[R H Steele]

cjakeman, on 18 July 2021 - 10:25 AM, said:

...

Does anyone ever run Open Rails with any stretch at all?

Yep, been using 70% forever...just checked, had not thought about it at all, until you posed the question. I scroll up or down now, slightly to see more of the cab, if necessary. If there's a reasonable option to get rid of it...I can adapt.

INDEED!!...Bring on the 3D cabs. ( get the guys at RUN8 to build a couple of generics, a stand and a desk..for OR ).

[cjakeman]

Weter, on 18 July 2021 - 10:37 AM, said:

BTW, are your icons links to local disc manual, or to online resource?

The (i) icons take you to an on-line copy of the manual which is automatically kept in step with the PDF version.

R H Steele, on 18 July 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

Yep, been using 70% forever...just checked, had not thought about it at all, until you posed the question. I scroll up or down now, slightly to see more of the cab, if necessary. If there's a reasonable option to get rid of it...I can adapt.

Thanks for being flexible about this.

Please try 0% stretch and Ryan's alternative Ctrl+1 too and see how you get on.

-----------------------------------------------

Perhaps we should consider these next 2 options together:




They seem fine to me.

Are the following Manual entries OK?

6.3.10. Viewing distance

This option defines the maximum distance at which terrain is displayed. At higher distances Distant Mountains will be displayed (see below). This parameter increases CPU and GPU load. Also, some routes are optimized for the standard MSTS maximum viewing distance (2000m).


6.3.11. Distant mountains

Distant mountains are supported in a way that is compatible with MSTS. Distant mountains are present in the route if it has a folder called LO_TILE. You may turn the feature on by checking the Distant Mountains checkbox. In addition to MSTS capability, you can select the viewing distance of the distant mountains.

[Csantucci]

Maybe I'd correct "This parameter increases CPU and GPU load. " to "Increasing this parameter increases CPU and GPU load. "

[EricF]

cjakeman, on 18 July 2021 - 10:25 AM, said:

Does anyone ever run Open Rails with any stretch at all?

I've never been a fan of stretching or panning the 2D cabview. A "pillarbox" option (black bars to each side) would be preferable, or just the option to select the aspect ratio that OR projects onto the full screen. Right now, I switch my desktop resolution to something less than native when running OR because I have an ultrawide. A pillarbox/aspect ratio selection would be helpful.

That said. I may be a little odd in that I don't like OR/MSTS 2D cabs in their native 4:3. Slightly stretched into a 16:10 aspect ratio usually looks better to my eyes. Why? Because modern LCD pixels and old-school CRT dots aren't precisely the same aspect ratio. 4:3 is slightly rectangular on a proper CRT monitor. But on a modern LCD tends to come out virtually square (1:1) in appearance, which makes it vertically distorted. Stretching the 4:3 image into 16:10 tends to look more "right" on a modern LCD panel.

I got used to 16:10 instead of the more common 16:9 computer monitor aspect ratio because of the business-type monitors I tended to use. The typical 16:9 screen will stretch the image a little too much horzontally.

So, to my eyes, the "perfect" setup would be native monitor resolution, with options for pillarboxed pure 4:3 and also slightly stretched and pillarboxed 16:10 projection. (Call it "LCD-compensated" or some jargon -- as the retro videogame enthusiasts will squawk; it's very difficult to correctly project a pixel-perfect 4:3 CRT-optimized image on a modern LCD. It usually works best to offer several options to mangle the 4:3 image into something that satisfies different monitors and sets of eyeballs.)

EDIT: As I think about it more and more, cabs and overall display projection probably needs a through survey of the userbase. Some folks absolutely love running in windowed mode, others much prefer fullscreen, then there's the above issue of how to deal with MSTS 4:3 content -- and varying preferences of 4:3 vs slight image correction by stretch vs "pan-and-scan". And that will undoubtedly have to be distilled into a workable feature set that Open Rails / Monogame can handle.

[EricF]

Weter, on 19 July 2021 - 11:38 AM, said:

Thanks for explainations.
So internet is needed to see that tips as well as with timetable map window's legend.

I've seen some applications where the preferred behavior is to go out to an online source for linked documentation, but in the absence of that, it goes to a local cache of the online content which is collected/updated whenever the application updates -- either online or from the contents of an updater package downloaded and copied separately. When displaying the offline version, there may be an "Offline Copy" header or footer, with the effective date.

Maybe something like that could be implemented?

[Weter]

If it's so, why not use a manual? As it is being updated with every testing version release.

[vince]

Weter, on 19 July 2021 - 12:05 PM, said:

If it's so, why not use a manual? As it is being updated with every testing version release.

Why? Because it's nice to have an actual document to study. Electronic is okay for quick reference but paper is better for serious study.
Just my preference.
regards,
vince

[ebnertra000]

EricF, on 19 July 2021 - 11:55 AM, said:

I've seen some applications where the preferred behavior is to go out to an online source for linked documentation, but in the absence of that, it goes to a local cache of the online content which is collected/updated whenever the application updates -- either online or from the contents of an updater package downloaded and copied separately. When displaying the offline version, there may be an "Offline Copy" header or footer, with the effective date.

Maybe something like that could be implemented?

I would very much recommend this, as not everyone will be running OR on a computer with internet access. I know I don't

[cjakeman]

EricF, on 19 July 2021 - 11:17 AM, said:

I've never been a fan of stretching or panning the 2D cabview. A "pillarbox" option (black bars to each side) would be preferable, or just the option to select the aspect ratio that OR projects onto the full screen. Right now, I switch my desktop resolution to something less than native when running OR because I have an ultrawide. A pillarbox/aspect ratio selection would be helpful.

Eric, I wonder how you get on with the existing in-game Ctrl+1 option that gives you the pillar-box presentation for a 2D cab.
Sounds as though you would favour a choice of scrollable/pillarbox and also an independent adjustment of aspect ratio. Am I right?

Csantucci, on 19 July 2021 - 10:53 AM, said:

Maybe I'd correct "This parameter increases CPU and GPU load. " to "Increasing this parameter increases CPU and GPU load. "

Thanks, Carlo. This will make the text more precise.

----------------------------------------------

The next control also reduces detail in exchange for higher frame rates:


The Manual reads:

This value can be set from 0 to 10; when 10 is selected, all objects defined in the route files are displayed.
Lower values do not display some categories of objects.

I've never used this. Seems a bit desperate since we already have the distance viewing controls?

[Weter]

@vince I actually mentioned the *.pdf, that included to ORTS testing version archive, as it is up to date for that version and available offline.