[elvasleis]

In unpacked engine and wagon folders there is some times lately an OpenRails folder.
There is .eng or .wag files in the OpenRails folder.
Does one have to copy those files into the unpacked main folder and over write the files in the main folder for Open Rails running?

[ebnertra000]

Typically the OpenRails folder .eng files complement the regular .eng file, containing OR-specific info in a way that allows MSTS compatibility. If you want (and only use OR), you could splice parts of the OR folder file into the main one, but a full overwrite wouldn't work

[Genma Saotome]

I thought Open Rails 1.0 was a good time to end consideration for MSTS backward compatibility (meaning in practice no more need for that OR folder). Obviously that didn't happen. I still think it needs to be done and IMO the sooner the better. If somebody has got a route that just doesn't work properly in OR they can move it to a mini-route and use train.exe over there. Use it to create activities too if you want. But hanging on to old MSTS constraints in OR (so many years after launching the OR project) is kinda like having a five wheeled bicycle -- all the features of a bicycle, tricycle, and cart in one, with an extra wheel for good measure 'cuz wheels are familiar... and awkward as all heck.

I use the Include() statement now as widely as possible. My .wag files are 12 lines long. My .eng files are between 30 and 50 lines long depending on whether I have left exhaust effects in the .eng to be customized. All of the rest of the parameter lines have bneen standardized for sharing across many .wag and .eng files. What's not to like?

[shadowmane]

Dave, you really should upload your standard include files here. Stuff like brakes and couplers and other little things that are standard on all engines and wagons. I know setting all of this up with include files is a tedious task (especially if you have tons of rolling stock), but it would only have to be done once, and then as you download new stuff, you simply make the change and move on. 10 minutes and you're up and running.

[James Ross]

Genma Saotome, on 26 December 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

I thought Open Rails 1.0 was a good time to end consideration for MSTS backward compatibility (meaning in practice no more need for that OR folder). Obviously that didn't happen. I still think it needs to be done and IMO the sooner the better. If somebody has got a route that just doesn't work properly in OR they can move it to a mini-route and use train.exe over there. Use it to create activities too if you want. But hanging on to old MSTS constraints in OR (so many years after launching the OR project) is kinda like having a five wheeled bicycle -- all the features of a bicycle, tricycle, and cart in one, with an extra wheel for good measure 'cuz wheels are familiar... and awkward as all heck.

I believe we've got the vast majority of things covered with our current considerations within Open Rails, and I would be very hesitant to add any new considerations. Removing the existing considerations will break all the content created that was designed to be compatible with MSTS and OR (while taking advantage of OR features).

If content is only meant to work in OR, you don't need the "OpenRails" folders in nearly every case - you just put the OR-specific values and options in the main file - so this consideration should be performed by content creators.

Genma Saotome, on 26 December 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

I use the Include() statement now as widely as possible. My .wag files are 12 lines long. My .eng files are between 30 and 50 lines long depending on whether I have left exhaust effects in the .eng to be customized. All of the rest of the parameter lines have bneen standardized for sharing across many .wag and .eng files. What's not to like?

It sounds great and when we start work on the wagon and locomotive file formats we will be relying on your work to inform what separations we should provide explicit support for and what should be generic ("Include()" is generic).

[Lamplighter]

Hmm, when the folder is removed, what then with the load animation definition ??? They have the same names, they can not be together.

[copperpen]

If you are referring to the ORTSAnimation, if MSTS is not used, those lines can go into the main eng file. If MSTS is still used, then the folder is not removed.