RW_Tools - New version

[Auscgu]

Mike

I have been working through a route check and just thinking out loud about the process
Rwtools has all the paths for what appear to be missing assets and in fact many may be present

Rwrools will need .ap access to extract just the files that are required for that route or confirm they are present
Can the paths that the Asset missing table be used to guide the .ap extraction process to find or confirm the files exist
Then all missing assets with incorrect paths or asset not loaded could be found

This would speed up Route Checking compared to a manual extraction for all assets other that Rolling Stock, Routes & sceanrios
Could also eliminate the extraction of file not required by Train Sim to run
This is certainly a future project

During this process I have had another instance of Rtools version 8 not finding assets that exist
I swapped back to 7.34 and restarted my windows and the missing assets where confirmed as present
I will need time to test and provided some details of the issues

I now have both version 8 and Version 7.34 installed with the version number as the prefix when not in service
7.34 seems the winner so far and is reliable for Route Asset checking
Not checked for stock change

Cheers Ausc

[gptech]

Rwtools has all the paths for what appear to be missing assets and in fact many may be present

Assets in a .ap archive only appear as missing to RW Tools, the game does not need anything extracting from any archive in order to run the route or scenario.

Rwrools will need .ap access to extract just the files that are required for that route or confirm they are present

As above, nothing needs extracting for the game to 'see' and use it.
If you get an RW Tools report such as this,



then all you have to do is buy the Bristol - Cardiff route, or do nothing if you already have it. By their very virtue assets that are in a .ap archive are present, as long as you have that particular item of DLC, so there's no confirmation of their presence needed.

[mikesimpson]

I have to agree with Gary that if a route's missing files are listed as being from a route which is distributed as being in an .ap file, then as long as you have the .ap file it is a given that the file is not missing. I am however still looking at how to do further looking inside .ap files without unpacking them, but it does slow everything down.

Meanwhile, maybe it would be possible for a Moderator to move this thread to the RW_Tools board or otherwise it will soon be swallowed up in the general postings? But maybe no Moderators look at this group any more, I suggested they change the general heading from TS13-TS17 to TS13-TS18 some time ago and nothing has happened, we will probably be at TS19 soon?

Mike

[alanch]

I have to agree with Gary that if a route's missing files are listed as being from a route which is distributed as being in an .ap file, then as long as you have the .ap file it is a given that the file is not missing.

The real problem begins when individuals have reskinned and distributed assets based on those originally in a .ap file, and then another individual has used them in a scenario or route. When RW Tools says that something is missing there is no easy way to know from within RW Tools if it is one of the default assets that will be in the .ap, or the reskin that you haven't installed. Of course, you can use 7Zip (or any other file tool of choice) to look in the .ap, but it is time consuming.

[gptech]

True Alan, but extracting the contents of a .ap archive will not make that missing asset appear. In addition to that, as long as a route/scenario author provides the information about which reskins are used, and preferably provides a pointer to get hold of it, then there's no reason not to have that asset installed.
What's next?...should Mike build a routine into RW Tools to go searching the internet for any missing reskins?

[alanch]

What's next?...should Mike build a routine into RW Tools to go searching the internet for any missing reskins?

Well . . . that would be nice , but it isn't going to happen - I was just pointing out the difficulties for novices. And wouldn't it be great if everyone did list the sources of the reskins they use.

[gptech]

the difficulties for novices

...and where would the fun be if it was all easy?

Being more serious, if a nivice hits bother that's when communities such as this come in to their own,,,as long as the correct information is given of course.

So, to phrase/emphasise things slightly differently:

If RW Tools throws up a report saying you've missing assets it's possible that may only be because RW Tools can't see the contents of .ap archives. If you have that particular item of DLC (and lets not forget that the only provider who routinely uses the .ap format is DTG) and if the reported assets are all those supplied in that DLC pack, then you don't need to do anything---the game will load those assets OK.
Any reskins of those assets will be outside of the .ap archive, and (hopefully) have a descriptive file name that gives us a clue as to what it is, so all it takes is an instance of your preferred archive manager open (WinRAR, 7Zip, even Windows itself you rename a copy of a ,ap to have the .zip extension) in which you can see just what's in the archive. That takes far less bother than blithely extracting the contents of archives.

[markpullinger]

And as an addition to Gary's comment, if you blindly extract all of the ap files, any mods that have been made, ie soundpacks etc will be overwritten by the vanilla copy which means you have to reinstall all of the mods again...…..

[gptech]

This is the kind of thing that happens when the contents of .ap archives are extracted incorrectly...

Code: Select all

........\Assets\RSC\WestSomerset\WestSomersetAssets\RailNetwork\TrackRule\WSTrackRule.bin

(missing items report taken from a new instance of Glorious Devon 1958; downloaded from DPS today)

there shouldn't be a WestSomersetAssets directory in there!

Yes, it matters not one bit in real life as that instance of a track rule is assigned to a road, but if it had been a scenery item, or much more critically a track linked item, then those downloading the route would be missing something *important*. The issue of incorrectly extracted content from .ap archives was covered back in November/December(?) so whilst it's heartening that the main issues have been dealt with it is rather saddening to see another (and once again, inconsequential) occurrence crop up.

We've touched upon the *novice* having bother interpreting such a report from RW Tools---how is said *novice* going to deal with that kind of error?---if he/she extracts the contents correctly he/she will still get that error, and telling him/her to replicate the path shown in the report IS NOT THE ANSWER.

[mikesimpson]

This is the kind of thing that happens when the contents of .ap archives are extracted incorrectly...

Code: Select all

........\Assets\RSC\WestSomerset\WestSomersetAssets\RailNetwork\TrackRule\WSTrackRule.bin

(missing items report taken from a new instance of Glorious Devon 1958; downloaded from DPS today)

there shouldn't be a WestSomersetAssets directory in there!

Yes, it matters not one bit in real life as that instance of a track rule is assigned to a road, but if it had been a scenery item, or much more critically a track linked item, then those downloading the route would be missing something *important*. The issue of incorrectly extracted content from .ap archives was covered back in November/December(?) so whilst it's heartening that the main issues have been dealt with it is rather saddening to see another (and once again, inconsequential) occurrence crop up.

We've touched upon the *novice* having bother interpreting such a report from RW Tools---how is said *novice* going to deal with that kind of error?---if he/she extracts the contents correctly he/she will still get that error, and telling him/her to replicate the path shown in the report IS NOT THE ANSWER.

I suppose to be really nit-picking, Roads don't need track rules, therefore they should never have been appearing in the game at all, yet they have been there since Rail Simulator first appeared 10 years ago.

Mike

[brysonman46]

I suppose to be really nit-picking, Roads don't need track rules, therefore they should never have been appearing in the game at all, yet they have been there since Rail Simulator first appeared 10 years ago.

Mike

It was my understanding that the Kuju team intended to treat Roads and Lofts in the same way as Tracks, and have Ribbons connected in Networks - hence the inclusion in the major folder "Networks". The Lofts.bin and Roads.bin files contain the same "header" and "footer" as Tracks.bin (apart from the terms "<Network-cTrackNetwork..." being replaced by "<Network-cLoftNetwork..."). It behoves Route Builders to ensure that the main TrackRule is selected at all times, when laying Roads and Lofts as well as Track, but it is not always done in "the heat of creativity". I am as guilty as the next person. The creators of DLC are working with just one set of Assets (albeit many having been lifted from their other routes), so only have 1 provider of Track Rules; the problem should not arise with these routes.

Nick

[gptech]

That certainly fits with the theory/suggestion that the initial release of the game by EA was purely to ht the schedule, rather than deliver a finished product---there are many things in the game that don't *work*, the 'Reskin Blueprint' idea being another one that stands out.
However, what we have is what we have, what we'll get in all probability, so we have to live/try to live with it, and (hopefully) agree on the best way(s) of doing that living.
It would be fair to say that the general consensus is that extracting the content from .ap archives is (mostly) not necessary--you have the .ap archive installed, you have the assets it holds installed kind of thinking. This does fall over slightly when we get to reskins of assets from those archives, but does that differ that much from having the Class37Pack01 installed but RW Tools reports that you don't have

..\..Assets\RSC.Class37Pack01\RailVehicles\Diesel\Class37\NetworkRail\Engine\Class37_nr.bin installed?

installed?. It still comes down to us, the users, being aware of what we have on our hard drives, and seeing what's in a .ap archive is no harder than seeing what's in any other folder on our drives---a different tool may be used, but it's still 'click this with a mouse button' to get there.

There's a great lack of thinking going on, one proportional to the great amount of panic caused, just because things are in an archive rather than the *normal* folders we're used to. Have we really allowed things to get so 'dumbed down', or have we allowed ourselves (well, themselves) to be brow beaten into believing that 'if one click doesn't do it, it's too complicated for them and best left to one of the elite who'll do it all for them, and even provide a routine that's just a simple one click operation' ?
Unfortunately that leads to many (well intentioned certainly) bits of advice posted which compound the problem---we've already seen the effects of the advice to replicate the folder structure given by an RW Tools report when somebody's made the very easy to do mistake of getting .ap extraction *wrong*. The end result being that the *wrongness* is propagated further, and some other poor unfortunate follows the advice to do the 'replicate the folder structure' ploy.....