IPB
viagra super force buy buy online

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
I\O ERROR
AT RR
post Oct 11 2007, 06:18 AM
Post #1


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



Steve / Norman
When running AG on an updated template i'm working on when I compile the activity everything goes fine until the end and I get an I\O error. My question is what should I be looking for in the files that may cause this problem?

Thanks,
Peter


--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgdavis
post Oct 11 2007, 11:12 AM
Post #2


Train Master
*****

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 727
Joined: 1-October 03
From: United States
Member No.: 1



QUOTE(AT RR @ Oct 11 2007, 07:18 AM) *
Steve / Norman
When running AG on an updated template i'm working on when I compile the activity everything goes fine until the end and I get an I\O error. My question is what should I be looking for in the files that may cause this problem?

Thanks,
Peter

Where do you get this I/O error? When generating the activity?

First try checking the "generate debug file" box and read the debug files (debug.txt and addcars.txt) that AG generates. That may tell you where the problem is, or, at least you'll see where it stopped generating.

Or email the template to me and I will see if I can help you figure this out.

Thanks,

Steve


--------------------
Steve Davis Skyline Computing SteveDavis@SkylineComputing.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AT RR
post Oct 11 2007, 01:48 PM
Post #3


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



QUOTE(sgdavis @ Oct 11 2007, 11:12 AM) *
Where do you get this I/O error? When generating the activity?

First try checking the "generate debug file" box and read the debug files (debug.txt and addcars.txt) that AG generates. That may tell you where the problem is, or, at least you'll see where it stopped generating.

Or email the template to me and I will see if I can help you figure this out.

Thanks,

Steve


Steve,
Thanks I forgot about the debug mode. This error comes up after all the numbers are crunched when the activity switch list is sent to note pad for printing. I think it may be be some bad settings in some regions along the route as some times it will generate a good activity.
I will give it another try tommrow.

Peter


--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AT RR
post Oct 12 2007, 06:30 AM
Post #4


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



Steve,
Still no luck, the debug reports look clean! I'm going to try and recrunch the template from scratch with AG4.2 this weekend. This was set up using 4.1.!!! but i'm trying to run it in 4.2. Again this is the Newark New Jersey Railroads route and has been buggy from day one.

Thanks,
Peter


--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AT RR
post Oct 13 2007, 08:28 AM
Post #5


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



Steve,
I'm ready to call it quits on this template. I went and regenerated from the origional track table using AG4.2 and the SWLACT and SWLTDB I'm still getting location mismatches between the SWLACT & SWLTDB files. Out of the 107 car locations locations 35 do not match the primary or secondary locations in the SWLTDB, they are off by one digit. I can't even get to testing the I/O problem as I don't know which location number I should use, I do know if they don't match you won't get pickups.

Was not the car / track primary and secondary location corrected in a privious rev?

Input please!!!!

Thanks,
Peter


--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nbeveridge
post Oct 13 2007, 11:48 AM
Post #6


Train Master
*****

Group: Administrators
Posts: 550
Joined: 2-January 07
From: Texas
Member No.: 10



QUOTE(AT RR @ Oct 13 2007, 08:28 AM) *
Steve,
I'm ready to call it quits on this template. I went and regenerated from the origional track table using AG4.2 and the SWLACT and SWLTDB I'm still getting location mismatches between the SWLACT & SWLTDB files. Out of the 107 car locations locations 35 do not match the primary or secondary locations in the SWLTDB, they are off by one digit. I can't even get to testing the I/O problem as I don't know which location number I should use, I do know if they don't match you won't get pickups.

Was not the car / track primary and secondary location corrected in a privious rev?

Input please!!!!

Thanks,
Peter


Steve and I struggled with exactly this error early in the AG4 experiment. I believe that Steve solved this several versions ago. I have created several templates since which have all had perfect matches in the SWLACT & SWLTDB files. Consequently, I am still concerned about a mismatch between old files and the new AG4 version. It may be that Steve can get online with you and see exactly what is happening.


