TSection 42

[phill70]

I would simply name it TsectionV38Uk
Do not leave the filename as it is.
As Terry says, I do not see the need for the other Tsection files.
Maybe it is time to split to a UK version of the Tsection ?

[tonyhap]

I would simply name it TsectionV38Uk. Do not leave the filename as it is.

Glyn, could you please clarify the above and eliminate my confusion. (Yeah, I know, not the first time I've been confused.) I thought "it" was, would be, V38 as released, unmodified, since the talk so far has been of just uploading past versions. I would say that the only reason to change the filename is if it would be different from the V38 as V38 is now. But why make it different?

Maybe it is time to split to a UK version of the Tsection ?

If this is really seriously being considered (life's just full of surprises!) I think we should forget V38, modify V42 as shown earlier, then V42UK would do the job of V38 PLUS give some new items that V38 does not have, PLUS we would then have interchangeability backwards and forwards in the UK.

Regards,
Chris

[ianmacmillan]

Why not just name it TSection 42 and upload it to TrainSim.com.

See if anybody notices any difference.

[MisterWho]

... I think we should forget V38 ...

I'm sorry but I disagree on this point, if only for the poor users who don't understand the need for different versions of this file. There are many postings in this forum and elsewhere in which comments are made about "use version 38 with my route". There are similar, though fewer, posts about "use version 41 with my route". As such, I would suggest that both versions 38 and 41 should be uploaded to the UKTS Library just as the two existing versions have been. v42UK may well be functionally equivalent to all the earlier versions, but that should simply mean that users who understand these things can use the latest version, while those who rely on a simple forum post like "use version 38 with my route" can still easily resolve their problems.

Moving forward, and again in the interests of as many users as possible, I would echo Chris' suggestion about creating and uploading v42UK ...

moi

[terrycunliffe]

IMaybe it is time to split to a UK version of the Tsection ?

I'm for that.... we edit the current v42 to reflect the 1urnout values in v38, and voila, build 42, UK version

However, that leaves us with the problem of remembering to re-edit those same values on any subsequent build.

[rufuskins]

.... & it stops the Railworks fans whinging that MSTS downloads are pushing the Railworks downloads off the front page since there are about 10 of the files with me. It has happened before when a MSTS route in spanned zip format was uploaded and bumped 6 Rail Simulator files to the bottom of the page. Same thing happened when I put the EB patches up with Ken's permission - people complained that they swamped the front page and pushed some Rail Simulator reskins off the page within hours of them being released for download.

Presumably a whinge about RS pushing MSTS to the bottom of the front page might get me a black mark!

Alec

[NiallGray]

Slightly off-topic, but it makes a pleasant change seeing that the majority of the downloads currently on the front page are MSTS-related.

[Easilyconfused]

I will get at least the v38 uploaded tomorrow. Intended to do it tonight but got hauled into a conference call and subsequent actions for work after I had got back to my rented base. It is not a lack of motivation but purely a lack of time is the problem right now.

[NeutronIC]

Just to weigh in on this discussion...

Having read through the topic, and I recall I tried to contact the guy that manages tsection some time ago and got no response at all, I think it's time to "fork off".

i.e. it's time to fork tsection for UK practices.

All we need to decide is who is going to hold up their hand and be responsible for managing the UK fork.

As far as policy goes I think we need to make a decision on what we will and more importantly WONT do with the fork, specifically I think that we should aim to always base on the "standard" tsection coming out of the US, and then modify that according to our needs, but not to add new sections to ours which conflict with the "standard" one, if someone has new sections they want added they should go through the normal procedure as if the UK one wasn't there. Of course, if there comes a time when they can't add them for some reason then we might need to consider widening the fork but for now I think the intent should be to always be as close as possible to the standard and just make the changes needed to unbreak all our routes.

Matt.

[NeutronIC]

I've spoken with Dad and he says he is more than happy to take on the maintenance of this.

Unless there any objections, that sounds like the way to go. If there is anything you need to say to him regarding this (changes to be made etc) then please feel free to email him on peterATonehouseDOTcoDOTuk

Matt.

[tonyhap]

Matt,

May I be the first to publicly thank you very much for taking this very practical step. I think we can now say "End of discussion."

Very much appreciated,
Chris

[douglee]

Hi Matt and Pete,
As usual a very logical solution. As there are now relatively few new tSection updates the tweaking of new releases should not occur too often.

Let me take the opportunity to thank you and your dad for the time put in on our behalf to keep things running.

Post beat by Chris.

Good luck
Doug

[NeutronIC]

Please direct thanks also to John, Glyn and others, I know John has been talking to Dad about this in the background and that's what got me involved here, so credit where it's due, John as always striving forwards and kicking my behind to get moving

Matt.

[terrycunliffe]

Please pass my thanks onto Pete.

PS. Matt, I've edited Pete's addy... "watch out, there are bots about"
Hope you don't mind

[gswindale]

Indeed - Many thanks to all involved.

This does seem like the best way forward.

Just a shame it had to come to this.