Cyclone Sorry No, wrt CONSISTS you cannot delete multiple consists at a time you have to delete 1 then save then re-open the scenario, and so on. So back to my original question can LOCOSWAP delete multiple consists at a time? pH
LocoSwap does not seem to let you delete ANY Consists I click on Loose Consist in a Scenario and tried to delete is - it comes back with "you must remove the railvehicles first" So I tried to remove both vehicles and it says "the consist must contain at least one vehicle" - only two in it Having removed one vehicle it would not let me remove the other or delete the consist
So I'm using the AP-Downloader by shipsaw which seems very good and imo better and more intuitive than the one available on On Track Simulation which I tried first... It really does take the ballache out of the AP update (or clean install) process. Click Image for link Anybody else using it?
I just tried using that, and when I selected "missing packs" it selected everything, even packs that I have. I don't think I'll be trusting that. I'll do it manually I think.
Never had that in the months I've been using it, I have 1 missing pack (the original 175) and if I select it then it highlights said pack and only said pack as expected. Dare I ask did you RTFM? As it was your first usage you have to follow the instructions explicitly. https://github.com/shipsaw/AP-Downloader/wiki
Yes, of course I read it. It just selects everything, so it thinks I have no AP products installed no matter what I set the file paths to. It just won't play nice on my system - no idea why. Not fussed really. If I do it myself, I know it's done right.
When selecting "Last Updated" to get the Wherry lines update I listed here I noticed that 5 others of my owned stock has been updated but no info in the update log though..
I wish there was more information on why they were updated, myself, but the AP log notes that it is most likely a housekeeping-related update, and nothing was actually changed. Even so, I do wish they would at least confirm it and say as such instead of a user thinking they have to reinstall everything. Moreso as a courtesy than anything else.
Sorry should've probably said I was aware that it was likely unimportant to us I just thought I'd mention it, which is why I posted it here and not in the actual update thread.
Certainly good advice to users to check the update log. I wonder what "housekeeping" means, though...
Housekeeping probably includes (among other things) modifying the .msi install procedure so that it doesn't leave files after installation on your PC. Stuff like that!
Looks like compatibility allowances for things like coupling or whatever else might be involved to connect an 87 to it. Honestly nice to see that support added before release of the new loco.
Not long now Pookey, with them deep into the stages of making it work with other stuff and publicly documenting it, so with a bit of luck it will be out whilst the sun is still shining. It'll be when it's dark and cold though, that I will absolutely cane it Coming to love the AC electrics and their quirks these days.
I'm quite happy with the Wherry Lines 2.0 Upgrade, though there's something I do not like, maybe someone has some advice for me. These gravel textures do not seem to have mipmaps, and are flickering terribly, the Anisotropic filter does not work on them. It looks like it's a NEAREST instead of ANISOTROPIC filtering... (The inner ballast belonging to the tracks is fine.) Anyone else experienced this?
I'll be honest Torf, I've not actually played it since buying the upgrade (on release). Just so much other stuff (and the odd other game besides TS) to do..
I can't say I've noticed anything. Where on the route is that? I recently recorded a run from Lowestoft to Norwich. Can you pinpoint the area it happens, or does it happen everywhere? I don't recall seeing any flickering textures anywhere and I've played this route to death since it was released as V2.
Inadvertently posted on the AP update only thread, my query below regarding AP’s patch to the Wherry Lines, which included updating to allow compatibility with the eagerly anticipated Signal Enhancement Pack: I’m no expert in these matters, but note that it says Wherry Lines updated to include compatibility with the new Signal Enhancement Pack. That just got we wondering why WL needs to be updated, but presumably DTG won’t be upgrading their many routes to facilitate compatibility! So I wonder why Wherry needs that tweak?
Do us a favour if you would, delete the couple of posts you made over there, just keeps things cleaner. As far as I know the AP signals enhance the UK Pro signals, which means AP must've used some other type on the Wherry Lines, they also mention correcting an approach control signal which as they said in their post the EP cannot fix/alter existing approach control signals because the signal needs to be physically replaced I assume, they will get the benefit of the rest of the enhanced features just not that scripted part, the routes that'll benefit from this EP is vast as a lot of routes use the UK Pro signals, and as with the track EP I imagine some clever guys will probably adapt things like JT's newer routes which obviously utilise the JT signals or popular routes which use other signal bases.
It’s a while since I downloaded any updates from AP - I just did for the track enhancement for Huddersfield - but on reviewing the update log, I noticed a lot of the loco updates involve substituting one set of wagons (maybe newer?) for others in scenarios, so I’ll have to check I have them before updating, so I don’t end up with undrivable scenarios. Is there a tendency for AP to replace older with newer wagons in these included scenarios, so that it prompts users to fork out more on wagons?
