Message Areas - "Searchlight signals uploaded"

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"Searchlight signals uploaded"

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Previous Topic | Next Topic Conferences MSTS Route Design (Protected) Original message
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-10-01, 11:39 AM (EST) "Searchlight signals uploaded" I have uploaded my searchlight signals to Train-Sim.com. It is a complete set of interlocking and automatic block signals for MSTS. Single, double and triple head models are included. The scripts written by Hank Sundermeyer provide prototypical aspects including advance indication of diverging movements at interlockings.Joe Diamond Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: Searchlight signals uploaded NickF Aug-10-01 1 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-10-01 2 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded staplerman Aug-10-01 3 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-10-01 4 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded CSXALine Aug-10-01 5 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... bobs Aug-11-01 6 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... jkcooney Aug-11-01 7 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... bobs Aug-11-01 8 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... jkcooney Aug-12-01 10 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... JoeDiamond Aug-12-01 14 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... JoeDiamond Aug-12-01 15 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... jkcooney Aug-12-01 16 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... JoeDiamond Aug-12-01 13 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... jkcooney Aug-12-01 17 RE: Found some more... bobs Aug-11-01 9 RE: Found some more... JoeDiamond Aug-12-01 11 RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal... JoeDiamond Aug-12-01 12 Question of Searchlight Design bobs Aug-12-01 18 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-13-01 19 RE: Question of Searchlight Design JoeDiamond Aug-13-01 20 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-13-01 21 RE: Question of Searchlight Design bobs Aug-13-01 23 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-13-01 24 RE: Question of Searchlight Design JoeDiamond Aug-15-01 40 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-13-01 25 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-13-01 26 RE: Question of Searchlight Design bobs Aug-13-01 27 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-13-01 28 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-14-01 35 RE: Question of Searchlight Design JoeDiamond Aug-14-01 29 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-14-01 33 RE: Question of Searchlight Design JoeDiamond Aug-14-01 38 RE: Question of Searchlight Design JoeDiamond Aug-14-01 30 RE: Question of Searchlight Design bobs Aug-14-01 31 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-14-01 34 RE: Question of Searchlight Design bobs Aug-14-01 36 RE: Question of Searchlight Design jkcooney Aug-15-01 43 RE: Question of Searchlight Design bobs Aug-13-01 22 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded k4fum Aug-14-01 32 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded JoeDiamond Aug-14-01 37 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded Lifeguard_gf Aug-15-01 39 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded JoeDiamond Aug-15-01 41 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-15-01 44 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded JoeDiamond Aug-15-01 45 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-15-01 46 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded JoeDiamond Aug-15-01 42 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-17-01 47 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded JoeDiamond Aug-18-01 52 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-17-01 48 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded bobs Aug-17-01 49 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-17-01 50 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded bobs Aug-18-01 51 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-18-01 55 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded JoeDiamond Aug-18-01 53 RE: Searchlight signals uploaded jkcooney Aug-18-01 54

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
NickF (253 posts)
Aug-10-01, 12:19 PM (EST) 1. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Thank you thank you thank you!!! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-10-01, 03:24 PM (EST) 2. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Many thanks for your fine work Joe.....I've been waiting for these since you first noted you were working on them. Thanks also to Hank for the file work. What a nightmare those config. and script files are! Tons of work. The signals look great and offer signaling options that are prototypical....thanks again.
Joe Cooney, Ocala, FL Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
staplerman (13 posts)
Aug-10-01, 03:30 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Are the new signals available for download yet? I noticed another post on this thread that said they worked great, but I haven't seen them on the file library yet. BTW, thanks in advance for all your hard work!!Mike Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-10-01, 03:34 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" It's 3:30 Eastern and I just checked the site.....they aren't up yet! Can't wait to get to them!!!!!!!
Joe Cooney, Ocala, FL Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
CSXALine (179 posts)
Aug-10-01, 04:53 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Nels probably will not update till tomorrow
Jason Webb
The Seaboard Coast Line/CSX A Line from Tampa Florida to Jacksonville, FL
As featured on Orlando's WOFL FOX 35 E-News
http://home.cfl.rr.com/jwebb4/ Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-11-01, 07:15 PM (EST) 6. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" In the shape definition file SLsigtrp.sd, the reference to the shape file (SLsigtrp.s) has a second .s on it (SLsigtrp.s.s). I don't know if it makes a difference in the workings of things, but the double .s file doesn't exist.Nice work on these! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-11-01, 07:55 PM (EST) 7. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" Bobs.....I can't get my searchlight files to work. Keep getting "failed to load track database" and "Track Database Read Failed" messages. Do I have to delete all signals from the route before loading and installing searchlights? What am I doing incorrectly?
