Atomic Systems

...and now I'm home and fed, it's time for the lecture...

749006 wrote:most people don't want a duplicate of what they already own

I agree, that's why any extended or merged routes I have replace the short versions.
Ignoring the Tracks.bin issue for now, you have to consider the difficulties that may arise if DTG produced an extension as a stand alone 'mini-route' that could also be used to extend another---that could cause a major headache when it came to support and trouble-shooting.
The simple answer of course is for DTG to remove the short route from sale and force everyone to buy the extended route. I know you for one wouldn't complain one bit at that...….

The Cardiff - Swansea route is named rather confusingly though, suggesting that it's only the section from Cardiff to Swansea but when you read the blurb for it on Steam (https://store.steampowered.com/app/4481 ... ute_AddOn/) you'll find:

DTG Blurb wrote:...new Extended South Wales Coastal route for Train Simulator.

...the important bit being that it states it's an extended route

Just to push the point home, carry on reading to find:

The bit many seem not to have bothered reading up to... wrote:The South Wales Coastal – Bristol to Swansea route for Train Simulator recreates the 85 mile section of main line from Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol Parkway to Swansea, via the Severn Tunnel.

You're not being misled, it's clearly stated, once you read it fully, that you'll get the "full monty"
If you already have the Bristol - Cardiff bit you'll retain that, but you wouldn't have duplication of the assets that come with that original route--you're not getting things twice!
If you want to slim down your installation, just cut the Bristol - Cardiff route out of ..\Contents\Routes.
Problem solved! any scenarios for Bristol - Cardiff will work in the extended version, as far as I can tell you wouldn't even need to edit instructions to cover any marker naming changes.

749006 wrote:My question was and is, why cannot DTG create a true Extension to the route that already exists.

Because Steam is a remote installation service; it installs to the default location (relative to the game's structure) so how would it tell if you wanted it adding to another route or as a stand alone offering? Remember you have more control over where JT routes are initially installed to, allowing you to make any adjustments at your own leisure.
If it was as simple as just copying the tile files there'd be no bother--as in the case of all the other features of a route. However, for track and track linked assets they're not only referenced on a tile by tile basis but also in the Tracks.bin file. Think of it as a kind of 'master index'.
It isn't impossible to add the information from one Tracks.bin to another, but it's certainly a lot more difficult than just copying and pasting! Given that most UKTS members shudder and sweat if they read "...now just edit the .GeoPcDx file to..." getting them to muck about with Tracks.bin files would be too much for our resource strapped National Health Service to deal with--cardiac care ain't cheap!

Deleting stuff however is a piece of p... p.... phairy cake, so taking Bristol - Swansea to just Cardiff - Swansea isn't something to fear. As earlier, just remove the tile .bin files that aren't needed, and then work along the route deleting the no longer needed track ribbons.
Yes, it's more work than installing a JT extension, but only what JT will have done IF their stand alone versions only include the relevant track sections rather than retaining references to the ribbons (which would be invisible during game play) for the full route. Once again, I'd be very interested in hearing if anybody has actually had a look to see just what's been done; not just superficially as in "can't see any track" but at a deeper, more technical level.
The market for such a short, probably scenario potential bereft, route though would most likely be tiny--in other words not something DTG would, nor should, bother with.

749006 wrote:When JT built Western Mainlines did it have all the tiles and info in place for the extensions that can be bolted on to it?

Most probably not, but it wouldn't need it. The extensions are the bits that would hold the info (for track and track linked assets, scenery etc is simple referenced in the tiles)
Do you know if it's possible to add any combination of bolt on bits to Western Mainlines, or is it just a pre-ordained set of options?

I still think you are trying to over complicate the problem.
And it does not explain why JT Can do something but DTG don't seem to want to?

You mention the Tracks.bin file as being the sticking point but I suspect a JT Route add-on provides a new Tracks.bin for the entire route.

749006 wrote:I still think you are trying to over complicate the problem.
And it does not explain why JT Can do something but DTG don't seem to want to?

You mention the Tracks.bin file as being the sticking point but I suspect a JT Route add-on provides a new Tracks.bin for the entire route.

Western mainlines is very unstable because of the size of it though.
64 bit has helped a bit with large tracks.bins but I don't think it's fixed the issue entirely.

Your getting off the subject a bit,,why did DTG not do the Southampton to Weymouth in the first place,i am sure 61 miles would have not been too much to ask for,,and would have satisfied many customers,,short routes with many sidings and passenger/freight workings are ok,,but they are only using the 444 and 450 ( as stated on web site ) so 30/40 min scenario's ( unless you do return's ) if its £9.99 I MAY get it,any more and no way. I will wait to see if they do an extension/extra bit,,but not holding my breath lol.

749006 wrote: I suspect a JT Route add-on provides a new Tracks.bin for the entire route.

Which is exactly how DTG have done it.

Hi, Actually Just Trains Western mainline includes all of the track and track linked objects for all of the extensions which is why you also needed to update this every time they added an extension. Not much in the way of scenery for the extensions though!

Ta Mark, but coulx you clafify if you mean all the track and track object assets come with it, or just that the references to the track etc ade there becuse of having the compltete Tracks.bin?

I suppose you could run blue Class 33's 37's and 47's &73's, Blue Grey 4 Big \Cig Veps 2 Hal 2&4 EPB's and 4 Sub's.I forgot you could also have NSE Loco's and Stock/EMU's

Has any one made the most needed for the Bournemouth Route that is a 4 Rep and 4 TC

Hi Gary, I can drive from Penzance even though I don't have that extension. Very bare though. I think it's just the tracks.bin because when I forgot to reinstall the Paignton bit after upgrading the main route, the crossing was missing at Paignton but the station markers and signals were working on the map but not visible.

