[YoRyan]

 ErickC, on 10 July 2020 - 09:17 AM, said:

The benefit to keeping the S format is that all of the available programs can export to it.

So first of all, nobody is proposing removing the .S loader, just as you currently have the option to use either .DDS or .ACE.

 ErickC, on 10 July 2020 - 09:17 AM, said:

If the S format is capable of supporting new features, there's no point in changing formats just to look cool and modern because we're using some perceived "standard."

Well, there is exactly one commercial game in the world that uses .S. I can appreciate that people are attached to their workflows, but you must admit that having this format as the only possible option seriously handicaps ORTS's viability in the eyes of new content creators.

And frankly, even if we wanted to extend .S, I am not sure if we have the technical expertise available.

 ErickC, on 10 July 2020 - 09:17 AM, said:

-The techwarrior iCrowd™ Dudebros feel it makes the sim seem less "contemporary" and doesn't give it "cool feels brah"

I'm sorry if I offended you somewhere.

[ErickC]

 YoRyan, on 10 July 2020 - 09:35 AM, said:

So first of all, nobody is proposing removing the .S loader, just as you currently have the option to use either .DDS or .ACE.

I understand that part.

Quote

Well, there is exactly one commercial game in the world that uses .S.

There's exactly one commercial game in the world that uses SCASM, BGL, CLD, and MDL. What's your point?

Quote

I can appreciate that people are attached to their workflows, but you must admit that having this format as the only possible option seriously handicaps ORTS's viability in the eyes of new content creators.

How so? What functions can other formats perform that S can't, given that it can conceivably perform any future functions we need it to?

Quote

And frankly, even if we wanted to extend .S, I am not sure if we have the technical expertise available.

Again, how so? What do we need the sim to do for models that that it presently can't? I develop for other platforms, too, and what I have learned is that all we're really missing out on is more advanced materials and the ability to hard-code custom animations. But the thing is, we already add secondary maps to existing models in both MSTS and OR using parameters in the SD file, and you can always script animations externally. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, even though MSFS models can have custom hard-coded animations, the sim processes animations more efficiently when the model only contains code that tags it for an external module to control it. We already basically do this for signal models, so why can't we do it for other models and skip the middle man of adding code into models entirely?

As far as materials go, I should point out that the only major difference, for example, between FS9 materials, and FSX/P3D materials is that there are more map slots and additional parameters in FSX/P3D. The sim interprets those parameters to cause the maps to do what it wants them to do. Half of the slots we use in the MSFS world don't even match what the sim uses them for - lightmaps in FS9 were defined in the "specular" slot...! While that might seem like a digression into irrelevant territory, what it highlights is that we don't necessarily need to hard-code these parameters into the model, and working out a new format when any program that a new developer is going to use can export in the existing format is... honestly kind of pointless. Even if the format is a "standard."

Quote

I'm sorry if I offended you somewhere.

Goodness, no, I'm just a smartass by nature, I'm not trying to be malevolent. Well, maybe a little. :D

I'm just pointing out the fact that, considering that most games already use proprietary formats, that our format is already well-understood, can be exported from any existing modelling program, already has a number of tools for compressing, decompressing, and viewing, and can conceivably do what it needs to to in the future, adding additional formats seems more like an act of vanity than an act of functionality.

[cjakeman]

 Genma Saotome, on 09 July 2020 - 10:07 AM, said:

For clarity, when you say "I still favour the use of translators from an MSTS-format file to an OR-format file...." do you have in mind only a conversion from SIMIS to .json, a conversion of KUJU's specification of data to something new, or both?

Both. Just replacing SIMIS with the JSON equivalent would not be worth the effort. The change will give us a chance to improve the organisation of content, which James wrote much about.

Also the translator(s) would handle MSTS workarounds, such as 'bogie with a single axle' which would not be needed in this "brave new world" but get translated into a recognised object.

[YoRyan]

 ErickC, on 10 July 2020 - 09:51 AM, said:

There's exactly one commercial game in the world that uses SCASM, BGL, CLD, and MDL. What's your point?

Those formats are present not just in one game, but a dozen in a long-running franchise, backed by the awesome power of Microsoft - who, incidentally, are expected to abandon them in this year's new Flight Simulator reboot, because they recognize the value of off-the-shelf solutions.

