Class 117 Errors

[gptech]

I think the key lies in the scripts Gary to be honest. I suspect it is something to do with the 'consist message' parameter (or similar) between the cars,

I was thinking more along the lines of seeing whether the values for the position of the reverser were 'tweakable'---sorry I didn't make it clear what I was on about.

[749006]

I think the key lies in the scripts Gary to be honest. I suspect it is something to do with the 'consist message' parameter (or similar) between the cars,

I was thinking more along the lines of seeing whether the values for the position of the reverser were 'tweakable'---sorry I didn't make it clear what I was on about.

It's a nice idea but beyond my capabilities.

[malkymackay]

It is an easy fix to sort the screaming rear car & somehow DTG managed to miss it. The SPT 101 has it, so there is no reason why the 117 couldn't have been done.
Open up the bin file for each vehicle (I'm not even going to ask why the TCL is classed as an engine..) and search and replace

Code: Select all

<ControlName d:type="cDeltaString">GearLever</ControlName>
							<DefaultValue d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000000000" d:precision="string">0</DefaultValue>
							<MinimumValue d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000000000" d:precision="string">0</MinimumValue>
							<MaximumValue d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000001040" d:precision="string">4</MaximumValue>
							<BriefDescription d:type="cDeltaString">Gear Lever</BriefDescription>
							<DetailedDescription d:type="cDeltaString">Gear Lever</DetailedDescription>
							<ApplyToConsist d:type="cDeltaString">eFalse</ApplyToConsist>

with

Code: Select all

<ControlName d:type="cDeltaString">GearLever</ControlName>
							<DefaultValue d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000000000" d:precision="string">0</DefaultValue>
							<MinimumValue d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000000000" d:precision="string">0</MinimumValue>
							<MaximumValue d:type="sFloat32" d:alt_encoding="0000000000001040" d:precision="string">4</MaximumValue>
							<BriefDescription d:type="cDeltaString">Gear Lever</BriefDescription>
							<DetailedDescription d:type="cDeltaString">Gear Lever</DetailedDescription>
							<ApplyToConsist d:type="cDeltaString">eTrue</ApplyToConsist>

That seems to sort it.

[749006]

I had enough cab rides in DMU's in my youth to know what I was looking at in the 117 was wrong. However, my point is that to me, my expectations are that the DLC should provide a reasonable interpretation of the DMU driving experience. For me, the 117 does that, I reckon more so than the 101.

But at the end of the say, for the 99% of users 'out there' who wouldn't know a Cravens from a Calder Valley, you have to ask what their expectations are with this, and any other DLC. DG must be doing something right in this regard as they are still trading.

Regards,

Richard

So, basically, DTG does not have to bother trying to get it right as long as it gives a reasonable interpretation ? - That will save them a bit of work.
Like the Munchen - Garmish route which the German users spotted all the errors but to us it gave a reasonable interpretation
Maybe we should tell Just Trains not to bother updating Marsdonshire as it does give a reasonable interpretation of a UK route?

I think my problem is I spent 27 years on DMU's and it was obviously wrong.
http://peter749.piwigo.com/picture?/183 ... l_pictures

But it seems to be OK for everyone else.

Regards,

Peter

[rfletcher72]

It is an easy fix to sort the screaming rear car & somehow DTG managed to miss it......
That seems to sort it.

Thank you Malcolm,

That does indeed fix the scream outright

Have you compared the .bin files of the 101 and 117 to see if they give a clue as to what *needs* changing and just how *easy* that may be to accomplish?

Gary, I offer my apologies, it was indeed something in the .bin file that needed altering ,

Thanks again Guys,

[gptech]

I think the key lies in the scripts Gary to be honest. I suspect it is something to do with the 'consist message' parameter (or similar) between the cars,

I was thinking more along the lines of seeing whether the values for the position of the reverser were 'tweakable'---sorry I didn't make it clear what I was on about.

It's a nice idea but beyond my capabilities.

Beyond mine too, but at least you gave an honest answer and not "Why should I?, it should be right to start with".
Just had a wee play in the ,bin and couldn't find anything that looked relevant to positioning but did tinker with the brake pressure stuff, and despite editing the .bin the displayed value wouldn't budge from 21"

I think my problem is I spent 27 years on DMU's and it was obviously wrong.

No, your main problem is that you spent 27 years on DMUs (and in the case of the reverser most obviously) you expect the model to be exactly like the things you used to drive. This is compounded greatly if you use the mouse to move the controls, as you'd instinctively move it to where you *know* it should/used to be. Driving using the HUD or keyboard, or any other controller is just a case of 'press key/move slidey handle/move lever', where the actual position of the lever isn't as critical to operation.

The original version of the 117 shared these same *defects*, so it does seem a bit harsh to blame RSC for them---have you sent a nice polite e-mail to their support team detailing your observations?

[gptech]

Gary, I offer my apologies, it was indeed something in the .bin file that needed altering

I should hope so too...

I should apologise then for not making it clear where my slightly addled brain was going, though in defence I will say it was a rushed post from my phone. Apologies all done, so what's the next world crisis we need to sort out?

[gptech]

Apologies (once again) for 3 posts when 1 would've done, but.....

It is an easy fix to sort the screaming rear car & somehow DTG managed to miss it. The SPT 101 has it, so there is no reason why the 117 couldn't have been done.

As the model is just a re-release of a once discontinued model, originally produced and distributed by another, there's your reason it was *missed* or deemed not critical by RSC/DTG. None of us know whether any conditions were imposed upon transfer of the catalogue of assets to RSC/DTG regarding modifications, nor is it any of our business, but let's not discount any unknown factors that may be at play.

[Carinthia]

As the model is just a re-release of a once discontinued model, originally produced and distributed by another, there's your reason it was *missed* or deemed not critical by RSC/DTG. None of us know whether any conditions were imposed upon transfer of the catalogue of assets to RSC/DTG regarding modifications, nor is it any of our business, but let's not discount any unknown factors that may be at play.

I am perhaps not entirely qualified to comment here because I chose not to purchase this DMU owing to many of the changes that have been made, so it is not "just a re-release". I'm not outraged at all, it's just that this incarnation doesn't suit me because:

1. The unit is not available in green, which is not just a matter of needing a "reskin" because . . .
2. A modern style headlamp has been added, and
3. The configurable four-character headcode appears to have been disabled/removed

On the bright side the sounds have been substantially improved - I am presumably not allowed to explain what I mean here but be assured if this unit still had the original sounds the angst on here would be immense!

If the "screaming" sound (which I can't say I ever noticed with the old Class 101 pack) is deemed a major problem them perhaps a line to Railsimulator.com might be a good idea? The more people that do that, the more likely it is to be recognised as an issue and updated.

If it had been released "as is" but with the Class 101 sounds I would have been a sufficiently happy bunny to purchase the current version without complaint, because in its original form I personally find it only useful for AI purposes in scenarios.

John

[749006]

Beyond mine too, but at least you gave an honest answer and not "Why should I?, it should be right to start with".
Just had a wee play in the ,bin and couldn't find anything that looked relevant to positioning but did tinker with the brake pressure stuff, and despite editing the .bin the displayed value wouldn't budge from 21"

The original version of the 117 shared these same *defects*, so it does seem a bit harsh to blame RSC for them---have you sent a nice polite e-mail to their support team detailing your observations?

When I ran the 117 the 'High Side' shows 30" Vacuum as it should but when I released the brakes the Train Pipe went up to 30" as well.

And I know the orginal 117 had some faults - I just hoped RSC might have tweaked the Cab instead
I will send them that polite e-mail

Thanks

Peter