[PerryPlatypus]

Even if it's not "graphic" derailments, it seems only logical that, if we have people like Peter who have invested countless hours into very realistic "derailment detection" on the physics side for string-lining, long/short car combinations, etc. that we also have the option to enforce the consequences of those derailments. It's extremely un-satisfying to have an error message that says your train has stringlined, but no visual evidence of that, and no game-ending consequences. How can we claim to be a simulation if we do not have the ability (which could be turned on/off by the user) to represent show-stopping derailments?

I feel like some of the OR team feels that it is somehow disrespectful to portray even very simplistic derailments. I would argue the exact opposite - if we claim to be creating a train simulation rather than just a "game", then it's disrespectful to not portray the consequences of poor train handling, exceeding the speed limit, or whatever it may be that should be causing a derailment.

It's not a matter of being some megalomaniac that just wants to see trains go BOOM. It's a desire to see realistic consequences of not doing things the right way.

I have to imagine that the coding for some very simplistic derailments can't be THAT difficult. MSTS did it over 20 years ago, and Open Rails has exceeded the abilities of MSTS in nearly every other facet.

[ATW]

Well I like how this subject has returned and I too agree with one expectations which can be optional. There's lots of disciplines needed when handling or misplacing cars in a train besides just a message then it lets you keep going.

I have made and continue in my spare time away from the real thing built custom number of coeff dimension types but a number of things have paused and swap interest in physics or projects. Take example I invested in a control stand but that Stand just works in 1.2 and have to use Raildriver on new versions but am happy till more updates come along.

Thought of a Wish list for this year but I just came to the thaught couple of days ago but on subject but when will ORTS related to derailments are going to atleast give disciplines for coupling speed/force limits or even as mentioned a while ago running off a deadend track but without a bumper/buffer? Those buffers in real life don't always derail a train unless an amount of force or speed is exceeded as I have this week dealt with a buffer and fitting cars in a track just so they don't side swipe at a switch and sure enough nothing broke. Other disciplines that causes some derailments is run through misaligned switches but not always as Spring switches exist and derail the train if you reverse back if not properly lined even under the train facing point direction. Evaluations is good enough but running through a red line misaligned track needs to be counted a number of times as is how many cars or times a derailment has accured in a act.

I have years ago in a ORTS build seen a short sized wag/eng derail and all my opinion for visual derailments is have special orientation code be built in a special eng/wag parameter coeff so if one doesn't want to see it so severe or visual a scene then tone down the variable orientation COG twists,flip turn (X-Y-Z numbers) on affected cars or just do not add the parameter to a given eng/wag then no visuals will be seen on that affected stock if set at 0 except a default code of 1-3 foot off the rail. It's simple as how the coeff in this subject is related to safe dimension parameter practices added to stock to reduce derailments to realism or cure cheat it away to not see that message.

[ATW]

In addition when Derail Coeff was introduced lot panicked and was anoyed getting that message and yet still needed to learn how to get stock or even routes in compliance. But since its been over a year most that probably got their stock in compliance now want to get disciplines so why not the next level? Whether next level of dicipline coding is a visual, evaluation recordings, coupling/bumper limits etc, their needs to be new addition to move and exceed completly away from wanting something that was offered in MSTS?

[Weter]

Quote

Derailments keep you on your toes and make you try adhere to speed limits, but an option to turn them off like in MSTS would be required.

Agree with Jonatan.

What about Peter's achievement in derailment physics, there might be an errors, as it's still WIP (e.g. I've tried articulated steamers by Derek Miller and got many error messages about derailment - I suppose, they are erroneous, because yet of not finished Peter's work) so I agree as well: we need to control derailment consequences appearance: will or won't these cases to end the game. But seeing error messages is good at anytime.

[ATSF3751]

I agree with the above and if derailments are not in the cards then I believe people will start straying away from Open Rails and start going to other platforms like so many have already. MSTS was made over 22 years ago and was the top Train Simulator at the time. I can not say that Open Rails is that now as Trainz and Train Simulator has taken over that spot by far.

Yes Open Rails has an edge when it comes to physics, ease of customization and a few other aspects but lacking in so many others like eye candy, graphics and other features that go into a simulator then just physics. If the Open Rails team doesn't get there act together in other ways besides physics I believe Open Rails will be dead in the water in a matter of a few years.

Yes Open Rails will always be a work in progress as many gaming platforms are but we need to keep up with the times as we are in the 21st century with much more capability then we did 22 years ago when MSTS was first released.

This may be hard to process for some but I am telling everyone how it is! Being one of the younger ones on the forums I know how gaming is now a days and Open Rails is treading water but not going anywhere and has been for quite awhile when it comes to a lot of aspects in today's gaming world.

We need to get the younger generation back into Open Rails but it will be hard to do so with other games that are so much more advanced when it comes to graphics and eye candy. Just my two cense and hope some see where I am coming from and don't just blow this post off as I would like to see Open Rails succeed for years to come.

Open Rails has potential to blow both Train Simulator and Trainz out of the water if we were to work on graphics and a few other minor aspects that need to be upgraded and get away from MSTS analogy from 22 years ago!

I would love to see Open Rails have the physics that it currently has and the graphics of Train Simulator New World but I do not see that ever happening the way Open Rails is managed.

Brandon

[Weter]

Upd^

[Weter]

There were whole enterprise of well-paid specialists, spending 8 hours/day, or more, doing their job; plus hired experts; plus ordered research-work.
What we have with ORTS? Three-four volunteer-amateur developers a time, poor strategy, unclear goals... Sorry for saying that, gents.