Page 1 of 1
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 16:49 #284 | |
njimiller
142 posts |
Hey - help would be appreciated. I've read the wiki - made several attempts - but am so far unsuccessful in getting Bristol and Exeter to chain on the same computer. Is this even possible? If so, a step by step guide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 16:49 #4310 | |
|
njimiller
142 posts |
Hey - help would be appreciated. I've read the wiki - made several attempts - but am so far unsuccessful in getting Bristol and Exeter to chain on the same computer. Is this even possible? If so, a step by step guide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 16:59 #4311 | |
|
Noisynoel
989 posts |
Right, to chain.... Open the first sim in multiplayer mode & select a port (eg 50505). Also make a note of you IP address. Open the second sim in multiplayer & select a DIFFERENT port (eg 50507). Once both open go to Multiplayer> connect to external sim. Ensure synchronise time. Highlight the sim you require to connect to, enter the IP address noted previously & the port number for the sim you are connecting to then press connect. On the other sim you should recieve a message stating the "xxxx signalbox requires to connect". Press OK & you should be chained. Hope that helps. Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 17:12 #4313 | |
|
njimiller
142 posts |
Cheers Noisynoel - and once this is done, what is the significance of the message 'chaining arrangements inconsistent'? Is this because the version numbers for the supplied Bristol and Exeter 1985 timetables are slightly different? Thanks. Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 17:26 #4316 | |
|
Noisynoel
989 posts |
No, that's a sim message as opposed to a TT message. You can chain 2 sims with totally different TT's. Not sure why you are getting that, I thought it might be due to Bristol being in 1980's era, but not so.. One for the developers I feel... Noisynoel Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 17:31 #4317 | |
|
AnyFile
101 posts |
I have never seen 'chaining arrangements inconsistent' message before. It should not be related to the timetable, however. Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 17:32 #4318 | |
|
njimiller
142 posts |
Thanks for your help anyway - got me up and running.
Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 18:03 #4320 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
I 'believe' that message is just a warning check message for developers, shouldn't affect the chain.
I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 18:45 #4328 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts 
|
It is a 'debug' message- it's simply telling you that one Sim is coded to ask for information on the other but the other is not coded to tell it - Eg a berth it TC. I've since been through all the GW sims and fixed all the inconsistencies. Provided the trains pass through there is no real problem. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Chaining 21/11/2009 at 19:40 #4333 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
Two quick points. Firstly, if you're trying to chain on the same computer, use 127.0.0.1 as the IP address. [Additional point: if you know the host name of the computer running the other sim, such as "mymachine.example.org", you can type that in instead of the IP address.] Secondly, the "chaining arrangements inconsistent" isn't a debug message, it's a new warning that the simulation versions (not the timetables) that you're chaining together have a problem, as Peter says. It's to let the players know that things could go wrong (not that they will). Log in to reply |
| Chaining 22/11/2009 at 11:25 #4372 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts
|
Ah wondered if it should have been a 'debug only' message- so that clears that up. Just a further point regarding the specific problem- I recall from when I fixed the GW sims that in the main the 'errors' were due to over coding in one sim rather than under coding in the other so no real operational problems. The one area that was broken was on SwinDid where TD Berths at Chippenham needed to be read by both Westbury and Bristol. As I say, all fixed now for next release- whenever that will be. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Chaining 26/11/2009 at 12:52 #4566 | |
|
Gapiro
9 posts |
clive said:Two quick points. Firstly, if you're trying to chain on the same computer, use 127.0.0.1 as the IP address. surely it depends if your running your home lan as that ip range? mines set to 10.0.0.5 for example Log in to reply |
| Chaining 26/11/2009 at 12:58 #4567 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
Clive is correct, he said "chain on the same computer" {my italics}, not over a LAN.
I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Chaining 26/11/2009 at 13:45 #4576 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
Gapiro said:surely it depends if your running your home lan as that ip range? mines set to 10.0.0.5 for example127.0.0.1 is a special address called the loopback address (there are others). It doesn't matter what your LAN uses, or what IP(s) your computer has, 127.0.0.1 is "self". SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Chaining 26/11/2009 at 14:02 #4579 | |
|
Gapiro
9 posts |
GeoffM said:Gapiro said:surely it depends if your running your home lan as that ip range? mines set to 10.0.0.5 for example127.0.0.1 is a special address called the loopback address (there are others). It doesn't matter what your LAN uses, or what IP(s) your computer has, 127.0.0.1 is "self". Thanks! Learn something new each day! Log in to reply |
| Chaining 17/07/2012 at 09:38 #34086 | |
|
alvinhochun
249 posts |
" said:Secondly, the "chaining arrangements inconsistent" isn't a debug message, it's a new warning that the simulation versions (not the timetables) that you're chaining together have a problem, as Peter says. It's to let the players know that things could go wrong (not that they will).I thought different versions should not be able to chain at all? Log in to reply |
| Chaining 17/07/2012 at 09:40 #34087 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts
|
You are probably thinking of multiplaying the same Sim which must be identical builds. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Chaining 17/07/2012 at 10:19 #34089 | |
|
alvinhochun
249 posts |
" said:Gapiro said:Actually any addresses in the range 127.0.0.0 to 127.255.255.255 are loopback addresses.surely it depends if your running your home lan as that ip range? mines set to 10.0.0.5 for example127.0.0.1 is a special address called the loopback address (there are others). It doesn't matter what your LAN uses, or what IP(s) your computer has, 127.0.0.1 is "self". Log in to reply |
| Chaining 17/07/2012 at 15:24 #34102 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
" said:clive said:It doesn't matter. You could use your IP address of 10.0.0.5 or 127.0.0.1. Your OS may deal with each one slightly differently but the result as far as you are concerned will be the same no matter.Two quick points. Firstly, if you're trying to chain on the same computer, use 127.0.0.1 as the IP address. The advantage of 127.0.0.1 is that you can use it without having an active network connection. Useful if you are in an airport with no WIFI or physical Ethernet link and you want to chain two sims for example. Log in to reply |
| Chaining 17/07/2012 at 15:26 #34103 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:" said:Hence the "there are others".127.0.0.1 is a special address called the loopback address (there are others). It doesn't matter what your LAN uses, or what IP(s) your computer has, 127.0.0.1 is "self".Actually any addresses in the range 127.0.0.0 to 127.255.255.255 are loopback addresses. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Chaining 17/07/2012 at 17:59 #34108 | |
|
Albert
1315 posts |
So that's what made us run out of IPv4 addresses? 127.*.*.* all being unavailable? That was a joke of course. 127.0.0.1 is most commonly used but feel free to use other 127.*.*.* addresses if you like. AJP in games Log in to reply |
| Chaining 17/07/2012 at 18:49 #34114 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
LOL....Slight OT but I think the advent of smart phones more recently is probably more to blame!!
Log in to reply |