RM 1.63 update

[AncientMariner]

the problem begs the question if you are using rm and its throttles to run your locos why are you twiddling with the elite..?

My grandson aged not quite 5 likes to twiddle knobs and I like to keep an eye on what he's up to via feedback on RM. I prefer to do it all on RM, often with a handheld. That all seems logical to me. I look forward to that all being seamless and bug free. 

 

AM

[Yelrow]

Well , we appear now to have got to the bottom of my trying to find Elite probs, fingers crossed. HRMS, logged on again today, and after full check found thar sneaky French Device Manager, despite being sorted on their last visit, had decided to set the Baud Rate on com 4, to that of Elink. Twas fine on controller A.  Once they corrected, all good. Thanks HRMS. Very peculiar as was correct on there previous look, as i write down what they do, to help me in the future, with my french translations. Guestion des periferiques, or similar, Nasy little thing appears to have a mind of its own. john

[Fishmanoz]

Good lesson for all John. You always said you didn't want to fiddle with your setup because it was working, but you now see you need to be aware that Windows, whatever version, has a mind of its own and may fiddle with your setup itself.  It has always been the case that it may re-assign com ports without asking, now we know it even gets down to baud rates.

 

So if you are experiencing connection problems, don't assume the fault is RM's, check via Device Manager to eliminate your setup from the Windows end first.

[WesternDave]

I am also experiencing the slow acceleration timings as reported on 21st October. Also programs sometimes refuse to save changes. I have an elink so it doesn't appear to be connected to the elite throttle position feedback problems. I have also tried all versions of the 1.63 file on the powerposs site. Suggestions welcome.

 

Dave

[Fishmanoz]

Have you followed all of the instructions given by HRMS on page 2 of this thread. As well as the latest 1.63, you also need the extra lines in your ini file.

[GWR Greg]

I have emailed HRMS. However I thought I would list the issue here.

I downloaded 1.63 r1 when it was released but have not had the chance to run arogramme until today. I p use speed steps. In the programme I have "Accelerate (0) to(127), 0.12. This should take approx 15 seconds. However in that time it only reached speed step 50. It worked correctly before 1.63 arrived. Did I read some where that others had experienced this ?

[Chrissaf]

Greg

.

"Did I read some where that others had experienced this ?"

.

Go back to page 6 of this very topic thread. Have a look at the very first post on that page by Ray. He posted a solution that worked for him regarding your issue.

[ColinE]

I have emailed HRMS. However I thought I would list the issue here.

I downloaded 1.63 r1 when it was released but have not had the chance to run arogramme until today. I p use speed steps. In the programme I have "Accelerate (0) to(127), 0.12. This should take approx 15 seconds. However in that time it only reached speed step 50. It worked correctly before 1.63 arrived. Did I read some where that others had experienced this ?

That was my original problem with 1.63 rev1 It mucked up all my programs with time related accelerate or decelerate commands. I also experienced the inability to have reliable control over two or three locos along with point changes if the commands to them were needed in quick succession. My green/yellow connectivity indicator was flashing rapidly and to me it seemed as if there was no connectivity while it was yellow and commands issued in that phase were missed, about half the time. I reverted to 1.62 and I'm now waiting until the issues are sorted before  redownloading 1.63.

[ColinE]

I have emailed HRMS. However I thought I would list the issue here.

I downloaded 1.63 r1 when it was released but have not had the chance to run arogramme until today. I p use speed steps. In the programme I have "Accelerate (0) to(127), 0.12. This should take approx 15 seconds. However in that time it only reached speed step 50. It worked correctly before 1.63 arrived. Did I read some where that others had experienced this ?

That was my original problem with 1.63 rev1 It mucked up all my programs with time related accelerate or decelerate commands. I also experienced the inability to have reliable control over two or three locos along with point changes if the commands to them were needed in quick succession. My green/yellow connectivity indicator was flashing rapidly and to me it seemed as if there was no connectivity while it was yellow and commands issued in that phase were missed, about half the time. I reverted to 1.62 and I'm now waiting until the issues are sorted before  redownloading 1.63.

[GWR Greg]

Christaf.  Following Ray's suggestion simply meant  I cannot connect to my elink. I will await a response from HRMS.

 

[96RAF]

 Just downloaded today's (1 Nov) iteration of RM v1.63 rev1 to see what effect it has had and what still ain't fixed.

 

I have all three good lines in my ini file set to  ...=1 and my Dev Mgr settings match RM settings for both Elite (Cont A) and eLink (Cont B). The controllers are set on Com3 and Com4.

 

Startup is fine, with no trouble connecting to either controller, and control of locos and points is fine, except as noted below. Internet and controller active icons are solid green.

 

With a loco set as large throttle 1, any action on the Elite reflects back onto associated small throttle and large throttle 1, except that F1 (steam/sound on) on Elite appears as green button F2 on small throttle. Pressing F1 on throttle lights F1 green as well as F2, but knocks sound off. Pressing F1 off on Elite puts both buttons out on throttle. The logic isn't correct here.