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-11-01, 09:23 PM (EST) 8. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" Without knowing what you did exactly, it is hard to say.If you totally replace your sigcfg and sigscr files for an existing route, you must have deleted all of the signals from that route first. If MSTS tries to find the definitions and scripts for signals that no longer exist in the cfg and scr files, it dies. I don't know if the error messages you get are from that, or something else though.If you want to combine searchlights with the 3 lights, you have to merge the sigcfg and sigscr files from each of the sets of lights. You can't just append cfg file, you have to merge each section with the like section in other cfg file, then update the entry that shows how many items are included in each section. Refer to the "How to edit configuration and scripting files" in your techdocs folder on the CD. You script files can be pretty much appended as each script stands alone within the file, provided you don't duplicate any script names.If you merge the files, then you should be able to start up an existing route in the editor, and you should also be able to see all of the new signals listed under Track Items. If you replace each signal, one by one, with the new ones, then when you are all done, you could go back and delete references to the old files and scripts from your files. Or, you could leave them there rather than risk deleting something you didn't want to get rid of.This isn't all that difficult, but you have to pay really close attention to what you are doing. MSTS isn't very informative if there is a problem. More or less, it says "you have a problem" and leaves it up to you to figure out where and what is wrong. Not very user friendly!And, as always, MAKE BACKUPS of the config and script files before touching them. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-12-01, 10:18 AM (EST) 10. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" LAST EDITED ON Aug-12-01 AT 10:27 AM (EST)Thanks for the help. What you are saying, essentially, is that I would simply go into the config and scrpt files in WordPad and under the just add the additional lines of Unicode for each of the searchlights in the order they appear in the searchlight files. Do these get appended at the end of the existing lines of program after the existing BNSF programs? I assume they do. I'll try it out on my Backup route first and keep my fingers crossed.
Joe Cooney
Oops.....I know you said "Merge" rather than "append" I'm sorry for the slipup. Could you possibly type up one entry from either the config and/or scrpt files to illustrate? That would be a Godsend! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-12-01, 12:50 PM (EST) 14. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" Someone created a combined set of sigcfg.dat and sigscr.dat files for all of the signals available in MSTS. It's available in the downloads section under "utilities", it would be a good example.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-12-01, 01:04 PM (EST) 15. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" I have a set of .dat files to add the searchlights to the Maria's Pass route along with the three-lights. It will be a couple of days before I can post them.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-12-01, 05:16 PM (EST) 16. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" This is good news as I was all set to remove all old signals and start with a "dark" Marias Pass route and signal it from scratch. It would be a great time saver just to go into the editor and replace the signals "on site". Thanks again fo rthe great job you guys did. They look terrific in the screenshots I've seen....
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-12-01, 12:46 PM (EST) 13. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" I did my testing on a new route set up just for that purpose. Whenever I loaded the route and the sim could not find a definition for a signal, which would occur after and edit, a dialog box would pop up stating the signal definition could not be found and asked if you would like to delete or leave the signal. It would do this for each signal found and would take quite a while for a large route. If you are going to add the searchlights to an existing route I would recommend you add the config and script entries to the existing signal .dat files. There are instructions on how to do so in the techdocs.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-12-01, 05:18 PM (EST) 17. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" Yes, I've read the techdocs on this but do I add the program lines for your new signals after its counterpart BNSF signal or doesn't it matter what order the new lines of program occur?
