Line 113 Errors again

[johnrossetti]

Another thing to bear in mind when copying RW is file and path lengths.

Although Windows Explorer should stop you from copying long file names it does not always.
Windows 2000 has a 254 character limit.
Windows XP has a 255 character limit.
Windows Vista has a 260 character limit.
Windows 7 - Path limit is 248 characters Path+Filename is 260 characters and RW hits that limit in certain areas.
When ever I copy/BU RW I always compare the copy with the source.
I ONLY use software to copy/verify my files/copies I use Foldermatch, there may be others.
More at
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/For ... 41711ea69/
Cheers

[gptech]

The game also 'looks' with more attention to previously ignored parts of files: cast your minds back to the 'Green on the Port Road' workshop scenario which featured a green class 31 but was reported as being a blue one as the relevant section in the .bin hadn't been changed, not surprising as when the re-skin was produced that part of the file had no bearing on what we saw in game. Something like a conflict between descriptions in separate sections of the .bin may now be a contributary factor.
There was an issue shortly after the upgrade to TS2013 with a particular loft asset in 'South West Wales', which universally caused an SBHH when the locale was approached-- easy enough to swap out with RW Tools but on swapping the assets back the route then worked perfectly, suggesting some kind of internal error related to how the game now organises and links to files which was overcome by forcing a re-indexing when the items were swapped so it's possible that a seemingly perfect .bin file may be implicated (unfairly) as being the root cause of problems.

[chrisreb]

This is great stuff. Have installed and set up a filter as above.

Was not aware putting back the SWW problem asset was Ok ( well you learn several things every day ger!)

Thanks

[zm4em]

The authors never were responsible in my humble opinion.

[AndiS]

I ought to clarify that I never called for unqualified pointing at people. But I think we need to get to the bottom of this because it spoils the fun for so many people.

If there are complex stories like where you take an item from the list and put it back in and then magically the index gets rebuilt and exactly what failed before works now, then this ought to be reported to RSC in all the flavour in which it surfaces. Only a whole series of incidents will give them a clue of what is going on here; and the feeling that it not just a one-off hick-up in some individual's installation.

If there are fields checked now that were not checked before, word ought to be spread to content creators. I know a long list of field for which you don't know what to put there and whether it is relevant, or default items contain values that do not make any sense.

Myself, as a content creator (more precisely: content modifier) I only ever produce this error by typos in the XML which show up immediately. I have next to no experience in downloading stuff from different creators and getting it to work. I just see this 113 saga go on and on.

And if the file that triggers the message is not to blame, it would even be of little help if they would improve the error message.

Maybe we find a trick to force the recreation of a faulty index, like the old hint to delete Blueprints.pak; but not so easy obviously.

[gptech]

The authors never were responsible in my humble opinion.

I don't believe for one minute that anybody is trying to apportion blame for the issue Ash has had, afterall surely nobody has released a duff file with the intention of causing bother, but as above, if there are things that need looking out for as many as possible need to be aware of them.

The easiest thing in the world to do is delete something such as a < when editing a .bin file, and if that edit has just been a minor one such as changing a descriptive name after the .bin has been tested and this edit deemed so simple that another test isn't needed then that file could easily get distributed. Nothing anybody can do, nor any amount of nagging at those creating/modifying, will stop genuine mistakes and we'll continue to have them.
One field that is now in use that wasn't before is the <LocalisedEngineName> one, in the case of the green class 31 this field was left as the default so the Steam workshop 'thought' it was a straightforward item of DLC. This field is also used in the 'drive by loco' section in-game. Not everybody will be aware of this, and as the workshop doesn't, or at least didn't, throw up a warning that the file was *wrong* these glitches will happen again. This is one area where 'spreading the word' is of use.
Lastly, an incomplete download is another 'one of those things', it may even be a full download of what is on the server but when uploaded something went awry to truncate/break the file. In the latter case, when reported the procedure for the editor/modifier should be to actually download the file themselves rather than just check their local copy--another area where throwing out *guidance* is of benefit.

Given the vast number of files out there for us to enjoy, and even further tweak ourselves, it's surprising that the number of incidents such as this are as few.

[scefhwil]

There is another candiate for causing the Line 113 errors, and that is proxyxml files. If you manually edit a proxyxml file and save it with incorrect syntax that will cause this error. (I have just tried it with some of my own files).

So if Ashgray had installed a sound set with a faulty file for a loco that was used in his test scenario that could explain the sudden occurance of the error.