Page 1 of 1
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 00:01 #148620 | |
VInce
![]() 579 posts |
The recent spate of issues reported for the Derby sim hides a bigger problem. There are so many issues with it, especially in the older eras that I wonder whether it is worth keeping it on the system. The vast majority of the issues have been on mantis for many years and most timetable writers don't see the point in authoring timetables when there are so many errors which prevent timetables (both historic and modern) from working properly. The developer is no longer involved with Simsig, the sim is free and therefore will not get any attention. Why bother with it? Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 04/11/2022 at 00:05 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply The following users said thank you: 304033, TUT |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 00:15 #148621 | |
jc92
![]() 3649 posts |
No one said that you have to bother personally, but I'm sure there are plenty of others who still want to be able to run it, especially with the 2009 timetable era which has far fewer issues. I'm fairly sure if you ask around, theres plenty of users who would like to run South Humberside or Bristol warts and all but no longer have the opportunity to do so (pending any future development of replacements which may well be unlikely for South Humberside). "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply The following users said thank you: TUT, Dionysusnu |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 08:18 #148626 | |
andyallen4014
![]() 364 posts |
jc92 in post 148621 said:No one said that you have to bother personally, but I'm sure there are plenty of others who still want to be able to run it, especially with the 2009 timetable era which has far fewer issues.Agreed, I'd be delighted with the opportunity to run Peak District given the chance! User | Multiplayer Host | Timetable Writer Log in to reply The following user said thank you: TUT |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 08:44 #148627 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5377 posts ![]() |
There are currently 6 open bugs on Derby, only 2 seem to me to have a material impact on the sim operation and those were reported about a week ago. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 09:33 #148629 | |
postal
![]() 5216 posts |
Peter Bennet in post 148627 said:There are currently 6 open bugs on Derby, only 2 seem to me to have a material impact on the sim operation and those were reported about a week ago.However, there is a difference between the listing of open and closed bugs on Mantis and the state of the released sim. How many of the closed bugs have had the solution actually carried over to the released version of the sim? According to the copy on my hard disk the current sim file was created on 14/03/2019. There are three pages of Mantis bugs which were closed after that date. Were these actually carried over to an updated version of the sim it may resolve a lot of the issues that Vince raises. If there is not going to be an updated version of the sim then there is a lot wrong that detracts from the quality and reputation of SimSig and Vince makes a valid point about withdrawing it from public release. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Last edited: 04/11/2022 at 09:37 by postal Reason: None given Log in to reply |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 10:43 #148630 | |
DaveHarries
![]() 1280 posts |
andyallen4014 in post 148626 said:jc92 in post 148621 said:No one said that you have to bother personally, but I'm sure there are plenty of others who still want to be able to run it, especially with the 2009 timetable era which has far fewer issues.Agreed, I'd be delighted with the opportunity to run Peak District given the chance! Likewise. I always enjoyed playing Bristol (my home sim: hopefully won't be too long before I can do that again) and South Humberside sims: pity a change of system enforced my loss of the latter one especially now that York ROC has control of much of it meaning that updates are unlikely. I retain hope that SH might reappear in some form though given its potential to chain to Doncaster. Dave Log in to reply The following users said thank you: TUT, Dionysusnu |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 14:53 #148632 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5377 posts ![]() |
postal in post 148629 said:Peter Bennet in post 148627 said:I did do a random check of some of the closures, as the same thought crossed my mind this morning and they were marked as "resolved" before the release date shown on the Wiki. Someone did a tidying up exercise recently(ish) to formally close them.There are currently 6 open bugs on Derby, only 2 seem to me to have a material impact on the sim operation and those were reported about a week ago.However, there is a difference between the listing of open and closed bugs on Mantis and the state of the released sim. How many of the closed bugs have had the solution actually carried over to the released version of the sim? According to the copy on my hard disk the current sim file was created on 14/03/2019. There are three pages of Mantis bugs which were closed after that date. Were these actually carried over to an updated version of the sim it may resolve a lot of the issues that Vince raises. If there is not going to be an updated version of the sim then there is a lot wrong that detracts from the quality and reputation of SimSig and Vince makes a valid point about withdrawing it from public release. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Dionysusnu |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 17:49 #148633 | |
bill_gensheet
![]() 1357 posts |
Mantis would suggest some work resolving bugs done in May 2019 - so some of those fixes may indeed not be released with that file date. 7 bugs have been highlighted via Mantis 31351 due to causing timetable issues. I have ver 1.3 here, my file date probably refers to this PC build. Bill Last edited: 04/11/2022 at 18:10 by bill_gensheet Reason: typo Log in to reply |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 18:13 #148634 | |
VInce
![]() 579 posts |
Well I can categorically state that the issue with trains not entering from Denby was reported many years ago by me and I was told then it was already on mantis. The problem still exists on the current sim. There were also many issues with missing routes and locations and trains not stepping correctly on the Coalville line which were reported many years ago. There are also issues with missing routes in the station area which was reported by me several years ago and still exists. Again I ask since no work is going to be done on the sim what is the point of having it on the system. As someone else said what good does having a sub-standard product like this do for the reputation of Simsig. I also believe that Pascal (58050) had a timetable ready for release but would not release it while there was so much wrong with the sim that it prevented the timetable working correctly. I'm sure he will be aware of the Derby sim's shortcomings. Vince I walk around inside the questions of my day, I navigate the inner reaches of my disarray, I pass the altars where fools and thieves hold sway, I wait for night to come and lift this dread away : Jackson Browne - The Night Inside Me Last edited: 04/11/2022 at 18:17 by VInce Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 304033 |
