Atomic Systems

chrisreb wrote:Having applied the patch tried to resume a scenario today. Cannot get the pantograph to raise no matter what I do. Is this a known issue for anyone?

Same here, and it won't move in any scenario which came with the pack. I'll re-download the whole package and re-install to see that clears it up.

Just tried another scenario after restarting TS2014, and the scenarios are working when starting normally.

Did a small run from Illford to Liverpoos Street in a tiny scenario I had to set up in order to use the unit.

I tried to load one of the scenario's, but I find it odd that is says something about a Blue/grey Mk3. Can't imagine I need to have the AP/Wagonz 90 plus DvT and the same loco from Armstrong via Steam. What would be the point of having the same loco twice other then letting me pay twice for the same thing?

ProRail wrote:Did a small run from Illford to Liverpoos Street in a tiny scenario I had to set up in order to use the unit.

I tried to load one of the scenario's, but I find it odd that is says something about a Blue/grey Mk3. Can't imagine I need to have the AP/Wagonz 90 plus DvT and the same loco from Armstrong via Steam. What would be the point of having the same loco twice other then letting me pay twice for the same thing?

Please see the requirements list on the product page for which packs are required for the scenarios to work. This includes both class 90 packs.

gassa wrote:Had same problem with I/O errors. If you do not want to turn off your virus checker then try this advice I received from Richard yesterday. "try installing the main pack to your desktop and then copying/pasting the ‘Assets’, ‘Content’ & ‘Manuals’ folders to your RailWorks directory?" Worked a treat for me but I had to re - install the livery pack afterwards.

Might give that a go, cheers...!

Well AP and co do it again. Brilliant and this should be the standard for this sim no matter who releases it. I'm dumbfounded by those that defend the first party releases with low features, one livery and often bugs that have been carried over from one release to another. I do hope that the penny will drop one day as all that the defenders achieve ultimately is to hold the genre back.

37114 wrote:I'm dumbfounded by those that defend the first party releases with low features, one livery and often bugs that have been carried over from one release to another. I do hope that the penny will drop one day as all that the defenders achieve ultimately is to hold the genre back.

If you're dumbfounded is that possibly because you haven't thought things through properly?

Consider this:

RSC produce stuff with full time staff; staff for whom working for RSC is their only source of income. Anything done in working hours has an overheads cost.
AP have released a product that may heve been mainly done by part-time staff (for want of a better word) who are also enthusiasts. They're likely to have put in a lot of hours just to get things 'just right'---have a read through the thread from when RSC's 321 was announced and you'll find a post from one of the developers of AP's model which goes along the lines of "I spent hours getting that right". Those are probably hours that were done just for the love of it, incurring no (or minimal) overhead cost to AP. Now think back to 'the good old days' when we did get multiple liveries of stock; a time when Dereck Siddle put in a lot of hours producing liveries such as those we received with the original Class 101 DMU. Would you agree that it's possible, or if not at least that it's plausible, that RSC found that that method of working wasn't cost effective, or that Dereck himself found he ended up with no free time?
Of course the 'one livery policy' maximises turnover and profit potential, but isn't that what businesses are supposed to do? The lack of bug fixing I'll agree with, the buffers at Glasgow Central spring to mind there.
Far from holding the genre back it could be argued that RSC's move to produce just a base model opens the door for providers such as AP to flourish by producing models of the quality and completeness we see in this latest release; if they can do it with lower costs and still remain profitable then that's good news for us. The membership of UKTS is a probably tiny fraction of the number of TS2014 users and whilst we may crave as many features as possible there's bound to be a huge number who just want to get in the thing and drive it; for them the advanced features are a hinderance not a boon--there was a comment posted in here that JT's Advanced Voyager was just too hard to drive after that was upgraded from the *standard* model. We know what we'll get with DLC from RSC; it'll be basic but is that totally *wrong*? It does mean that little 6 year old Johnny can drive it happily and not give up because it's too hard and we all have the choice whether to purchase or not.

It's not an argument thats clear cut, there's no black and white sides to it but a rather complex juggling act of keeping costs down and staying in business, and to keep the genre moving forward isn't that what it needs?
Rather than slating everything RSC do (all too often at every possible opportunity in even unrelated threads), and also conversely blindly defending everything RSC do, we should all just have a ponder about 'why?' before deciding that our personal opinion is the only one that matters.

gptech wrote:

37114 wrote:I'm dumbfounded by those that defend the first party releases with low features, one livery and often bugs that have been carried over from one release to another. I do hope that the penny will drop one day as all that the defenders achieve ultimately is to hold the genre back.

If you're dumbfounded is that possibly because you haven't thought things through properly?

Consider this:

RSC produce stuff with full time staff; staff for whom working for RSC is their only source of income. Anything done in working hours has an overheads cost.
AP have released a product that may heve been mainly done by part-time staff (for want of a better word) who are also enthusiasts. They're likely to have put in a lot of hours just to get things 'just right'---have a read through the thread from when RSC's 321 was announced and you'll find a post from one of the developers of AP's model which goes along the lines of "I spent hours getting that right". Those are probably hours that were done just for the love of it, incurring no (or minimal) overhead cost to AP. Now think back to 'the good old days' when we did get multiple liveries of stock; a time when Dereck Siddle put in a lot of hours producing liveries such as those we received with the original Class 101 DMU. Would you agree that it's possible, or if not at least that it's plausible, that RSC found that that method of working wasn't cost effective, or that Dereck himself found he ended up with no free time?
Of course the 'one livery policy' maximises turnover and profit potential, but isn't that what businesses are supposed to do? The lack of bug fixing I'll agree with, the buffers at Glasgow Central spring to mind there.
Far from holding the genre back it could be argued that RSC's move to produce just a base model opens the door for providers such as AP to flourish by producing models of the quality and completeness we see in this latest release; if they can do it with lower costs and still remain profitable then that's good news for us. The membership of UKTS is a probably tiny fraction of the number of TS2014 users and whilst we may crave as many features as possible there's bound to be a huge number who just want to get in the thing and drive it; for them the advanced features are a hinderance not a boon--there was a comment posted in here that JT's Advanced Voyager was just too hard to drive after that was upgraded from the *standard* model. We know what we'll get with DLC from RSC; it'll be basic but is that totally *wrong*? It does mean that little 6 year old Johnny can drive it happily and not give up because it's too hard and we all have the choice whether to purchase or not.

It's not an argument thats clear cut, there's no black and white sides to it but a rather complex juggling act of keeping costs down and staying in business, and to keep the genre moving forward isn't that what it needs?
Rather than slating everything RSC do (all too often at every possible opportunity in even unrelated threads), and also conversely blindly defending everything RSC do, we should all just have a ponder about 'why?' before deciding that our personal opinion is the only one that matters.

I think you've made some very good points there and I'm not suggesting that mine is right or better than anyone else's but you don't have to look very far to find the voices of an awful lot of very disgruntled customers. I understand the railways very, very well as I'm an ex signalman I also understand business too as I'm now self-employed. My industry? Web development. I wouldn't dream of releasing my products with known bugs and not release patches to fix them, that's the industry norm and if I didn't I'd have no business. I don't slate everything they do and I've defended them many times but it seems they increasingly like they're abusing their current monopoly position and the present status of distant selling regulations on digital products. Thankfully both of these things are to change in the near future.

Anyone getting this error message: I/O Error 32" or "I/O Error 1224

Can confirm it is indeed a clash with McAfee. The solution is to turn of the REAL TIME SCANNING and FIREWALL. This will solve the problem. I did contact AP when I had the problem but was told it had never been reported before so must be my system. I narrowed it down to this. In a way, glad I am now not the only one having the issue and perhaps it may be put in their Q&A

Just purchased this as I needed it for the AP 37 scenario pack,I had not realized that I hadn't got it earlier. Wow what a model . I love the implementation of the fully functional Electronic destination display. Is this the first ? I don't recall any others with this. Would be great to see this applied on many others that are already out.

Antony

Ajay1 wrote:Just purchased this as I needed it for the AP 37 scenario pack,I had not realized that I hadn't got it earlier. Wow what a model . I love the implementation of the fully functional Electronic destination display. Is this the first ? I don't recall any others with this. Would be great to see this applied on many others that are already out.

Antony

There's one in the class 142.

Totally agree with 37114 - as a near (but not yet) pensioner - I get lost with the advanced controls of some stock - I try to keep a basic crib sheet of instructions - but I too find the Super Voyager hard to drive - I think JT have the best solution - as with the new Advanced Class 60 - a simple mode that can be switched on from the Switch in the Assets folder. Some of us just love driving the routes and are too busy remembering the start up procedures etc - but I totally appreciate the desire for such authenticity by the enthusiast - as with driving a steam engine - a built in simple mode switch on all future advanced models would be sensible for all age use!

DCB

xguerra wrote:

Ajay1 wrote:Just purchased this as I needed it for the AP 37 scenario pack,I had not realized that I hadn't got it earlier. Wow what a model . I love the implementation of the fully functional Electronic destination display. Is this the first ? I don't recall any others with this. Would be great to see this applied on many others that are already out.

Antony

There's one in the class 142.

Thanks, yes I see. Roll on some more with this feature.

Antony