So, orginally I got RLiF for it's assets for another route but had a few goes on it and left it. However, for the last few weeks I have been revisiting it - building some more complex QD scenarios and doing several other "improvements / fixes". One of things was to replace the the default seasons/weather with the defaults I made ages ago for UKTS used in my LMVLR route. That has made a big difference to the feeling of summer and autumn days. I have also had a play with the viaduct asset to get the viaducts around Churston to show up properly in the game - the .bin was incorrectly built and missed off the core elements of the viaduct loft leaving abig gap in the middle of one and viaducts starting and ending in mid air. Result is that ( for the first time ) I am really enjoying this rather older route. Even to the extent of purchasing some Western Region / GWR locos and carriages to make new consists that are clearly Western Region to populate the extensive carriage sidings and yards. Even odder becuase I am not a Great Western chap by inclination at all. I am really LMS, the family is Southern, and we were always a bit bored by GWR layouts at exhibitions. Its a great route and I can't recommend it highly enough for branch line fans.
Victory Works' GWR stuff is very good (as all their stuff is) if you're looking for something to drive on it.
Small & Large panniers and 14xx purchased I have just been unpicking the different sorts of box vans and trying to get my head round BR standard diagrams and the ex-GWR ones. Interetsingly most of the "GWR" BR vans seem to actually be plywood BR diagrams rather than the ex-GWR ones.
I am not sure how to do that here to be honest. I would imagine that sharing a .bin file is not allowed and I don't seem to be able to share .xml files either. If you change the file erxtension on the attached to .xml and then SERZ it to create a bin it should work. The.bin overwrites the one in the /scenery/proceedural directory. If you haven't unpacked the .ap then you will need to create a Scenery\Procedural directory and but your .bin in there so the program uses that one in preference. You will also need to serz the Viaduct.bin in \scenery\bridges and edit the lines below to ensure both settings are at 10 - one of them is set to one. And obviously then recomplie it with SERZ <DetailLevelGenerationRange> <cSceneryRenderBlueprint-sDetailLevelGenerationRange> <HighestLevel_1isHighest d:type="sInt32">10</HighestLevel_1isHighest> <LowestLevel_10isLowest d:type="sInt32">10</LowestLevel_10isLowest> </cSceneryRenderBlueprint-sDetailLevelGenerationRange> </DetailLevelGenerationRange>
afaik you can share complete bin files just not GeoPcdx files as a bin file is useless to anyone who doesn't own the required assets therefore no harm no foul.
You can share it inside a ZIP. On the up, you can also include a small txt inside about what it is. For later. Only a few file types are white listed, as a security best practice.
Sorry, should have been more specific, you can share what I said but not directly as just those file types (forum permissions issue not DTGs sharing rules), your best bet and the usual procedure with sharing files is to create the folder tree out as far as Assets with the bins in their correct locations place that inside a folder (along with a readme text file) call it "RITF viaduct fix" or some such and then zip that folder and then upload that. Quite possibly, because I tested the RITF and didn't have any issues, thought the one viaduct is short of the terrain but even after applying the fix it still appeared to be the same but no actual break in the viaducts in either case.
Yes. No fix required. Viaducts are appearing normal on my end. Actually I do not ever see the need to not have scenery slider set to max, unless you're running the game on a Pentium II. And many asset creators don't bother with assigning specific scenery detail levels for each asset. It's become an unused feature (and a hassle to decide which asset should be rendered at which detail level). Consider it legacy and make sure your Scenery Density slider is maxed. If you're low on RAM, lower the Quality slider. One setting below max will load compressed (.nmc) textures instead of uncompressed (.nm) if available. Going down further will reduce texture resolution, using the next MipMap.
That's correct - the viaduct will connect to groundlevel at one end apart from the one nearest Churston. This is because of how the assets were laid. Most are loft items laid from one side of the valley to the other. The one at Churston is actally made of two lofts that follow each other. The issue with the original loft is either ( and I forget which ) the starting asset or the ending asset does not appear. The loft comprises of a start, middle and endpiece which are all basically the same viaduct arch. So for the Churston viaduct the absence of one end causes one of the banksides to be missing and the middle to be mising as it is the start ( or end ..) of the next loft section. The reason this happens is that the loft .bin file was incorrectly constructed in a way that actually excluded one of the ends appearing. How do I know this ? By laying out the asset against some fixed markers ( the beach huts in lines ) and checking where the arches fell in comparison to the footprint of the underlying invisable loft section. The quality slider doesn't control the visability of one arch only but of the entire loft asset as it is made up of three identical viaduct arches. The reason for resetting the visabilty is that it follows the older ( and incorrect ) guidelines in the original help files. I know this as my bridge assets for the LMVLR also sufferred from this problem and this was the fix that meant that others with lower specs or settings could see the bridge. Its not necessary to cure the mising arch problem but is good practise if you are going to "fix" a problem asset. That is why the other viaducts appear OK unless you look carefully at one end and where it terminates in relation to the bank in comparison to the length of the underlying loft.
