Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Shapes Disappearing with OR

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,581

    Default

    I just took a look at it, and apart from being way off-center, which is fine if a little odd, the volume sphere looks a touch on the small side. He made it easy on us and left the shape uncompressed, so changing it will be a breeze. Right up top in that shape file is the volume sphere control. The vector is the coordinates for the center of the sphere, and the number outside the brackets is the radius of said volume sphere. Increase that number by like 30 and see what happens

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oshawa ON
    Posts
    1,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebnertra000 View Post
    I just took a look at it, and apart from being way off-center, which is fine if a little odd, the volume sphere looks a touch on the small side. He made it easy on us and left the shape uncompressed, so changing it will be a breeze. Right up top in that shape file is the volume sphere control. The vector is the coordinates for the center of the sphere, and the number outside the brackets is the radius of said volume sphere. Increase that number by like 30 and see what happens
    This may be a silly question, but where do I find that "Number"?? I have SFM & SV & RR, which do I use for changing that number?
    Thanks again. I hate to be a pain.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,581

    Default

    Right in the shape file. In the version I have, it was left uncompressed, so we mere mortals can actually read it. Find your offending shapefile in the route's shapes folder and open it. It'll be right up top at the end of its line. 61.many digits, I think (I'm not at home right now)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oshawa ON
    Posts
    1,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebnertra000 View Post
    Right in the shape file. In the version I have, it was left uncompressed, so we mere mortals can actually read it. Find your offending shapefile in the route's shapes folder and open it. It'll be right up top at the end of its line. 61.many digits, I think (I'm not at home right now)
    Oh, ok. Opened it in Notepad and changed the 61.xxxxxxx to 30.00000 is that what you were suggesting?
    Thanks.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,581

    Default

    No, no. Go up by 30 or so, to something like 90. You can try 30 and see if it gets worse, though. If it does then we know what the problem is

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oshawa ON
    Posts
    1,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebnertra000 View Post
    No, no. Go up by 30 or so, to something like 90. You can try 30 and see if it gets worse, though. If it does then we know what the problem is
    Oh, ok. Sorry, just numbers on a screen, hehe! They can be changed, thank you again. Sorry to be such a bother.

    YES! That worked just as you said. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I can see the walkways now from the cab as it should be. Should I compress the files? or leave them as they are?
    Last edited by Don6218; 08-12-2021 at 04:12 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,581

    Default

    I always compress shape files, but that's just my thing. It should work just as well either way, but will likely require a bit more memory uncompressed (compressing reduces file size by something like 15 times)

  8. #18

    Default

    I've always left shapes uncompressed. My unscientific reasoning is that uncompressing at runtime takes up CPU and that's more precious than memory for most people.

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eolesen View Post
    I've always left shapes uncompressed. My unscientific reasoning is that uncompressing at runtime takes up CPU and that's more precious than memory for most people.

    Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
    I've often wondered about that, would be interesting to know if the development team had any data on that. I'd have to think that the nanoseconds ( would that be the range? ) saved uncompressing a file would add up.
    Cheers, Gerry
    It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.
    Forever, ridin' drag in railroad knowledge.


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Cumming Ga
    Posts
    2,768

    Default

    I think about it too. These days... with fancy CPU's and Graphics cards that didn't exist in 2001 and systems with much more ram... compressing should hardly make a difference at all. Willing to be wrong... but I'm speaking based on what limited information I have.
    http://www.railsimstuff.com
    3D Canvas/Crafter and Blender User
    formerly The Keystone Works (All Permissions Granted)
    https://github.com/pwillard/MSTS-replacement

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->