 

With a second loco set as large throttle 2 any action on the Elite produces no feedback onto this throttle but does reflect on associated small throttle.

 

In neither case does any action on either small or large throttle(s) reflect back to the Elite, which is understood to be due to Elite limitations on bi-directional comms.Inparticular Elite would be hard pushed to know if throttle 1 or 2 (or any active throttle) was being altered in RM.

 

When large throttle 2 is opened for a diesel loco then switched to a steam loco any function button above F18 is left on screen but is inoperative (i.e. F19-F24). There is obviously a lack of large throttle screen refresh past the replaced function buttons. RM large throttle still does not support the full 26 function buttons (i.e. F0-F25).

 

The button refresh fault was reported to HRMS a couple of weeks ago, but although they think it is a loco database problem no fix has notified back to me yet.

 

@john (yelrow)

All my throttles when set to scale speed have the speed in green at top of throttle slider and if not set thus show pink. I do not know how to mix and match and presume the mooted theory to be correct that if a loco is pulled from the database it will take scale speed (green) but if hand inserted will not (hence pink).

 

 

 

[AncientMariner]

 Just downloaded today's (1 Nov) iteration of RM v1.63 rev1 to see what effect it has had and what still ain't fixed.

[snip]

Good to see someone else is reporting the same bugs as I am. Worth noting that Handhelds operate correctly, so it can't be beyond the wit of man to fix this one. Well, feed forward to the Elite might be, given the restrictions on firmware, but feedback ought to be.

 

AM

[Chrissaf]

For anyone who is interested, I have been keeping a daily record of the properties of the RM 1.63 revision 1 set-up file. The change of file size indicating that a revised version has been released. I cannot comment on what the individual changes are within the program as I have only been monitoring the file properties, not the installed RM application features and functionality.

.

21st Oct = 69,061,352 bytes

22nd Oct = 69,321,658 bytes

25th Oct = 69,315,412 bytes

27th Oct = 69,327,711 bytes

29th Oct = 69,311,636 bytes

03rd Nov = 69,322,274 bytes

.

To the best of my knowledge ALL the above files 'report' being Version 1.63 Revision 1 from within the RM application. Nearly two weeks on, and minor revisions are still being released in the background. Take from that what you will.

[Nick_]

I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect HRMS to be releasing code changes so quickly one after another without updating some part of the release number. Perhaps the size changes are simply due to how the download program works?

[Chrissaf]

Believe me Nick, these are different versions. I've been involved with IT since the original Bill Gates developed DOS operating system. HRMS have a previous track record of issuing a rapid series of changes right after a new release as they try to fix user reported bugs. Many have commented on the lack of an ISO Quality Control release numbering scheme. This is the very reason for my post, to highlight these releases and bring to people's attention.

[96RAF]

 @Chris

According to my downloader:

1 Nov download size 67,688 Kb (in properties 69,322,274 bytes)

4 Nov download size 67,698 Kb (in properties 69,311,636 bytes)

Different numbers from yours by a small mile, but also different from each other, so its either tears of joy that all is now well or tears of despair because all is not yet well.

I shall go and install today's iteration and take a look see.

 

Edit after look see:

2nd large throttle still does not reflect Elite throttle movements, but 1st throttle is OK, except that if you set Elite going forwards at say 1/2 throttle, then ask RM to move to shunt speed in reverse, the next time you touch the Elite throttle the loco alters to the original direction and speed. I don't know how you can fix that without bi-directional comms 'twixt RM and the Elite.

The previously reported bad refresh on large throttle function buttons from diesel to steam is still there and I have now picked up an old snag (that HRMS told me how to fix by deleting a file somewhere) of the large throttle playing chase me round the screen ahead of the mouse.

[Chrissaf]

Rob,

Take your 1st Nov file (my 3rd Nov file) as an example. In Windows Explorer (Folder View) the file is listed as 67,698. But if you 'right click' the file, choose 'properties', choose the 'general' tab. Then the file size is reported as 69,322,274 and the size on disk as 69,324,800

.

EDIT: I see that you have now edited your post to show 'Properties' reported file sizes that concur with my previously posted values. Looking in 'Properties' give more accurate values. My dates relate to the dates that I downloaded the file and checked the value, thus my dates may be different to yours.

.

"Kb" has a different measurement criteria to "bytes", hence the difference in reported values. If you divide 69,322,274 bytes by 1024 you get 67,697,533 Kb (rounded up to 69,698 Kb as reported in Windows Explorer).

[Nick_]

Ok so I have just this moment (14:00 Nov 4) downloaded v1.63R1 from the link at the top of the forum. The installkit (rmsetup.exe) has a file version and product version of 1.63.1.0 and a size of 69,322,274 bytes. This matches the size RAF96 had for 1st Nov and is different to RAF96's version for today. It also matches Chris' version for 3rd Nov. So either there has been an update or a downgrade between the time RAF96's download was done and my download was done or these figures aren't telling us anything...

