Stock file errors

Geoffwright · Post by **Geoffwright** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:45 pm

I'm absolutely astonished that there are still so many stock items published on UKTS with errors in them.
I use RouteRiter and Conbuilder to check each & every stock item I now add and I find up to about 50% of files (maybe slightly less in more recent uploads) still have quite straightforward & obvious errors.
As an example, UKTS_13923, the Arriva Class 175 has all of its shape definitions pointing to shape files that don't exist. The actual shape files are there, but don't quite have the right names ! It would appears that the author has been cutting & pasting without properly understanding what he is doing.
Why on earth don't the stock publishers use Route Riter & Conbuilder to check their work ? It's so simple & quick - what's the problem ?
Come on, chaps, do the decent thing & test your products.
By God, us activity writers have to test, all right. Hours & hours & hours. And then all Hell when we get it wrong !
I'd love to only have to test my stuff for the couple of minutes that Conbuilder needs for a stock item !

mikesimpson · Post by **mikesimpson** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:11 am

I have to agree with Geoff on this one. I did a check of rolling-stock sound files this week on items I have downloaded over the past couple of years, and find errors such as:-

SMS files looking for sounds in the Scotsman\Sound folder which were never there in the first place (the author has obviously added sounds to his default rolling-stock and assumes everyone else has done the same)

Sounds aliased to 3rd party commercial sounds such as the BA_Common_Sound folder, yet the rolling-stock read-me did not mention that you had to have certain BA models installed or the sounds would not be there

Mike

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:38 am

Hi Geoff
I would agree with this thread to a point, and it doesn't take a lot to test
However certain faults will not stop the game from loading, certainly sd files incorrectly named , will not cause the game to fail.
Unfortunately one item of stock missing can.
I do a lot of corrections/editing myself.
However when uploading I tend to put the original default files back in.
I got a weeks ban, because I included an edited file on one of my uploads.
If members are unable or unwilling to learn how to edit. Then I'm sorry they won't get as much out of MSTS as possible.
Cheers
Jon

CaptainBazza · Post by **CaptainBazza** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:25 am

If members are unable or unwilling to learn how to edit. Then I'm sorry they won't get as much out of MSTS as possible.

Surely a good reason to have knowledgeable, reliable, beta testers, but how many people are willing to spend time thoroughly beta testing!? It takes another pair, or pairs, of eyes to pick up stuff the author doesn't see.

To be fair, the sim pulls tricks, stuff can work with one setup and not with another. Often routes have vital files or textures missing, yet these were okay when originally zipped. Locomotives can work fine on one route and not another. Ditto, from consist to consist!

I've had reports of locos I made that lock up in the #4 view at certain angles, but don't do that on my system during tests. There are so many variables involved.

I love making stuff, but I hate packaging it up for distribution, and I'm just a modeler, not a route builder.

Cheers Bazza (Views from the other side of the fence.

)

rlmathers · Post by **rlmathers** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:35 am

Hi Fellow Grumpy Old Men

Geoffwright wrote:I'm absolutely astonished that there are still so many stock items published on UKTS with errors in them.

Over enthusiasm and a desire to see the upload on the front page and the usual failing these days, must be done at the fastest possible rate.

Geoffwright wrote: Why on earth don't the stock publishers use Route Riter & Conbuilder to check their work ? It's so simple & quick - what's the problem ?

Like 99% of users, the analytical utilities only come out of the cupboard when there is a problem to resolve. Of course, they have never read the manual or readme, so the errors are either unintelligible or beyond there editing reasoning or skills.

mikesimpson wrote:I have to agree with Geoff on this one. I did a check of rolling-stock sound files this week on items I have downloaded over the past couple of years, and find errors

There you are, the 1% of the users actually using his tool correctly.

jbilton wrote: If members are unable or unwilling to learn how to edit. Then I'm sorry they won't get as much out of MSTS as possible.

Exactly why you won`t see me answering those who don`t help themselves.
A sadder loss Jon is that they will not get the best out of the community.

CaptainBazza wrote:Surely a good reason to have knowledgeable, reliable, beta testers, but how many people are willing to spend time thoroughly beta testing!? It takes another pair, or pairs, of eyes to pick up stuff the author doesn't see.

Perhaps that may be a consideration for future uploads, inclusive with the other conditions, verified by a beta tester?
I have been approached only twice by members with respect to beta testing, I am available, if I have the time the answer will be yey, if not it will be ney.

Grumpiest regards
Ray

joebandit1 · Post by **joebandit1** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:14 am

Especially with the latest release of ConBuilder as I have fixed the common or default sound problems such as couplers. Or it could be like a lot of people, they just don't think that a tool or tools that find all of these errrors for you is worth the $20 to them.

Well folks, I am no longer giving it away. As of the 1st of May there will be no more public update notices.

kevarc · Post by **kevarc** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:45 am

IT gets worse. Have a look in most wag files and there are a couple of common errors:

1. Incorrect damping line - most leave off the /s

2. friction line - for instance - some will do it for a loaded coal wag and then just change the weight and not the friction line and vice versa. Plus some still have the default line.

Geoffwright · Post by **Geoffwright** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:52 pm

Well, Joe, I can understand that.
Without Conbuilder, RouteRiter and particularly Train Store, MSTS would be almost completely unworkable.
I for one will be happy to make such a modest contribution as Joe suggests to all the authors of the above utilities.

mikesimpson · Post by **mikesimpson** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:57 pm

Hi Kev,

The missing /s from the Damping settings is inexcusable these days. This error was discovered as far back as 2002 and Route_Riter has automatically fixed it since 2003. Yet authors still just copy the .wag files from some old default wagons and just change the Wagon name and shape entries and hope they will work.

Mike.

CaptainBazza · Post by **CaptainBazza** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:12 am

....which is why we need good beta testers to pick up on this stuff.

Actually, a prerelease model checklist would be a real big boon to modelers, or either locos or wagons........

Any volunteers, it would only require a .txt file, something to print out and tick as appropriate....you guys talk the talk, how about typing one up? I'm certain you'd earn the greatfull thanks of the modeling fraternity.

SHHHSSSSSSSSSS Genius At Work.

Cheers Bazza

Atomic Systems

Stock file errors

Stock file errors

Putting up........