Why bother? 04/11/2022 at 18:35 #148635 | |
58050
![]() 2652 posts |
VInce in post 148634 said:Well I can categorically state that the issue with trains not entering from Denby was reported many years ago by me and I was told then it was already on mantis. The problem still exists on the current sim. Yes Vince I'm very well aware of whats missing. The last time I did any work on the my timetable was probably back before I had my kidney transplant which was April, 2020. I remember one night discussing issues with Derbybest as he was trying to sort a few things out. Howard Potter the dve of the sim did fix some issues I'd reported around the Burton On Trent area, but you still couldn't tt anything around Coalville Mantle Lane Sdgs & from some of the collieries leading to Drakelow Power Station due mainly to missing paths. Since then however Howard has left & sadlt Derbybest is no longer with us. Personally I can see anything being done to Derby as everyone is pretty working on new sims & as its a freeware sim it isn't going to jump to the top of the priority list.. I suspect one day the whole Derby sim will be re-done this time to a better standard & turned into a payware sim, something that may well also happen to other freeware sims such as Trent & Worksop, but no doubt thats going to be some years off in the future.The TT I was working on was a summer 1987 TT during the last full year of the Cl.45 locos on the Midland mainline. Log in to reply |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 00:50 #148642 | |
304033
![]() 56 posts |
Well said Vince. This, once again, highlights some of the poor ways Simsig operates which both infuriates me as a long time user but I also find laughable = With Developers holding the keys to the older Sims and then Simsig (Geoff) not able / refusing to fix issues. Eg, Trent, South Humberside, East London Line (scrolly) > All are excellent sims and are now just dumped by the wayside. Now looks like Derby can be added to the list as well. I just find it incredible that this has been allowed to happen... Or was it a very misguided business decision years ago that when the developer walked away from Simsig (not the first time!) the sim then becomes orphaned??! Alas, i'm sure the 'Inner Circle' will be along quite soon to jump to the defence of Simsig... Log in to reply |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 07:58 #148643 | |
flabberdacks
![]() 607 posts |
304033 in post 148642 said:This is deliberately antagonistic language which helps nobody. You didn't have to say this. The work required to produce sims (and to update old ones) is intense, the development and testing process is a slog, and it's nobody's full time job. The more sims that exist, the more work is involved to keep old sims and their obsolete code working at all. It's a labour of love for those of us who devote so much of our time to it. Please keep that in mind. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: andyb0607, Hap, elltrain3, whatlep |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 09:19 #148644 | |
jc92
![]() 3649 posts |
304033 in post 148642 said:Well said Vince.I'm sure Geoff will correct this if wrong, but the developer owns the data that's input in order for the programme to create/run the simulation, but not the "area" or sim itself. As a result that data can't be used if the developer doesn't consent to it. It certainly doesn't prevent someone creating a brand new version from scratch using their own sourced data, sheffield being a good example as the data for most areas is essentially identical to the scroll, but sourced by the new developer. Even if the original developer consents, its still a case of untangling the original data and working out how they've put stuff together in order to then alter it. Trent was written before a lot of common features existed and used custom code for things like ground frames and crossings. That would all need nuking and replacing with the current equivalent. From what I understand, this was the case with Carlisle where a lot of time was spent understanding the raw data before being able to tackle what would normally be standard bug fixes for the "new" version of it. Ergo trent Derby and North London line and shumbs could all be created again from scratch, but that's easier said than done when theres already plenty of other projects either in development or in testing. "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 09:32 #148645 | |
304033
![]() 56 posts |
Quote:This is deliberately antagonistic language which helps nobody. You didn't have to say this. The reason behind saying this, is that because the last time I tried to add some constructive criticsism (and it was constructive) I got jumped on for daring to have opinion (people forget this is a forum), or put it another way, actually giving a solution to an issue... But then this was also responded to with a full on attack & knee-jerk reply from a certain person in charge, which then he deleted, along with a post on his personal Facebook page about "having to take the moral high ground and not respond to customers" (Ummm, you did, then panicked and deleted it), and the cohorts all rushing to his defence on there. Quote: The work required to produce sims (and to update old ones) is intense, the development and testing process is a slog, and it's nobody's full time job. The more sims that exist, the more work is involved to keep old sims and their obsolete code working at all. Yup, i'm well aware of that thanks, and grateful to the people who actually devote their time to it. However, your missing my point, eg Derby is a 'Loader' Sim, so not obsolete, but that now seems to have crossed the realm like the others (Trent, S.Humbs) where its now entered no-mans-land territory because ANOTHER developer has walked away > This shouldnt happen. Last edited: 06/11/2022 at 09:35 by 304033 Reason: None given Log in to reply |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 10:22 #148647 | |
Peter Bennet
![]() 5377 posts ![]() |
304033 in post 148645 said:ANOTHER developer has walked away > This shouldnt happen.Sounds very Dickensian. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 15:06 #148648 | |
clive
![]() 2766 posts |
jc92 in post 148644 said:Let's put it this way: I'm running into a lot of trouble like this in trying to produce the new Cambridge sim, which is one reason why it's taking so long (there are others). And *I*'m the person who wrote the original one! And it isn't just an issue of custom data; even without that, new features in the loader mean we don't do things the same way we used to. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: jc92, simple68 |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 18:33 #148649 | |
flabberdacks
![]() 607 posts |
A loader sim can most definitely be obsolete, in the way that it is programmed. New features, changed features, custom code that is interpreted differently by the newer code, you name it. No trivial matter to update an aged loader sim.
