A problem with london-brighton route and my own custom route

danielw2599 · Post by **danielw2599** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:42 pm

hi

After installing L-B route and playing it for a while i was inspired to create my own route but it seems that L-B has installed non default track (uk fine scale i think) into all the default routes, so when i create a route in RGE i get uk fine scale in there as well!!

now its very confusing to see all these extra track pieces in RE as i am not a master of it.

my question is can i remove UKFS without uninstalling L-B???

Thanks and sorry to be a pain AGAIN

Dan

basildd · Post by **basildd** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:50 pm

Dan,

All such enquiries are being dealt with here -
http://sevenoaksinternetforum.co.uk/eur ... m.php?f=16

If you post your question there, you will find the issue will be answered for you!

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:49 pm

I just noticed the same thing on going to lay some track on Alston - LBE modifies tsection.dat with (presumably) UKFS. This causes major inconvenience in the RE. I have now, reluctantly, uninstalled LBE though the backup of tsection.dat is not restored automatically, has to be done manually.

There is no warning in the documentation the route does this (?).

buffy500 · Post by **buffy500** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:16 pm

Isn't there a solution to this ?

Wasn't it something like cutting up the tsection for building use to only include the section you are going to use?

Is this the tsection in the route directory ?

(someone else should remember this much better than me.)

mikesimpson · Post by **mikesimpson** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:31 am

basildd wrote:Dan,

All such enquiries are being dealt with here -
http://sevenoaksinternetforum.co.uk/eur ... m.php?f=16

If you post your question there, you will find the issue will be answered for you!

That site expects you to log in and that you already have the route. I am expecting the route in the post any day, but have no intention of installing it if it is going to stuff up the Global tsection.dat file.

This was a problem with a couple of other Commercial routes where they replaced the tsection.dat file - there is really no excuse for that to happen these days, the Standardised tsection.dat which comes with x-tracks and ukfs track should be all anyone needs, and additions can be made to this by consulting with the person who runs it.

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:41 am

If a commercial route wants to use UKFS I have no problem with that, providing it is publicised *before* install. For the 1000's of MTS users who don't use the RE there's probably no issue, but for those who are - and only use standard track - it causes a major headache trying to select standard track pieces.

Not sure what licensing agreement was reached with UKFS but at the least this should have included installation of the full suite of UKFS pieces which would avoid the error/missing shape and texture messages scrolling through the track pieces.

ISTR it was the Nevada monorail route which used a modified global tsection which then did something to Xtracks.

mikesimpson · Post by **mikesimpson** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:03 am

Further to my above message, the package arrived today, so in case of any problems I have installed it in a copy of MSTS on another drive. It does appear to install the standardised Tsection.dat v19, however I have not done much checking yet, too busy playing with the route which is quite good. Takes me back to my idle youth in South London.

For Vern, Yes, it was the Maglev express which caused problems in the past by overwriting the Global tsection.dat file.

LucaZone · Post by **LucaZone** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:45 am

LBE does not use UKFS as far as I know. It uses its own custom track written especially for the route.

buffy500 · Post by **buffy500** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:58 am

If its not too much to ask, can someone actually explain what the problem is here, and what points people are trying to make ?

L2B does not use UKFS (although we'll take it a compliment that you think it looks like it!).
The tsection.dat supplied is the one provided to us by David Beech, and is therefore a perfectly valid tsection.

When in the RE, doesn't it allow you to choose ALL the track sections listed in the tsection.dat ?
If so then after installing L2B, it will act exactly the same way as having installed UKFS, Xtracks etc...... and what ever solution people used to limit the number of track pieces they could choose from in the RE will remain exactly the same.

If anyone can suggest a way of us supplying a route with 3rd rail without installing a non default track system then I'm open to suggestions.

And the comments that would have come from releasing the route with default track do not even bear thinking about.

And Maglev has caused us no end of problems also, a good proportion of all L2B support issues have been because of this.

asalmon · Post by **asalmon** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:02 am

To answer the original question, simply use the latest version of route-riter to scan your track and remove all unused ones from tsection.dat

LBE does use the standardised version so it is compatible with most other routes.

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:12 am

The problem is, RE looks at the Global section for track pieces, regardless of the route. If tsection.dat is listing track pieces which are not actually installed on the user's system (such as UKFS) it means if you click or select on one of these non standard route pieces an error message is generated (sometimes 3 or 4 times) as MTS can't locate the shape and/or texture files, if you click yes eventually you can move on down the list. If you click no, then RE terminates with loss of any work you may have done to that point. You can choose them, but the error will occur unless actually installed.

Not to mention the standard track pieces are lost amidst the clutter of other track sections.

There is always a danger that a custom tsection.dat could seriously damage the existing install and stability of the programme. A tsection.dat with only the new items would be one way to go, but then the same danger exists that you might overwrite a tsection.dat that has UKFS or XTracks installed. Once you depart from the standard MTS setup, things start to get very murky and we could end up with a situation where there are a series of none standard routes, all with modified tsection.dat, none of which will be compatible with any of the others.