--------------------
Norman
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jrmeindl
post Oct 13 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #7


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 6-January 07
From: United States
Member No.: 14



Steve and Peter,

Just wondering if this problem could be similar to the one I had with Glorieta Pass. I was using AG 4.0 or 4.1 at the time. There were multiple sidings/tracks with the same name but in different locations. (Example, I found track name (label) 01 70 in 2 or more locations.) I remember that AG matched the Track # and AltTrk# incorrectly. I always reviewed the csv files first, so I never ran the template like that. I really don't know if it would have caused the same error. Since we are able to modify the names a bit in the template, I used the route editor to locate and rename the tracks so AG and I could make some sense of them. For instance, one track named 01 70 became 01 70a and so on. This way AG was able to match the sidings and the track numbers correctly. Is this route at Train-Sim? If it is, I'll take a look at it and the sidings.

Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jrmeindl
post Oct 13 2007, 02:22 PM
Post #8


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 6-January 07
From: United States
Member No.: 14



I didn't realize this route was renamed along the way to Newark & Jersey City 1.5. I did a check of this route as well. What I have written below still applies to the updated version of this route. JRM 4:30 PM on 10/13/07


OK, I went to Train-Sim and downloaded all the files for Newark & New Jersey Railroading all the way up to Beta 9b. I went ahead and created a SWLTDB and compared it to the the acutual track datebase file Usa_NNJ.tdb for the route. I have also uploaded the zip file containing the SWLTDB file and file to the actual track database file. As you can see, the numbers sequence does not match in the SWLTDB file. If you look at the RTF file, you will see how the track numbers actually line up. Also, make note as to how many times "Siding 1" is used. This is the same issue that I had to resolve with Glorieta Pass. For Glorieta, I copied the whole route to a temporary folder to work with. The I edited the names a bit, in the Route Editor, so I could get a good set of files from AG. You can edit the SWLACT file (track name) a bit so users can figure out what siding is where so it makes more sense when creating an activity. I'm not sure if there is an easier way to do this. I didn't want to manually edit any of the route files since the siding names go in the file the order that they were named. In short, the one you find first might be regions away from the siding listed before and after the entry you are looking at.

Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgdavis
post Oct 14 2007, 08:43 AM
Post #9


Train Master
*****

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 727
Joined: 1-October 03
From: United States
Member No.: 1



QUOTE(AT RR @ Oct 13 2007, 09:28 AM) *
Steve,
I'm ready to call it quits on this template. I went and regenerated from the origional track table using AG4.2 and the SWLACT and SWLTDB I'm still getting location mismatches between the SWLACT & SWLTDB files. Out of the 107 car locations locations 35 do not match the primary or secondary locations in the SWLTDB, they are off by one digit. I can't even get to testing the I/O problem as I don't know which location number I should use, I do know if they don't match you won't get pickups.

Was not the car / track primary and secondary location corrected in a privious rev?

Input please!!!!

Thanks,
Peter


Peter,

Sorry that you are getting discouraged. I was hoping you might send me your template in progress and I could try and fix it for you or at least figure out what is going on.

You are right the car/track primary and secondary location were corrected in a previous revision, but alas there is still a problem IF there are multiple sidings in a route which have the same name, as Jim points out in this thread. I use the siding name to match up the markers and sometimes the wrong two get matched up.

However, help is on the way! I just heard from a newcomer to our group who had a great suggestion as to how to know, definitively, which "siding item pairs" go together. It involves numeric entries in the .tdb file and I won't go into the specifics, however be looking for an update that resolves this completely. However all it will resolve is coming up with the right numbers for each siding (even if there are duplicate names) WHEN GENERATING THE TEMPLATE SWLTDB FILE. So unfortunately it won't fix existing templates if they have this proble (but, except for yours no templates have this problem simply because the authors like yourself always test the templates so they discover these problems before posting the template.)

Since you are discouraged anyway and it will take me a while to write this update, I might suggest you set this project aside for a while, and I'll respond to this thread (and also of course post to the "updates" thread which you may be tracking) when I've posted the fix. It will make things a lot easier for us.

Thanks for all of your contributions to template creation and our forums to date Peter!

Cheers,

Steve


--------------------
Steve Davis Skyline Computing SteveDavis@SkylineComputing.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AT RR
post Oct 15 2007, 07:15 AM
Post #10


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



Everyone,
Thank you for your input. Yes this route does have problems with duplicate track numbers that is why I use locations the SWLACT generates to verify the tracks on the SWLTDB. When I generate the final template I edit all the duplicate track numbers and add a discription IE: 1 YD S. Oak, 1 YD Weehawken Ect. I also have compiled a master list for this route with all the sidings, railroads Ect. to check for duplicate numbers in the SWLTDB. The problem is not with the duplicate track numbers as I can usualy ID the railroad / location from my seed list, the problem is numbers that don't match ANY number that is generated.