[96RAF]

 @Nick

My download today timed at 15:48 local so 13:48 UK time.

Also odd that my 4 Nov download size was bigger than 1 Nov, but the properties size is smaller. No doubt Chris can tell why. 

[Nick_]

OK Chris, I was wrong. HRMS release procedures are very poor. So I've now installed my v1.63R1 over the top of a previous v1.62.

RailMaster.exe is 17,985.536 bytes, has a created date of 27 March 2015 15:45:56 and a Modified date of 03 November 2015 09:49:38 which would tend to indicate it was modified yesterday.

HRMS - you need to sort out your release procedures!!!

RailMaster.exe in the 1.63R1 release (downloaded 14:00 4th Nov) has a file version of 1.6.0.2 with a Date modified of 03/11/2015 09:49

RailMaster.exe in the 1.62 release also has a file version of 1.6.0.2 but with a date modified of 30/09/2015 14:11

To release two different versions of the executable with the same version number is really bad practice and more so when its version number doesn't match the release number.

.

[Chrissaf]

"No doubt Chris can tell why."

.

Have been busy doing edits to my previous post, so only just seen these additional replies. Since Nick's own file check concurs with mine, I can only deduce that Rob's recorded records must have an error in them. The last file amendment was released on the 3rd, and I have rechecked a fresh download again a few minutes ago and today's file (4th) is still the same as the one I downloaded on the 3rd. The one that Rob shows as being the 4th is my 29th Oct file, and the one Rob shows as being the 1st Nov is my 3rd Nov. Not only that, but Rob's Windows Explorer Kb values appear to be transposed between the two dates as well. The maths in my previous edited reply prove that (see below):

.

Maths based on Rob's figures from previous post:

1st Nov 69,322,274 bytes divide by 1024 = 67,698 Kb not 67,688 Kb (rounded figures)

4th Nov 69,311,636 bytes divide by 1024 = 67,688 Kb not 67,698 Kb (rounded figures)

.

Time to close this element of discussion down me thinks, as other's here will start posting critical comments about too much boring detail.

.

EDIT: Looks like Nick (based on his 'I am very annoyed' post above) has finally realised that I was correct with my original post that triggered this all off, about HRMS releasing regular updates without any formal ISO Quality procedures being followed.

.

The large multi-national company I worked for, had a whole department devoted to ISO Quality conformance. All employees had to undertake mandatory ISO training and it was a disciplinary offence not to follow company documented ISO procedures.

[HornbyRailMasterSupport]

Nick_C our release procedures are not "Very poor" and that is, frankly, an inflammatory comment.  How are you qualified to make that statement when you have no idea whether there are changes or not in a program simply because it has a different time-stamp  or file size.  There are several factors which can influence the size of an executable, not just program changes and these can have absolutely no impact on oepration.  And before you ask, we do not have to explain everything we do in respect of the production of an executable, library or setup file.

The fact is that where minor changes are made that will benefit users a new minor revision number is created and you are notified at the top of this forum.  Where more important changes are made a new version number is created e.g. from 1.62 to 1.63.

Speculating over any changes as a result of a file size change is odd, to say the least.

Once again, our release procedures are not poor and we do not need to "Sort out" them out.  We trust you will have more constructive things to say rather than criticise something you know nothing about.  

Sorry if the tone of this post offends you however we are mystified at some of the comment sa very, very tiny minority of forums users make.

 

[MetmanUK]

@HRMS

Having worked in application development for nearly 40 years (I hope that counts as qualified) I take a pragmatic approach to version numbers.  In some circumstances you can get away with minor updates without changing the number but it really depends on the user base.  For RM and the situation where you are correcting bugs on a continuous/daily basis and need user feedback I would respectfully suggest that updating the minor revision numbers is essential so that we all know what is happening and can, if necessary, confirm we are talking about the same program version.  And whilst many times I may have wondered why users/customers may say certain things, I refrained from saying that or putting it in print.

 

BTW, thanks for sorting out my plan editing/saving 'funny' yesterday.

[RB51]

That's odd - for the last few days I have been getting the following issues in design mode and wonder if this is what you reported Metman?

 

1. Sometimes clicking the green arrow does nothing except "shake" the display and others it is fine. The only way I have found out of it is to try to leave the design screen, wait for the pop-up "Do you want to save changes to this plan" click the red X and then the green save tick works.

 

2. If you are deleting several elements (that are not adjacent to each other, where you can "block' delete) you have to save after each deletion otherwise you cannot select any other object, and get caught in the loop at 1 above.

 

R-

[TonyO]

Roger, I get the same problem as you when I try and save changes in design mode. I wonder if the "shake" is signifying that the changes have been saved!