Another signalling problem from me...

[timbooth]

I'm not familiar with TSM so I can't give any specific help on how to fix the shape. Is there a way to append it to the heirarchy when merging, rather than merging to the main object? You should though be able to select and detach the right-feather from the left-feather object, and then append it to the heirarchy - but you need to make the all optional parts sub-objects of a 'Main' object - the non-signal parts don't need to be seperate, unless you are using alphas.

The main object in your case could be part/all of the signals structure - or an a 'invisible' single face shape - so there's something to attach sub-objects to (thats why its good to append the feathers to a signal post shape, so you have a structure to use as the main object).

[TFormoso]

Secondly, this is based on the UK RI feathers pack available of UKTS, and that uses DISTANCE as a signal type, and I have never experianced any problems with it when using on freeware routes.

Can I just point out, so that this doesn't cause any more confusion. My Indicator Signals Kits, which you refer to, do not make any use of DISTANCE type signals.


Tony

[johny]

TSM always joins the parts when you "Create TS Object File" even though you left them as individual parts. If you look in the decompressed shape folder you will find that under matrix you have only got Head1, whereas you require Head1, Head2, etc.

The trick is to animate the extra heads, you only need to set the animation to zero, that way TSM will not join the parts together. Incidentally, if you are going to apply levels of detail using Polymaster you must animate all the parts, so that each part can be set to a particular distance, you remove the animation settings in Polymaster before saving.

John

[trains2]

Secondly, this is based on the UK RI feathers pack available of UKTS, and that uses DISTANCE as a signal type, and I have never experianced any problems with it when using on freeware routes.

Can I just point out, so that this doesn't cause any more confusion. My Indicator Signals Kits, which you refer to, do not make any use of DISTANCE type signals.


Tony

Hmmm, must be an earlier version or something, but they are certainly from the pack off UKTS:

Code: Select all

SignalType ( "RI-Feather"

		SignalFnType ( DISTANCE )
		SignalLightTex ( "ltex" )

		SignalLights ( 6
			SignalLight ( 0 "White Light"
				Position ( 0 0 0 )
				Radius ( 0.001  )
			)
---snip---

Thanks again John, that sounds like the answer, shall crack on.

Really must buy you guys a beer some day.

Rich

[TFormoso]

Hmmm, must be an earlier version or something, but they are certainly from the pack off UKTS:

Is it possible you might have modified them? I have checked all 4 versions of files which were uploaded, and they definitely have type INFO, and not DISTANCE.


Tony

[trains2]

Nope, never touched those sigcfg files at all. Perhaps its from somewhere else, never mind, doesn't really matter.

Success with the signals! I have got the double-feather to work, just a bit of teething with the position of the shape, for some reason in MSTS and RE, and the position of the shape is completely different to that of what it looks like in Shape Viewer, which is completely different to that of how it is laid out in TSM. TSM does some funny things, will have to experiment.

Many thanks to all who helped, very grateful indeed. No doubt I shall be back with more problems. Although I think I'll have a break after all this hard work.


Cheers

Rich

[trains2]

Quick question which has nothing to do with getting the scripts to work, but how do you get separate shapes to appear when selecting the tick box in the RE?

E.g. for a dummy call on signal, I have scripted it appropriately

Code: Select all

SignalShape (
		"sig4asp_h.s"
		"4 Aspect Signal Head"
		SignalSubObjs ( 2
			SignalSubObj ( 0
				"HEAD1"
				"Signal Head 1"
				SigSubType ( SIGNAL_HEAD )
				SigSubSType ( "4AspectSignalHead" )
			)
			SignalSubObj ( 1
				"CALLON"
				"Dummy Call On"
				SignalFlags ( OPTIONAL )
				SigSubType ( DECOR )
			)
		)
	)

However when I go into the RE, the Call On doesn't react to the tick box, it is always present. I notice it works for when doing the feathers available on UKTS, you select the tick box and the appropriate feather appears.

Regards

Rich

[johny]

Quick question which has nothing to do with getting the scripts to work, but how do you get separate shapes to appear when selecting the tick box in the RE?

E.g. for a dummy call on signal, I have scripted it appropriately

Code: Select all

SignalShape (
		"sig4asp_h.s"
		"4 Aspect Signal Head"
		SignalSubObjs ( 2
			SignalSubObj ( 0
				"HEAD1"
				"Signal Head 1"
				SigSubType ( SIGNAL_HEAD )
				SigSubSType ( "4AspectSignalHead" )
			)
			SignalSubObj ( 1
				"CALLON"
				"Dummy Call On"
				SignalFlags ( OPTIONAL )
				SigSubType ( DECOR )
			)
		)
	)

However when I go into the RE, the Call On doesn't react to the tick box, it is always present. I notice it works for when doing the feathers available on UKTS, you select the tick box and the appropriate feather appears.

Regards

Rich

Rich,

I have not been able to achieve that using TSM. I think you will find that Tony Formoso used one of the other modelling programs for his Indicator kit.

