List of RSC DLC bugs

[chrisiveson]

Some steam locos derail after a save and resume if the save is done with the train in motion, ( in particular, Tornado and V2. )

C.

[emrhd01]

I believe that it is any Steam Loco that has a Pony Truck (4-6-2, 2-6-0, etc.) that has a problem with re-loading after a "Save", any Loco that has no Pony Truck (0-6-0, 0-4-0, etc.) seems to be able to re-load OK after a "Save".

[USRailFan]

And it also happens to any locmotive that consists of several parts, i.e the Challenger, Big Boy and also the Class 76 and Class 77 electrics from Woodhead. It also happens with diesel/electric locomotives with unpowered axles, such as the GG1

[Jayen]

Hi all,

Not been mentioned as far as I can see in the main London - Brighton thread. No vehicular traffic on any of the roads throughout the route. Am I the only one with this? If not, bug report follows:

Synopsis: No vehicular traffic on roads London - Brighton route
Description:
There are no moving vehicles on any of the roads in the London to Brighton route.
Reproduction:
Any scenario, timetabled, regular, free roam any location within the route.

If this is is not experienced by anyone else, then please disregard

All the best,

John

[rivimey]

Folks,

Sounds like we're getting a useful list here. Can I suggest, in support of the requests to verify issues, that the bug list as submitted includes:

Reported-By: {name of person}
Report Date: {Most recent date seen in game}
Reporter Game Version: TS2012 11.7b -- or whatever is appropriate
Verified-By:
Verified Game Version:
Verified Date:

For my bug, though it might be considered off-topic as it's not DLC but core:

Synopsis: Using texture painting in editor will result in SBHH crash if used enough
Description:
The ground texture paint tool will cause a SBHH crash in game if you use it continuously. If used alternating with other activities, you can avoid this crash for some time, perhaps permanently, but it is still quite easy.

Reproduction:
It is more easily demonstrable on larger routes.

• Start TS2012 and the Windows Task Monitor, Performance tab
• Load a largish route... WCML-N should do
• Start editing texture. I don't believe it matters which texture or how big. I think the effect is muted for larger "swipes" compared to many small edits.
  Note that in the Task Monitor Performance tab, memory usage climbs continuously
• An SBHH crash will occur when "sufficient" memory has been claimed. For me, it is around 2.5GB process memory.
• You can avoid the crash by switching to the asset tool and editing other things, e.g. "v" and "b" on an item multiple times. Note how the task monitor shows memory usage decreasing.

Reported-By: Ruth Ivimey-Cook
Report Date: 11 June 2012
Reporter Game Version: TS2012 11.7b
Verified-By:
Verified Game Version:
Verified Date:

[Kariban]

Synopsis: Adhesion is dependent on consist weight
Description:
Adhesion is dependent on the weight of the entire consist at scenario start. This results in inconsistent braking as well as inconsistent wheelslip. It also requires DLC to be set up with very unrealistically high levels of adhesion, which will give unrealistic levels of brake; the entire issue is a reduction of immersion.
Reproduction:

• Choose a locomotive, and place in a scenario. Place a heavy consist of stock, but do not couple it to the locomotive.
• Start the scenario, and apply full power to the locomotive, check for wheelslip.
• Drive back and couple to the consist, and apply full power again.
• Add or remove wagons until there is one less than would make the engine wheelslip if you start the scenario without being coupled to the consist.
• Now start the scenario *with* the engine coupled to the consist.

I can verify this has been around in every game version since at least RW2 release ( I forget the version of that though ).

[USRailFan]

Synopsis: Class 390 (Pendolino) combined throttle does not fit with the values on the F4 display
Description:
The Class 390 uses a combined throttle/brake controller - similar to e.g. the Class 166. This is set with the middle position - 0 - as the 'neutral' point. However, on the Class 390, the '0' applies about 20 something percent of braking - to get the brakes to neutral you actually have to go to 33% throttle, with 50% throttle starting the train moving.
Reproduction:
• Choose any scenario with the Class 390
• Start the scenario, set reverser to forward, and then operate the combined throttle while watching the F4 display.

[andynwt]

Synopsis: Class 390 (Pendolino) combined throttle does not fit with the values on the F4 display

Could be wrong, but I think I read this was by design. If I am wrong, sorry!

[gptech]

Devils Advocacy maybe, but I fear this little project has gone far beyond what RSC are expecting from Sheep:

A few days ago I sent an email to RS support pointing out that I haven't bought any RSC DLC since November as they haven't fixed any of the little bugs in some of the DLC that i already have, not really expecting an answer from them,
But within a few hours I got one asking me to send them a list,

That can be read as RSC inviting an individual to further explain/justify/rationalise their decision not to purchase any DLC due to little bugs.
I'm not detractinmg from the effort folk are putting in here, it's a very worthwhile exercise which could benefit every Railworks player but I suggest that Sheep uses this list as a 'memory jogger'
for the issues he's had with the DLC he owns and submits that to RSC.
If RSC are suddenly presented with a huge list of issues when they're expecting a few little ones it wouldn't be surprising to find nothing came of it.

