Those ones don't.749006 wrote:If you are going down that route then there is no need to put most of the assets in a route apart from signals and platforms.
It may not be a big deal to you but it's what makes the game more enjoyable - the small detail items the route builders have put in to their creations.
They help bring their routes to life
Chinley V2
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Chinley V2
- 749006
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:17 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
Re: Chinley V2
Why not?pctech wrote:Those ones don't.749006 wrote:If you are going down that route then there is no need to put most of the assets in a route apart from signals and platforms.
It may not be a big deal to you but it's what makes the game more enjoyable - the small detail items the route builders have put in to their creations.
They help bring their routes to life
http://peter749.piwigo.com/
My Railway Pictures
My Railway Pictures
Re: Chinley V2
If you read the thread instead of resurrecting the discussion eight days later to jump down my throat you would know why.749006 wrote:Why not?
-
gptech
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 19585
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:48 pm
- Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Re: Chinley V2
If you were a little more civil nobody would feel the need to "jump down your throat".
Whether the assets are missing or not doesn't matter when the principle is what's being discussed.
These smaller details do make a huge difference to the feel of a route, but if those particular assets have been removed then it suggests incomplete editing, as the reference to them should also have gone.
This is different to your original claim/guess that they were buried underground, something that would make using those assets rather pointless---nobody would place an asset in a route but then hide it from view.
Whether the assets are missing or not doesn't matter when the principle is what's being discussed.
These smaller details do make a huge difference to the feel of a route, but if those particular assets have been removed then it suggests incomplete editing, as the reference to them should also have gone.
This is different to your original claim/guess that they were buried underground, something that would make using those assets rather pointless---nobody would place an asset in a route but then hide it from view.
Re: Chinley V2
Are you a moderator? I cannot see anything uncivil about the words "those ones don't". Maybe I wasn't lucky enough to go to the University of Supreme Knowledge but moderators should know not to fault writing style as forums should cater for people from all walks of life.
What is certainly uncivil is the way you choose to have a jibe at me at every opportunity. This is nothing short of a childish personal attack - we both know why you do this and I do not believe personal matters should be pursued through a forum which is why I have ignored them until now.
Looking back through this thread alone and you single me out for describing an object as looking like a telegraph insulator because "we" call them milk bottles. Is that an official term? No. Does it matter? Only to you. At the time I ignored this as pointless bait.
Your comment about buried assets is both pointless and inaccurate. I previously ignored this too as bait not worth rising to but as I am sure you know there can be scenery objects, such as signs, where what I will call a "base" point (no doubt you prefer to call it something else) will be buried. For simplicity I called this ground level but they may be below the level of another object. For instance, a station sign could be designed in a way that the legs are longer than required and sit on the ground but the sign dosplays correctly above the platform. Designing them this way can make installation significantly easier for the developer.
As to the reported missing scenery assets themselves - have you found them? I have certainly located some of them. Guess where they are? Under the ground.
I will not be commenting further in this thread (although I am sure you will find it hard to resist) as there is little point if everything I say is going to be criticised by you. What I will say is that this is one of the best free routes released for a very long time and JG should be commended for his work. It isn't perfect but I do not go looking for things to criticise. Anything I encounter that requires a fix (such as the broken track near Millers Dale) I will investigate and discuss with the developer direct instead of airing publicly on a forum. I certainly don't go looking for problems like missing assets that turn out to be irrelevant. I have worked with many developers (of commercial and free work) over the years in this way and I believe this is the best (and proper) way to do things.
What is certainly uncivil is the way you choose to have a jibe at me at every opportunity. This is nothing short of a childish personal attack - we both know why you do this and I do not believe personal matters should be pursued through a forum which is why I have ignored them until now.
Looking back through this thread alone and you single me out for describing an object as looking like a telegraph insulator because "we" call them milk bottles. Is that an official term? No. Does it matter? Only to you. At the time I ignored this as pointless bait.
Your comment about buried assets is both pointless and inaccurate. I previously ignored this too as bait not worth rising to but as I am sure you know there can be scenery objects, such as signs, where what I will call a "base" point (no doubt you prefer to call it something else) will be buried. For simplicity I called this ground level but they may be below the level of another object. For instance, a station sign could be designed in a way that the legs are longer than required and sit on the ground but the sign dosplays correctly above the platform. Designing them this way can make installation significantly easier for the developer.
As to the reported missing scenery assets themselves - have you found them? I have certainly located some of them. Guess where they are? Under the ground.
I will not be commenting further in this thread (although I am sure you will find it hard to resist) as there is little point if everything I say is going to be criticised by you. What I will say is that this is one of the best free routes released for a very long time and JG should be commended for his work. It isn't perfect but I do not go looking for things to criticise. Anything I encounter that requires a fix (such as the broken track near Millers Dale) I will investigate and discuss with the developer direct instead of airing publicly on a forum. I certainly don't go looking for problems like missing assets that turn out to be irrelevant. I have worked with many developers (of commercial and free work) over the years in this way and I believe this is the best (and proper) way to do things.
- 749006
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:17 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
Re: Chinley V2
The problem is you are referring to an object you can see in the game as a telegraph insulator.pctech wrote:Looking back through this thread alone and you single me out for describing an object as looking like a telegraph insulator because "we" call them milk bottles. Is that an official term? No. Does it matter? Only to you. At the time I ignored this as pointless bait.
If you read these two posts from both the UK and the US you will see that other people refer to them as milk bottles
http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=139611
http://railworksamerica.com/forum/viewt ... =29&t=5336
When you decide to call an object something different to what people know it as can make people wonder what you are talking about.
I decided not to be as terse or rude as you were.
Peter
http://peter749.piwigo.com/
My Railway Pictures
My Railway Pictures
-
gptech
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 19585
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:48 pm
- Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Re: Chinley V2
pctech wrote:........
a long preamble, eventually getting to..
You've explained that what you meant was not that the assets had been buried intentionally, but that once *missing* the milk bottle/insulator/cooling tower (if you have that modification installed) could be hidden from sight. In the case of nameboards on signal boxes this could just as easily have been inside the signal box asset itself.pctech wrote:........"base" point (no doubt you prefer to call it something else) will be buried. For simplicity I called this ground level but they may be below the level of another object. For instance, a station sign could be designed in a way that the legs are longer than required and sit on the ground but the sign dosplays correctly above the platform. Designing them this way can make installation significantly easier for the developer.
What intrigues and worries me more though is:
Actually, I don't and I'd love to know why you feel this way--by PM or email to gptechuk2000<at> yahoo.co.uk would be easier on other members. The post that has upset you in this thread was in 'defence' of 749006, who I've *attacked* /fallen out with/berated/corrected/called names/stuck my tongue out at many more times than I've responded to posts by yourself.In this respect, you're not being singled out and are nothing special.pctech wrote:the way you choose to have a jibe at me at every opportunity. This is nothing short of a childish personal attack - we both know why you do this