Atomic Systems

749006 wrote:I have not tried to fix it but RW Info only shows the tracks going to the outer roof

There's definitely an issue---haven't tried running trains into it but the track in the shed has an odd mirror of itself buried beneath it. If you drop into the route in the world editor you'll see where the *real* track suddenly dives underground to end in a buffer.
No promises, but if I get chance I'll have a proper look and see if there's an easy bodge for it---that of course doesn't stop somebody else saving me the job!!

I think the problem with doing a Fix means it only applies to a cloned version or you risk it being deleted on a Steam update.

And I thought for the use in one scenario it was not worth it.

IronBidder wrote:

749006 wrote:Where Have I rubbished peoples opinions?

Your second post (3rd in the conversation) could be seen as somewhat mockingly dismissing my opinion that scenery fidelity is more important than track and signal fidelity.

Life doesn't exist as extreme dichotomies: perfect track, rubbish scenery, vs rubbish track and perfect scenery, but its a continum between them and people's preference can be anywhere on it. I thought scenery is more important than track then, and I still think so now. Other opinions are available and I don't mind if people hold them.

I think the problem is you get a route hoping to do various runs on it and then you find the track or signalling is not allowing you to do that.
So the route looks fantastic but it was all show and not as good as it looked.

One of my favourite annoyances with routes seems to be in the branchlines which they didn't model...

--Tim

tnleeuw01 wrote:One of my favourite annoyances with routes seems to be in the branchlines which they didn't model...

--Tim

But that's not specific to DTG.... every route made for TS (with the possible exception of isolated heritage railways) will be missing branches--why doesn't JT's Newcastle-Edinburgh route include the whole circular branch along the Tyne to Tynemouth and round to Gosforth to run back to Newcastle? (as an example, not a criticism of that particular route)
If a route is described as "town A to town B" the omission of town C that's nearby but not directly on that line isn't an issue.

749006 wrote:I think the problem with doing a Fix means it only applies to a cloned version or you risk it being deleted on a Steam update.

And I thought for the use in one scenario it was not worth it.

So if it wasn't worth it it's essentially inconsequential---why the angst now over it?

You run the risk of any modification to anything being lost if your hard drive fails; the argument that Steam will revert an edit is frankly clutching at a convenient straw--you produce/download a modification/enhancement/fix/extension/to anything and it's up to you to implement measures that will allow the re-installation of that in the event of it 'going walkies'.

As you didn't consider a fix worth pursuing I take it you didn't inform DTG about it?...you can't bemoan that there's a problem if those able to fix it aren't aware of it!

Let's pick on Peter...

749006 wrote:you get a route hoping to do various runs on it and then you find the track or signalling is not allowing you to do that.

OK, St Pancras has a definite issue that can't be worked round at scenario level, unless of course you use one of the working lines, but you did state that you were unable to run AC services in and out of Piccadilly in the BR Blue Woodhead route. If you're trying to recreate a specific service/event and the route doesn't allow for that then that's a fair comment, but it can't be seen as a global one. If you have "various runs" in mind that you can't recreate then it must be worthwhile looking at finding a fix, but if it's just the one instance

749006 wrote:And I thought for the use in one scenario it was not worth it.

the problem goes away. Highlight faults Peter, that's the first step in fixing 'em, but you can't use those *one offs* as a rationale to criticise all that's produced.

Before TS2019 I had done a number of fixes on different route - mainly to Signalling and I was happy with my changes
Along come TS2019 and wiped out all the mods to routes I had done - yes, I could have cloned the routes but then scenarios from other sources would not work.

Remember Gary the problem on MML of a Speed board having the track marker in the wrong place and you helped me move it - or at lease work out why I could not move it.
That went down the pan with the TS2019 . up

So yes I can go round and change all the little faults that DTG Carn't be arsed doing only for steam to overwrite it.

And Yes, I can report a problem to DTG but as they don't do anything what is the point?
Still waiting a fix on a few problems I reported - Class 73 throttle for one - MKS did it, why carn't DTG?

749006 wrote:I could have cloned the routes but then scenarios from other sources would not work

Yes they would, once placed in the correct folder.

749006 wrote:only for steam to overwrite it.

Unless the route in question has been revised, as is mostly the case with the yearly upgrades to the base game, all you need to do is paste back in a backup copy of the revised file..Tracks.bin in the MML route.

749006 wrote:I can report a problem to DTG but as they don't do anything what is the point?

So what's the point of complaining in a forum where the majority can't/won't do anything about it? What's the point of raising the complaint time and time again?

gptech wrote:

tnleeuw01 wrote:One of my favourite annoyances with routes seems to be in the branchlines which they didn't model...

--Tim

But that's not specific to DTG.... every route made for TS (with the possible exception of isolated heritage railways) will be missing branches--why doesn't JT's Newcastle-Edinburgh route include the whole circular branch along the Tyne to Tynemouth and round to Gosforth to run back to Newcastle? (as an example, not a criticism of that particular route)
If a route is described as "town A to town B" the omission of town C that's nearby but not directly on that line isn't an issue.

I know it's not DTG specific. I never said that!

And I know these little branches carry a relatively high cost of development - a branch from Slough to Windsor would require a new station and a big castle at the least. A branch from Murnau to Oberammergau (on the line München to Garmisch-Partenkirchen) likewise would have required extra assets - but it's a branchline of quite some historical importance!
In TSW. the Ruhr Sieg line has a service taking you from Hagen to Iserlohn. Except the branch to Iserlohn isn't actually modelled so you have to stop the train at the last station on the mainline! Come on, you even have the service there, why please why not add the actual branchline and let us wonder off the beaten track...