I wonder if you claim that someone is one arch short of a viaduct ? Has a nice ring to it. Crossed posting. Not intended as a critism more of an idle mussing. I don't have the original .bin file anymore to reinstate and take a pic but if you travel north from Churston you will see that, at one end, the viaducts don't sit inside the banks but have a "hard edge" some distance from the bank. The parapets should actually start some distance from the edge of the bank leading to a nice smooth transistion onto the viaduct.
I don't know why you're not posting a screenshot, anyway here's mine. Please tell me what is missing. Anyway, I'm just enjoying a run again on the Riviera. Thanks for reminding me
I'm not posting a screenshot becuse I am not sure I have the original file anymore - I have actually just looked. And no there is nothing wrong with your viaducts which is odd becuase mine definately needed this fix so maybe its just something to do with my machine. Frankly someone asked me for the fix and I was happy to help - no big deal. Ah actually I hadn't looked properly. You are in the route editor. Thats what threw me at the time. They show up correctly in the route editor - which was what set me off looking at the files themselves. Try driving the route over the viaducts and you 'll see what I mean.
Yes - honestly try driving the route as the asset shows up fine in the route editor - its what really threw me when I first looked at it. I really do know about scenery density etc after having to deal with it when I launched my own route.
That is genuinely weird. That all looks as it should yet mine, which was also directly reading from a .ap file, had missing bits that only were fixed when I rebuilt the asset. Stumped of York I am.
Holy moly, this looks horrible And Dynamic Lights off? Why degrade the game? Milk Bottles on Settle Carlisle? Post a screenshot and specify the location. Each milk bottle can be identified. (I have not seen any). I'm speculating on the following: SettleCarlisle requires the Railworks AssetPack01 (Assets\RSC\APStation) This is included in the following routes (I recommend getting the Woodhead Line. Must have.) It is one of the old routes that "suffers" from the separation of the RailWorks core assets into DLC when it became "Train Simulator". When checking freeware routes for missing assets, I replace the milk bottle asset with a large untextured chimney, you can spot missing assets miles away then. Hope that helps.
Ok I started another freeroam, and confirm the issue. It does only seem to appear if you start from far away, so that scenery tile is not loaded on start. I will now edit the loft file and enter the missing <CrossSectionID>. maxtedrw I see you have removed some lines from the blueprint: (yellow is what is missing, I'll leave that in there)
File verification did not solve the problem. This bridge is a known failure. I've heard some failure due to game or system language. I don't think so. On some routes, appearance of Dynamic Lights is bad. It may be that everyone has different preferences. But sometimes Dynamic Lights kills fps surely.
maxtedrw You were right - the missing CrossSectionID in the viaduct_loft.bin seems to have fixed it. Maybe you could edit the thread title to "Riviera 50s Viaduct Fix" so it can be found easier? Good work and thanks! So the issue did not occur if starting the scenario in Churston, but from further away, that's why it did not appear on my end initially. Please test, I've uploaded your fix here, ready-to-use, just drop into your RailWorks folder. I have only added the loft file, not the scenery\bridge\viaduct as it is ok. Just open the zip, and drop the Assets folder into your RailWorks folder. Clear the cache. For quick testing, I've run an HST from Torquay to Churston. Looking good
All, thanks for your investigation and information/files. I'm away this weekend, but I'll explore your fixes when I'm back.
I've been wondering about that all day at work. Torfmeister thank you for persuing this as it is an interesting issue and I am still not sure why excluding those lines has the desired effect. Other than it seems to be the common format for all viaducts but not for some other lofting assets. Anyway jolly good that we have worked out what the issue is and how to fix it.
And thanks again, I've learnt something new about lofts and it would have probably taken me a long time to find the issue, eventually comparing blueprints with each other. Might have probably never discovered it.
Just tested this myself and the missing piece is back Thanks for the investigation and fix. I’m originally from Newton Abbot so the Riviera Line in the 50’s is my favourite route Though I’m not old enough to have seen it in the 50’s, but the layout of Newton Abbot is far closer to how I remember it than other more modern versions. Good Job. Thanks again.
Its a community - you take a little, you give a little. Finding out stuff like this is part of the fun for me.
