Sudden No Longer Able to Read Lead Locomotive(s)?

[marklester01]

Several Well-Talented Open Rails Users have actually helped( & fixed ) The issue(s) @ Hand. So, This topic's about 98% Complete*.

[wwhall]

ConText with the MS Trainsim plug-in and Notepad++ have the feature of being able to identify opening and closing parentheses in an MSTS/OR file. I don't believe that ConText with the MSTS Trainsim plug-in is available anywhere now--it was on the Steam4me site, now gone. Being able to check parentheses placement (or omission) is CRITICAL when editing MSTS/OR files. Recently, I had an .sms file from some payware locomotives that I had bought some years back that was not working right. I solved the issue by using ConText to methodically go through the file. Sure enough, one close parentheses was missing and had been missing from the beginning. Without ConText, finding that missing close parentheses would have been like looking for needle in a haystack. An important note about OR--if a parentheses is missing in, say, an .eng file, OR may load the file, but it will ignore all of the syntax after the missing parentheses.

[slipperman]

Hi,
Context is available here : https://www.contexteditor.org/

Here is the complete Steam4Me tutorial together with a link to ConText (as above) and a link to the MSTS plugin :

https://web.archive.org/web/20180726180545/http://msts.steam4me.net/tutorials/context.html

Cheers,
Ged

[magmateus]

Hi,
Context is available here : https://www.contexteditor.org/

Here is the complete Steam4Me tutorial together with a link to ConText (as above) and a link to the MSTS plugin :

https://web.archive.org/web/20180726180545/http://msts.steam4me.net/tutorials/context.html

Cheers,
Ged

Thank you for this useful information, Ged.
Best regards.
Mateus

[marklester01]

Yes thanks! But, I thought It( the Site ) was shut-down recently? Oh,..Archive( lol )*

[marklester01]

Now that you stated It( Slight Different Topic: Closeness Errors ). Even a Payware Provider/ Vendor can make a Mistake or 2. But,..can you believe The ACTUAL Org. Product made some Errors in The .sms files? YES! Infact, It's so small ORTS or MSTS chooses to NOT detect them,lol! So,..Luckly ( can't currently remeber who made it atm ) The Author who made The .sms File adjustor which fixes most( if not all ) .sms mistakes. Read ALL The .sms in My ORTS Directory. Load & Behold. Some were DEFAULT & It FIXED Them AFTER Saying THEY WEREN'T LINED Correctly! But,..It's great having something like that showing which line so you know the problem that which type file needs to be fixed( currently .Engs on My End, Past .Sms ones ).

[wwhall]

Let's speak the truth here: MSTS was a partially finished product rushed to market--full of inadequacies and bugs. Microsoft abandoned it, with few of the bugs ever fixed. "Error trapping" on MSTS generally just involved a crash to the desktop with no real indication of what caused it. Now, OpenRails is still a work in progress. To the OR Team's credit, OR crashes to the desktop are pretty rare, and the OR log file will often point to the errors when they occur. Yes, OR will ignore some non-essential file deficiencies, etc. to avoid crashes, but the log file usually at least gives hints of omissions, file errors, etc. And, to the OR team's credit, it makes more progress in improving the OpenRails sim in a typical year than Microsoft did with MSTS in its approximate 8 years with MSTS. And most of the progress with MSTS was accomplished with outside providers and content creators.

One of my big complaints about many payware and freeware providers is that they often use the "fire and forget" philosophy. That is, they release a product, then, when issues are discovered with it, they do nothing to update or correct the issues. It's not an overestimate on my part to say that likely 50% of my "sim time" is spent correcting errors in routes, rolling stock, etc. that more thorough quality control and testing by the creators would have quickly discovered.

[R. Steele]

It's not an overestimate on my part to say that likely 50% of my "sim time" is spent correcting errors in routes, rolling stock, etc.

Yep, although we've all released stuff that has mistakes in it -- no excuse though for a good error checking routine before release. However, I look upon this time spent correcting errors as part of the hobby, when I'm in a good mood....otherwise there can be some grumbling...

I'm finding the new Open Rails offerings from NAVS and Trainsimulations that are using OR physics and include files to be much improved as far as "errors" go....most of the problems stem from folks not quite understanding how to use them.

Otherwise, I can appreciate your outlook.

[marklester01]

Right. However,..even back in MSTS I never did( I just re-write as I see fit ). Since I even saw where the place in The common .inc folders didn't actually work for someone( maybe more ), I just decided to stick to The,"Older-Way", plus some Vendor Work ( talking like 5 Years ago though ) reflects doing the same. But yes I know,..My Copy,Etc. Plus,..I'm Slow & I'm really sorry for it. I still try hard to fix most problems before posting this kind of stuff. Yes,.. besides keeping down The,"Un-wanted" Type of stuff( say Insults,Etc. ) What's you're here for,..but you still don't want to,"Hear/See It" all the time & help with everything, for this is what this forums for( besides Trying & Learning on One's Own which I've done so much ). I really value your+Other's Time along with effort,..thank you.

[marklester01]

Once more thanks! What was The Line 49? Both .CVF files were updated* & I've seen where I moved the last numbers towards the bottom( you know where I mean on The .ENG files,..The Line 335 I think ) thinking they were out of place & moved them to be in place, but caused to be just the other way around! I now noticed ALL The common .inc files are like this/that for a reason & NOT a typo.

[derekmorton]

here

[marklester01]

I compared & now see,lol. Not only on your end did you arrange The Lines in a way you can understand, but The Line 49 shows The ORTSCurtius_Kniffler being corrected to using only one line minus 2( ),..was )) ).