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-11-01, 09:30 PM (EST) 9. "RE: Found some more..." LAST EDITED ON Aug-11-01 AT 09:36 PM (EST)The following shape definition files point to the wrong shape file. They are probably pointing to a shape file that happens to be the same design as the shape file you want. While the documentation with MSTS is pretty thin, one of the things it does say is that each shape definition file for a signal must point to its unique shape file and that there shouldn't be multiples using the same shape file.The edit is easy. Open the file with Wordpad, look for the filename (xxxxxxxx.s) on the first line of the code, and change it to match the appropriate shape file (suffix of both files should be the same, with .sd or .s as the file types respectively.)SLsigdblabs.sd
SLsigdblabsres.sd
SLsigper.sd Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-12-01, 12:39 PM (EST) 11. "RE: Found some more..." Good catch. The shape files are all the same shape, only renamed to allow different signal definitions in the sigcfg.dat file. I renamed all the .sd files but did not change the reference in the file itself. It did not seem to cause any problems in my testing though as everything works fine.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-12-01, 12:40 PM (EST) 12. "RE: Minor bug in Searchlight Signal files" A typo. The sim must ignore everything after the first ".s" as everything seems to work fine. Thanks for pointing it out.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-12-01, 10:21 PM (EST) 18. "Question of Searchlight Design" Joe, these are terrific. I've just completed re-signaling Marias with these as I just could not get past the bugs I had in my mods to the 3 lights. Personally, I think searchlights are neater anyway. After a couple of days (hopefully only a couple) of testing, I'll be ready to post my revised Marias route with the signals and a host of other corrections.In the MSTS design of their signals, each head is a separate graphic. This allows them to use the same head on the pole or by itself on a gantry, and allows the optional heads to appear (or not) depending on your selections. I see that you didn't do it that way, but created a separate graphic for 1, 2, and 3 head signals. What was your reasoning for doing it this way? The MSTS way uses fewer files. Just curious as to why you did what you did. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-13-01, 01:11 AM (EST) 19. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" Looking forward to your updated Marias Pass route with the searchlight signals. they do indeed look neat. I tried installing a few on the new "dark" Port Ogden route. They seem to be fine except they give some curious indications on the many wyes on this line. Links seem to be a little quirky but I think this is a result of the Port Ogden Track scheme rather than the signals. One neat observation ... when using the lower aspect to indicate the status of a stub end siding in a yard I got a white indicator on that 3rd aspect. Neat!
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-13-01, 02:54 AM (EST) 20. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" The reason I decided to use a seperate shape for each different signal type was due to a problem in getting the optional features to function properly. Each head is still set up as a seperate graphic, the sim needs it that way as the positions of the lights are based on the pivot points of each head. The problem was that the sim would always display all the shapes regardless of if they were selected in the signal properities or not. If a head was not enabled the lights would go out but the head shape would still be visible. I was able to work around it by using a different shape for each signal. I'm still working on making the optional features work as that would reduce the number of files needed.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-13-01, 08:45 AM (EST) 21. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" LAST EDITED ON Aug-13-01 AT 08:47 AM (EST)Joe... see my post about a WHITE LIGHT indication for a stub end siding. Is this designed into the files? It is neat and while I haven't seen it on too many railroads it does, in fact, indicate the status of a major siding in a yard complex. Also, I have seen some indicators showing a purple/bluish aspect to indicate a major on-line siding (passing, storage, etc.) Will one of the options support this? Another question, on the permissive two head signal what does the bottom display indicate since I have only seen it display a RED aspect and since permissives aren't linked....why is the second head even needed? Just curious. Thanks again for your great work. Also, on the Port Ogden route there are many Wye track configurations. Does this negatively affect the signaling since, in effect, the track is turned back onto itself?
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-13-01, 02:05 PM (EST) 23. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" The white light is called a lunar aspect, and in real life it is that bluish/purpleish light you saw. I changed the color designation in my file so it looks more lunar. In the prototype, you would want not mistake it for a broken lens or true white light, hence the bluish color.The permissive signal's second head will show that the next signal is going to show a diverging from your current path, provided the next switch is open and not normal. I've set up the spurs on Marias with the double 2 color, which only allows red or lunar on the second aspect. If the switch is open, you get red over lunar, otherwise you get whatever would be dictated by the normal path. The signal prior to this red over lunar should show diverging approach, or red over yellow. In some cases, it can should show yellow over lunar (approach restricting), which is less restricting, even though it doesn't sound that way. Approach Restricting is one of the indications that wasn't built into the signals shipped with MSTS.Diverging approach says you should be prepared to stop at the next signal. Approach Restricting says prepare to pass the next signal at restricted speed. I'm pretty sure that these signals can't do the approach restricting, but can't remember now. Either I set one up to do that, or it came that way. I've played with this for so long I can't remember now! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-13-01, 04:06 PM (EST) 24. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" What a meeting of the minds. I had just written down "Luna" or "Lunar" because it just poped into my mind. Some people never forget anything. Thanks, I knew I wasn't crazy. I guess trying to use restrictive signals on the Port Ogden branch won't yield too many clear aspects...... too many turning wyes and trackage which leads back to itself. Nevertheless, all those amber signals (whether fixed or blinking) do look neat. Can't wait until Conn reworks the files to include both BNSF and Searchlight in one merged file so I can send the signal maintainers out to change over.
