Page 1 of 1
| Two trains in quick succession from Leatherhead 18/07/2020 at 22:01 #129740 | |
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Currently playing the April 2012 TT, obviously in pre-2012 era/mode. At 08:44:31 I have 2E12 entering at Leatherhead running with a loss of power and currently 4 minutes late. At 08:45:01 I get 2S58 entering at Leatherhead currently running on-time. 2E12 correctly appears in the APPRoach berth. But the first headcode that appears at Signal CA184 is ****. (This appears to be 2E12). 2S58 correctly appears in the APPRoach berth. This headcode successfully transfer to the TD berth at CA184 signal. Shouldn't need a save for this - should be easily recreatable by running this timetable from around 08:40 or very shortly thereafter. Or simply use debug tools to quickly enter two trains in fairly quick succession from Leatherhead. Simulation version 1.2 Loader 5.3 Side note - I'm surprised that *X** doesn't appear, as per Non-Described Special Description (NDSD). Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Two trains in quick succession from Leatherhead 19/07/2020 at 08:51 #129754 | |
|
TimTamToe
664 posts |
UKTrainMan in post 129740 said:Currently playing the April 2012 TT, obviously in pre-2012 era/mode.A save is ALWAYS helpful for the development and testing teams is help identify issues as unseen problems could be causing the seemingly obvious that may be more difficult to find without a save. In this case running the timetable again from 08:40 wouldn't necessarily show the problem because according to your description 2E12 is running late which wouldn't be the case in running the tt afresh and therefore the problem is unlikely to occur. As the author of the tt in question I can't check atm as I'm still doing some testing on other sims using the previous loader version, but I sure someone in the development team will be able to have a look at some point. But please always include a save no matter how trivial it may seem Gareth Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Stephen Fulcher, y10g9 |
| Two trains in quick succession from Leatherhead 19/07/2020 at 22:10 #129795 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
The reason I didn't provide a save is because I believe anyone (simulation developer or testers) with appropriate access to the debug menu/tools should be able to easily recreate this as I originally described UKTrainMan in post 129740 said: Or simply use debug tools to quickly enter two trains in fairly quick succession from Leatherhead.Nevertheless, here's a recreated save with the same bug occurring... Run it until about 00:02:37 when the first train headcode that appears at CA184 should just be "****" (I've had to 'recreate' this save because I have given up with this simulation  and the genuinely excellent timetable  for the time being, as some of the simulation bugs I have found recently really take the enjoyment out of playing it.)
Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Last edited: 20/07/2020 at 17:42 by UKTrainMan Reason: Reworded and elaborated upon regarding recreating the simulation bug Log in to reply |
| Two trains in quick succession from Leatherhead 20/07/2020 at 21:59 #129818 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
Couldn't recreate the NDSD (it's already set to *X**) but fixed the quick succession issue, plus a couple of other minor bugs. Watch for an update.
SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Two trains in quick succession from Leatherhead 21/07/2020 at 02:37 #129824 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
Retested and confirmed as fixed (can't even recreate the NDSD myself now). Thank you very much to all involved in such a speedy fix.
Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Last edited: 21/07/2020 at 02:39 by UKTrainMan Reason: NDSD addendum Log in to reply |