Beta-versions

[Blöky]

Hello,

Why isn't there a Beta-topic in the internetional forum?
Just I begin.

... with a bug. [img]icon_sad.gif[/img]
Editing parameters of a signal system at time data the program doesn't accept 0 seconds for switchback time. Even there is a message about 0 or 1...36000 seconds are valid.
I hope it'll be corrected...

Happy New Year / Glückliches Neues Jahr fo everybody!

[Jan Bochmann]

Hello,

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Hello,

Why isn't there a Beta-topic in the internetional forum?
Just I begin.

... with a bug. [img]icon_sad.gif[/img]
Editing parameters of a signal system at time data the program doesn't accept 0 seconds for switchback time. Even there is a message about 0 or 1...36000 seconds are valid...</tr></td></table>

This will be fixed. Thank you for information.

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Happy New Year / Glückliches Neues Jahr for everybody!</tr></td></table>

Thank you and also All the Best for 2006
Regards
Jan B.

[Blöky]

Jan, you wrote this article in Beta Versions / Problem... topic:

"Eigentlich dürfte sich am Verhalten nichts ändern: Wenn ein Zug nicht getrennt werden kann, weil er ein Wendezug ist oder die Rangierlänge nicht paßt, dann sollte er den Linienwechsel ignorieren. Wenn auf der selben Linie beides vorkommt, müßte es genauso funktionieren wie bisher. Der Linienwechsel dürfte sich nur bei "Wenden, aber nicht trennen" auswirken. In diesem Fall für alle Züge der betreffenden Linie

Zitat:
...


Das wäre zwar möglich, aber die Optionen an dieser Stelle sind ohnehin schon wenig übersichtlich. Außerdem ist ja praktisch das selbe zu erzielen, indem man gar keine Linienänderung eingibt."

Repeat this in Englsh here, please.

Many thanks
Gábor

[Jan Bochmann]

Hello,

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Jan, you wrote this article in Beta Versions / Problem... topic:

"Eigentlich dürfte sich am Verhalten nichts ändern: Wenn ein Zug nicht getrennt werden kann, weil er ein Wendezug ist oder die Rangierlänge nicht paßt, dann sollte er den Linienwechsel ignorieren. Wenn auf der selben Linie beides vorkommt, müßte es genauso funktionieren wie bisher. Der Linienwechsel dürfte sich nur bei "Wenden, aber nicht trennen" auswirken. In diesem Fall für alle Züge der betreffenden Linie </tr></td></table>

Normally, the behaviour should not change: If a train cannot be divided for some reason (eg it is a push-pull-train, or a single vehicle only), then it should ignore the route change. If you have both at one and the same route, then it should work exactly as before. The change of current route should be important only when "Turning, but not divide" is set. In this situation, valid for each train of the route, undependent on its properties.

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Das wäre zwar möglich, aber die Optionen an dieser Stelle sind ohnehin schon wenig übersichtlich. Außerdem ist ja praktisch das selbe zu erzielen, indem man gar keine Linienänderung eingibt."</tr></td></table>

That may be possible, however the options at this dialog already are a bit confusing now. Further, you can get the same result when giving no route change at this point.

Regards
Jan B.

[Blöky]

Thanks for answer!

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Normally, the behaviour should not change: If a train cannot be divided for some reason (eg it is a push-pull-train, or a single vehicle only), then it should ignore the route change.</tr></td></table>
BUT IT DOESN'T IGNORE, as I have observed, when "Uncouple impossible -> Reverse" is set [img]icon_exclaim.gif[/img]

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">The change of current route should be important only when "Turning, but not divide" is set. In this situation, valid for each train of the route, undependent on its properties.</tr></td></table>
OK, Stimmt.
<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">That may be possible, however the options at this dialog already are a bit confusing now. Further, you can get the same result when giving no route change at this point. </tr></td></table>
... or not revesring for shuttle trains, too.

Well, it isn't hardly to handle it and to set properties when creating new and/or enlarging older layouts. But if I convert a layout built in 3.83 or before, the facts I wrote above appears.
In situations, where I have to change the route of the loco for running around the train, returning to its other end, and leavig these tracks backwards. If push-pull trains also go there, under reversing they also change their route and they can't leave the sorting out track-group because another shunting point (which is valid for the route of uncoupled loco) always reverses them; or they continue their way with the new route, that can cause serious traffic troubles [img]icon_sad.gif[/img]
I solve this problem so: I set for shuttle trains not to reverse and put another shuntpoint or a sprung turning out + a buffer to reverse the shuttle trains, at once after reading the old layout (sim. stopped).
But at large layouts, I have rebiuld all these critical points, and what will happen if I forget any of them... [img]icon_question.gif[/img] [img]icon_cry.gif[/img]

Excuse me for log speach.

Regards

[Jan Bochmann]

Hello,

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Thanks for answer!

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Normally, the behaviour should not change: If a train cannot be divided for some reason (eg it is a push-pull-train, or a single vehicle only), then it should ignore the route change.</tr></td></table>

BUT IT DOESN'T IGNORE, as I have observed, when "Uncouple impossible -> Reverse" is set [img]icon_exclaim.gif[/img] </tr></td></table>

Then it seems to be a bug. BAHN always tries to be compatible with earlier versions by functionality.

However, I tested it with some examples and under some conditions, and I couldn't create a similar situation. In other words, it works well here.

Please, check:

Did BAHN 3.84 Beta change the options of the shunting point[s] when converting the layout from 3.83? As I remember, there had been some problems with the Beta0 or 1 versions. Did the layout work in 3.83 correctly, or was it converted directly from an earlier BAHN version (and if yes, from what version)?

Are there some strange conditions at shunting points or trains, that may cause some data mismatch?

Could you give me the options of the shunting point and train? Or, if the layout is not too large, a copy of the layout (or a link anywhere if it has been published there)?

Regards
Jan B.

[Jan Bochmann]

Hello,

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote"><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Hello,

<table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed">Zitat:</span></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">Normally, the behaviour should not change: If a train cannot be divided for some reason (eg it is a push-pull-train, or a single vehicle only), then it should ignore the route change.</tr></td></table>

BUT IT DOESN'T IGNORE, as I have observed, when "Uncouple impossible -> Reverse" is set [img]icon_exclaim.gif[/img] </tr></td></table>

Then it seems to be a bug. BAHN always tries to be compatible with earlier versions by functionality.</tr></td></table>

We found that the error may occur with a train that is followed manually. This will be fixed with next version.

Otherwise (normal running or automated followed) it seems to work well.

Regards
Jan B.

[Blöky]

Jan, I will crate and send you a copy of the critical section of the touched layout as soon as possible.
There were 2 layouts, the 1st was converted by beta0 or 1, I don't remember exactly. The 2nd one was converted by beta2. The situations are very similar in both layout (it is Budapest-Nyugati station in 2 versions).

[Heiko Schneider]

Hello,

you can find the beta versions and Polish text resources under http://www.jbss.de/beta/index.htm.

Heiko