Thanks for the LUNAR verification!
Joe Cooney
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-15-01, 01:00 AM (EST) 40. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" Version 2.1 has been uploaded and includes the updated files to include the BNSF 3 light signals from Marias Pass.Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-13-01, 04:11 PM (EST) 25. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" LAST EDITED ON Aug-13-01 AT 04:12 PM (EST)I agree, after a while you begin to lose track of signaling configurations. If I were the least bit organized I would start writing things down. For now, I just enjoy playing with the possible combinations. As for the second part of my original message.....I distinctly remember seeing a PURPLE / or possibly cobalt blue signal in a small lens offset from the signal mast on several eastern rrs. Lackawanna, Erie, Possibly NYC. I was informed by a signal maintainer who used to work for Conrail that this indication showed a major passing siding ahead was either available or occupied. I don't think it was a controlling signal, merely an informational one. Oh well. Life goes on!
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-13-01, 04:17 PM (EST) 26. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" What color numbers did you use to make the lunar white more distinct. I've played around with the numbers of these colors but I can't hit the exact one!
Joe Cooney
And any thoughts on my memory of a purple offset indication??? Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-13-01, 08:41 PM (EST) 27. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" Joe, here's my LightsTabEntry for the lunar. What they suggested, and what I did, was to the Windows Desktop Properties, then select the tab for appearance, click on the color box and play around until I found a color I liked, then I wrote down the numbers and canceled out of everything. It is different enough to be noticable, but not too blue. But I have no idea how close it is to the real thing having not seen one of those lately, or locally.LightsTabEntry (
"White Light"
colour ( 255 211 228 254 )
)On your purple light question, part of the answer is the different RR's signaling rules. In the west, the rules are usually based on the GCOR, while Eastern RRs use something else (the acronym escapes me although I'll think of it as soon as I disconnect.) I believe I've seen such a light somewhere on the old Chessie System, but I don't remember which part. If you really want to have some fun, or get confused, take a look at this link:http://www.trainweb.org/railwaytechnical/index.htmlThere is a lot of very interesting stuff there on all sorts of subjects, including Al Krug's paper on air brakes, and several on signaling as it varies around the world. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-13-01, 08:53 PM (EST) 28. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" Thanks for the links and I do remember seeing them along the old B&O Mainline while on a Reading Fan Trip to Washington. Interesting stuff. I'll try the lunar color combination you mention in your post. Thanks. I may even change that aspect to purple where appropriate for a long passing or storage siding because the more I think about it the more I remember it's function was to point out those extra long sidings!
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-14-01, 03:58 PM (EST) 35. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" Tried it out this afternoon and it really does make a difference to add some blue into the color mix. Thanks for the tip. I tried my purple also but it just doesn't look right and I'm sure it was not a common display for mainline use anyway.
J. Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-14-01, 00:10 AM (EST) 29. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" Bob,The signal in advance of a lunar will display an approach aspect, yellow over red. The two-head permissive signal is intended for use as an approach signal to an interlocking. If the straight route is set at the interlocking the approach signal will display green or yellow over red, depending on how many blocks ahead are clear. If a dirverging route is set at the interlocking the approach will display yellow over yellow, approach medium, proceed prepared to pass the next signal at 30mph. This gives the engineer advance warning that he will be crossing over at the next signal and may adjust his speed accordingly. If two double head approach signals are used the first would show green over yellow, the next yellow over yellow and the home signal would show red over green.For roads that do not use two-head approach signals the signal in advance of a dirverging route will display approach medium, flashing yellow, proceed prepared to pass the next signal at 40mph.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-14-01, 03:46 PM (EST) 33. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-01 AT 03:50 PM (EST)Thanks for the info. on two-headed permissives. I hadn't realized this function was enabled. The bottom aspect will, I assume, always be RED. Am I correct? Because the next signal will be displaying Lunar White for a diverging siding or industry!
Thanks. I put one in on the Port Ogden route and while not very sophisticated at this yet, it does seem to work like a charm! Thanks. It would be really great to have all these posts about signal aspects and controls and distinguishing between flashing amber and steady amber, etc., etc., all in one spot. I'm having trouble correlating all this stuff!
