Page 1 of 1
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 13/02/2016 at 19:12 #80652 | |
Guts
604 posts |
Any issues with these timetable please use this thread.
Last edited: 13/02/2016 at 19:13 by Guts Log in to reply The following user said thank you: HST125Scorton |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 13/02/2016 at 23:30 #80657 | |
HST125Scorton
1191 posts |
Guts, Thanks for releasing these new timetables. Only one issue whether it was my fault at my end but when loading up Carlisle and using the 2009 timetable only one train was on the screen that was seeded. I checked the timetable by F4 and 90% of the trains were ticked seed while the rest were ok. I've uploaded a screenshot to show.
Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Aaron (AJRO) | Timetable Writer Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 00:21 #80658 | |
Sacro
1171 posts |
Did you release the right version of Carlisle? Timetable notes mention v1-3, however the filename is vPP-09 and the actual timetable is version 0.0.0. Motherwell has the description ripped from a 2006 WTT, filename states version v4.1.0.4, the actual timetable is version 0.0.0, using it on Motherwell 4.2build3 shows up an incompatible timetable warning (2000s era) and 7 errors, 13 warnings. It also doesn't follow the required timetable upload rules: unique and meaningful title with a brief description; whether real (with date) or fictional; whether any era option is required; the Sim version number it was written on (if known); Author's name (credits etc. can go in the timetable's internal notes). Last edited: 14/02/2016 at 00:25 by Sacro Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 02:57 #80660 | |
|
Guts
604 posts |
The codes to my knowledge don't define whether it can be played. TO answer HST's question, the Seeding is random. You get different trains seeded every time you start it. When I uploaded the timetable I did add a brief description to it that hasn't up loaded. Motherwell 2009 is the 2006 timetable adapted to allow it to chain to Carlisle. That was the whole point of this timetable. The Carlisle timetable was added as there are adaptions to the original Carlisle 2009 timetable to make it work for both. Last edited: 14/02/2016 at 03:03 by Guts Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 03:17 #80661 | |
|
Guts
604 posts |
Right there is an issue with seeding. Open a new start in Carlisle and save the timetable using the same name (overwriting it), then restart and seeding returns to normal Last edited: 14/02/2016 at 03:20 by Guts Log in to reply The following user said thank you: HST125Scorton |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 11:32 #80665 | |
|
HST125Scorton
1191 posts |
Thank you for the reply Guts. I started Carlisle fresh with the timetable and re saved it as you mentioned and all the trains now work. Upto 0600 without a hitch so far. I do have an issue with Motherwell's timetable as it comes up with a "Incompatible timetable warning" anyway I tried it for a while and it seems ok running it.
Aaron (AJRO) | Timetable Writer Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 12:16 #80668 | |
|
Ray
211 posts |
As Carlisle is a sim which is not part of the new loader, I was expecting to see two files for the Carlisle timetable 15-10-2009 i.e. WTT and WRT. I only have the WTT file when I downloaded. Can someone explain please ?
Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 12:33 #80670 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:As Carlisle is a sim which is not part of the new loader, I was expecting to see two files for the Carlisle timetable 15-10-2009 i.e. WTT and WRT. I only have the WTT file when I downloaded. Can someone explain please ?The WTT that has been released by Guts has been built on a tester version of Carlisle on the loader, and isn't compatible with the public .exe version. Carlisle throws 166 errors on the .exe version, and most of the rules don't work as they've been built on the loader. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 12:41 #80671 | |
|
Guts
604 posts |
You can get around the Rules issue by making a copy of the original 2009 rules file .WTR and copying the new 2009 name in front of it and it then gets recognised when you open the sim
Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 12:46 #80672 | |
|
Sacro
1171 posts |
" said:Sadly it doesn't work on that either... :doh Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 14:20 #80675 | |
|
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:You can get around the Rules issue by making a copy of the original 2009 rules file .WTR and copying the new 2009 name in front of it and it then gets recognised when you open the simUnfortunately that doesn't resolve a lot of the other errors that then prevent trains from entering Carlisle. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 14:41 #80676 | |
|
Ray
211 posts |
Thanks for the explanation. I have more than enough timetables to run as it is, so I will wait for the completed version.
Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 18:39 #80679 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:The WTT that has been released by Guts has been built on a tester version of Carlisle on the loader, and isn't compatible with the public .exe version.If only the rules that require the uploader to state in the title the sim version the timetable was written on were followed and/or enforced... Also, because both were uploaded in a single file, there's now a Carlisle timetable that is only accessible in the Motherwell timetables folder. Last edited: 14/02/2016 at 18:40 by Danny252 Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Sacro |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 14/02/2016 at 19:22 #80681 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
" said:" said:To be honest if the uploader is known to me I tend to authorise as a matter of course: really just on the lookout for rogue files, which are few and far between these days.The WTT that has been released by Guts has been built on a tester version of Carlisle on the loader, and isn't compatible with the public .exe version.If only the rules that require the uploader to state in the title the sim version the timetable was written on were followed and/or enforced... I was advised by Geoff that since loader it's not a good idea to add version numbers to the timetable name. I need to fix the instructions on that. You are supposed to do it in the timetable editor. If people are writing timetables on a test version of a Sim then they really need to check: a) with the Sim author that it's OK to release b) Check it validates against the latest public version. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 16/02/2016 at 16:42 #80710 | |
Lyn-Greenwood
240 posts |
" said:" said:I know why Geoff doesn't like version nos. in timetable names, but prefers us to use the Editor's Major/Minor version nos. instead. However, this wouldn't allow a user to easily see which versions of timetables he has in his Timetables folders unless he loads the sim & timetable or opens the raw XML timetable file and has a look at the timetable header." said:To be honest if the uploader is known to me I tend to authorise as a matter of course: really just on the lookout for rogue files, which are few and far between these days.The WTT that has been released by Guts has been built on a tester version of Carlisle on the loader, and isn't compatible with the public .exe version.If only the rules that require the uploader to state in the title the sim version the timetable was written on were followed and/or enforced... I'd like to suggest a compromise. When a timetable is saved by the editor, the 'Timetable Name' field in the timetable General tab is used as the default filename, so how about the editor adding the Major/Minor version nos. (if they are non-zero) to the end of this filename? This way, users can see at a glance which version of a given timetable they have and only download newer versions. I have to say that some of the timetable names I've seen in the User Download area leave a lot to be desired, and putting a timetable for one sim in the .ZIP file of another sim just seems illogical to me. I believe a lot of recent problems that have been aired in the Forum recently boil down to poor quality control, so maybe it's time for the Moderators to be a little more strict with their approvals of timetables (naming, description, etc.) and for new sims to be more rigorously tested, perhaps by an independent team of testers following final testing by the Developer's test team? I'd like to see comments from other members of the community, so please fire away. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: norman B |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 16/02/2016 at 21:27 #80713 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
The numbering thing is to do with the updating - you can only auto-update a timetable if the name is identical and with added version numbers they are axiomatically not identical. Perhaps not as critical for user uploaded as for those accompanying Sims. I for one do not wish to take responsibility for testing user uploaded timetables before approval. If a group want to set themselves up as timetable validators I'm sure that will be acceptable and I'm sure we can come to some arrangement over an approval process so the person approving release knows they have been through the group. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: tjfrancis |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 16/02/2016 at 23:12 #80716 | |
|
Lyn-Greenwood
240 posts |
" said:The numbering thing is to do with the updating - you can only auto-update a timetable if the name is identical and with added version numbers they are axiomatically not identical. Perhaps not as critical for user uploaded as for those accompanying Sims.I've obviously not explained things very well, Peter, so I'll try and elaborate. 1. Auto-updating: let's take as an example the Exeter Summer 2006 timetable which is distributed with the Exeter sim. The current version is Major=5, Minor=0, so if the timetable editor created the timetable file as "Exeter Summer 2006 (v5.0)" and this was installed on a User's PC, then the auto-updater (Refresher) could construct the filename to look for from the base name (Exeter Summer 2006) and the Major/Minor nos. (5.0) i.e. it looks for "Exeter Summer 2006 (v5.0)" and if this file exists, then no update is needed. Now let's say the timetable is modified and is allocated version nos. Major=5, Minor=1. The editor will save this to disk as "Exeter Summer 2006 (v5.1)", so when the auto-updater checks for this file on the User's PC, it won't find it and will download the new version, thus preserving the User's original version, which he might have modified in some way. I know this method will require some mods to the Refresher code, but it will ensure that the version in the filename agrees with the Major/Minor combination in the timetable and will allow Users to easily see which versions of a timetable they have on disk. By the way, I wouldn't envisage user-contributed timetables being auto-updated, just those supplied with the sims. 2. My reference to Moderators being more strict did not imply they should test user-contributed timetables, just ensure that the uploaded timetable details contained the required information (sim name, timetable name, loader/.exe, real/fictional, etc.). 3. My idea of an independent testing group was for newly released sims (with accompanying timetables), not user-contributed timetables. I believe this additional testing would most likely have shown up the problems that have been found in the two recently released sims, thus preventing the embarrassment that this must have caused. These are just ideas of mine and I would appreciate the views of developers, testers and users. Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 17/02/2016 at 00:07 #80719 | |
