Augustus Caesar

@St1ngr4y The detail you give from the log mirrors the error message of course but offers a code where he programmers can look for why that is cropping up. They aren't always foolproof though and coding is only as good as the writer who created it. One thing that HAS crossed my mind though is that occasionally this message may be given before the correct time when certain checks are not done first. In other words the check for resultions should be done first then the error message shown if an error is found. If that code is shown prior to the check then that message is incorrectly displayed thus out of context in terms of the code written. Mostly though I would assume some level of accuracy in the code but a spurious call to another routine with an incorrectly placed return could result in this message being shown in error. If your screen is 'normal' and the resolution is correct and larger than that stated by RM then it is not being checked correctly or there is a bug. If your RM 'window' is within the bounds of the full screen and not overlapping edges or the taskbar then that would be or should be sufficient not to cause or create an error message.

Annoying as it is the only thing to do here short term especially is to just clear the message as you say Fishy and continue. Long term? Can't see the issue being resolved by the authors of RM as more important things seem to be on their minds at this point.

@jaguar My own Acer Iconia Tab 8 W1 810 is an older Windows 8.1 model to which I installed Windows 10 to a year or two ago. It can only take 32 bit editions because of the processor and, funnily enough, while I type this I am updating it to Windows 10 v1803 as the 'drive' inside cannot install it as an update. It has to be done fresh from USB. Anyway... while I did a test earlier the whole screen is taken up by RM and, indeed, overlaps it so the bottom and right side of RM are off screen. The resolution for this model is 1280 x 800 which one would think would be OK as you say yourself because RM asks for a mere 1024 x 768. Seems to me that the code needs changing to get around this even though RM asks for it as a minimum recommendation. One would also think that the windows or dialogue boxes wthin RM would be scalable. They aren't to that much of an extent unfortunately. If earlier checks I gave don't work for you consider as has been suggested and contact support to see if they come up with a solution. At this point my tablet is telling me there isn't enough space to create a RAMdisk for the install of 1803. This is bad memory area but there is no bad memory in that tablet. It is also regarded as a bug within tablets, laptops and more that have eMMC memory cards installed instead of a HDD. I will continue to see if I get a result anyway and post here but thus far it isn't going to be quick unfortunately.

@jaguar You may want to try looking at your driver for your laptop. Check video settings too if the driver is nVidia or ATI. I run my own eLink and RM from a widescreen laptop but when I use a tablet (8 inch and Windows 10) for testing I have the same problem. This doesn't mean it is not fixable but generally the program will read the resolution of your screen and compare with internal code to see if it is fully compatible with running RM at its optimum settings even for a smaller screen. It could be a driver issue as stated or that the program is misreading your sreensize and giving the warning. It's trying to fit everything on screen without you having part of one of the controllers, for example, off screen slightly. I've not bothered checking this one out as I said I use the tablet for testing only but may take a look at this closer when I get the chance. It may well be something to add to the Help Site I run for RM as well. Not much to go on but at least it gives a hint or clue as to where to start looking.

@Tarabuses That's the whole point of the sweep. We don't know, they don't know and apparently no-one else knows either. If we are to believe (a little like some conspiracy thingy) that Hornby DO actually know but are keeping it under wraps for a while then the fun part is guessing when it will arrive. It brightens folk up and ultimately disappoints when their guess goes by unfulfilled but hey... what's the harm? Have a go... you know you wanna... 😉

Looks like everyone and his dog/cat/gerbil/goldfish and all else has given up guessing with this thing... As there are only five left to see if one of us are right I will make it six... 18 May 2020... plucked from nowhere in particular but at least to give 2020 a chance. Hold onto your hats.....

Brilliant genius... that's all there is to say about these things. Very well thought out and I can imagine plenty modellers on here having a pop at this one. Thanks for the link Chris... I note since watching the video you have added a bit more re your own version. I did think the mains part wouldn't be necessary and, like you, I would leave that out. To save any research for someone who wants to try this (like me haha) can you supply details of sizes of materials used etc. in your version with the UK bits and bobs? I'm sure someone would ask if I didn't. 😉 A bit further on from the video I see this line... "Woolworths is a supermarket located throughout Australia." Yeah? So that's why they shut down here... a better sun-filled life in Aus... 😎

Good to know Triumph... good feedback so at least it confirms they work.

My first contribution to this page surprisingly and a humble purchase to boot, but, in some eyes, will be seen as essential... The Peco servicing cradle... Now how humble was that? Next time I will try and put something super duper up... although my wallet might have other ideas 😮

@midgetman The patches that Triumph alludes to are here: https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/downloads/view/index/cat/7/ The link will open to a new tab in your browser so you won't lose site of this page. Let us know if the files help or not... it's always nice to get some feedback. Welcome to the forum...