Yep, they do that when a new version of a product is released. If you look at the update thread it shows that he alters older scenarios included in packs to use the newest available version. There was a whole thread somewhere on here about him doing that (I think it was called the problem with AP or something like that).
Thanks, Nick. I recall checking and not doing updates because the 205 would have been replaced in some scenarios.
Iif I don't buy it and run a scenario that requires it, what will happen: will it break completely and not work? Will it decrease the realism and still work? We probably don't know the answers yet.
I think I read that it'll just revert to the standard UK Pro signals, I will need to check the FB posts to confirm. Edit: Confirmed.. See, I always check my sources unlike the windy one.
Talk about cynical. How about the updates are to provide the most realistic experience possible? What's the point of creating new stock if not to use it? Why should older products become old and tired using out of date stock? Those who don't own the new wagon packs are free to not download any free updates. It costs them nothing but to suggest that AP continually updating their products free of charge is a bad thing is rather strange. You just need to be vigilant on scenario requirements whenever you update.
I still say AP should offer an "assets only" option when installing their packs, for those who might not have all the scenario prerequisites.
Use either TS Tools or LocoSwap. I don't buy new wagons if the identical ones I have are ok for me. If I don't have a version of the required wagons I might get them or just change them for something else
It wasn't a question of cynicism, but of observation. I haven't had the opportunity to use TS much over the last year, and on looking at the various updates available for EPs etc I have, I notice that I'd have to purchase wagons I don't have to run their scenarios now. I can't say I'd agree that AP's previous wagons that I have look old or tired, or that they lack realism, and I bought the EPs to run the core trains, not because of the wagons attached, or to have to constantly pay for the latest wagons with each update. Perhaps I prefer older wagons than more modern ones. Rather than the cost of the wagons being used to cover the costs of updating the EPs, the update log suggests that the update is purely to change the wagons involved in the scenarios, and has nothing whatsoever to do with updating the purchased EP itself, so that's a red herring. Looking at the current update log, there's twelve cases where I have noted not to upgrade my purchases because I'd need to buy two lots of new wagons, so, as you say, it's a matter of being vigilant, and not updating 'automatically' without checking. I wonder if not everyone does that though.
The manual has been uploaded so should be releasing soon I imagine. https://www.armstrongpowerhouse.com/free_download/manuals/APSEP_Manual.pdf
Looks excellent, lots of functionality here. A good example is on the Wherry Lines update, where the junction signal for Sheringham clears up to yellow, then green when a specific distance has passed....very nice. The only small niggle is that you can only specify one type of approach control for each junction signal, but for scenarios the player would only see one signal indication anyway, so not much of an issue (also you could force change and overide the approach control type in the scenario editor instead of the route editor, which solves that problem). Hopefully releases v soon!
I don't think I posted about the signal pack yet. And it's probably better I don't. It's overpriced in my view. Download the updates, install to a dummy folder. Copy everything EXCEPT the scenarios to the main folder, run the InstallMe if you need to grab any GEOs. Update complete. [The original post has been edited to clarify my comments.]
Think you need to align yourself with the facts.. (Self edited to remove personal attack, I'm better than that) Here is a video to the Armstrong Powerhouse Signals Enhancement Pack Watch! Here is a link to the Armstrong Powerhouse Signals Enhancement Pack .pdf manual Read! https://armstrongpowerhouse.com/free_download/manuals/APSEP_Manual.pdf
I am aware it also has scripts. Let's not fight, please. I mean, this pack could have done well with some scenarios showing off the new signal scripting to make it worth the price being asked. It's just too high of a price. I might have considered it for 5 pounds.
then how about YOU stop mocking every single release AP does and bring the subject up about money will come here and criticise the developer if it’s not AP your insulting it’s Alan Thompson and if it’s not him it’s someone else it’s getting very boring now and this is every time one of the above developers gets mentioned you just can’t help yourself. You do it here as well as on the TSC discord server. if you think this is just textures then I suggest you do as Reef says READ the manual. If you can script signals this way and incorporate them into the sim the way AP has then please do and release it for us. There are scenarios FREELY available for the signalling pack already by the community released on Alan thomsons website but no doubt that will be another complaint from you because they require x amount of payware to function.
...why are you so fired up? You''re the one who brought me up, I hadn't said a thing to that point and had no intention to. Even so, I'm allowed to say I think the value is questionable in my personal opinion. That's my right. Please stop using me as a punching bag and trying to elicit a reaction. EDIT: Sorry, Reef mentioned me, apologies Reef. But my comment stays the same to the OP here. Please stop trying to get a reaction from me. I'm done with it.
