[Kovarex] [2.0.15] Signalparmeter in train interrupt gets changed by renaming train stop with signalparameter in its name
[Kovarex] [2.0.15] Signalparmeter in train interrupt gets changed by renaming train stop with signalparameter in its name
In our MP game we set up a LTN-like system with interrupts. One of these contains a Signal paramter (the green one) to assign a pickup and a dropoff for the desired item ("Signal parameter"--). In a Blueprint for the dropoff station, the station Name was also ("Signal parameter"--), wich was not intended btw. it was supposed to be the purple parameter "0". When renaming the station to the desired Item manualy ("item-icon"--), the interrupt for the Trains got changed to the manualy changed one from the station, wich send every train in the system to the recently renamed station.
Re: [Kovare] [2.0.15] Signalparmeter in train interrupt gets changed by renaming train stop with signalparameter in its
Still happens in 2.0.28.
Also, would be nice to be able to rename station name in the interrupt instead of recreating the condition for new entry
Also, would be nice to be able to rename station name in the interrupt instead of recreating the condition for new entry
Re: [Kovarex] [2.0.15] Signalparmeter in train interrupt gets changed by renaming train stop with signalparameter in its
I don't know what to say.
This result might be a bit unexpected but the game is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
When you rename a station it just changes all references to that station. It is kind of weird to have station which uses these special signal, and even named the same way as existing pattern, but in that case, I would just say it is ok to keep it as is, instead of making some new special rules.
This result might be a bit unexpected but the game is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
When you rename a station it just changes all references to that station. It is kind of weird to have station which uses these special signal, and even named the same way as existing pattern, but in that case, I would just say it is ok to keep it as is, instead of making some new special rules.