[Sid P.]

I just tried to compile Trackviewer with X2078 source, and it reports 134 errors - starting with:
"Error 1 The type or namespace name 'WorldLocation' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)
E:\Open Rails Source\Working\Source\TrackViewer\Drawing\DrawTrains.cs 28 9 TrackViewer"

I had no problem compiling and running Trackviewer with earlier ORTS releases, maybe I am doing something wrong this time. I added the folder "Trackviewer" to the "Source" folder, added the .csproj file to the project and rebuilt the solution. I can compile X2078 without Trackviewer OK.

I am using the 20140211.zip of trackviewer.

Any suggestions?

[gpz]

TrackViewer is now in SVN, so there is no need to use a separated .zip. However all the lines

<RequiredTargetFramework>3.0</RequiredTargetFramework>

must be deleted from TrackViewer.csproj on my computer to compile without errors. Also all the

<RequiredTargetFramework>3.5</RequiredTargetFramework>
<Private>False</Private>

entries can be deleted, and the

<ProjectTypeGuids>{6D335F3A-9D43-41b4-9D22-F6F17C4BE596};{FAE04EC0-301F-11D3-BF4B-00C04F79EFBC}</ProjectTypeGuids>

entry must be deleted in order to compile it on a higher version of Visual Studio than 2008. (And possibly the entries

    <XnaFrameworkVersion>v3.1</XnaFrameworkVersion>
    <XnaPlatform>Windows</XnaPlatform>
    <XnaCrossPlatformGroupID>40537efa-41f7-423a-a9b8-bc96041bfc69</XnaCrossPlatformGroupID>

as well. At least deleting it doesn't hurt...)

Also deleting the whole BootstrapperPackage ItemGroup is safe, I think. The line

<Import Project="$(MSBuildExtensionsPath)\Microsoft\XNA Game Studio\Microsoft.Xna.GameStudio.targets" />

isn't needed anymore, along with two lines of

<XnaCompressContent>false</XnaCompressContent>

[RTP]

There is a track viever in:

http://www.trainsim.ru/download/16/

Is in russian, but is almost perfect.

Try it.

Cheers.

RTP

[Sid P.]

Many thanks, Peter and RTP - I compiled the svn version, and all is well. The Russian version also worked fine.
I'm still puzzled about what I was doing wrong...

Sid.

[JeroenP]

Dear all,
I have just updated the code of Trackviewer. Some important updates are

• Improved performance for large routes, mainly when zoomed in.
  
• Initial MSTS Path Editor. The editor is not finished. But I think it is functional, at least for non-broken paths.

Unfortunately, automatic builds still do not work, but I depend on others to add this.

Regarding the MSTS path editor:

• It is intended to only do MSTS paths, not ORTS-specific solutions
  
• It has undo/redo functionality
  
• It is able to save a path
  
• I think it currently mimics the functionality of the MSTS path editor pretty decently. But I am not an extensive user of the path editor, so please correct me where I am wrong.
  
• I have on my list still the following items. Note, however, that feedback from users is appreciated, since you are the people that will use the editor much more that I will. So tell me what you would like to see and how you would like it to function (especially related to user interface).
  
  • Not crashing on broken paths
    
  • Making it possible to do things like 'select other exit' with a shift-left-mouseclick
    
  • Making it possible to move a start/end/reverse/wait/uncouple point with shift-left-mouse-drag.
    
  • Making it possible to do rerouting on a longer part than is available for 'take other exit' (which, in case there is already an end-point, is only allowed when there is an almost trivial new path that reconnects to the existing path).
    
  • Making it possible to fix broken paths. I am just not sure what the easiest way here would be for the user (especially when a route has changed quite a bit since the path was saved so it is not trivial to fix a path).
    
  • Documentation
• Please also let me know when I misunderstood some of the things the paths (.pat files) in MSTS do and don't do. If I understand it correctly the MSTS paths combine both real path-like features (like from where to where the path goes), but also activity-like features (like waiting, uncoupling, etc). In the MSTS activity editor these two things are done in slightly different parts of the activity editor. Since, however, this trackviewer is not planned at all to be a full-blown activity editor, all the features that go into the .pat file need to be handled via the single interface. Hence the addition of 'Couple/Uncouple' points.

 disc, on 03 March 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

I've tried track viewer, and i noticed that, with big routes (1200km+) it have about 1 fps. While it's normal with smaller routes like the default routes.

disc, I probably should have reacted earlier, but it was costing me more time that I anticipated to fix this. So In the newest version the performance is improved on big routes. First of all the inset is not taking as much processing power as it used to. And once you zoomed in, there is no penalty anymore of having a large route that is not visible. Let me know if this is sufficient.

 Sid P., on 07 March 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

I just tried to compile Trackviewer with X2078 source, and it reports 134 errors [...]
I am using the 20140211.zip of trackviewer.

Sid, There has been quite some restructuring of the ORTS code to make it easier to add new tools and add-on programs that use part but not all of the ORTS code. As a result, indeed, the older zips do not build anymore. As you already found, indeed the Trackviewer code is now part of the source directory of ORTS (under Contrib). So you can get the latest version more easily now.

 gpz, on 08 March 2014 - 03:06 AM, said:

However all the lines

<RequiredTargetFramework>3.0</RequiredTargetFramework>

must be deleted from TrackViewer.csproj on my computer to compile without errors.
...

gpz, I removed a number of the lines you quote. Since, however, I am not testing it with a newer version of visual express studio, I don't know if I caught all.