Log in to reply |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 20:38 #148659 | |
postal
![]() 5216 posts |
I think that we have lost the point which Vince Shirley was trying to raise when he started this thread. I don't think anyone has any issues with the fact that sims are developed and then maintained by some very dedicated people who are doing their SimSig stuff on top of complicated and busy lives where family and work have an unfortunate habit of intruding. We are all very grateful for the efforts that those people put in so that we can all enjoy realistic and challenging sims. However, there does seem to be a gap where previously released sims are (for whatever reason) allowed to die on the vine. I hope I am not putting words in Vince's mouth but there should be a better way for the SimSig community to either move forward and debug sims where there are known problems or to start making hard decisions about taking sims out of circulation which do not meet the high standards we all expect. The conversations between Geoff, developers and ex-developers are not relevant to users of the software and we shouldn't be trying to second-guess them. That does not detract from the point that the user experience is what drives the success of SimSig; perhaps the interests of all stakeholders should have an input to this sort of conversation rather than degenerating into an us and them sort of debate. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply The following users said thank you: jc92, Soton_Speed, 9pN1SEAp, VInce, Albert, elltrain3, 304033, JWNoctis |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 21:27 #148660 | |
bill_gensheet
![]() 1357 posts |
postal in post 148659 said:or to start making hard decisions about taking sims out of circulation which do not meet the high standards we all expect.I would not say going that far, after all there are several hankering after the deceased South Humberside, North London etc. Would not want another on that list. However a clear distinction of 'live' and 'retired - use at own risk it is free after all' might be helpful as long as the *default* timetables still work. As timetable writer I will first check if the awkward/novel/wierd trains I want to run will run on the sim, and if not I'll simply move on. With a sim on such an 'retired' list, all the greater caution. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Dionysusnu |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 21:29 #148662 | |
clive
![]() 2766 posts |
flabberdacks in post 148649 said:There is no custom code in loader sims. Geoff and I try very hard to make sure that the sim file will always behave the same as when it was first written. But new functionality means that you want to do a better job the second time around because you no longer have to accept compromises that you made the first time. Log in to reply |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 22:35 #148666 | |
headshot119
![]() 4869 posts |
Since the release of Loader version 5 in 2020, we have endeavoured to undertake updates for all simulations, with priority given to payware simulations in the first instance. Derby and Stafford are the last two donationware simulations yet to receive a public update, though work is taking place in the background on both of these. There has been some talk in this thread that it’s not possible for SimSig to update simulations from developers who have parted ways. This is not the case. Where SimSig has the original source data we will continue to support these simulations. Generally speaking we are left with two options for Derby, we withdraw it from the loader until such a time as it is updated, or we can leave it in the current as-is state until such a time as it is updated. Generally speaking, response to the withdrawal of older obsolete .exe simulations has proven controversial, and we would like to avoid doing this to loader simulations which we can support going forward. "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 The following users said thank you: elltrain3, i26, Sam Tugwell, JWNoctis, andyb0607, sunocske, belly buster, 304033, flabberdacks, Dionysusnu |
Why bother? 06/11/2022 at 23:39 #148667 | |
bill_gensheet
![]() 1357 posts |
clive in post 148662 said:flabberdacks in post 148649 said:The same of course applies to the accompanying & user timetables.There is no custom code in loader sims. Geoff and I try very hard to make sure that the sim file will always behave the same as when it was first written. But new functionality means that you want to do a better job the second time around because you no longer have to accept compromises that you made the first time. Log in to reply |
Why bother? 07/11/2022 at 10:40 #148668 | |
greatkingrat
![]() 75 posts |
One possible solution would be for sims that are no longer actively supported to be available for manual download only, rather than being downloaded automatically by the loader. That way, new players would only see the up to date sims by default, and the older sims aren't lost completely.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Dionysusnu |