Whoever wrote/tested this ?

[davep]

UKRD route - London to Brighton 2015 Update.
Coast Flyer scenario.

Timed to leave Gatwick Airport at 1744.
Next call, approx. 3 miles later, Three Bridges, timed to arrive 1744.

Thereafter, every station stop loses you between 1 and 3 thousand points (yes, it's a career scenario).

Utterly stupid.

[atlasduff47]

Not guilty on either count your honour!

However, when life is going along far too well, and I am feeling glad to be alive, I may just give this a whirl to bring me back down again!

[gptech]

Hands up those who've never done something utterly stupid........

Have you dropped a nice (politer) post/message for those concerned at the UKRD site?

[davep]

Yes Gary - I have

Apparently RSC/DTG wrote the scenario but UKRD are going to have a look at it.

[gptech]

Apparently RSC/DTG wrote the scenario

so you need to ask who (or what) edited it. The scenario comes with the 319, and as originally written is timed to leave Gatwick at 17:40:02 and arrive at Three Bridges at 17:44:55

[davep]

Well, I haven't edited it (didn't think you could on a career scenario)
but this is what I've got on my copy:-

[Juanillo99]

Obviously it is impossible to meet these schedules , although the stations are close together.

[black8]

Thereafter, every station stop loses you between 1 and 3 thousand points (yes, it's a career scenario).Utterly stupid.

I don't like career scenarios anyway; takes the relaxed driving element out of the sim. So irritating when you lose so many points for being just slightly too fast at a speed restriction sign and such. If DTG feels some people need a 'challenge' then they should at least provide the scenarios in career AND standard and let us users decide if we need a 'challenge' or not. All new dlc only comes with career scenarios nowadays, that is 'utterly stupid' too imo.

And yes I know you can transform a career scenario into a standard scenario using RW tools, but why should we have to hassle with this.

Cheers,
Jos

[gptech]

But the timings in a (possibly) as written version are acheivable-----Dave, you'd see a more accurate list of the tidings in the editor; look at the player service in 'timetable view'

[wad53]

If DTG feels some people need a 'challenge' then they should at least provide the scenarios in career AND standard and let us users decide if we need a 'challenge' or not. All new dlc only comes with career scenarios nowadays, that is 'utterly stupid' too imo.

And yes I know you can transform a career scenario into a standard scenario using RW tools, but why should we have to hassle with this.

Or, you could simply turn off "Career Scoring" under the settings menu.

[davep]

Re the author - I am only repeating what I was told.

Dropped into the editor, and the following is what I found:-

[gptech]

Dave...did you have the scenario before installing the enhancement to the route?

Perhaps the route *enhancement* has messed up the speed limits on this stretch, so any service originally timed for faster running will now be unable to keep to the timings due to a reduced speed.

[danny3]

The original scenario from London to Brighton shows that the timings are a lot more generous than those of the one above, I'm assuming something must have changed in between, I know for the 2015 London to brighton route there are changes to speed limits and signals (not forgetting Gatwick area with P7 )

[bri2808]

Gary, remember recently I asked you how I could reinstall L2B? Well it was because I was having an issue with the enhancement and I think it trashed many of my scenarios. As it was my favourite route I went back to the default version and low and behold all timings etc were fine

I have to say I agree with Rosschris on this one

I was told however by the author that the scenarios would work fine but appears not the case judging by Dave's experience

[gptech]

Just downloaded the route enhancement from UKRD and it comes with many scenarios......some of which are copies of those in the payware 319 pack, but named with the [319] prefix missing. Obviously an unintentional inclusion on UKRD's part, but one that needs addressing PDQ