On other templates just changing the ID number up or down one digit so they would match the SWLACT worked, they also worked in this template. Back th the reason I regenerated the two data bases, When doing my final runs on all the sidings prior to releasing this template I started getting I/O errors and could not find a problem in the Debug data. My thought was the problem may be the adjusted location numbers so I regenerated the data in AG4.2

The new question is did I open up a new bag of worms and the adjusted numbers are OK?
Could the problem be related tho other factors in the template?

Steve, if I get a chance tonight I will send you the files that started this thread not the current ones that may mask the real probem. Please post you findings as we all may learn from this and it will be help for all in the future.

Thanks,

Peter


--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgdavis
post Oct 16 2007, 06:06 PM
Post #11


Train Master
*****

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 727
Joined: 1-October 03
From: United States
Member No.: 1



QUOTE(AT RR @ Oct 15 2007, 08:15 AM) *
Everyone,
Thank you for your input. Yes this route does have problems with duplicate track numbers that is why I use locations the SWLACT generates to verify the tracks on the SWLTDB. When I generate the final template I edit all the duplicate track numbers and add a discription IE: 1 YD S. Oak, 1 YD Weehawken Ect. I also have compiled a master list for this route with all the sidings, railroads Ect. to check for duplicate numbers in the SWLTDB. The problem is not with the duplicate track numbers as I can usualy ID the railroad / location from my seed list, the problem is numbers that don't match ANY number that is generated.

On other templates just changing the ID number up or down one digit so they would match the SWLACT worked, they also worked in this template. Back th the reason I regenerated the two data bases, When doing my final runs on all the sidings prior to releasing this template I started getting I/O errors and could not find a problem in the Debug data. My thought was the problem may be the adjusted location numbers so I regenerated the data in AG4.2

The new question is did I open up a new bag of worms and the adjusted numbers are OK?
Could the problem be related tho other factors in the template?

Steve, if I get a chance tonight I will send you the files that started this thread not the current ones that may mask the real probem. Please post you findings as we all may learn from this and it will be help for all in the future.

Thanks,

Peter


I figured out what the problem is here.

Basically it boils down to the duplicate name issue. As mentioned we did address the problem of dealing with two numbers for each siding, but, this is done by matching siding names. So when there are duplicate names AG can come up with the wrong match. One of our users (Eric) shared with me an idea for really fixing this rather than using names to match. For those who are interested in the details, take a look at these two "SidingItem" entries from the Usa_NJC.tdb track database file:

SidingItem (

TrItemId ( 1279 )

TrItemSData ( 41.9926 00000002 )

TrItemRData ( 192.293 8.153 145.872 -10971 14369 )

SidingTrItemData ( 00000000 1280 )

SidingName ( 2 )

)

SidingItem (

TrItemId ( 1280 )

TrItemSData ( 293.699 00000002 )

TrItemRData ( 127.309 11.6909 388.787 -10971 14369 )

SidingTrItemData ( ffff0000 1279 )

SidingName ( 2 )

Now if you are paying close attention you will see that there are two markers for the siding with the name '2', one is 1279 and the other is 1280. But in this case there are several sidings named 2 .... one is number 722 and 723. Anyway the fix, which I will implement in AG 4.2.1 which I'll release very soon, is to use the "SidingTrItemData" for the other number. Notice that the second number in SidingTrItemData for siding marker 1280, is 1279. And notice that likewise the SidingTrItemData for siding marker 1279 is 1280. So now instead of AG GUESSING, it will be able to DEFINITIVELY IDENTIFY THE SIDING ITEM PAIRS! This idea was suggested to me by a new user named Eric, my thanks to Eric for the idea.

Ok so what is wrong with this template? In this case, through no fault of your own, you picked the wrong " 2 " number to use (722). There is no car actually on track 722, although it is listed in both the SWLTDB and SWLACT files as having a car there. So what happens is AG can't find a "seed car" to use to place the car and fails. Now that is a BUG in AG4 which I am also fixing in 4.2.1: instead of failing with that unhelpful error, it will now say something useful, in this case "Unable to place car on track 722 because there is no 'seed car' there."