Kuju's platform has been dead since 2002 and we have volunteers to maintain it, not professionals.

 ErickC, on 10 July 2020 - 09:51 AM, said:

How so? What functions can other formats perform that S can't, given that it can conceivably perform any future functions we need it to?

"Conceivably" being the operative word here, and that's the rub. It can't handle those functions now, and in the decade+ history of Open Rails, nobody has been willing or able to implement them, despite several new exporters being developed. Do we have the resources to design the specification, update Open Rails's loader, and then update every .S tool to support the new features? Not from what I can tell.

 ErickC, on 10 July 2020 - 09:51 AM, said:

I'm just pointing out the fact that, considering that most games already use proprietary formats, that our format is already well-understood, can be exported from any existing modelling program, already has a number of tools for compressing, decompressing, and viewing, and can conceivably do what it needs to to in the future, adding additional formats seems more like an act of vanity than an act of functionality.

The "act of functionality" would be gaining new features that other formats have that .S does not.

By the way, we would break all of the .S compression, decompression, viewing, and exporting tools by changing the format. Some of them are open-source and could be updated, but for proprietary programs, this would not be possible.

[Genma Saotome]

 cjakeman, on 10 July 2020 - 09:56 AM, said:

Both. Just replacing SIMIS with the JSON equivalent would not be worth the effort.

Thank you.

 cjakeman, on 10 July 2020 - 09:56 AM, said:

The change will give us a chance to improve the organisation of content, which James wrote much about.

Yeah, well that's 9 years old (lordy, how time flies by) and on reviewing it I see no reason to withdraw any of the reservations I voiced. The advocary of versioning might make installations easier but they get in the way of all versioning -- most new versions of things are distributed under a different name than the original. I idea of doing copy/replace between zip files is going to be a problem for most.

Versioning is a hard problem to solve.

[YoRyan]

For the record, I also support a new method of organizing content, but I cannot say what the specifics should look like. Therefore, I am not explicitly designing it into the JSON consist format, and if I write a converter, it will be, until a consensus is reached, a manual process.

[cjakeman]

 cjakeman, on 09 July 2020 - 09:58 AM, said:

As I see it, as soon as James finishes the MonoGame merge, then the Testing version from just before the merge will become a new release Open Rails v1.3.2 which will be the last one to be compatible with Windows XP.

The version merged with MonoGame will become Open Rails v1.4 and both versions will be offered on the website with installers.

Just an update on this.

James tells me that he has "finished reviewing Peter Guylas's original conversion to Monogame and has created a draft PR identifying the rest of the work comprising issues he has spotted during the review which he will now investigate".

[Weter]

At current moment (I've read and understand 20 first posts)
I want to say the next:
They often ask: "what sence, when scientists from different countries meet together somewhere at international conferentions, if the only things, that they are really do there, is drinking and chatting?"
But the truth is, that dedicated persons, situated at some place are creating specific athmosphere, when ideas appear, advance and give more perfect and higher-level ideas. Yes, even during chatting. The human intellect can do so.

ET forum seems to me such matrix in context of RR-simulation as hobby (not professional/training)

I found, that there are people at post-Soviet part of World, that, for example, create tram simulator (Sim+object editor+world editor+route+manuals packed to 1,3Mb *.zip) for training their programming skills (delphi) in context of developing system, which manages the track-reservation function; or guys, that not enjoyed with MSTS functionality and working on developing RussianTrainSimulator, that accepts MSTS content, but adds missing functions and features; or others, who design new signalling system for railroad simulation...
What if all of this knowledge could be shared somewhere.
Single effort always not so effective.
But many people are continue to live with dream to ride their own railway-of dream (wether, from past, or present\ home, or foreign)

[conductorchris]

Hmmm. Maybe when the virus is done with us, it would help to have some kind of open rails gathering with chatting and fun?
Or maybe we should do it now over zoom?

