It is well known that the recent update caused issues with locomotive LUA scripting. However, I suspect that signal scripts may have issues as well. The reason for this is that in the Cambridge Lines & ECML scenario "6:40am Cambridge to St Ives stopper" I get a SPAD shortly after leaving Cambridge despite not passing a signal and my line being clear. I suspect that what may have happened is that the signals' scripting was broken by the update, but I didn't play the scenario before the update and it could be that the creator just played with SPAD game overs off and didn't notice the issue. So I'm asking anyone with a copy of the game before the update if they could test the scenario and see if they get a SPAD.
I'm having suspicions based on a few comments but by no means can prove, test or confirm the theory that something is broken within the JT signalling (ref: pookyhead and Adam Haigh's scenarios discussions recently + stuff I've read here and there on FB) Not sure about the AP signal enhancement or even the default signalling, not really had much play time recently tbh.
I'll check it out this morning and let you know. TBH it might just be one of those WTAF bits of the early signalling that I did (12 years ago!) and perhaps I just got used to it. I'll report back.
Hi EldomTom2, Just tested and confirmed that there is a SPAD between the signalbox and the bridge exit - the pseudo distant just North of the signalbox may be the problem. For now please just tab through/past the bridge - but let me know if there are any further issues (I just ran up past histon with just the one SPAD). The problem with fixing signalling issues is that a save takes over 20 minutes which makes trial-and-error testing a bit laborious!
The problem in this specific case is that the game doesn't appear to acknowledge that there's a danger signal until the SPAD, so I can't tab past. But perhaps this conversation should be taken to a different thread.
The signalling around Cambridge was some of my earliest work so my level of knowledge was limited to say the least. It's entirely possible that it always did this...though i thought I had fixed it some releases ago. It is on the list for the next release (along with everything else ;-)
I did not know if you knew that info and therefore I'm curious why you said "But perhaps this conversation should be taken to a different thread." In the first post you referred to the Cambridge Lines and ECML route and nobody knows it better than the Author.
Because I intended this thread to be about the possibility that the recent update had broken signal scripting, and thought that if the focus was going to shift to a potentially non-signal scripting related problem in the route that it would be going off topic.