Joe cooney
OOPs......I just read your ENTIRE message and answered my own question. Was the use of consecutive three headed signal masts common?...it seems somewhat overkill.....I guess the erred on the side of safety! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-14-01, 10:56 PM (EST) 38. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" I'm planning a web page to organize all the information in one place. I hope to have it up sometime soon but work keeps getting in the way!Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-14-01, 00:17 AM (EST) 30. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" The scripts as written do not support the approach restricting aspect. A restricting signal will give an approach aspect at the signal in advance. The aspects supported are:Stop
Stop and proceed
restricting
approach
approach medium
advance approach
clearThe restricting aspect is shown with a lunar light. Some roads prefer to use flashing red for this. This could easily be changed in the scripts.Joe Diamond Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-14-01, 02:01 AM (EST) 31. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" The key phrase in what you said is "as written." I've added a couple to allow Approach Restricting, but it required another signal definition.Around here, we have all sorts of combinations that mean the same thing...double yellow and flashing yellow by itself or over reds...both mean Approach Medium and you can see one on a track while the next track over shows the other one. Same for flashing red versus using a lunar aspect. The BNSF Signals and Indications document lists 19 different signal configurations that can mean Restricting. I read something an engineer who works a route on MetroLink, the Los Angeles area commuter RR. On his route, he has trackage originally from 4 different railroads so he has 4 different sets of signal configurations and has to remember which piece of track he's on because a given aspect may mean a different indication depending on where on the route it is. Now it that wouldn't drive you crazy, I don't know what would! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-14-01, 03:54 PM (EST) 34. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" LAST EDITED ON Aug-14-01 AT 03:56 PM (EST)I love this aspect of railroading because of how each individual road tailored its signalling to meet specific needs of how that road operated. That's what makes this so fascinating. When I modeled in HO and N this was the part of the task that was virtually impossible due to the electronics. Now, it is possible to tinker with the signaling installations. Run a locomotive through the resignaled area and test your sequencing. Ya gotta love it. Thanks to everyone. Can't wait for Conn McCarthy to post his program combining the two styles so we can mix and match or change over completely.
Joe Cooney
PS...I imagine this is why pilot engineers were (are?) provided when roads must detour over unfamiliar territory. Trying to keep your eyes on the route while checking signal aspects would be a nightmare! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-14-01, 08:36 PM (EST) 36. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" I'm sure it is one reason for pilots, but not the only one. Speed Limits, grades, and all the other wonderful things that can get in the way are probably other reasons. General unfamiliarity with the line. This is especially true for reroutes over a different carrier's line due to maintenance, blockage, etc.Signals have always fascinated me. One reason I could never quite figure them out is that each road was different, and I didn't know that then. There are modeling circuits and PC control programs now that would allow you to do most any prototypical signaling on a layout, and with the coding capabilities here, the same is true. If you can debug the @#$%^ things, that is! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-15-01, 10:43 AM (EST) 43. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" Agreed. I tried actually signaling once in real (HO) modeling but it is so much easier in "virtual" reality since your mistakes don't cost an arm and leg to repair!
Joe cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-13-01, 01:56 PM (EST) 22. "RE: Question of Searchlight Design" So, that would make this another case of "not working as designed" perhaps. The doc on the signals is so cryptic it is a wonder you got anything to work! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
k4fum (6 posts)
Aug-14-01, 10:41 AM (EST) 32. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Joe,I am working on the NS, KY Division, Danville, KY – Harriman, TN route and the signals are all Searchlight. However, many of the signals used on that route are mounted on gantries. Is it possible to place your signals on gantries? I am still laying track and have not gotten to the signaling stage yet.Thanks for the great work you have done on developing the Searchlight signals.Jere
Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-14-01, 10:55 PM (EST) 37. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" The gantry mount shapes are not available yet. They should be available soon. Hank Sundermeyer, who helped write the scripts, has already modified one of the shapes for gantry mounting. As soon as they are finished we will get them uploaded.Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Lifeguard_gf (109 posts)
Aug-15-01, 00:39 AM (EST) 39. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" What do i need to do to install the great signals on my route?George Flatman
Nevada Northern Railway Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-15-01, 01:02 AM (EST) 41. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Download version 2.1 from the downloads sections. You will find it in the utilities section.Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-15-01, 10:47 AM (EST) 44. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Conn....Notice you referred to version 2.1 What is the date of that so I can see if I have the most uptodate download. Any major differences from earlier versions?