Not quite an old artilleryman Fishy... not quite old yet and not the other either 😆 However, with as many shots at this as is seen on the list it does look like rapid fire of sorts. Yet I have no more dates to look forward to where LD may one day surface. Should I have another round of artillery fire then? I'll do a max of three if allowed by my 'competitors' 😉 Here's one to get started... 12 September 2018.

The tyres... never thought of that one at the time of posting. Further good advice from those in the know.

First thing to do here is basically take it apart (quite easy but remember what goes where) and see how much dust and debris there is around the wheels and motor unit. Also check that the cogs are catching each other and are able to drive the wheels properly. Last one for now is to lightly oil (not 3-in-1) the motor and check the brushes are not worn down. These are held beneath two springs on the motor and are in turn behind two arms which hold the latter in place. The springs are quite fine but easily lost when removing them so be careful. Of course, if you already know all this, then a different issue is at play. But come back to confirm or do the checks above and let us know what comes of it.

I rather think we are closer to determining whether or not this unit is definitely at fault or not. If it can be tested again on the Vista machine using the detail offered above re the 'Demo' section and the proper driver to at least ID the unit correctly then that at least SHOULD tell us at which point it fails or whether it succeeds obviously. That point of failure should be noted so we can go to the next logical step. Attempting to update in Windows 10 even will give a possible failure point too and this also should be noted. If there are similarities about the failure points on BOTH attempts then this should also give a clue to what is wrong with the unit or no. If, as I suspect along with RAF, the pic chip is at fault then a warranty fix or replacement should be allowed by Hornby whether under any warranty or not. This is due to a fault which is extremely unlikely to be caused by human error or intervention. Therefore a manufacturing failure which should be very easy to convince Hornby of if the details are carefully taken from this thread and used to give them a picture of what you have actually tried to achieve re the update. Good luck with the attempts.... let us know what happens.

@pidder You say that the Elite showed up in Vista as 'a very odd item' when you tried on your brother-in-law's system... From that I would immediately gather, given the history of this topic, that the updates ARE getting to the Elite and are beginning to overwrite the firmware but are subsequently failing to complete the job. I say this because it is from the firmware that the name of the hardware is read from the BIOS chip that will be updated. Now, if the update NEVER begins the process of writing to the chip then the name of the hardware would be found by Vista or any other OS. Granted it may require the driver to CORRECTLY identify the Elite but at least some form of description would be pretty standard... i.e. ‘CD RS-232 Emulation Demo’ under 'Other devices' for example. You said it was some strange description... if it was not the Demo that I list above then this means the update has begun the process of writing to the chip but has failed to complete the job. If that is true then it seems I was correct a while back when saying that other chips which would aid the writing process to start and finish (like a form of cache if you like) would be the likely failure point. If that is not the case then the firmware chip itself may be guilty of being corrupted beyond any repair but that would then tell me that the chip was already defective without any possible reason to detect or understand its future fail. I would still be very tempted to give Hornby (HCC) another whirl and argue that point. That, however, is your call obviously. However, I have now included a section on updating the Elite using Windows 10 on my Help Site https://octaviancs.com/railmaster/updatingelite.php?id=updatingelite. Now, whilst you have probably given all scenarios a whirl already, there is no harm in taking a look and attempting the absolute step by step process I include. The process is the same for v1.43 and v1.44 of the firmware. The Vista driver is included as stated earlier in the thread within the relevant software but is not required at this stage. I would also argue with Hornby that as you are entitled to update its hardware by normal means to obtain maximum use and to keep up to date with new functionality etc. that it is their hardware that is failing with their firmware update and that you have attempted all reasonable means of sorting this yourself without resorting to physical means of opening up the box (maybe?) and that this can be proved by your attempts at following procedures on here by many with relevant expertise in this area. By stating that they may take another look at this box for you and offer any one of many procedures to take this forward and see you with a working box. You could also quote many parts of this thread where I and others have offered much help and advice which, under normal circumstances, would have given a definitive fix and good outcome. Hope this helps.

Bringing us away from a line of conversation that could go where it need not I safely take us back to this topic... The total number of ages thus far (I leave out spurious or misleading ones) declared is 90. Of those 90 some had to be worked out due to dates posted to the forum... The total for those ages so far added is: 5,278. I ignored months offered up and rounded to integars. The average age of the members who posted here is therefore: 58.6444 recurring. The oldest is 87 years young and when you collate the numbers you'll be surprised how many are 50 and below. So what's next? Are we now to work out how far above and below the average we are? If so, I am 3 months above the average age for posters to this thread. It may be safe to assume this will be extremely close to the average age of everyone on the forum as not all would post here.

