[cjakeman]

The options in the OR Menu have been discussed before.

Looking at the 63 controls in the tabs for General, Audio, Video, Simulation and Experimental, there may be some items that could be improved.





I am hoping that there may be some options which are no longer required and possibly others than could be merged into a single option. As others have suggested - for "Enhanced compatibility with MSTS" or for "Simple control and physics".

Any changes would wait until after the release of v1.4.

Perhaps the key questions for each option are:

• Is this option still experimental?
• Do users still need to turn this option off?
• Can we replace this setting with an automatic behaviour?
• Would merging this setting with others be a useful simplification?

I would like to start with something old and hopefully simple: Options > Audio > MSTS Bin compatible sound
As I read the code, this checkbox enables the sound triggers for:

• EnginePowerOn;
• EnginePowerOff
• Pantograph2Up
• Pantograph2Down

I guess this is one for Qu. 2 - Do users still need to turn this option off?

Does anyone know whether we still need this checkbox?

[Weter]

Hi, Chris.
I wonder, what was it introduced for?
Obviously, this four triggers are needed, but for what reasons there was a need to turn that off?
BTW, how about extending fields for text input at options tads for translated text to be visible in whole?

[YoRyan]

I would wholeheartedly welcome an effort like this. An options menu that resembles the control panel to a nuclear reactor is just one more thing that makes OR look intimidating to the rest of the train sim community. We should take an inventory of all of the physics switches and determine whether or not they can be simplified. If we were able to combine them all into a single, intuitive control, like a difficulty slider, that would be brilliant.

With regard to the MSTS Bin option, I, like Weter, am having trouble imagining a scenario in which one would want to intentionally disable additional sound triggers.

[Genma Saotome]

IMO you should consider a basic export program to put the as many of the existing options that are not unambiguously global into a new file within the activity environment, one for ever existing .ACT file plus one for explore route. If the existing code can be salvaged into a GUI that can edit these files you'll have the control of value control you prefer.

If not for each activity then at the route level.

[Csantucci]

Chris,
I definitely think that the MSTSbin sound disable option should be removed.

[Weter]

Sorry, I didn't fully understood Dave's offer.

[YoRyan]

He means allowing activity creators to specify their own settings in their .act files. We've talked about this idea before, and Peter Newell wrote code for it that was accepted into the NewYear fork, but James Ross was not very sympathetic, so it was never merged into OR. I agree with him that it would be better to simplify our existing options so that such a mechanism is not necessary, rather than take control away from the player.

With respect to the various physics and signaling switches, I'd like to call our attention to this particular comment from Rob Roeterdink:

Quote

What I am really missing in this discussion is the background to many of these options. This background is quite clear and really says it all : many of these options were introduced to switch off new OR features so as to keep OR compatible with MSTS. Location passing paths, red at station stops and quite a few more all derive from this issue. They could all be put together into one single option : run the program as the latest OR, or just as an MSTS clone. If such an indication could be added to activities, it would sort most of the user problems.

I think this is a fascinating idea. And, there's an easy way to determine whether or not a piece of content should be run in OR or MSTS-compatible mode: Check for the presence of any "ORTS" properties. If you see none, run in MSTS mode. If you see any, run in OR mode. This would be analogous to "quirks mode" in web browsers, which render pages according to the W3C specification unless they encounter non-standard markup.

[Genma Saotome]

YoRyan, on 14 July 2021 - 09:15 AM, said:

He means allowing activity creators to specify their own settings in their .act files. We've talked about this idea before, and Peter Newell wrote code for it that was accepted into the NewYear fork, but James Ross was not very sympathetic, so it was never merged into OR.

Put a GUI in front of the data file and try again.

[Csantucci]

I only partially agree with Ryan's and Rob's proposal. To provide an example, the mentioned option "Forced red at station stops" reflects two different ways real signalling systems work, so it should not be eliminated. In my country red is not forced at station stops.
What could be compressed in one are the three resistance related simulation options.
And in any case the selection whether some features are included or not should not be automatic.

[Weter]

Well, I can bring up the good old MSTS options section, where:
It was the choice, to set up in a simple way, or access all the advanced settings;
There was a slider of performance, which adjusted all graphical and sound settings simultaneously;
With ORTS we now have a slider to maintain target frame rate, but they say, such computing is resource-demanding itself...
Plus, there was a separate launcher program, which tweaked the same options automatically, while user specified his problems, for instance, smoke in block form, or seams across a cockpit.

Also, I disagree as well with an idea, the activity creator is able to change user's PC settings. I think he has a right only to recommend. Furthermore, what can he know about other people's machines specification?

So my opinion-is the choice between simple settings for rookies and full control for testers or enthusiasts or owners of machines with specific configuration.
The other question remaining, is which of options are unactual now and can be removed from options, being permanently turned on or off...