Although (as far as I know) all scenarios I install appear in the SM & CM scenario menu list if I scroll through the menus. But what is missing from some scenarios that causes them not to appear in the menus when they are specifically searched for (aka filtered) by name or partial name? I assume the author of the scenario has left something out that the game needs when it does a search? Mostly its free third party scenarios that do not appear but even some AP scenarios do not appear when you specifically search for them. If its just a line in the scenario xml or bin file I could easily fix it but I don't know where I need to look.
I suppose search text, which is collected by the cache collector. More precisely, maybe Spikee has an idea. I believe Koblenz-Trier is one which doesn't show when searched. Some do, most don't.
Give an example to look at. A scenario you have that doesn't appear. No global answer. Could be stuff like duplicate scenario GUIDS, incorrect .lan files in case of localisation etc. Delete ...steamapps\common\RailWorks\Content\SDBCache.bin and restart TS first. It will rescan all your scenarios. There'll be an easy answer, nothing mysterious. I once put a scenario into the wrong route folder and thought I was going crazy because it did not appear where I expected it... simple error in my end. They may also be legacy Kuju RS scenarios. The scenario filter needs frontend information on the player driven loco. That's not supplied on old scenarios from DigitalTraction, Oovee or AllAboard for example. These only appear when NOT clicking the Route/Loco filter thumbnails (which displays ALL scenarios of a type in the listview, sorted by route name) Example: Unfiltered scenario list - these three scenarios will not appear when using the Select Route / Loco filter. Legacy content - but still playable.
I use Locoswap to check what I have and what is done. The TSC filter only appears to work if I have a clean start and have not tried to use any other filter. Below example is searching for Class 66 in Great Western Mainline. Once I know what I want I will then use say 6V44 as the search string in TSC filter window
What I'm getting at is, after you've found the scenario that you want (in LocoSwap or wherever) and then you type its title (or part of it) into the TSC search box, it may or may not give you a result even though you know for a fact the scenario is in the list and it will be there if you scroll down to it. The reason for this anomaly is what I'I was asking about, not how to work around it. It's not an issue, just something I've always wondered about. However, I think I have found the cause - or one possible cause. I've only looked at half a dozen scenarios that don't show up in the scenario search results but I've spotted that all of the ones that do not show up are set up as "timetable" scenarios and not "standard" scenarios. They contain the following code... <ScenarioClass d:type="cDeltaString">eTimetableScenarioClass</ScenarioClass> instead of... <ScenarioClass d:type="cDeltaString">eStandardScenarioClass</ScenarioClass> So, I edited the .xml file of a timetable scenario that failed to show up in search results and I changed the line of code to make it a standard scenario. The scenario now shows up in the scenario menu when it is searched for by name. Trouble is, I don't know if this causes other problems when playing the scenario - but probably not. As I recall (vaguely) DTG (or Kuju maybe) gave you the option to make scenarios in "timetable mode" or "standard mode" (before career mode existed) though I don't remember what the idea behind a timetable scenario is/was? And I seem to remember at some point taht DTG advised stop making scenarios in timetable mode. I've not yet found a timetable scenario that does show up when searched for but, like I say, I only tested 6 of them. There may be other causes and maybe there are timetable scenarios that do show up. Either way, there is no way to know if a scenario is timetable or standard unless you look inside the .xml file. So, for what it was worth (absolutely nothing!) I've answered my own question.
There is a way - go to Build > Scenarios It will show ALL scenarios for each route, grouped by type. You'll also find the old (obsolete) Timetable type scenarios, and Relay type. Both are executed as Standard scenarios.
Spot on Spikee, thanks. But I really should have thought of that myself - about using the build menu. But, now that I have a really easy way to do tests, I can confirm (probably!) that any scenario that is not classified as "Standard" will not show up in the SM menu list when searched for by name. I suppose that it makes sense - kind of - but I don't suppose DTG coded the search function to act like that on purpose. Meanwhile, "Relay" scenarios? What on earth did/do they do?
If I remember correctly you had a scenario that require a number of routes and the train ran over all the sections in sequence. I'm not sure if finishing one scenario automatically started the second scenario with the same player consist.
Just so. The idea was that the next scenario in the series would automatically load on completion of the previous one. It didn't have to be over different routes, could be a multi-part scenario over different sections of the same route. So as an example, part 1 could see you drive from Paddington to Reading, upon arrival there part 2 would automatically load and there you would drive to Didcot. Not sure why they didn't pursue this, though I think the time-saving element was lost in upgrades to the menu system. I seem to remember there being issues with "memory leakage" too, meaning the program was more liable to shut down abruptly when the second scenario was loading.
Wow, a good analyse. I struggled for years why I could not find some scenarios. I used Notepad++ to Find and Replace in Files in all RouteProperties.xml files <ScenarioClass d:type="cDeltaString">eTimetableScenarioClass</ScenarioClass> in <ScenarioClass d:type="cDeltaString">eStandardScenarioClass</ScenarioClass> Before I made a backup of the Content folder. But for now this is working for me.
