Harrogate V2.3 6m16 Wilton Efw - Suggest How To Fix

One starts off this Scenario North of York in a Class 66 EWS southbound. The loco is expected to go via York P3 and stay on main line going via Copmanthorpe Up Doncaster. The problem is as one leaves York P3 the tracks are automatically set to go via York South Crossover 4 followed by York South Crossover 3. It appears that these selections are being governed by the loco following behind 1P22 Newcastle - Manchester which will select these options. How do I fix this scenario so that on start the correct configuration does not go via Crossover 4 followed by York South Crossover 3. Would be nice to understand how to fix this type of 'bad' scenario setting.
Respectfully

 

Best would be to drop them a comment on trainsimcommunity.

No ETA is displayed, and the F1 HUD shows all instructions as being 0 ft away - because you're off path from the start somehow.

Things are not running as they should - maybe due to the running start? Shouldn't 1P22 pass you at the start? It can't.



I've disabled the Rolling Start: bingo!

 

I cannot edit the scenario in the game as I am missing stock - but this should just do it:

Open the file with Notepad(++)

Content\Routes\d7cf59e0-3470-4ece-81fa-61f205f711f5\Scenarios\5063cdcc-755d-4fea-a571-d85ce1a0c9ea\ScenarioProperties.xml

Edit Line 100:

FROM
<HasRollingStart d:type="bool">1</HasRollingStart>
TO
<HasRollingStart d:type="bool">0</HasRollingStart>

The rolling start makes no sense anyway, as you're told to set up the cab and get moving. The scenario has you rolling initially - that's the fault. Fixed

 

Wow Spikee that worked. I did not expect the logic to work that way. Since the 1P22 was sitting behind the player train having a rolling start set up the signalling and points as per the train behind. It appears that a rolling start does not configure the simulator. Very interesting to know this. I would never have guessed. Now the lights and points work correctly. If I had deleted 1P22 instead would that have provided the same solution?
Respectfully

 

I don't know. Why look for a solution that's removing stock if you got the perfect one?

Leave a Like, thanks

 

I can only provide 1 like sorry. This was worth 10 likes . Sometimes it is hard to know how the simulator is going to behave and what the logic path is. Great when you find out something like this.
Respectfully

 

Check that the StartingSave.bin and associated .MD5 files have been removed too

 

Gary, Spikee was exactly right. This scenario was a rolling start. It appears that the logic of the 6M16 was nullified since it was a rolling start and the logic of the 1P22 (behind train) prevailed across the signalling and tracks. As downloaded this scenario was not possible. Thx again Spikee

 

I'm not doubting that kilt, but there are 2 parts to making a scenario have a rolling start..
First is to make the scenario capable of having a rolling start, done by ticking the option in the scenario editor. This sets the "Has rolling start" bit in the ScenarioProperties.xml file.
The data associated with the rolling start; speed, state of cab controls, etc is contained in the StartingSave.bin file. This file should be automatically removed when the scenario starts after the "Has rolling start" entry has been removed, but it's been known that it hasn't.
Did you swap any stock in the scenario before playing?

 

No this was 'out of the wrapper'

 

Right...so it's definitely a scenario issue; I dare you to ask 'em if the testing was a little lax.

 

I got the whole route and scenario set for free so I wanted to play my part and try and fix issues as I find them. Good practise. The logic behind this one confused me so I asked here for some help . It is good to have a Forum when people can collaborate and make improvements!

 

I agree...but when issues were raised and that question asked (politely) at UKTS they (VP) took umbrage and took their bat and ball home.
We were told that highlighting/fixing issues was none of our business.

 

If it is a freebie I expect things to not be perfect, otherwise they would sell via DTG/Steam. (Not saying that everything procured via DTG/Steam is perfect either).

I am basically trawling through every purchasable TSC DLC and then posting to my site once I have them working to my satisfaction.

https://sites.google.com/view/trainsimulatorcontent/home

 

Why do you think that's the only way to sell things?

 

Interesting that you extrapolated that I suggested that DTG/Steam is the only way to sell. Of course it isn't. It is the primary path though since the TSC app is typically initiated via the Steam Application. I personally have procured DLC from multiple sites. My point was that On Track Simulations typically provided freeware therefore I expect the risk of failure to be normally higher.
Respectfully

 

It's a brilliant route with great complex scenarios released for free. Errors can happen and were quickly resolved. I've left them a comment about this one on the trainsimcommunity page.

 

But it was the only option you gave; no extrapolation at all, just reading.

 

Gary. Must be some really nice rose tinted spectacles reading into things that were not said. Guess digital communication can be easily misunderstood. Oh no the pedantic is rubbing off on me

 

For starters it was written, not said. (That's me taking my bit of pedantry back)

Where do you see "or sell through any other site" (or words to that effect) in your post?

 

[QUOTE="Gary Padley, post: 844908, member: 1312"For starters it was written, not said. (That's me taking my bit of pedantry back)]

Why would I include such a statement. The fact that the first part was free would suggest that the Route was not sold it is ‘free’. Why would I then need to add ‘or on any other site’. This would in my opinion become redundant.
Thankfully I am not a lawyer and do not need to add small print to every entry I make in a Forum thread.
Yours pedantically

 

How are you defining the word "otherwise"?

 

The word “otherwise” is not officially supported in this thread.

 

Then why did you use it?

 

Ah Gary is either the official DTG grammar police or just a troll. I am entitled to have an opinion. There was nothing wrong with my statement which suggested that with price comes an expectation. If it is free one should be thankful for all the work provided and not grumble about it.
Your previous comment suggested you like to point out everyone’s mistakes even though they have put in a lot of effort of their free time and are not expecting compensation.
Respectfully

 

And I've no argument with either of those statements; the sticking point is that you intimated that payware products would be sold through DTG/Steam.

It's all academic really, because I'd be surprised if you see an *official* fix--this release dates from June 2022

 

I intimated that DTG/Steam is only payware. Of course there are other avenues for pay ware whose customer service appears to be more responsive.
Respectfully