[lateagain]

Genma Saotome, on 23 March 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Not recent enough... IIRC you need 3482.

Err that's what I got when I followed the "update" Download Link from the programme, which was downloaded as the "testing" rather than stable version. Why would that link take me to anything other than the latest testing version? Another Glitch? ;-)

Have you a link because I can't see it on the OR site?

[Coolhand101]

lateagain, on 23 March 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

Err that's what I got when I followed the "update" Download Link from the programme, which was downloaded as the "testing" rather than stable version. Why would that link take me to anything other than the latest testing version? Another Glitch? ;-)

Have you a link because I can't see it on the OR site?

You need to select the 'unstable' version in the options menu to access the latest OR version. There are 3 options in the updater page:-

1. Stable
2. Testing
3. Unstable

x3482 is the latest version as mention by Genma.

Thanks

[lateagain]

Coolhand101, on 23 March 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

You need to select the 'unstable' version in the options menu to access the latest OR version. There are 3 options in the updater page:-

1. Stable
2. Testing
3. Unstable

x3482 is the latest version as mention by Genma.

Thanks

Thanks I'll check again but unless I missed it the update link just downloaded and installed what I got. Rerunning it the "update" link doesn't show. As I stated when I downloaded it recently I had a choice. I'll go back and check again what I got.

PS this issue is so fundamental that surely it should be added to the stable version anyway?

[Coolhand101]

lateagain, on 23 March 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

PS this issue is so fundamental that surely it should be added to the stable version anyway?

It will be in the testing version in a few days.

The stable version requires ALL new features implemented since release of x3095. I believe the next stable release is not to far away.

I always use the testing version unless a bug that affects me directly, requires me to test the fixes from the developers in the unstable versions.

Thanks

[Jovet]

You can also just directly download and install any build from James's site.

You can overwrite your existing files or install them to somewhere new.

[lateagain]

jovet, on 23 March 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

You can also just directly download and install any build from James's site.

You can overwrite your existing files or install them to somewhere new.

OK found 3484 and I see no change? Brake Hose still disconnecting at 10 m.p.h. below route speed limit on two different routes with stock from DW/SLI on one route (Seligman ATSF) and BLW on L&HR 1940's route.

However "technically correct" any modifications may be they just don't work in the SIM.

With Cab View FOV's restricted to 40 you don't even get a realistic view of the track ahead to anticipate the severity of a curve.

Pretty disappointed as the thread insinuates that this is fixed :(

[James Ross]

lateagain, on 23 March 2016 - 11:56 PM, said:

OK found 3484 and I see no change? Brake Hose still disconnecting at 10 m.p.h. below route speed limit on two different routes with stock from DW/SLI on one route (Seligman ATSF) and BLW on L&HR 1940's route.

However "technically correct" any modifications may be they just don't work in the SIM.

With Cab View FOV's restricted to 40 you don't even get a realistic view of the track ahead to anticipate the severity of a curve.

Pretty disappointed as the thread insinuates that this is fixed :(

Hi lateagain,

There are modifications in versions X3480, X3481 and X3482 which are meant to help; however, please do not assume things can be magically fixed, as that is not how things work.

If the feature is still not working well for you and your content, you can turn it off in the options, in Simulation > "Curve dependent resistance" and "Curve dependent speed limit".

As for the cab FOV, you can also adjust that in the options, in Video > "Viewing vertical FOV".

[lateagain]

James Ross, on 24 March 2016 - 03:01 AM, said:

Hi lateagain,

There are modifications in versions X3480, X3481 and X3482 which are meant to help; however, please do not assume things can be magically fixed, as that is not how things work.

If the feature is still not working well for you and your content, you can turn it off in the options, in Simulation > "Curve dependent resistance" and "Curve dependent speed limit".

As for the cab FOV, you can also adjust that in the options, in Video > "Viewing vertical FOV".

Hi James,

Yes thanks, I just got a "heads up" on ts.com about "Curve Dependent Speed Limit" and that indeed is a solution for now. BTW please don't assume that my comments and criticism imply a "snapping of fingers" for an Instant Fix. I was a technician most of my life so I appreciate that any good fix takes time and research. However the point of any development has to be a two way communication between developer and user. :thumbup3:

However the Cab FOV is NOT adjustable, for reasons we've just been discussing over on ts.com. See this thread : http://www.trainsim....ew-angle-change

SURE there's a field to change it but that renders most cabviews unusable. :negative:

Using my technicians skill of fault diagnosis the cause seems simple to me. The solution for the developers may however be harder to implement?

Here as I see it is the issue. In MSTS all "Cameras" or Viewpoints were individually customisable. Your 2,3 & 4 "Cams" could all have different FOV's. Lets call them "Focal Lengths" for a Camera analogy?

The Cabview FOV was set separately from these "Outside Cams" anyway, but could still be edited if it did not suit.

Of course hopefully in the fullness of time more progress on 3D cabs can be made, but until then there are a number of MSTS cabviews that have different types of view.

The preferred "portrait" lens in 35mm photography was the 85mm lens. This was because it captures perspective closest to how the human eye see's it. This is the equivalent of 29 degrees. We mustn't confuse the FOV of the human eye, which with peripheral vision is much wider, with the area of our vision that is in focus.

Now I'm not a coder, but my question would be how difficult would it be to replicate the customisation of individual cams as is already achievable in MSTS? :good:

[James Ross]

lateagain, on 24 March 2016 - 07:03 AM, said:

However the Cab FOV is NOT adjustable, for reasons we've just been discussing over on ts.com. See this thread : http://www.trainsim....ew-angle-change

SURE there's a field to change it but that renders most cabviews unusable. :negative:

I do not understand your comments here at all, as the problems you have described are related to having cab 2D stretch set to anything other than 100% on a non-4:3 display and nothing to do with the FOV. I suggest you set cab 2D stretch to 100% and then experiment with the FOV to suit.

[lateagain]

James, you'll see in that thread I did a lot of experimenting with settings to address the problem that many of us have had. I will spend more time testing and get screens hots to illustrate the point.

I still think that individually customizable cam FOV's are a good idea as not everyone even agrees what should be in a 2D cab view, again as discussed in the other thread.