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-15-01, 05:10 PM (EST) 45. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" I just checked the downloads sections and it looks like the version 2.1 file is not available yet. changes in v2.1 include:1. Updated signal config and script file to include the BNSF 3 light signals from Marias Pass.2. Added a double head interlocking signal with a fixed red upper head for use at trailing point junctions.3. Updated the scripts for the BNSF 3 light signals to provide approach medium aspect prior to a dirverging route at interlockings.4. Fixed some errors in the readme.txt and .sd files.5. Included the texture map for those who may wish to reskin the signal shapes.I uploaded it last night, it should be available any time now.Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-15-01, 09:56 PM (EST) 46. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Thanks a million Conn. Does this mean we can now replace the Marias Pass files with the new V2 file and proceed to change the signals on USA2 (or mix and match)? I assume so but I'll try it out on a clone first.
Joe Cooney
jkcooney@hotmail.com Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-15-01, 01:04 AM (EST) 42. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" It looks like the file has been moved to the "Misc" category int he downloads setion.Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-17-01, 06:58 PM (EST) 47. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Conn..... Tried to install one searchlight on the Port Ogden line today (Searlight Absolute Single Head)... When attempting to run the program and also in the Editor I got the error message: "Failed to Find SMS file
File: signal.sms"
What's missing or is this just a bad download?
Help!
Joe Cooney
jkcooney@hotmail.com Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-18-01, 01:30 AM (EST) 52. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" As a .sms file is a sound reference file I'm not certain what is causing your problem. The signal config and script files do not contain any reference to any .sms files. The only possibility I can think of is that there may be a shape used on your route with the same filename as one of the signal shapes, but I don't think that would be likely.Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-17-01, 08:27 PM (EST) 48. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Follow up...it's Friday PM and still have had no success with Version 2.1. I place the signals properly and continue to get "Failed to Find SMS File" error message. Also, when placing Absolute signals the links are not functional. What is missing?
Joe cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-17-01, 10:54 PM (EST) 49. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Signal.SMS is a sound file. SMS files specify what sounds to use when certain events are triggered and how to play them.The only SIGNAL.SMS files I could find on my system are in Europe1/Sound and Europe2/Sound and have something to do with a sound for semaphore signals. There is what looks like a dummy file in the Templates/Sound.I would guess something in your route points to a SIGNAL.SMS file and that it can't be found. There's no reference to any .SMS files in the scripts or configs for the signals, or at least there shouldn't be, except for maybe the semaphores.Good luck! Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-17-01, 11:57 PM (EST) 50. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Should I just ignore it? It only seems to occur on the Port Ogden route. I have not yet attempted to install any searchlights on my Marias Pass Manual route (a new route created with the manual file utility). I encountered this also when "flying over" the line in the Route Editor to locate the specific area where I had enstalled ONE signal. I don't know if Jim Ward who designed this route has responded to my question yet ... I won't trash anything by simply ignoring it will I? It is very annoying. Maybe a glitch in the install program?
Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bobs (64 posts)
Aug-18-01, 00:33 AM (EST) 51. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Now I remember having something similar to this happen to me, only it was an SD40eng.sms file that was missing. Every time I went by a certain spot the error message would pop up. You wouldn't happen to be using the steam engine for your runs on Marias would you?Somewhere in your stuff you have a pointer to this sms file. the only thing I can suggest is to open the various DAT files and search for the sms file and then change it to something else that exists. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-18-01, 01:43 AM (EST) 55. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-01 AT 01:44 AM (EST)Or just ignore it. It only happens on Jim Ward's Port Ogden line and since his route uses a "batch loader" to download all the files from everywhere I'm thinking a stray unsupported file (maybe a grade crossing is unsupported ).... no problem! Thanks for the quick reply. Tomorrow I begin extracting the geometry for a route based on the New York, Ontario & Western Rwy in Central NY and Pennsylvania coal country. Wish me luck. I'm certain that in a few days I'll be ready for a straight jacket. Some fun!
Joe Cooney
Oops...forgot to mention that I was operating the 3Dtrains F7 demo at the time it happened and not the ESE. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
JoeDiamond (47 posts)
Aug-18-01, 01:32 AM (EST) 53. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" I would suspect it is a sound file for a level crossing rather than a semaphore signal. The signal config and script files do not reference .sms files at all.Conn Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jkcooney (369 posts)
Aug-18-01, 01:40 AM (EST) 54. "RE: Searchlight signals uploaded" Thanks Conn..... I'll just ignore it since it only happens on Jim Ward's Port Ogden line... he uses a batch file to download everything for his route so I'm thinking a stray sound file is missing somewhere.....not a problem. The signals look fantastic. Next project.....working North American semaphores.....now there is a challenge!
Later....Joe Cooney Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic