Atomic Systems

thetrainfan wrote:What is your problem?

None whatsoever, as I'm one of those who can work out how to get round it. However, there are many in here for whom

thetrainfan wrote:As long as the installer (be it an exe, bat or whatever file) does what it says on the tin, I really don't think anyone is fussed

doesn't apply--just go through this forum and count the threads detailing issues with .exe installers; issues which simply wouldn't exist with a .rwp or .zip type "extract in to" package. Sure, both those would entail a further copy and paste routine for any .GeoPcDx files that need copying, with the stand alone 7-Zip routine run in a batch file taking care of any extraction from .ap archives for those who aren't happy delving into those.
Yes, folk even have bother with that, but constant 'dumbing down' of the installation routines by making user intervention as little as possible is not the best way forward.

gptech wrote:

thetrainfan wrote:What is your problem?

None whatsoever, as I'm one of those who can work out how to get round it. However, there are many in here for whom

thetrainfan wrote:As long as the installer (be it an exe, bat or whatever file) does what it says on the tin, I really don't think anyone is fussed

doesn't apply--just go through this forum and count the threads detailing issues with .exe installers; issues which simply wouldn't exist with a .rwp or .zip type "extract in to" package. Sure, both those would entail a further copy and paste routine for any .GeoPcDx files that need copying, with the stand alone 7-Zip routine run in a batch file taking care of any extraction from .ap archives for those who aren't happy delving into those.
Yes, folk even have bother with that, but constant 'dumbing down' of the installation routines by making user intervention as little as possible is not the best way forward.

A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something, as there's far fewer steps, and it's consistent across all addons.

Thanks for the suggestions guys.

@gptech - the first thing I did when I noticed the problem was to run it through RW_Tools. It showed a list of missing files, all of which seemed to be within .ap files. Just to double check I temporarily extracted all of the relevant .ap files and ran RW_Tools again, this time getting a clean report.

It was Rob's suggestion that solved it for me, especially as I was starting at Exeter St Davids. I turned up the scenery density setting (which was already near the top) and everything is now visible.

Thanks Rob.

class377fcc12 wrote:A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something

Yes, I agree....when they work fully.

However, in the real world this isn't always the case and those "less technologically-minded" TS users are generally those least likely to be able to remedy that.
This is going far off topic really, so I think we should stop here and stick to the VP Humbug Season freebies rather than a discussion about the merits (or not) of .exe installers. I'd happily continue in a new thread; I believe it's a discussion that's needed, one that would/could help content providers decide on the best distribution/installation method (and of course whatever they decided upon wouldn't suit everybody) and one that is probably long overdue.

johnbarron wrote:It was Rob's suggestion that solved it for me, especially as I was starting at Exeter St Davids.

Just out of interest, with the lower Scenery Density setting does the asset show in the Riviera 50s route for you?

class377fcc12 wrote:A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something, as there's far fewer steps, and it's consistent across all addons.

That all depends on your own setup, if TS20xx is in the default location then yes, but if like me you use another location then not always not all exe.files are equal, I have found that although I change the location in the exe it will install but then does not always copy files from other locations correctly, many a time I have copied the geometery files myself, the easiest way is to rename TS20xx back to the default while you install, then everything is fine.

class377fcc12 wrote:A .exe is inherently far, far easier to install than a .zip or .rwp. For the less technologically-minded of us it's the far easier way of installing something, as there's far fewer steps, and it's consistent across all addons.

But, we've had this debate before, pressing a button of course is very easy, but, it's all the additional rubbish that goes onto your hard drive that is the major problem, you can't use 7zip to see what is inside an .exe applicator and until you have finished installing the content you don't know what else has been put onto your computer, or, if anything is duplicated. You get blueprints.paks, bak, tgt, xml and cost files plus 0kb files all installed, and you have to go through everything that has just been put in to get rid of all the junk, you then have to go into your Railworks folders to see what has been included in the data files, uninstall application files, all the rubbish in your temporary folder, and then getting rid of all the mess that we don't want, which takes longer to do than putting a rwp file in, because you can extract all the dross before you install it if you do the job properly. And this isn't just British content, it's across the board from any of our 3rd party developers, payware and freeware, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, American, Canadian, Russian, and on and on.......

Cheerz. Steve.

Hi
Just read on VP face book page,they are recommending to delete this version,and reinstall it again.
It's a updated version which should work ok

OK guys... todays's posts show that it's a subject that's important/meaningful to many, so I've taken the *executive decision* to copy recent/relevant posts to a new thread. Lets keep this one for what it was created for; a discussion about all of the freebies those wonderful (but still only human so liable to making the same *mistakes* as we mere mortals) folk at VP have made available.

New thread..."Install routines---.exe or .rwp/.zip?" at http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=150424

gptech wrote:

johnbarron wrote:It was Rob's suggestion that solved it for me, especially as I was starting at Exeter St Davids.

Just out of interest, with the lower Scenery Density setting does the asset show in the Riviera 50s route for you?

Yes. I just turned the scenery density slider down one notch to where it was before and loaded a Quick Drive starting at Exeter St Davids on the Riviera 50s route and all of the platforms etc. were there.

Ta John.

Rob, where did you get the information that the Riviera 50s Exeter station asset demanded that Scenery Density be at the highest?--are we not simply looking at a LOD value being too low on any affected system rather than a global change being the necessary fix?
OK, there's no evidence to suggest that Scenery Density on highest has any negative impact on PC performance, that's Scenery Quality, so having that higher value shouldn't cause issues but it's better to fix the root cause of any issue.

gptech wrote:Ta John.

Rob, where did you get the information that the Riviera 50s Exeter station asset demanded that Scenery Density be at the highest?--are we not simply looking at a LOD value being too low on any affected system rather than a global change being the necessary fix?
OK, there's no evidence to suggest that Scenery Density on highest has any negative impact on PC performance, that's Scenery Quality, so having that higher value shouldn't cause issues but it's better to fix the root cause of any issue.

From my own testing when it wasn't showing on my end.

Isn't it a bit strange that the platforms etc. show up on the Riviera 50s with the Scenery Density turned down one notch but on the Railways of Devon 1985 the slider has to be set to the maximum?

class377fcc12 wrote:From my own testing when it wasn't showing on my end.

Right, so you found a method of making the asset visible that worked with your specific hardware/game configuration and took that as indicative of the asset itself requiring a high density setting at a global level.

Riviera 50s with a low Scenery Density:



No problems there, does it show OK for you in the default route?

VP Devon with a low Scenery Density:



Definitely an issue there; in the World Editor the asset appeared when the mouse was moved over where it should be, double clicking it and viewing the properties showed a LOD level of 1. Banging that up to 10 gave:



So it's not really a case of the asset being demanding, but simply the result of how the game tries to even the total resource load out. After the last couple of yearly upgrades this seems to have become less *intelligent* and this isn't the first case of a nearby asset being given a low LOD by the game.

Is it possible to run the scenarios from Riviera 50s on this route?

I've copied the scenario folders across but when I try to run them the Route Markers are missing. Is it possible to copy the Riviera 50s Route Markers over to this route? If so, a beginner's guide of how to do it would be appreciated.

John.