Sometimes these branches are sold as extensions, such as Sheerness. I wish they'd do that more often, with some of the examples I gave above!

Anyway, these are all DTG examples but that's just coincidence. They all just seem to be missed opportunities so hence one of my pet-peeves with routes...

Cheers,

--Tim

gptech wrote:

749006 wrote:I can report a problem to DTG but as they don't do anything what is the point?

So what's the point of complaining in a forum where the majority can't/won't do anything about it? What's the point of raising the complaint time and time again?

Yes you are perfectly right and everything from DTG is Fantastic and I have not idea why people complain

END OF

with some of the examples I gave above!

To be fair the Iserlohn branch is available in the modded version Hagen Siegen V3. But you knew that didn't ya Tim!

smarty2 wrote:

with some of the examples I gave above!

To be fair the Iserlohn branch is available in the modded version Hagen Siegen V3. But you knew that didn't ya Tim!

Yes I knew that. But I was talking about the TSW route.

--Tim

749006 wrote:Yes you are perfectly right and everything from DTG is Fantastic and I have not idea why people complain

END OF

Nobody has claimed that DTG routes are fantastic, you're the only one making claims about any route's accuracy or 'playability/enjoyability' Peter.
You can't walk away from a thread you've instigated when/if somebody disagrees with you.

By naming the thread "DTGs Route Creation - Not a Poll" are you implying that routes from other providers are all perfect, or that routes from other providers are not worthy of consideration?
If what you'd like to know is what other UKTS members feel are the important things to get *right* in a route then you won't get a conclusive answer---we all may claim to want accuracy but what we really mean is we want OUR definition of accuracy, no matter how unbiased we may strive/claim to be.
You could be seen as using a general enquiry as a vehicle to introduce your own personal gripes about certain routes...Woodhead BR; you stated:

749006 wrote:I would love to run a Scenario where you arrive in Platform 2 at Piccadilly as another train departs from Platform 1 and at the same time AC Electrics run on the Fast and Slow lines in and out of the Station.
Cannot do that

(https://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic ... 5#p1849900)

but were presented with a scenario doing just what you wanted. OK, the track may still be *wrong* (and no matter how many times you provide a sketch of the *proper* track configuration it gives nobody any idea of scaling and in a route that goes no further than it's end point (not an unusual thing really) there's búgger all need to be able to cross to the AC tracks---with the exception of the 08 there's no stock in either Woodhead route that will run on the AC lines) )
You then present the misplacing of a speed limit sign (a whole yard!) as evidence of sloppy route building---you're problem wasn't one of the route being *wrong* but one of your inability to select the asset--yes, it was a new one that seemingly nobody had come across before but it was resolved. The fact that this edit would be removed following an update to the route/game isn't a surprise, but your lack of a simple way to re-reverse that action is.
You've now highlighted another problem with MML; this time one that should be considered as a *real* issue but you've just walked away from it
For <insert name of favourite deity/favourite profanity> sake Peter, this is the one to use as supporting evidence for your claims!
If you're unable to resolve this one yourself, there's no shame in that---just notify DTG; make it known to the rest of us so we can contact DTG (1 report won't be acted upon, 50 will thinking there) and possibly. just maybe, if you're really lucky somebody might be bothered/intrigued enough to stir themselves into having a look at it and producing a fix.

Taking your bat and ball home won't achieve that though.....

Ok Gary - I will have to do what you like to do and just cut out bits of the conversation

gptech wrote:By naming the thread "DTGs Route Creation - Not a Poll" are you implying that routes from other providers are all perfect, or that routes from other providers are not worthy of consideration?

I was pointing out it was Not a Poll as that normally implies a Yes, No, Maybe sort of answers and I wanted people opinions.

gptech wrote:You could be seen as using a general enquiry as a vehicle to introduce your own personal gripes about certain routes...Woodhead BR

You asked earlier if this was about Woodhead and I said it was not but YOU insisted in bringing the Woodhead Route in to it.

gptech wrote:You then present the misplacing of a speed limit sign (a whole yard!) as evidence of sloppy route building---you're problem wasn't one of the route being *wrong* but one of your inability to select the asset--yes, it was a new one that seemingly nobody had come across before but it was resolved. The fact that this edit would be removed following an update to the route/game isn't a surprise, but your lack of a simple way to re-reverse that action is.
You've now highlighted another problem with MML; this time one that should be considered as a *real* issue but you've just walked away from it

You think it's a "real issue" for some reason.

Foggy mentioned in his post

FoggyMorning wrote:If memory serves, the "track" under the original trainshed at St Pancras is a purely cosmetic loft item that doesn't actually function as track in the sense that you can place and run trains on it (a similar method has been used at Darlington on the Weardale and Teesdale route and for the underground lines at Stratford on GEML). I believe in the case of St Pancras it is because the program gets "confused" when it comes to scenario creation if there are markers sharing the same geographical coordinates at different heights (the Thameslink platforms which form the main focus of the route are immediately beneath the original station)

From that I knew that it might not be fixable and certainly not worth reporting to DTG.
And it was only for one AI train in a scenario so for me that was End Of the St Pancras Problem

I'm not implying that routes from other publishers are perfect, you may not have seen a GBE or RSSLO route.
But if an error appears on a European route I'm not likely to notice it as I might not know it's wrong.

Yes, it is my fault for not backing up the Routes Bin files of those I have changed - I normally just back up the Asset folders and not the content folders because the Scenarios don't get overwritten
I will amend once again the track speed board on MML, the signal at Godley Jn, a number of signals on the Bristol - South Wales route and a number of signals on other routes that do not work correctly.
Then making a backup of the Tracks.bin files

Peter