Atomic Systems

Now if we could persuade RSC to fix problems as quick most people would be happy.

Wll done vR & MaikG.

Peter

First two free scenarios now available on the VR site. One for Seebergbahn and one for K-D.

Ran the K-D Scenario and the amount of AI traffic is very good. Lot's of trains and static consists to distract you
And I don't think you need any extra Payware - unlike some scenarios you find.

Thanks vR

Peter

I've come across another issue - not sure it was there with v1 and perhaps it is what Maik was talking about here before - it seems like sometimes the cooling sound is duplicated which creates that infamous phasing effect.

Maik, is that the workaround you were talking about - that you're using two cooling sounds so that the sound is still there in case one fails to load? No other way to remedy this?

@jstange .. see answer on rail-sim.de

MaikG wrote:@jstange .. see answer on rail-sim.de

Yep, already did. Thanks again!

For those not using rail-sim.de, Maik answered:

No, that was intended as it is. On each bogie are two FML soundfiles working, so four at the whole loco, at the same time (to make it more strong). I set them up that they have a good "gap" between pitch and volume (base and variation). But sometimes two of them will share near the same parameters and then the flanging appears. It is a manner of the TS audio engine and not really able to prevent.

Maik,

are you going to release the JellyCab fix anytime soon (if at all)?

Thank you very much.

It comes with the next regualar update for the BR103 packages. Needs some time bcauser there is more to fix including LZB. But i am not happy with setting cabsway back to standards. The loco feels like a toy with this. But i is better than the jelly cam effekt. I mailed to RSC and hope that they somtimes fix this issue.

I see, its a hard decision as some of the loco''s great properties will be lost. I think the best option for your customers will be, Maik, if you let them choose and release the "fix" as'a separate download. Or the other way round: the base package will have it fixed and alternative download would allow those who want to have the original cab sway values... just my opinion...

I personally would probably go with the more conservative values - I was just driving again your C-D scenario and the camera shaking is terrible sometimes...

Making two different settings does not "fix" it for the customers. That loco is to fast and powerful to prevent the jelly cam. I want a proper solution, and that only RSC can provide. So maybe we have to spam their mailboxes to finaly get fixed this issue. Can't be that complicated to research this in the core code. But i reported this many times over the years and there is nothing to come for a fix. But i sent them a new mail with the new informations. Just wait and see.

The camera shake on C-D is a track laying thing. Stronger damping values on the cabsway can do a little against it, but not really as much as needed. C-D is not a good testing environment. HH-H is way better to test. There the standard cabsway is acceptable but with more damping the loco feels more heavy.

Well, let's not be naive, the probability RSC will fix it is extremely low, at least not in a reasonable time frame. This is why I proposed to have a base package and then a patch and people can choose if they apply it or not depending on what they prefer. I still think this is the best option under the current circumstances...

I would support you in this by writing RSC about it too, but I can imagine the answer: it is a third party product we do not support. On top of it, given the kind of generic responses I have been receiving from them lately (and probably all the time, not just lately), it probably makes no sense at all... They only concentrate on _major_ bugs that only affect _their own_ products and even these are not fixed in a timely manner.

One more note to your update release system, Maik: wouldn't it make more sense to prepare a patch installation rather than a new complete package every time a new version is released so that people don't need to download the whole thing again and can save you some bandwidth? I guess this is also a reason you wait with a patch release until more bugs accumulate, right?

Well it may well be in everyone's interest to find out which of the RSC stock this is affecting and promptly raise a support issue with them.

From RSC: Class 70, Class 66 v2, Class 57 (i know its Oovee but provided over Steam), all vR and of course some other ones. I also do not have hopes that they fix this soon, but my connection to RSC is a bit more efficient than thru the normal support. What i'm still thinking is: there is no dev team

MaikG wrote:From RSC: Class 70, Class 66 v2, Class 57 (i know its Oovee but provided over Steam), all vR and of course some other ones. I also do not have hopes that they fix this soon, but my connection to RSC is a bit more efficient than thru the normal support. What i'm still thinking is: there is no dev team

Hi Maik, you could be right? However the more people that report it the more likely it will be looked at..... by somebody....... eventually!

MaikG wrote:It comes with the next regualar update for the BR103 packages. Needs some time bcauser there is more to fix including LZB. But i am not happy with setting cabsway back to standards. The loco feels like a toy with this. But i is better than the jelly cam effekt. I mailed to RSC and hope that they somtimes fix this issue.

In fixing the cab sway what else would you lose?
I might not download the next fix if it breaks something I like.
I ran the loco on an older route and it's fine to me.