I removed track 722 from the SWLTDB file and was able to generate activities without problems. I will email the fixed SWLTDB file directly to you (it won't help other readers of this forum since they don't have this template yet ... though the information here might.)

So truly this is more an AG4 bug, but one that is only brought out when route designers name two sidings using the same name (in this case the name was simply '2' which you changed to 'Yard 2', which is of course fine).

I will get the patch posted this week. In the meantime though this template, with the entry for track 722 removed, works.

If you continue to have problems please wait for me to get the patch posted and then regenerate the numbers using 4.2.1. Thanks for pointing out the problem and sorry about the frustration I know it caused.

Cheers,

Steve


--------------------
Steve Davis Skyline Computing SteveDavis@SkylineComputing.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AT RR
post Oct 17 2007, 06:16 AM
Post #12


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



Steve,
Thank you for the help. Is their a forum out on the net for route designers? It would be great if this info was out there that when the track numbers are consecutive or when you reuse the same track number it could cause problems with templates or activities generated for the route.

Peter


--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgdavis
post Oct 17 2007, 06:42 AM
Post #13


Train Master
*****

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 727
Joined: 1-October 03
From: United States
Member No.: 1



QUOTE(AT RR @ Oct 17 2007, 07:16 AM) *
Steve,
Thank you for the help. Is their a forum out on the net for route designers? It would be great if this info was out there that when the track numbers are consecutive or when you reuse the same track number it could cause problems with templates or activities generated for the route.

Peter

Peter,

Yes there is a route design forum on www.train-sim.com. The track numbers WILL typically be consecutive and that is part of MSTS and shouldn't be an issue, especially once I release my minor upgrade. MSTS assigns the track numbers (actually "SidingItem" numbers, for each siding marker, of which there are always two).

However duplicate track names ARE a route design issue and at the very least cause confusion when users attempt to complete activities since there is no way to determine which "Yard 2" is meant in a work order (and setting out at the wrong one will result in an "unsuccessful completion" whether running a regular 'scripted activity' or an activity created by Activity Generator). So if I were to post I'd post about avoiding duplicate names not the numbering issue as they can't control that. And MSTS never assigns the same sidingitem number twice so that part is taken care of internally.

I take it the file I sent works ok then?

Thanks,

Steve


--------------------
Steve Davis Skyline Computing SteveDavis@SkylineComputing.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AT RR
post Oct 17 2007, 08:14 AM
Post #14


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



QUOTE(sgdavis @ Oct 17 2007, 06:42 AM) *
Peter,

Yes there is a route design forum on www.train-sim.com. The track numbers WILL typically be consecutive and that is part of MSTS and shouldn't be an issue, especially once I release my minor upgrade. MSTS assigns the track numbers (actually "SidingItem" numbers, for each siding marker, of which there are always two).

However duplicate track names ARE a route design issue and at the very least cause confusion when users attempt to complete activities since there is no way to determine which "Yard 2" is meant in a work order (and setting out at the wrong one will result in an "unsuccessful completion" whether running a regular 'scripted activity' or an activity created by Activity Generator). So if I were to post I'd post about avoiding duplicate names not the numbering issue as they can't control that. And MSTS never assigns the same sidingitem number twice so that part is taken care of internally.

I take it the file I sent works ok then?

Thanks,

Steve



Steve,

I haven't tried the change yet, will do tonight and let you know.

I think there second reason for the problem. The secondary number for yard 2 LV Jersey city is the same as the

primary number for Claermont yard track 2. These tracks worked fine as long as the path started in another region

and these tracks were used as destination tracks. On my final path I was using Claermont yd as the path start and

finish and as source track causing the conflict. When using the other paths the program wasn't looking source cars

at these locations and ignored the conflicting location and only picked one that worked.


722 Yard 2 LV JERSEY CITY 1 10 A 291.5064 I A 1279
1279 Yard 2 CLAREMONT YD 2 8 A 240.6565 Y A 1389

Does this logic work?

thanks,
Peter



--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgdavis
post Oct 17 2007, 10:31 AM
Post #15


Train Master
*****

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 727
Joined: 1-October 03
From: United States
Member No.: 1



QUOTE(AT RR @ Oct 17 2007, 09:14 AM) *
Steve,

I haven't tried the change yet, will do tonight and let you know.