Personally I do not have a strong opinion about the Russian trackviewer (the problem with coders like me is often that they are not users themselves :) ) . Perhaps it is indeed better as a track viewer. I am currently concentrating on the path editor features (looking at paths was one of my initial goals anyway).
Best regards, Jeroen

[roeter]

A very usefull addition to the functions for a path editor would be the option to 'rejoin' (or 'join') a path.
In the MSTS editor, if you select an 'other exit' which does not take you back automatically (i.e. through default switch positions) to the path as defined, you lose all the rest of the path definition.
Similar, if you have a 500 km long path which starts in a station at platform 1, and you want that same path but starting in platform 2, you need to build all 500km from scratch again.
So, the option to 'remember' the path, and, either after selecting another exit or a new startpoint, reuse this path once you have (re)joined it, would be very welcome indeed.
It would also immediately solve the problem of rebuilding a broken path : just stop the path at the broken point but remember the rest. Then rebuild the path through the broken point and 'rejoin' the original path.

Other usefull additions would be options to remove reversal points and 'start passing path' definitions, something also not possible in MSTS.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[JeroenP]

Dear Rob,
Thanks for the feedback. I do have some questions though.

 roeter, on 11 March 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

A very usefull addition to the functions for a path editor would be the option to 'rejoin' (or 'join') a path.
In the MSTS editor, if you select an 'other exit' which does not take you back automatically (i.e. through default switch positions) to the path as defined, you lose all the rest of the path definition.

Similar, if you have a 500 km long path which starts in a station at platform 1, and you want that same path but starting in platform 2, you need to build all 500km from scratch again.
So, the option to 'remember' the path, and, either after selecting another exit or a new startpoint, reuse this path once you have (re)joined it, would be very welcome indeed.
It would also immediately solve the problem of rebuilding a broken path : just stop the path at the broken point but remember the rest. Then rebuild the path through the broken point and 'rejoin' the original path.

Indeed, I fully understand this request. Currently, when an end-point is defined I am not allowing 'take-other-exit' unless indeed it takes you back automatically. But 'remembering' a part of the path, and rebuilding until that point makes sense indeed.

Quote

Other usefull additions would be options to remove reversal points

I am not sure I understand this request in detail. Currently, when an end-point is defined, I do not allow removing a reversal point. When there is no formal end-point (but only a 'last' point), I do allow removing it. However, I am not sure that is what you mean exactly. Obviously, removing a reversal point is tricky, if, at the same time, you want to be able to rejoin the path later. Often, this is only possible when you re-insert a reversal point later (or if one uses wyes or loops). So what is it exactly you are looking for? Or is this again related to be able to 'remember' the rest of the path, and rebuild including adding/removing/changing reversal points.

Quote

and 'start passing path' definitions, something also not possible in MSTS.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

Also here I do not understand your question completely. There is 'add passing path', in trackviewer but I also think in MSTS path editor. But with the same limitations as take-other-exit currently (meaning only if it can automatically rejoin). Do you mean the option to build more complex passing paths?

Best regards, Jeroen

[markus_GE]

Quote

Also here I do not understand your question completely. There is 'add passing path', in trackviewer but I also think in MSTS path editor. But with the same limitations as take-other-exit currently (meaning only if it can automatically rejoin). Do you mean the option to build more complex passing paths?

I think the question you´re referring to was if it could be made possible in Trackviewer to remove the start of a passing path. That was not possible in MSTS AE, which called an activity creator to redo the whole path if they wanted to remove that passing / alternative section.

I would also like to have such a feature, bein an activity creator myself and having gone through this path-redoing process some... times - well, too often :rolleyes:

Cheers, Markus

[Csantucci]

 roeter, on 11 March 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

A very usefull addition to the functions for a path editor would be the option to 'rejoin' (or 'join') a path.
In the MSTS editor, if you select an 'other exit' which does not take you back automatically (i.e. through default switch positions) to the path as defined, you lose all the rest of the path definition.
Similar, if you have a 500 km long path which starts in a station at platform 1, and you want that same path but starting in platform 2, you need to build all 500km from scratch again.
...

There is indeed a way to solve such problems with the MSTS path editor, but almost no one knows it. Referring to case two (change platform) you mark for deletion the start point, and at that point you can drag it to the new platform. Save the path, done. If there are new nodes before the node where the two versions of the path converge, mark for deletion and delete them so you have a single red line starting from your new point up to the first node where the old and the new version of the path coincide, and then drag such line over any node touched by the new version of the path. Save the path, done.
A similar solution is possible for the first problem, if the new path passes at least through a before untouched node.
I hope this feature will be available with the new path editor.

[R H Steele]

Thanks to all for the work on the trackviewer and posting it. I have been reading all the posts and using the viewer. At first I did not quite understand what all the excitment was about. Now, I get it. Indeed, when full implementation of path controls and other features is accomplished it will be a powerful tool. Thanks again, everyone that contributed. :lol2: :)