It did 2e0... ...but the powers of resurrection were too much and thus it continues. Any more of it and we'll all be zombies before we know it. Before our time too... 😮

LVIII.I One of young pups on here it seems... plenty time to play trains and catch up to everyone else who have many years ahead of myself after I took a 30 year break! How sad is that? Now, don't go getting out the violins or anything... :-)

No problem Hedley... glad you are all sorted re activation.

@hedley_reynolds The reason why two anti-virus products should not be run on the same computer is because one will see the definition files of the other and believe that those are viruses in their own right. The definition file contains strings of data that are read (like a database) by the main program that downloads them frequently and will use them as it should. However, a second program will detect those strings and invariably will want to quarantine or wipe them out thus stopping the first program working properly. Some anti spyware and malware programs are now including their own anti-virus tools and they are now clashing with each other as well. If they do then each one should inform you of the possible clash when installed. What probably happened to you in your case is that both programs will be a trial (or one could be a full feature program) and you are offered the choice of whichever to use. The only other explanation is that one is a trial version and the other is merely a browser protection version of the main program. There are various instances of this so from the text I offer up you at least should see what was installed to your machine. No manufacturer or retailer will install two full AV products on a new machine ready for sale. Part of that is for product endorsement by vendors who wish to see their product on particular machines or at least on those where an offer is good enough.

@pidder As stated on a new thread also by RAF there is a new update (v1.44) that you may consider which works well apparently according to early posters and first time it seems. You may want to give that a go. Here's the thread, if you ain't already seen it... https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/forum/elite-v144-is-out/?p=1

Four things you COULD do if you have decided not to pursue this issue any longer in the way of attempted updates... Keep it in case you get another and it too has a fault which may need a part salvageable from the one you have now... that's not being sarcastic in any way but just offering a simple choice. Literally open it up if you feel like throwing it away and looking for a part that is damaged and ready to replace. Take it to a shop or a fellow modeller at your local model railway club and ask them to see if they can do the update for you. Even if they charge a minimal fiver or tenner it's going to be worth it. Email or call the group secretary to seek their advice. Have a few more more shots at getting it going, esp. on an earlier version of Windows. If you have a copy of WinXP and can load it onto your hard drive and place Win10 alongside then use XP to try the update. Even Win Vista or 7 is better than nothing. You probably won't need a key for WinXP as you will be doing only one job and then get rid. Just a few ideas but personally I wouldn't throw it away at all. I don't horad stuff but do keep things that are going to prove useful in future.

@RAF I accept your use of the term bricked to describe an Elite via an update of its firmware that basically breaks the Elite but does not put it beyond use. However, in my role with IT all my colleagues, past and present, I have always known 'bricked' to be a term that describes a piece of equipment that cannot be used, firmware update or no, that is beyond use and therefore only worthy of one thing... throwing away. Hence the terminology of using the word bricked. So in that sense it is used slightly incorrectly on here. I have no issue with that of course and as the term has been utilised for so long I will look at using it in the same context as yourselves as attempting to change it seems a tad daft and not likely to succeed anyway. Grrr... :-) Seriously, I'm glad you point it out so at least I know what you will all mean when using the term hereon in... @pidder Always worth another shot even when all seems lost... good luck.

No problem pidder... none at all. It's not as important as maybe keeping things positive for you with the Elite and not giving up when even a small chance may get a result. I undersatnd you have tried on two machines to get things working but if you get a chance to try with maybe even taking the unit to a model shop who can do a possible update for you using an earlier version of Windows it is worth a shout even trying that maybe? Am I clutching at straws? Well, maybe a little but if it works you will have a unit you can depend upon for some time longer than you thought. Just giving options....

It would be absolutely apparent to myself that if you can get the progress bar to reach the end of the update procedure only to fail at the last then what I say about the failure of a firmware chip is not likely to apply to yourself unless an intermittent fault is not all that obvious. With the earlier Elites this failure was common and I had a few myself when my unit was based upon v1.3 I believe when bought (I may be wrong and it may be earlier but thus far that is the version I remember). However, persistent attempts and fiddling with all kinds eventually got each new update installed. This latest version installed first time as stated and I haven't had the unit out of its box for a couple of years as I now use the eLink and RM.. I don't want to stomp over old ground and will leave this in your hands but if it were myself I would lay down some scenarios and record what I did each time and compare each attempt with others to see if common gorund can be dug up. Sometimes, you never know, something may just hit home and a certain combo of situations may just do the trick. A bricked Elite though? I would find that very difficult to swallow even in your situation as an update should not do that. It will always accept an update another way if all is well inside. An older OS may help at a push. It depends upon what Hornby did when they looked at it and why they say 'uneconomical' to repair. Have you considered asking WHY they said that? I would want to know but you have been digging at this for a while and maybe later on down the road you may want to take a fresh look.