All these other points that are being nicely documented (good idea by Kariban, and I'd second Ruths suggestion to include names and version etc) could then be submitted to RSC separately, perhaps on behalf of the UKTS community rather than an individual?

I realise that this would entail a hell of a lot of work for whoever does the collating and sorting of the issues, not to mention checking and confirming which are bugs, which are inaccurate modelling/physics, which are related to the core game rather than DLC etc.

[jimmyshand]

None of this will come as any surprise to RSC, they are quite aware of the buglist and have been for years regarding some of the issues. What there has never been however, is a concerted effort to report them in a structured way. I still think plan A is a go'er but that Sheep, or whoever ends up submitting the list, must persist with RSC until they get a formal acknowledgement that this is a community submitted list of problems and not a one man show.

RSC will be well aware of the existence of this thread anyway so it won't come as any surprise. It's good for all parties to have a "master-list" of faults and bugs. Makes it far more easy for RSC to weed out the chaff and individual snags that they must get bombarded with daily from those issues that are really affecting the majority of users.

[nobkins]

Devils Advocacy maybe, but I fear this little project has gone far beyond what RSC are expecting from Sheep:

Good point. I think we have gone beyond what sheep initially was after however I don't think is a bad thing. Sheep can choose to do as he wishes which may well be to simply submit a cherry picked list of his own personal bugs (thanks to this thread refreshing his memory a little).

There is still no reason why we can not submit our bug list. A community bug list rather than a sheep bug list

Sheep if you are reading could you send me a PM or post an indication of what you would like to do? Your own personal bug list and we as a community can submit an additional list for example.

Thanks

[gptech]

None of this will come as any surprise to RSC, they are quite aware of the buglist and have been for years regarding some of the issues. What there has never been however, is a concerted effort to report them in a structured way. I still think plan A is a go'er but that Sheep, or whoever ends up submitting the list, must persist with RSC until they get a formal acknowledgement that this is a community submitted list of problems and not a one man show.

RSC will be well aware of the existence of this thread anyway so it won't come as any surprise. It's good for all parties to have a "master-list" of faults and bugs. Makes it far more easy for RSC to weed out the chaff and individual snags that they must get bombarded with daily from those issues that are really affecting the majority of users.

Yes, I agree that RSC will be aware but for the sake of not leaving loose ends however I feel Sheeps issue should be dealt with fully, under the terms (for want of a better word) that RSC agreed to in their reply and then the 'master list', which as you rightly point out is the first time anything like this has been properly structured, be presented as a community 'project'

(In answer to the Devils Advocate ).....Good point. I think we have gone beyond what sheep initially was after however I don't think is a bad thing

I don't think anybody would disagree that it's not a bad thing, even if nothing came of it the findings as a 'sticky' in the forum would be a good resource for those having problems. The reporting of problems, and then the subsequent checking of those reports by others would certainly find out which are the 'real' issues and which are caused by individual set-ups.

[SHEEP]

Sheep if you are reading could you send me a PM or post an indication of what you would like to do? Your own personal bug list and we as a community can submit an additional list for example.

Thanks

I think that a community Bug List is a great idea, If somebody's up for doing it,
It's not always easy to know if a problem that you're having with an item of DLC is something just you suffer from, for whatever reason,
Or it's a fault or bug,
A sticky thread, Edited by the mods would make it a lot easer to identify if your problems are bugs in the DLC's or something wrong with your install or system, or just gremlins,

I can still send in my own list to RSC, as can anyone else,
And I'm sure if it's sent in a pleasant manor, something might get fixed.

And maybe a link to a forum page that may help them weed out some of the things that need fixing

[nobkins]

I have a suggestion.

I could create a thread in the FAQ section entitled Known Bugs (or something similar). Each post would be a bug using the format that we have already developed. That thread would then be easy to search and check to see if the bug you encounter is known about and also a work around / solution could be provided. This way it becomes a resource for members and if RSC want to take a look they can do although they do not frequent the forums. We could also be proactive and submit the bugs to RSC on a quarterly basis maybe.

Thoughts?

[Retro]

I have encountered nearly all the Bugs that have been listed here at one time or another. Some of them that date way back and have still not been fixed. Because of this I now no longer buy anything from RSC on Steam and use Just Trains and other third party companies. I find their support brilliant. RSC need to take action on looking at this Topic and taking heed of their customers.
Kind regards James.