RW2: changes and fixes
Moderator: Moderators
- longbow
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Noosa, Australia
- Contact:
RW2: changes and fixes
It would be useful to have a list of what has changed in RW2, particularly the smaller fixes that may not be immediately obvious, so here's a start:
New starting interface
New HUD
Achievements
Transparent information windows
Working Level Crossings
Sound from rear HST power car
New starting interface
New HUD
Achievements
Transparent information windows
Working Level Crossings
Sound from rear HST power car
Last edited by longbow on Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
not tried anything yet, but if multiple workings do indeed have the correct sounds, that is already a massive improvement
- CosmicDebris
- Been on the forums for a while
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 1:51 am
- Location: France
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
Five new functions implemented for working level crossings (taken from Railsim-fr forum):
OnConsistApproach ( frontDistance, endDistance, speed )
CloseGates()
OpenGates()
StartWarning()
StopWarning()
I wonder which event triggers the call of OnConsistApproach. If this is any train at any distance on a track connected to the link, then it is a major new feature if usable in signal scripts. But I can't see any linkIndex parameter involved, so I guess it won't be possible. If so, it's sad because this could have some interesting applications in signal scripts.
(Or linkIndex is a hidden 4th parameter, not used because a level crossing only has one link?)
OnConsistApproach ( frontDistance, endDistance, speed )
CloseGates()
OpenGates()
StartWarning()
StopWarning()
I wonder which event triggers the call of OnConsistApproach. If this is any train at any distance on a track connected to the link, then it is a major new feature if usable in signal scripts. But I can't see any linkIndex parameter involved, so I guess it won't be possible. If so, it's sad because this could have some interesting applications in signal scripts.
(Or linkIndex is a hidden 4th parameter, not used because a level crossing only has one link?)
- longbow
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Noosa, Australia
- Contact:
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
I've watched an LC close on approach of an AI train, open when the train stopped at a platform just before the LC, then close again as the train restarted. So seems the LC is looking at train movement and not just proximity.
- CosmicDebris
- Been on the forums for a while
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 1:51 am
- Location: France
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
Yes, I guess the gates remain open as long a the speed of every incoming train is kept to zero. The fact that the OnConsistApproach function has a speed parameter shows that this function was made for level crossings, not for signals. Question is: is it possible to divert this function from its original field, e.g. in signal scripts? (In this case of course, the speed parameter wouldn't be used - or in very specific cases maybe.)
- FoggyMorning
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 5382
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:16 am
- Location: In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
Portal names are now appearing on the 2D map in timetable editor mode at least.
- AndiS
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:43 pm
- Location: Jester's cell in ivory tower
- Contact:
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
My blind guess is that OnConsistApproach is the similar to OnConsistPass, only with different parameters, and for signals, it was (still is?) only called for less than 100m between the train and the track link. In OnConsistPass, you call GetSpeed and then you can do all you can do in OnConsistApproach.CosmicDebris wrote:Question is: is it possible to divert this function from its original field, e.g. in signal scripts? (In this case of course, the speed parameter wouldn't be used - or in very specific cases maybe.)
- longbow
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 3608
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Noosa, Australia
- Contact:
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
The existing coding is unrealistic as in the UK at least the crossing and signals would be interlocked so that the gates could only be opened if the home signals either side (and in normal circumstances, all other signals in the signal block) were at danger. In the example I cited above, the crossing opened with a train standing at a platform next to it under clear signals, which is an obvious safety no-no.
- AndiS
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:43 pm
- Location: Jester's cell in ivory tower
- Contact:
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
Like I said in another thread, assuming that gates can send and receive messages, it is not a big deal to tie them into the signal communication.
However, the current default signals need a little rewiring, at least the UK ones, I guess. My scheme was always to send the "prepare yourself" message forwards and get the "signal blocked/clear/warning" message back. In that case, the gate would simply reply "remain closed" when it gets the "prepare" message. And when the gate is closed, it sends "prepare" further and consequently forwards the replay, which is the state of the next signal.
Of course, this is not foreseen in the current (RW1) signals, but it is something that needs to be implemented anyway. It would come handy for single (trailing) switches which are located far from the signal, and remove the need for these "special" signals that never got popular.
However, the current default signals need a little rewiring, at least the UK ones, I guess. My scheme was always to send the "prepare yourself" message forwards and get the "signal blocked/clear/warning" message back. In that case, the gate would simply reply "remain closed" when it gets the "prepare" message. And when the gate is closed, it sends "prepare" further and consequently forwards the replay, which is the state of the next signal.
Of course, this is not foreseen in the current (RW1) signals, but it is something that needs to be implemented anyway. It would come handy for single (trailing) switches which are located far from the signal, and remove the need for these "special" signals that never got popular.
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
You can do things with the mouse i.e. load passengers. If you hold the mouse over the platform it appears a symbol and if you click the doors open. There is also a symbol for points. Are there more?
- FoggyMorning
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 5382
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:16 am
- Location: In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
Loading fuel at coal/diesel/water points. I would guess freight at coal loaders/unloaders and container cranes but haven't checked these yetwindberg wrote:You can do things with the mouse i.e. load passengers. If you hold the mouse over the platform it appears a symbol and if you click the doors open. There is also a symbol for points. Are there more?
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
Here are all in the game. Doubles as one is the cursor, one is the animation of said cursor.


- DarrenCarter
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 2:44 pm
- Location: Swindon
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
I noticed in the Engine Blueprint there's an "Export This" button next to the "Export" button. Does anyone know the function of this.
- CosmicDebris
- Been on the forums for a while
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 1:51 am
- Location: France
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
So a level crossing couldn't be operated when the incoming train is more than 100m away? Unfortunately we still have 160+ kph railway lines with level crossings every few miles! 100m...AndiS wrote:My blind guess is that OnConsistApproach is the similar to OnConsistPass, only with different parameters, and for signals, it was (still is?) only called for less than 100m between the train and the track link. In OnConsistPass, you call GetSpeed and then you can do all you can do in OnConsistApproach.CosmicDebris wrote:Question is: is it possible to divert this function from its original field, e.g. in signal scripts? (In this case of course, the speed parameter wouldn't be used - or in very specific cases maybe.)
I'll do some testing this night to figure this out.
- DarrenCarter
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2002 2:44 pm
- Location: Swindon
Re: RW2: changes and fixes
Well! We had our tubes stock sounds working for multiples before the update through the scripting system. Since the update they have stopped working.msey0002 wrote:not tried anything yet, but if multiple workings do indeed have the correct sounds, that is already a massive improvement