Relevant bits Peter....you can't claim that there's been selective quoting to intentionally twist/skew the meaning.749006 wrote:Ok Gary - I will have to do what you like to do and just cut out bits of the conversation
But in a question relating to "what's important when building a route" it doesn't/shouldn't matter who's building it---DTG, Just Trains, AP (if Richard ever does decide to do another) or freeware; the ethos/basis is still the same.749006 wrote: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.
Without some sort of focus it's all an academic matter. There has to be some basis for any kind of discussion about route quality.749006 wrote: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.
Real enough for you to abandon creating a scenario; real enough for you to cite it as an example. I only corroborated your observation.[749006 wrote:You think it's a "real issue" for some reason.
quote="749006"]From that I knew that it might not be fixable[/quote]
The important word there is "might". It "might" be easily fixed, it "might" be fiddly to fix, it "might" involve a radical shift in route building thinking....and then again it "might" not.
Foggy's observations make sense, but until the route is re-visited at an editing level they're just observations from an earlier time---for all we know the changes in the core programming of the game may/"might" allow such editing...and then again it may/"might" not.
There's nothing wrong, and very little lost, by returning to old issues and trying again.