|
Guts
604 posts |
I'll tell you what I won't bother trying to do timetables Can't be bothered with the bickering. You'd think people had paid money for the timetable! If it doesn't work, no problem, I humbly request Geoff and/or Peter remove it from the Downloads. I'll keep adapted timetables to myself in future, for my own pleasure. Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 17/02/2016 at 04:31 #80720 | |
|
Sidestick Priority
39 posts |
Firstly apologies to Guts for derailing his thread somewhat. I like Lyn-Greenwood's thinking, and if nothing else this free exchange of ideas could assist the SimSig team in coming up with different or improved solutions near or long term. The discussion of non standard formats and uploads seems to pop up on here from time to time. I suspect it isn't that big a problem overall, but something that makes total sense to the uploader and author might not make much sense to the end user. Perhaps the upload process could therefore be made more robust in order to eliminate, or at least mitigate the issue of standardisation and naming of timetables. I'm thinking along the lines of 'hand holding' the uploader during the upload process a little bit more than what is the case today: 1.Instead of choosing a file location in the upload form, a drop down menu of available simulations could be selected. This could automatically display the current sim version when selected, and automatically point to the correct location for upload. 2. A mandatory time period or specific date input - two input fields could be provided, one freetext for winter/summer etc and one for a specific date - code it so that at least one of the two is mandatory to fill in. 3. Mandatory input field for year. 4. Mandatory input field for version. Then timetable description, licence etc. One could then have a script running that automatically renames uploaded files in the format of 1+2+3+4 ie Exeter_Summer_2006_v50.wtt or LVicCentral_15thOct_2009_v11.wtt etc. The author would then not have a say in how the file is named. Only allow .wtt files to be uploaded. Not sure whether the server could automatically zip uploaded files after wtt upload, that way you would assure only one genuine file per zip, if download size of TT files are an issue. This way it would at least be presented the same way, taking individual interpretation of naming rules etc out of the equation. Whether it is at all a good idea or even doable without a 'space program' type effort is another matter entirely. Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 17/02/2016 at 07:11 #80723 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
" said:I'll tell you what I won't bother trying to do timetablesPosts 1 to 13 are pretty much queries and replies about problems people appeared to be having genuine problems and on which they required help. Posts after that are not specifically about these particular timetables but general comment on the user made timetable upload and approval process. I see pretty much all this as being constructive: whether and to what extent any changes are possible is probably something for Geoff to consider. I have considered splitting the thread but I have to go for my train now so don't have time to come to a conclusion. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 17/02/2016 at 14:46 #80731 | |
Steamer
3984 posts |
Wouldn't it just be simpler to correct the folder that is causing the problem, rather than coming up with increasingly elaborate (and labour-intensive) ways of avoiding the problem? It doesn't happen that often.
"Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 18/02/2016 at 02:27 #80746 | |
|
Finger
220 posts |
" said:" said:As Carlisle is a sim which is not part of the new loader, I was expecting to see two files for the Carlisle timetable 15-10-2009 i.e. WTT and WRT. I only have the WTT file when I downloaded. Can someone explain please ?The WTT that has been released by Guts has been built on a tester version of Carlisle on the loader, and isn't compatible with the public .exe version. That's not really true, after doing what Guts suggested, namely Quote: Open a new start in Carlisle and save the timetable using the same name (overwriting it), then restart and seeding returns to normal everything works well (except 3 trains, 2 of which have timetables which are obviously faulty), even the rules. Why would rules from the loader not work on an exe version, when the rules model hasn't changed since long ago? Carlisle.exe evidently has parser for XML timetable format, only one that's seriously buggy as evidenced by the spurious errors you get. Last edited: 18/02/2016 at 02:28 by Finger Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Guts |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 18/02/2016 at 21:28 #80764 | |
|
Guts
604 posts |
I was just about to make the same comment as Finger. I've got 18 errors which don't affect gameplay. One actually error regarding 4Q76-2 that needs correcting!! This again is after the save on .exe fix!! 
Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Last edited: 18/02/2016 at 21:29 by Guts Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 18/02/2016 at 21:36 #80767 | |
|
Guts
604 posts |
If anyone wants the corrected timetable for the .exe version, please private message me. I don't want to upload the corrected timetable without Peter Bennet's permission Last edited: 18/02/2016 at 21:40 by Guts Log in to reply |
| Motherwell and Carlisle 2009 18/02/2016 at 22:25 #80768 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
" said:If anyone wants the corrected timetable for the .exe version, please private message me.If the timetables work on the currently released sims then I have no problem with you uploading them and I'll authorise them (probably tomorrow now - or someone else will). I understand that you zipped them into a single file previously, please upload separately to the correct folder. Thanks Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Guts |