Atomic Systems

gptech wrote:

749006 wrote:but i don't fully understand some of the bit's of route building.If the route is looking for an asset called Rockface01.bin in a folder called \MichaelWhiteley\Austerity\Scenery\rockformations which it finds - How is the *.bin file pointing in the wrong direction?

It's nothing to do with route building Peter, but how .bin files work.

The game looks for a .bin file of the right name in the right place--right being where the route's .bin files tell it to.
You copy the contents of the EEType3BAssets.ap archive over, and yes, the game finds the right named .bin file in the right place but that .bin file points to the location of the associated .GeoPcDx (model shape) file etc.

Just picking one file at random, Bridge01.bin from the ..\Scenery\Bridges folder (where else?) and opening it with RW Tools shows us:

Code: Select all

					<GeometryID d:type="cDeltaString">MichaelWhiteley\EEType3B\Scenery\Bridges\[00]Bridge01</GeometryID>

which is the original .GeoPcDx file. Accordingly, all those .GeoPcDx files you've copied over are useless.
The .GeoPcDx files define the location of the textures, in relation to their location, in this case

Code: Select all

			<TextureByName>
				<e d:type="cDeltaString">[08]bridge01</e>

No path to a folder, so that shows that the bridge01 texture file is in the same directory as the .GeoPcDx.
As the game won't be using the copied .Geo, it obviously won't use the copied textures either.

749006 wrote:And if I had updated the route with RW Tools so it looked at \MichaelWhiteley\EEType3B\ instead of \MichaelWhiteley\Austerity\ would that work be for nothing if the route was updated?

Yes it would, so taking the middle ground between the *proper* way of doing it and editing the route and the *daft* way of extracting the contents of a .ap archive that wouldn't be used, the next best option is to just extract/copy/paste the .bin files for the assets actually used in the route.
Much depends on just how many assets are involved---if it's a small (open to definition of course) number then re-editing any upgraded version of the route to suit (and it's not something you'd be doing every other day when all's said and done) isn't an onerous chore.

So If I've done it a way it should not work why does it? The places i had missing Bridges, Embankments, Rock Faces are now appearing as they should

And RW Tools tells me I'm not missing anything Track Wise but the Standard Gauge Section from Porthmadog to Minnfford is missing - not sure why?

749006 wrote:So If I've done it a way it should not work why does it?

Read my posts again Peter...

gptech wrote:

749006 wrote:It might not be the best way but seems to work

It certainly isn't, even though it does.

gptech wrote:the next best option is to just extract/copy/paste the .bin files for the assets actually used in the route.

Nowhere did I state that it wouldn't work, just that your method was flawed and isn't the *best* way to do it. (rather than clog the thread, if you want that aspect explaining let's deal with it elsewhere--another thread or PM)

Ok Gary - I missed your Nest Best Option

Just trying to work out which track is not appearing for the Network Rail Section ?

Peter

749006 wrote:Just trying to work out which track is not appearing for the Network Rail Section

BullheadTrack Branch dirty (track.bin) from ..\MichaelWhiteley\Austerity\RailNetwork Peter....the version of Maerdy you don't have; but in theory it should show as you've sorted the directory structure out using the EE3B assets.

gptech wrote:

749006 wrote:Just trying to work out which track is not appearing for the Network Rail Section

BullheadTrack Branch dirty (track.bin) from ..\MichaelWhiteley\Austerity\RailNetwork Peter....the version of Maerdy you don't have; but in theory it should show as you've sorted the directory structure out using the EE3B assets.

Thanks Gary

It would but I don't think that track is in the EE3B assets - so RW Tools it is

Peter

749006 wrote:It would but I don't think that track is in the EE3B assets

It is in mine Peter.

So I wonder why it does not show in the route - the blue line is there showing the track layout but no track visible

Peter

Hi Folks,

I'm glad to see people helping out to sort out individual installations, certainly no problem about 'clogging the thread' if it gets things up and running as advice given for one may prove useful to many others. I'm sure there was a story regarding "give a man a fish / teach a man to fish" with a similar moral behind it.

My knowledge of the deeper workings of the file structure is very limited - I'm just an asset plonker - but did experience a similar track related issue just prior to release. I had the route ready to go and all backed up, and an early version of the scenic assets pack installed when I decided to rebuild Cae Pawb to remove an inelegant dog-leg in the track. All went well and after an hour of work I loaded up the route to find a similar issue - blue lines on the 2D map but no track visible in the edited area when looking around. I think this is because the scenic asset pack relates to the files and paths of the unedited route (possibly through changes to the tracks.bin although I'm happy to be corrected if wrong).