John

[timbooth]

With OPTIONAL, the DECOR part shouldn't appear unless you tick it - so its down to the shape, config, or world file referencing. The config seems ok, providing it matches the shape.

Make sure CALLON a seperate object in the shape, like a signal head - it can't toggle imbedded parts.

Also, make sure you replace the signal if you added the decor head after it was placed - otherwise the worldfile entry may not know about the decor.

[trains2]

Thanks Tim, I shall investigate although I have tried most of those things already.

What do you mean about the DECOR bit not appearing? When you open up signal properties you get all the 'bits' of the junction link compilation, including the main part, i.e. the DECOR part. You can never have the option to tick it anyway, as it is always blanked out, but do you mean you shouldn't be able to see it at all?

I think I may just make another seperate signal shape if this doesn't work, they aren't too common anyway.

While I am here, I must ask you, particularly John and Tim regarding your help. I am very very greatful for it, it really has made me progress and I feel so much more knowledgeable about it.

However one member of this forum expressed a concern about how you are helping out for a *possibly* payware product - I did not make this clear at the beginning, firstly that it was intended to be payware, and secondly that it was only a possibly at this stage, but when finished it could well be payware. The member was not happy with the fact that you are freely giving me help, despite (particularly John) you being involved in commercial releases before hand regarding this matter.

I therefore ask if you have a problem with giving me this help in such a way, on a free forum, and if you do please express it, and I shall resist from asking questions about it, even though it is still a 'maybe' for payware.

Once again I am very greatful for all the help received, but if you agree with the above, then fairs fair.

Best Regards

Rich

[TFormoso]

I was the "one member of this forum" referred to above.

I express my actual concerns here.

but they are for a payware add-on

In case anyone has missed it, the information that you are being asked for here, is to enable a payware route to be built.

It was not made clear at the initial posting in this thread, that the route was payware, and the quoted comment, only slipped out half way through the thread. It is not fair to mislead and use forum users in this way.

I would suggest before providing any information, you ask the author how you are going to benefit (share in the profit?) for your contribution. Or, perhaps knowing the situation, you might prefer not to provide information.

I have no objection to payware, and I provide items for payware routes myself.

I also have no problem with the fact that people here might be happy to supply information for a payware route. (I think the previous post misrepresents me on this point)

However, it seems to me that if someone is going to build a payware route, which they are presumably intending to profit from, they should NOT expect the freeware fraternity to provide help and support for nothing, unless it has not been made clear at the outset that the help and support being requested is needed for a payware route.


Tony

[johny]

...................................................................
Deleted, in the light of subsequent information.
...................................................................
John

[TFormoso]

Deleted (because deletion of previous post rendered this one unnecessary)

Tony

[timbooth]

Thanks Tim, I shall investigate although I have tried most of those things already.

What do you mean about the DECOR bit not appearing? When you open up signal properties you get all the 'bits' of the junction link compilation, including the main part, i.e. the DECOR part. You can never have the option to tick it anyway, as it is always blanked out, but do you mean you shouldn't be able to see it at all?

Best Regards

Rich

I mean the part of the shape named 'CALLON' shouldn't appear on the signal shape until you tick the box. If the tick box is disabled, that would suggest RE can't identify CALLON in the shape, the config is wrong, or the world file entry doesn't match the config. Perhaps TSM prevents CALLON being a seperate object, because it isn't animated - perhaps you need to set up dummy animation, as mentioned earlier.

I don't mind giving advice to payware developers, providing I feel it won't undermine my own work. This is a community, so I give my advice based on the idea that other people reading the topic can benefit.

Signalling in MSTS is a bit of a black-art, and it won't be fully de-cloaked if we aren't able to discuss it openely in the community.

[trains2]

Firstly thank you Tim and John for your continuing support, despite the 'truth' now being 'crystal clear'. I'm glad we don't have another payware/freeware split.

Initially, the impression given by Tony to me was that he was not happy with the fact that the distribution of this knowledge was 'not in the know' that it may have been for a payware project. Even though the word payware did not crop up in my posts until the 3rd or 4th post, it is still written, and anyone who read my post and responeded, must surely have read that word as well, as I expect both John and Tim did. They both continued to post with this in mind and so I could not see what the problem was.

However, I cannot take a burden for saying before every post that requires some sort of answer that 'this information may be used in a payware product'. UKTS is a freeware community, and I respect that as much as the next commercial developer, but AFAIK, there are no rules whatsoever banning commercial developers from asking for help, none at all.

I think I made a mountain out of a mole hill, misread Tonys comment, but the the point is that people were in the know about it being payware, even if it wasn't crystal clear. I cannot be expected to point things like this out in a big way with flashing lights and size 200 font; if people read a post correctly then they will gather all the facts correctly. Perhaps I am a little guilty of this, I didn't read Tonys point correctly, which is why I thought he had a problem with it being distributed, and not the fact that people may not be in the know about it being used commercially, and for that I apologise. I still stand by my other comments though.

Regards

Rich