Has anyone else found that there is no coal load in the Collett tender for the Hall? I suppose we can use the Hawksworth. I found this with the DT 4F Fowler tender as well, though not completely empty. Must be starting a trend.
tagsdm
I have the same problem with the coal visualisation on the Collet 4000 gallon tender. The numbers say it's fully loaden but no coal is shown.
Talking about coal - there is also a texturing problem under the tracks near the coaling stage at Newton Abbot.
Both issues have been reported several times at Steam. Hopefully they'll be fixed.
In the meantime, I've done a work around for the tender. I've copied the original Falmouth Hall tender, then copied and pasted the main textures from the Riviera Collett into the texture folder of my copy tender. The textures seem to be an exact fit. The old tender is missing some of the new tweaks, but they're hardly noticeable, mainly the lamps are not there, and you now have a late crest tender. But now the fireman has something to shovel! Actually, the whole thing was a stroke of luck.
To rationalize the late crest, there are several GWR/BR locos from Victory Works and an excellent late crest re-skin for the Falmouth pannier at the library here. I can push the time frame up a bit to when both crests were seen when creating scenarios.
Appreciate your response. I also tried my hand at tinkering with the Falmouth and WSR Hall, but I came to the conclusion that I could solve the coal thing, but then would miss out on the water scoop extra's - the icing on the cake with the renewed Hall tender. I think the Hall tender is more true to nature (better chassis) as the King (or old Caslte) and was thinking of using it with the King and Castle as exchange.
Still, I hope Steam will help us with this dilemma.
If you copy the GW_logo.TgPcDx file from the Riviera tender's textures folder and paste it into your copied tender's textures folder, then re-name this file to br_logo_do.TgPcDx it should then show the early crest and faded GWR lettering. Make a backup copy of, or rename, the existing texture file first though!
If you copy the GW_logo.TgPcDx file from the Riviera tender's textures ....
gptech, you are an amazing guy. I wouldn't have thought of that. I'll definitely give it a try. I'd much rather have the early crest, and the faded GWR is actually pretty cool! I'd forgotten about the water scoops, sure hope they fix the new one. Weren't some of the Modified Halls equipped with the Hawksworth tender? I'm certain Hagely Hall is. Though I'm not sure if it's the same one as included with TS 2016.
Here's another issue...I can't get the 57xx to couple to any wagons, [EK] or otherwise. I've heard there were passenger coach problems but not goods wagons. You can make a train in the scenario editor but if you uncouple, the wagons go flying!! Kind of reminds me of the old "bounding box" thing in MSTS. Anyone try it?
Drogba11CFC wrote:The semaphores behave like colour lights; including the distant being "off" when the starter is "on".
I agree. This is very disappointing as they have put in some effort to improve the semaphore signalling but is clearly wrong. I have logged a support ticket 2 weeks ago - have resisted efforts to have it closed but no real response as yet.
I could not resist the offer of getting full TS2016 for € 10.49, almost freeware if you sum up what you get for two or three beers. So there we go, goodbye TS2013, hello TS2016.
Of course, I first fired up the Riviera. The following things puzzled me:
Quick drive - only Castle on offer. How hard must if be for DTG to cough up a few more files to make all engines available in Quick Drive?
Track is now laid at 4.3 m distance from centre to centre. Remember how they used 3.14 instead of 3.4? Now 4.3 - sounds like a well thought-out joke.
There are a few signals featuring 4 ft arms, both distant and stop arm. But the only 3 ft arm is ringed. In theory, editing LQ_Stopping1.bin to point on the 4 ft .GeoPcDx instead of the 5 ft version would fix all the brackets at once. You loose the chance to use a 5 ft arm where it is prototypical, though. Main problem is that you need to doctor a 3 ft arm, e.g., by shrinking the 4 ft arm using the child blueprint matrix. More precisely, you cannot have a single substitute arm file but you need to change all the matrices in all the parent signal file. I did not try it so cannot say how ridiculous the spectacles would look when shrunk, and what would be a good compromise (like 3.2 ft length and a bit more that proportional height).
There is a LQ_Shunt.bin that is the same as the ringed arm but with an S instead. One could reskin it (or the ringed arm) to something without ring or S. But that would create a new file that needs to sit next the GeoPcDx and be distributed with modified signals.
Not a single colour light signal!
Now we know that they blasted what semaphore logic they mastered to cover in their original signals. All in the name of compatibility with CLS, which would be a overdue. But then, no CLS? So what?
There are missing assets:
RailNetwork\Speedsigns\Arrow_Speed_L.xml and ...R from RSC, WestSomerset.
Scenery\Procedural\WVR_TrackCrossingFiller_End.xml and Lights\Spotlight_Yard.xml from RSderek, WearValleyRailway.
Can't they run each route through their in-house alternative to RW-Tools, or use the latter? They say they don't like it so surely they have something better? Or they wait for customers to find out? Just fire up the route and read what LogMate says.
Signals and the Castle rant along in LogMate. Obviously you are supposed not to use it for any real driving.
Horrible stutters, from tile loading, most likely. Maybe they are standard now and I just ought to buy an SSD. My HD is full and fragmented. So even if the stutters are worse than before, the Riviera has a lot of detail and that takes its toll.
The GWR was originally built to broad gauge (7') and later converted to standard gauge leaving very generous clearances, this might well account for the different measurement between track centres.
I found one post stating that they used 6-6 between the inner rails of the track pairs (instead of the standard 6-0). That would in fact make 4.3 between track centres of 7-0 1/4 track. Another post stated that would make 4.1. A six-foot between outer rail edges that measures just 6-0 would lead to the same distance of track centres.
What counts much more is the fact that they rarely ever moved two rails when changing to normal track. In stations, they kept the outer rails because that was the proven arrangement of mixed gauge. Track centre distance got up to 5 m that way (where they kept the platform edges in place).
On the open route, they will have moved the outer rails, arriving at a six-foot of 6-0 or 6-6. This economises on ballast.
I don't know how much of the modelled area used baulk road when the gauge was converted. In those places, they definitely kept one rail. For other places and for later replacement of baulk road, one can only speculate about track shifts on these occasions. But more than 6-6 six-foot bears no benefit on the open route where nothing is placed between the tracks.
AndiS wrote:On the open route, they will have moved the outer rails, arriving at a six-foot of 6-0 or 6-6. This economises on ballast.
I don't think that was considered a factor. There were many places on the WR (and probably still are) where a wide six-foot survived. Signals were quite often placed there. whereas this was not practical without a slue on other lines.
I have spent so much time on this route since it came out. Getting it in the sale would be a real bargain. It comes with five engines, three sets of carriages and plenty or wagons, all with realistic sounds.
