Re: [Rails-users] Fw: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA & RAILS "bug"

[thomas w. h. jr. <twa...@ya...>]

Chris & Aliza, you may both be correct. 


However I'm looking at this as a feature (projected potential tile-lays), already included in the RAILS program, that isn't working correctly.

What RAILS proposed, in this situation, as a potential 'CA' upgrade tile-lay, wouldn't be allowable under any 18XX RAW, that I'm aware of. -TWHJr



________________________________
 From: Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>
To: "thomas wall hannaford, jr." <twa...@ya...> 
Cc: Aliza Panitz <ali...@gm...>; Ken Soo <dr...@ho...>; Paul A Zieske <zi...@ju...>; Paul Zieske <pau...@gm...>; "rai...@li..." <rai...@li...> 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Rails-users] Fw: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA & RAILS "bug"
 

I think Aliza is pointing out that you are making a feature request, not a bug report.


--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM, thomas wall hannaford, jr. <twa...@ya...> wrote:

Aliza, the RAILS program must have an algorithm/code that "projects" possible (?) tile-lays; this needs to be refined so that it only works with accessible current track-tiles that can be upgraded, or accessible current (dead-end?) track-tiles that can be extended. -TWHJr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Aliza Panitz <ali...@gm...>
>To: "thomas wall hannaford, jr." <twa...@ya...> 
>Cc: "rai...@li..." <rai...@li...>; Ken Soo <dr...@ho...>; Paul A Zieske <zi...@ju...>; Paul Zieske <pau...@gm...> 
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [Rails-users] Fw: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA & RAILS "bug"
> 
>
>
>Rails has never claimed to enforce track-laying rules. 
>
>
>On Thursday, February 28, 2013, thomas wall hannaford, jr.  wrote:
>
>Attention RAILS programmers; note the "bug" that I've detected regarding a 'CA' potential upgrade tile-lay suggested by the program.
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Forwarded Message -----
>>From: "thomas wall hannaford, jr." <twa...@ya...>
>>To: "zi...@ju..." <zi...@ju...>; "dr...@ho..." <dr...@ho...> 
>>Cc: "pau...@gm..." <pau...@gm...>; T Wall HannafordJr <twa...@ya...> 
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:01 PM
>>Subject: Re: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA
>> 
>>
>>in OR3b Tom operates the 'GW' (it greens London, withholds $140, takes out a 4th loan [net $60], buys a 2nd T3, and buys-in the 'TCC' Private for $100 -still has $90 in its Treasury); it looks like the 'CA' will beat the 'LPS' into London.
>>
>>
>>Paul, although RAILS shows the 'CA' could green that gentle curve yellow city port (that is to the east of all those whistlestops), that is not legal in '1856' RAW -you need to be able to run a Train on the new track, and the 'CA' still won't connect to that upgraded city.
>>
>>
>>It's now Paul's 'CA' since Keng withheld the 'LPS' in OR3a (maybe Paul was stunned that the 'LPS' withheld in OR3a -he may suffer a TKO with the 'GW' also withholding to start OR3b [let's see if the 'CA' and 'LPS' also withhold in OR3b). -TWHJr
>>
>>