It's a poor show all round from DTG on this one. This is "Let It Be" to Portsmouth Direct's "Abbey Road". A rushed release of something with little substance that's probably been sat on the shelf for a while because nobody quite knew what to do with it. "Mainline Magnificence" is a baffling nothing of a release that offers no new connections to other parts of the TS system, starts and finishes in the middle of a route that has much to offer on either side, no new challenges or rolling stock and it's flipping 3rd rail yet again. I'm struggling to remember the last line with OHL and AC electrics to play with on either TS or TSW.

I do wonder whether DTG had a big UK release lined-up and it had to be pulled due to licencing issues or because the service/trains featured didn't start or open when initially expected. If not, while I usually defend DTG, not this time. Very poor, lazy and a concern that they've run out of funding or ideas.

roballen555 wrote:Your getting off the subject a bit,,why did DTG not do the Southampton to Weymouth in the first place,i am sure 61 miles would have not been too much to ask for,,and would have satisfied many customers,,short routes with many sidings and passenger/freight workings are ok,,but they are only using the 444 and 450 ( as stated on web site ) so 30/40 min scenario's ( unless you do return's ) if its £9.99 I MAY get it,any more and no way. I will wait to see if they do an extension/extra bit,,but not holding my breath lol.

One of the reasons for the 444 and 450 is, apart from Cross Country Voyagers that is all that runs along the line.
There is a Whatley Quarry to Hamworthy passing thru Bournemouth at 08.51 and a return passing Bournemouth at 13.29

In the Southampton area there are roughly 3 container trains an hour for most of the day and night working in to the Maritime Container Terminal.

Somebody else had said why the old SWT Livery - because they have now gone so DTG Don't need a License

Peter

To be clear, DTG's route is modern-day whereas Trevor Wood's freeware Southampton to Weymouth route (link below) is much larger and firmly BR steam era:

https://www.steamsoundssupreme.com/page_fwrp01.html

Well. as this threads leading to a locking by the Admin team, I'm getting my tuppence in first....

You may not like rosschris's attitude, manner of posting, views etc but a dissenting/sceptical/questioning voice is essential if we're going to have a fair and honest appraisal of anything. Bear in mind that ALL his posts are moderated and approved before we get to read them so it's quite unfair to cite them as the reason threads get locked---the responses to his, shall we say, outspoken points of view, are what lead to threads being prematurely curtailed. Because of the moderation, and subsequent "out of sync" positioning of his posts in any thread it's very, very easy to read them out of context. By all means refute his opinions, which incidentally he sticks to---you won't find him back down from his firmly held beliefs so even if you think he's totally wrong and deluded you have to (however begrudgingly) respect him for sticking to his views. He's not the most eloquent of writers, but how many of us can get a point over without upsetting somebody?

So far in this thread we've had claims/allegations/insinuations that the Southampton-Bournemouth route is too short; will be too expensive; doesn't make sense in the context of being an extension to an existing route. This is quite brilliant 'investigative reporting' as we're/you're all happy with other short/shorter routes; we don't know the cost of this offering; and there's nothing fundamentally different between how DTG and others make extensions/addons to existing routes available. Are we once again seeing a "it's from DTG, we can knock them because we can and it'll be alright" mentality at play?

I can see why I don't bother browsing this forum much anymore, it's totally being ruined by sad little forum trolls such as yourself!

Interesting that the forum is being ruined by someone, who by virtue of being on moderated posting, hasn't posted personal insults at any specific UKTS member...is this the pan calling the kettle "grimy árse"?

Can the admins just ban him

If the Admin team are taking requests, I've a big long list of folk whose views differ from mine... it'd help me tremendously if they could just disappear too.... once again, differing views, even if you disagree with them are essential to find the nirvana called "the middle ground"

GrateEastern wrote:a baffling nothing of a release that offers no new connections to other parts of the TS system,

There's no arguing with that, as dp123 has posted

dp123 wrote:just extending this to include Eastleigh and the Romsey Loop, and even just out to Fareham (not Portsmouth as I put earlier) with the Botley line back to Eastleigh, would blow this wide open for a still relatively short but far juicier route.

would give it much more scope and appeal. Perhaps those bits are planned/open to working on at a later date to *join this into* the bigger TS route map?...and if they're not, what a wonderful opportunity for all the frustrated route builders we have in here who know just what, and how to, do what's needed. Likewise for the 4REP and 4TC that Michael wondered about, though I'm sure there are posts in here from wayyyyy back when by folk who'd used the 421/423/whatever to replicate any number of *missing* formations....worth a forum search?
Personally I like shorter routes and 30 minute scenarios....working 12 hour shifts with 90 minutes travelling time leaves little time for TS playing on an evening....30 minute scenarios suit me down to the ground for days like that and going by the popularity of rosgar's "Snack time scenarios" there's definitely a place for a *quickie*
(smutty jokes by PM only please )
So...there's a place for every viewpoint; a place for every length of route/scenario...if you don't personally have room for those places leave them be for the next guy to consider.

There is always the ignore tab fella's, although some think it wrong to use it, well it's there, and I use it and I don't get wound up by "certain" individuals so much anymore.
As for banning him, why? We are free to air our opinions as much as others may disagree with em.

Wow calling for someone to be banned just because you don't like their opinion, very classy! George Orwell will be spinning in his grave!

If we go down this road this place will become even more of an echo-chamber than it is, it is good to have differing opinions.

Peter