As a workaround rather than a full fix it might be worth anyone who is swapping track-related assets to try it without the scenic assets pack installed, as the route should run fine without them assuming that the swaps are done correctly. If that works then we can dig deeper to investigate how to locally update the scenic assets files to acknowledge the local edits - but this would be best done individually for each user with their own setup.

It is lovely to see that the community is helping each other out I'd also like to add my personal thanks again to gptech for assisting with this, as your help was very much appreciated pre-release too. I'm still learning from reading these posts!

My next challenge is to learn to swap stock with RWTools as apparently the S&C 158 isn't actually the S&C 158...

Cheers,


ThePhantomPhish

The track issues may be because of the mix of track and track rule; the Maerdy track isn't defined in the S&C rule.

Hi again everyone,

Just by way of a heads-up for anyone that wants to grab required DLC at bargain prices... there seems to be a 'Create your own TS edition' sale on until 18th December 2017, ending 3pm GMT.

As a discalimer - I am not telling anyone to spend any of their money!! Make your own choices before making any purchases - I will re-iterate that in my experience all the DLC required for the FfR&WHR was worthwhile in it's own right but that is purely personal opinion!! So with that in mind...

Looking through the list of routes on offer, it appears that you can mix and match three for £24.99. I haven't looked too closely as I've already (obviously!) got what is needed for the NWNGR to work and look as intended, but for anyone missing assets and struggling with swaps etc it appears that the sale includes:

Doncaster Works
East Coast Main Line
Falmouth Branch
Riviera in the Fifties (for the unedited Whistle boards only that are reskinned in the NWNGR scenic assets pack)
Settle Carlisle
Somerset and Dorset
Woodhead

Obviously your hard-earned £25 would only get you three of these (or I guess £49.98 for six?), and Corris, Maerdy, and Western Lines of Scotland do not appear to be on the list if you're missing those, but if it helps even one of you fill a missing hole in the collection needed to make the NWNGR look and run as my version does then this post will not have been in vain...

But make your own informed choice before committing, only buy what you want either for the DLC itself or if you really want it to contribute to the NWNGR.

In terms of 'largest contributions' from the above then Doncaster Works, Falmouth, Settle Carlisle and Woodhead are the most utilised.

Good luck to anyone shopping! I can't vouch for the need to extract anything after purchase from .ap files or for anyone who has swapped a load of stuff that they then acquire - but that is where this collective brain is, once again, your friend

Thanks,


ThePhantomPhish

Hi Everyone,

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Real life has still been hindering my TS work of late, but I have as promised been working on scenarios for a forthcoming pack release which will include (so far) :

- a fixed version of the guided tour
- a down FfR guided tour
- a two-part down WHR guided tour

And possibly some others, subject to testing time and so on - I have been playing with the Corris rolling stock expansion pack and would like to offer some shunting scenarios to make use of the various yards, although I cannot get the red diesel to work without stalling all the time

One thing that was raised, which I have been looking into, is the use of the RREX 158 in some scenarios. I've swapped the RREX for the DEFAULT to get the Northern-style livery from the S&C DLC instead and would be grateful if soemone could confirm that that is the correct path (all other details in the .bin scripting lines are the same). This does however not quite look right for the era, especially on the Cambrian, so I'm in two minds whether to change all the scenarios to the DEFAULT version or not...

Finally I am delighted that there have still, so far, not been any infrastructure howlers come to light, even though I've found a couple myself so for the time being the route itself will be kept as it is. As always, any feedback will be appreciated and acted on appropriately!

I hope this route is still giving you all Jolly Good Fun, and wish you all the best for 2018!!


ThePhantomPhish

thephantomphish wrote:This does however not quite look right for the era, especially on the Cambrian

What would look right?

gptech wrote:

thephantomphish wrote:This does however not quite look right for the era, especially on the Cambrian

What would look right?

RegRail, FNW or ATW Class 158.

xguerra wrote:

gptech wrote:

thephantomphish wrote:This does however not quite look right for the era, especially on the Cambrian

What would look right?

RegRail, FNW or ATW Class 158.

It depends where in the route the 158 appears.

If it's on the Porthmadog - Minfford section a Reg Rail, Central or ATW 158 is suitable.
But at Blaenau F then a RegRail 101, a FNW 150 or 153 or a ATW 150/2 but never a 158 as they are not allowed along the branch
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/ ... 667da0.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ion_01.jpg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/36844288@N00/36579583450

Peter

Sorry if I'm being thick or missing something here, but if the Regional Railways livery is appropriate why the need to change it for the Northern Rail one--is it a case of a no longer available reskin?