[Eldorado.Railroad]

James Ross, on 06 January 2019 - 06:58 AM, said:

It doesn't make the slightest difference what web, paint programs or other software does; only what MSTS does. If we're reading the value differently to MSTS, it should be fixed. That's all there is to it.

In other words, it doesn't make the slightest difference what MSTS does, it should follow what web, paint programs or other software do because content makers do not create their work in MSTS/Open Rails! I think we should try to follow what MSTS/ORTS have been using for well over a decade now (example, Light section in .eng file, etc). which is exactly what web, paint programs or other software do. Anyways, it was a bug and Carlo fixed it. Works great now.

[James Ross]

Eldorado.Railroad, on 09 January 2019 - 07:40 PM, said:

In other words, it doesn't make the slightest difference what MSTS does, it should follow what web, paint programs or other software do because content makers do not create their work in MSTS/Open Rails! I think we should try to follow what MSTS/ORTS have been using for well over a decade now (example, Light section in .eng file, etc). which is exactly what web, paint programs or other software do. Anyways, it was a bug and Carlo fixed it. Works great now.

I am having a very hard time understanding what you're saying here. :unsure:

Inside an MSTS file, if we do not read the data in the same way as MSTS, it will not work. It doesn't matter what format MSTS uses, but we must understand the file in the same way as MSTS.

I don't know how you think we can change MSTS to follow what the web and paint programs use, or why it matters when MSTS is reading its own file format and not a web or paint program format.