Upcoming Games

(UTC times)


Full list
Add a game

Upcoming Events

No events to display

Scrolly Version

You are here: Home > Forum > Simulations > Released > Waterloo > Scrolly Version

Page 1 of 1

Scrolly Version 13/01/2010 at 15:54 #530
pentaxmac
Avatar
2 posts
Dear Users
First of all excuse for my English language because I'm Italian user.
I wish know why the new version of Waterloo do not work in scrolly mode: I have installed the new version but it opening as the paged mode still.
Thanks for the response.

Log in to reply
Scrolly Version 13/01/2010 at 15:54 #5799
pentaxmac
Avatar
2 posts
Dear Users
First of all excuse for my English language because I'm Italian user.
I wish know why the new version of Waterloo do not work in scrolly mode: I have installed the new version but it opening as the paged mode still.
Thanks for the response.

Log in to reply
Scrolly Version 13/01/2010 at 17:31 #5802
Sacro
Avatar
1171 posts
Because it's just a rebuild with new core code, it'd need converting to a scrolly which is a slightly bigger job.
Log in to reply
Scrolly Version 13/01/2010 at 18:20 #5806
lpeters
Avatar
160 posts
Ben,

I would ask the same question to be honest becuase the SimSig + Revs PDF that is available from the Downloads/Uploads section does show that Waterloo is a Sc-3 sim suggesting that it is Scrolly with 3 work stations.

As for the question, I have no idea. I remember downloading the Waterloo refresh on my old machine and meaning to ask about this and it was only after checking the Revs file that I realised it is listed as a Sc-3 sim. It may just be a typo in the revisions file.

Log in to reply
Scrolly Version 13/01/2010 at 20:25 #5817
Peter Bennet
Avatar
5402 posts
There is no particular program to convert sims to scrolly and it is possible that some future sims might be paged.

Peter

I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs!
Log in to reply
Scrolly Version 13/01/2010 at 20:42 #5821
Sacro
Avatar
1171 posts
lpeters:

Looking the edit history for the wiki page would suggest Andy made a typo, it has been corrected now.

Log in to reply