dave is getting it in the neck for our lack of ability to "fiddle" with blueprint files, that is why i started the "i wonder" thread. http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 15&t=88240

Mart

smarty2 wrote:Yes it is a shame that Dave is getting it in the neck for our lack of ability to "fiddle" with blueprint files, that is why i started the "i wonder" thread. http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 15&t=88240

Mart

I'd hardly be as harsh as to "give it to him in the neck" with constructive criticism ! Some of those out there are more able to pick up these scripts and stuff like that, than others have the ability to do so. Just because we need to explain that to the "bright" ones, and ask for some help with these files, or for something to be made that much easier for us to understand, we shouldn't be made to feel like the subject is taboo to us, should we ?

If I was able to work out things like this for myself easily (I'm not young either) and someone needed help understanding something, I'd do my best to help him out, rather than accuse someone of "giving it to me in the neck". We're all different, if you must know. And who, may I ask, wants to risk stuffing up his KRS setup by fiddling with files he doesn't have a big understanding of ? I'd much rather ask for help than spend lots of time re-installing everything, if you must know. I've made the occasional mistake, and paid for it, but others are happy to share their knowledge for the benefit of everyone else.

Regards...

Jim McDermott

Jim,

I am sure that those who ask for help here get it. It's just that when people say things like "Not JUST a lack of ReadMe's, but rather a lack of thought and careful planning (and wording) related to them." as you did in an earlier post, when talking about files that have been made freely available by others, that some, myself included, view it as criticism rather than a plea for help.

Not singling you out here Jim but perhaps a pm to an author suggesting some amendments to the Readme would be more appropriate rather than doing it in public.

Andy L