I think there second reason for the problem. The secondary number for yard 2 LV Jersey city is the same as the

primary number for Claermont yard track 2. These tracks worked fine as long as the path started in another region

and these tracks were used as destination tracks. On my final path I was using Claermont yd as the path start and

finish and as source track causing the conflict. When using the other paths the program wasn't looking source cars

at these locations and ignored the conflicting location and only picked one that worked.


722 Yard 2 LV JERSEY CITY 1 10 A 291.5064 I A 1279
1279 Yard 2 CLAREMONT YD 2 8 A 240.6565 Y A 1389

Does this logic work?

thanks,
Peter


Peter,

Yes that makes perfect sense. I don't think MSTS can actually assign the same number to two different tracks though so in this case I fear Activity Generator incorrectly matched up these numbers based on the track names being the same, i.e. AG SHOULD HAVE matched 722 with 723 and 1389 with 1279 but it matched 1279 with both. This is what I will fix in 4.2.1. I think I "fixed" it by deleting track 722 completely. A better fix and you won't have to wait for the patch, would be to tie 723 with 722 and leave the pair 1389/1279 as is. At least I think that will work, please give it a try.

Thanks,

Steve


--------------------
Steve Davis Skyline Computing SteveDavis@SkylineComputing.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AT RR
post Oct 18 2007, 08:00 AM
Post #16


Train Master
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 148
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Leominster, MA United States
Member No.: 29



QUOTE(sgdavis @ Oct 17 2007, 10:31 AM) *
Peter,

Yes that makes perfect sense. I don't think MSTS can actually assign the same number to two different tracks though so in this case I fear Activity Generator incorrectly matched up these numbers based on the track names being the same, i.e. AG SHOULD HAVE matched 722 with 723 and 1389 with 1279 but it matched 1279 with both. This is what I will fix in 4.2.1. I think I "fixed" it by deleting track 722 completely. A better fix and you won't have to wait for the patch, would be to tie 723 with 722 and leave the pair 1389/1279 as is. At least I think that will work, please give it a try.

Thanks,

Steve


Steve,
It looks like everything is working. I did some thinking and did a line for line check of the primary vs secondary location numbers and found an addtional 5 locations with conflicts. Taking a chance I kept all the primary track numbers that matched the car / consist locations in which track 722 was one. I then went and adjusted the secondary track numbers up one digit to eliminate the conflict. I generated about a dozen activitys and the paper work looked good, I also kept track 722 and got setouts and pickups. My next step will be to due actual runs with the adjusted tracks to see if the sim works and hope the paper work does what it says it should.

Peter


--------------------
Peter

Arcadia Terminal Street & Dock Railroad
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgdavis
post Oct 18 2007, 06:21 PM
Post #17


Train Master
*****

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 727
Joined: 1-October 03
From: United States
Member No.: 1



QUOTE(AT RR @ Oct 18 2007, 09:00 AM) *
Steve,
It looks like everything is working. I did some thinking and did a line for line check of the primary vs secondary location numbers and found an addtional 5 locations with conflicts. Taking a chance I kept all the primary track numbers that matched the car / consist locations in which track 722 was one. I then went and adjusted the secondary track numbers up one digit to eliminate the conflict. I generated about a dozen activitys and the paper work looked good, I also kept track 722 and got setouts and pickups. My next step will be to due actual runs with the adjusted tracks to see if the sim works and hope the paper work does what it says it should.

Peter


Thanks Peter good news. I have the 4.2.2 update working and it appears to cure this, however I want to do a little more testing on it before I release it.

Cheers,

Steve


--------------------
Steve Davis Skyline Computing SteveDavis@SkylineComputing.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sgdavis
post Oct 20 2007, 09:34 AM
Post #18


Train Master
*****

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 727
Joined: 1-October 03
From: United States
Member No.: 1



QUOTE(sgdavis @ Oct 18 2007, 07:21 PM) *
Thanks Peter good news. I have the 4.2.2 update working and it appears to cure this, however I want to do a little more testing on it before I release it.

Cheers,

Steve

Further to this: the fix, version 4.2.2, has now been posted. Please let me know how it works for you.

Thanks,

Steve


--------------------
Steve Davis Skyline Computing SteveDavis@SkylineComputing.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 05:01 AM
viagra super force bitcoin