There are issues here which perhaps MS/Kuju ought to be addressing in terms of how inflexible the programme is when it comes to adding custom track sections, but the only safe way is to stick with what comes out the box.

If non standard track has to be used there should be a clear warning prior to install. That warning also needs to make it clear many of the additional track items are *not* included with the route and need to be downloaded separately. The Uninstall routine also needs to restore the backed up tsection.dat and not leave this to be done manually.

buffy500 · Post by **buffy500** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:22 am

bigvern wrote:The problem is, RE looks at the Global section for track pieces, regardless of the route. If tsection.dat is listing track pieces which are not actually installed on the user's system (such as UKFS) it means if you click or select on one of these non standard route pieces an error message is generated (sometimes 3 or 4 times) as MTS can't locate the shape and/or texture files, if you click yes eventually you can move on down the list. If you click no, then RE terminates with loss of any work you may have done to that point. You can choose them, but the error will occur unless actually installed.

Not to mention the standard track pieces are lost amidst the clutter of other track sections.

There is always a danger that a custom tsection.dat could seriously damage the existing install and stability of the programme. A tsection.dat with only the new items would be one way to go, but then the same danger exists that you might overwrite a tsection.dat that has UKFS or XTracks installed. Once you depart from the standard MTS setup, things start to get very murky and we could end up with a situation where there are a series of none standard routes, all with modified tsection.dat, none of which will be compatible with any of the others.

There are issues here which perhaps MS/Kuju ought to be addressing in terms of how inflexible the programme is when it comes to adding custom track sections, but the only safe way is to stick with what comes out the box.

If non standard track has to be used there should be a clear warning prior to install. That warning also needs to make it clear many of the additional track items are *not* included with the route and need to be downloaded separately. The Uninstall routine also needs to restore the backed up tsection.dat and not leave this to be done manually.

What I don't understand is what L2B is being accused of (other than not restoring the tsection.dat when uninstalled, and even then, I'm not clear what effect this will have, Tsection build from the one supplied in l2b and onward will include all the same track sections we have as they are now part of the build).
The tsection supplied IS a standadised Tsection, so how is anything happening here that does not occur when you install xtracks or ukfs ?

That warning also needs to make it clear many of the additional track items are *not* included with the route

I assume you mean the inclusion of UKFS / xtracks sections in the tsection ?

[EDIT] Having just done a quick search (which ties up with Alans post)

http://forums.atomic-systems.com/viewto ... ion+unused

This to me explains that nothing here is specific to L2B, but is a well known side effect of using any add on tracks and more specifically the 'community' standadised tsection build principle.

It would be nice if L2B was not blamed for something that is actually nothing to do with L2B, but just the fact of using something other than the default track.

bigvern · Post by **bigvern** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:32 pm

No one is "accusing" LBE of anything which other sources of an amended tsection might also cause. However installing the route is installing a non standard tsection.dat which requires the download of further third party items to prevent problems when using the RE.

The tsection.dat may be the one that is now circulating, but it is not official and not endorsed by Microsoft or Kuju, so far as I know. It is not a standard MTS item and, to my knowledge, there is no code amongst developers - freeware or commercial - as to the best practice to be adopted when adding new shapes to tsection, no one central body to oversee it.

At least one person (the originator of this thread) and indeed myself have been caught out by this - obviously what Europeanbahn and Aerosoft do about the issue is entirely up to them, but an addendum leaflet in the box explaining the situation would help.

mikesimpson · Post by **mikesimpson** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:32 pm

To Dave and Dale,

I have installed the L&B, and have no issue with it whatsoever. My comments above were because I was concerned after reading some other posts, that you were adding a non-standard tsection.dat to the Global folder.

If Dale had explained this in his message rather than pointing to a forum to which you have no access until you have installed the route, then it would have made things clearer.

For Vern, the standardised tsection.dat file, although not supported by Microsoft/Kuju is co-ordinated by a single individual on the train-sim.com site, and has been supported by the majority of those route builders who have made add on track/road sections such as x-tracks, ukfinescale etc. In fact if this had not been done, then you would have had to either stick to the default tracks or change the tsection.dat file for virtually every route you used.

The only problems so far have been with a couple of renegade routes which apparently refused to stick by this convention and caused havoc to a lot of people who found that their other routes would not run after the tsection.dat was changed.

buffy500 · Post by **buffy500** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:19 am

mikesimpson wrote:If Dale had explained this in his message rather than pointing to a forum to which you have no access until you have installed the route, then it would have made things clearer.

You don't need to install the route to register it, the 2 things are seperate (until TS implements some nice way of protecting addons)
Read access to the support forums is limited to EB forum regiestered users.

But in Dales defence, we did make a decision to direct all support issues to a dedicated forum run by Europeanbahn as we feel it is better to keep all items in the same place so it makes it easier for customers to find them instead of trawling through multiple forums on multiple sites.