[R H Steele]

I brought this up a while back. Is there a possiblity of making certain options "Route Specifc". For instance, the distant mountains and model instancing could both be tied to a route when it loaded. These options are dependent upon the complexity of the route and the users hardware.
I now have to change some options to suit the particular route I'm loading.
Wouldn't it be better to have that "recalled" by OR when loading a route?
Perhaps, it is too soon in the development phase (pre Ver1.0) to include this. Perhaps later?

[captain_bazza]

It's a great idea - in theory, but the route author cannot know which, of a multitude of configurations, system the end-user/s has/have. It is far simpler to leave the choice of options to the individual end-user, maybe based on alternative configuration suggestions in the read-me.

Cheers Bazza.

PS I confess, I am a control freak and like//need to press buttons to suit my whims. http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/curiousPC.gif

[Lindsayts]

I think what would fill the bill is for OR to save a text file per route, detailing how the options have been set for the route that is loaded, this file is read and the options set accordingly.

Options to include, viewing distance, model instancing, max object distance set to viewing distance, distant mountains (at least).

This would make life a great deal easier as the setup for best OR look/performance for say the "SOB" or the freeware "Bernina Bahn", varies greatly from the "Adelaide Hills and SE" or the "VR NorthEast 1950s". And is something of a pain to have to go to the options menu and change every thing between routes.

Lindsay

[R H Steele]

captain_bazza, on 27 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

It's a great idea - in theory, but the route author cannot know which, of a multitude of configurations, system the end-user/s has/have. It is far simpler to leave the choice of options to the individual end-user, maybe based on alternative configuration suggestions in the read-me.

Cheers Bazza.
PS I confess, I am a control freak and like//need to press buttons to suit my whims. http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/curiousPC.gif

That was my intention, to leave it up to the end user to have "route specific" options chosen for routes that OR would remember, cached somewhere, only called up when the user chose to run the route. The end user would have to set these options in the first place, Presumeably everyone would have different options suiting their tastes and also suited to the hardware than ran.
Definitely, poor wording on my part.

[R H Steele]

Lindsayts, on 27 October 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

I think what would fill the bill is for OR to save a text file per route, detailing how the options have been set for the route that is loaded, this file is read and the options set accordingly.

Options to include, viewing distance, model instancing, max object distance set to viewing distance, distant mountains (at least).

This would make life a great deal easier as the setup for best OR look/performance for say the "SOB" or the freeware "Bernina Bahn", varies greatly from the "Adelaide Hills and SE" or the "VR NorthEast 1950s". And is something of a pain to have to go to the options menu and change every thing between routes.

Lindsay

There you go, perfect! It would have been easier if I had written that. You made it through my verbal shrubbery to reach the precise destination.
Edit: The "signal light glow" could also be in this category for certain routes, then the user would not have to remember to tick or untick the box.
I don't know if I was more obtuse, abstruse, profuse, effuse....I did confuse.

[R H Steele]

How about this, a new options tab entitled routes.. You pick the specific route like an installation profile is added - only this if for routes. On the tab are all the boxes for route options. OR then remembers which boxes are checked when the route is added and loads those options when the route is run.

[James Ross]

R H Steele, on 27 October 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

I brought this up a while back. Is there a possiblity of making certain options "Route Specifc". For instance, the distant mountains and model instancing could both be tied to a route when it loaded. These options are dependent upon the complexity of the route and the users hardware.
I now have to change some options to suit the particular route I'm loading.
Wouldn't it be better to have that "recalled" by OR when loading a route?
Perhaps, it is too soon in the development phase (pre Ver1.0) to include this. Perhaps later?

My question any time someone asks something like this is: what are you changing and why are you changing it per-route? Without understanding the problem you have, we can't be sure we'll end up with the right solution. :)

[caldrail]

There was a bunch of stuff in MSTS that was route specific, such as wire height, voltage, distant mountains, gravity (!!) and so forth. Some never got used, such as settings for signal sets and periods. The concept is useful and I see no reason why Open Rails shouldn't make use of it, as well using this facility perhaps to allow route options that go further than MSTS. I'm sort of speculating a bit here, but say your config text file enables scripts, settings, folders, dll's, or such things.

[James Ross]

caldrail, on 28 October 2014 - 05:02 AM, said:

There was a bunch of stuff in MSTS that was route specific, such as wire height, voltage, distant mountains, gravity (!!) and so forth. Some never got used, such as settings for signal sets and periods. The concept is useful and I see no reason why Open Rails shouldn't make use of it, as well using this facility perhaps to allow route options that go further than MSTS. I'm sort of speculating a bit here, but say your config text file enables scripts, settings, folders, dll's, or such things.

That is something completely different - those "options" are for the route creator, not the user. They are already supported by Open Rails where it makes sense. The discussion here is (AFAICT) about letting users change game (not route) options per-route, such as viewing distance.

[Lindsayts]

James Ross, on 28 October 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

My question any time someone asks something like this is: what are you changing and why are you changing it per-route? Without understanding the problem you have, we can't be sure we'll end up with the right solution. :)

Lets take three routes I regularly drive, the freeware "Bernina Bahn", this has distant mountains and high scenery density. Then there is the Adelaide hills and SE also Vic North east 1950's, neither of these have distant mountains and both have a relatively low object count per tile. Both these latter routes greatly benefit from a long viewing distance (I use 10 kilometers) and LOD distance set to max viewing distance (Note 1). Whereas for the Bernina Bahn a viewing distance of over 3000 metres will slow OR down way to much. LOD distance set max viewing distance appears to produce a similiar effect so for this route both of these are turned off.

I have tried the option that varies the viewing distance to keep the frame rate constant but this option (at this stage anyway) does not produce as good a result as manual tuning.

Note 1: These options make a massive difference to the Vic North East 1950's route actual changing the nature of the route completely. The line actual proceeds up a shallow valley, with OR's and MSTS's regular viewng distance, the hills making the valley sides are not visible, they are though with a viewing distance of 10 kilometres.

Basicly changing the options config between routes allows on a better train sim experience allowing one to tailor OR to suite the route concerned. Generally the longer the viewing distance the better, on high object count per tile routes though (most newer routes) such viewing distances produce an unacceptabely low frame rate.

Lindsay