[Weter]

After reading 80 posts, I have many things to think about.
I'm going to read this thread all and to think again, but now, a couple of notes:

Here, someone (Dave, IIRC) mentioned, that at volunteer's projects everyone does only, that he want... but it seems like true-as this kind of activity don't give money, spends alot of time and even much more effort-so the reason may be only one-the passion of soul and strong interest, but this way any of such devs can achive significant results (pitty,that it can be rare)
My suggestion-more care about new members of community. Dave is right.

Other thing-is the compatibility with MSTS. I agree with Gerry-probably there was made enough in that direction. I agree with Dave: the "only-compatibility goal" can bury even very good project, and do so very slow, insidiously and unnoticed for all, masking as good tend.

It's time to make MSTS-content compatible with ORTS (yes, the people are needed), but no doing ORTS compatible with MSTS - that stage has realy passed. I should say.

I'm thinking about refactoring of *.eng *.wag *.sms and *.cvf-files:
They contain mistakes, migrating from the very start at early 2000-th, as copy-pasted without any mind pieces of code, from one model to another, as MSTS ignored that, and authors didn't mention, or didn't know it, but ORTS does note; they contain inaccuracy and excess symbols, they are different-formatted - so brushing-up them is a kind of routine, that not interesting to no one, exept who wants to this model will work nice under ORTS.
How can the result be achived, if try to force doing this work that ones, whos soul doesn't "rezonate" with this problems?
Let's turn back to Peter Newell's suggestion to free coder's shoulders from routine.
What about anouncement, that modified for ORTS versions of MSTS-files are welcome?
(please note, however, that I'm not familiar with copyright law, so this offer, maybe, need addition thinking about)

At 1-st quarter of 2017, it was mentioned here about RTS(Russian Train Sim), and SP 0-6-0 said, he had conversation with its author.
Three years after - where the results??? Who was interested on this else???
At this time, that man(a.k.a. TED) generated (and I think, implemented) some very interesting ideas: for instance-the capability for sim to chose only corresponding tracksection.dat, instead of install-directory! Can you imagine, how much disk space can it save, if we need no to have plenty of mini-routes with their own copyes of GLOBAL files(80MB minimum for each)!?

Where is Taras Bereznjak with his idea of drawing the skeleton of route at 2-d editor and then, debug the signalling issues there too, launching sim at special mode(we hAve dispatcher-window now, so thanks)?
Note! It was implemented at his TrumGame at 2009!
Or getting-off the cab to throw the switch manually?
(now we hAve only brakeman's camera (pretty dumb shifted clone of headout-camera), tyed to wagon's body and activated by 6 button)

Where is Danil Ryabkow-the talented content and activity creator?

I like very much the ideas by Peter Newell - to encourage contributors, and by Dave Nelson - to assign a mentor and manage each new hire's way here.
I want to say "Thanks" to James Ross for his colossal work.

---

I've finished the review of this thread.
Althow, the discussion has deviated from initial subject after~80 posts, I was very pleased, that so many THINKING people are still care about ORTS further destiny.
I hope, This project will have good future.

Dave, it seems to me, You're very wise man and this forces to all around to be vigilant, when You warn them about possible degradation in future.
Also, as You know many about Japanes philosophy, what can You say about their "fresh head" conception in context of present situation around ORTS?

Talking with Markus and Oleg, I have found, that the "iron-curtain" between ex-Soviet and Western parts of world persists, although the cold-war gone to past.
The ideas and knowledge encounter very hard resistance, passing thru that virtual border. It's not logical atall, as I suppose.
At this moment, I can see, that many people there consider, that "ORTS is something, that yankee make for themselfs" and, it seems to me, no one here interested, which features were implemented by trainsim.ru community to improve and extend life of favorite MSTS-content (at least for period, until it can be enhanced to ORTS-standards).
What I offer to both sides - is to throw-off the snobbism and false-pride: to stop dividing all stuff, related to rail-simming by "our" and "bourgoise" - there; and more active interest about russian development of railsim-stuff - here (although most of them don't like to speak English, there are plenty of online translating tools today to conversate with each other).
Briefly-to turn face towards each other and shake hands.
This, after all IS OUR COMMON HOBBY, OUR COMMON PASSION, and COMMON KIND OF TECHIC-the railroads, connecting the world for 2.5 centuries.
Again: I don't see here any catastrophe yet and all is upon your hands.