[Eldorado.Railroad]

gpz, on 13 March 2023 - 11:44 AM, said:

1. Now that this partial .NET 6 affair happened, (what I have nothing to do with btw), I would note to everyone that my development environments are ready for going full .NET 6. We have been struggling with this upgrade plan for more than a year now. Just do it. Let anyone, who feels like that, rage a little, then the dust will settle.

I do not think I would use rage as a metaphor. I suspect that most of the moving forward has very little to do with moving Open Rails forward. Since I will never try it myself, I am sure that keeping multiple versions of VS is a PITA because of all the various tentacles in your O/S setup. Though this will never happen, how I would love to have a 100% portable version of VS. I am not fortunate to have everything I want on one computer or O/S for that matter. This is being written from an SBC running Ubuntu.

gpz, on 13 March 2023 - 11:44 AM, said:

There are talented programmers that at first seemed like they wanted to join OpenRails, but then thought that it was moving "too slow", forked out, and mostly working on their own version. (I see at least 3 people around here on this forum. I find this kind of forking kind of ineffective, but since the code is free, everyone is free to do with that what he wants to. And I am also free to think anything about it.)

Peter, forking is always a symptom of a greater malaise. At some point managing a project such as this one requires the courage and forethought of those who are most unwilling to let go. To not micromanage a project to a point that it is stifled. As is often the case with open source it is most important for the principles to keep a project moving forward by substantially contributing to its life. To spend as little time as possible shuffling the same deck of cards. To listen to its users. Without users, your work serves no purpose in an open source project. We have all written code that will never see the light of day. That is not what open source is about.

gpz, on 13 March 2023 - 11:44 AM, said:

But for me one of the reasons to proceed with the newest versions is: simply fun. For me part of the reasons why I am doing this is experimenting with the interesting programming technologies, exciting language features. Dealing with outdated technologies is: no fun. It is not my work for a living, so I don't want to do things with no fun. And to me looks like most of us still doing the programming think similarly, so sorry for the users want to remain. Anyway, you may stay with any existing OR version sympathetic for you forever, by your choice. I don't really understand the complaints.

By all means, this needs to be fun for ALL of us. Developers and users alike. The whole purpose of this project was to not upset everyone involved in it. That compromise is a strength. The magic of this project is that code (in the form of content) is still being used/reused to advantage. We have rescued abandonware. Is it ideal, no, it never will be. I would not equate the need for fun with throwing out all that was previously of value and was/is still working. I get bored too, and certainly cannot make Open Rails my whole life, there is not enough time for that. Adding functionality without destroying compatibility should be the main objective. It is a fallacy to think that this project has mirrored/updated the original MSTS simulator to 100% completion. With so many things left undone/unfinished it is unfortunate that not all of this can be fun, for funs sake. I appreciate the very hard work that some do here, as I have done so myself, it certinaly has not all been fun and there have been many failures.

gpz, on 13 March 2023 - 11:44 AM, said:

2. Actually it would be interesting to work with some recent 3D API like Vulkan on DX12. I always hoped that at one time MonoGame would bring some advanced structures for being able to finally step up from the current DX10 level. Its maintainers have been promising various things for ages, but the reality is that MonoGame is going nowhere, at least I don't see a bright future there. Actually the MonoGame "customers" are mostly using that for 2D, so there is no real push from anyone to advance further. So sooner or later OR has to make its move. Of course, given that there is still interest in new things, and we don't want to be stuck at the current technological level.

Given your observation on Monogame, and you would know best, then why bother updating to Monogame 3.8/3.8.1? If it is a stagnating platform from your point of view with little present/future benefit upgrades seem rather pointless.

gpz, on 13 March 2023 - 11:44 AM, said:

Silk.Net differs from MonoGame in that it provides only (generated, up to date and reliable) bindings to the corresponding C++ library, while MonoGame is a more abstracted game engine.

Great way to hijack a thread! But I see what you are looking at. The hope is for vastly increased performance here. If you find this fun to indulge in I am not the only one who can see the benefit!

Peter, thanks you very much for your many visible and ongoing contributions, if not direction for this Open Rails project.

Steve

[cjakeman]

Eldorado.Railroad, on 14 March 2023 - 09:18 AM, said:

Thus far, no response from the ORTS Management Team or open public discussion with the principles. Users are an annoyance to be avoided?

The Open Rails Management Team (ORMT) is indeed following this thread and we will discuss the issues raised and the different views expressed at our next session, which is on Sat 18th.

[SebaLorenzo]

Hello, I always edit the fx to improve the lighting (to my liking) and now I found this and the truth is a disappointment because if I want to keep the updated version I have to play with graphics that are not what I am used to. I wanted to know if someone could help me with a video tutorial to compile these new files since I was looking for information and couldn't find it. Thank you!
(Google translator)

[perpetualKid]

SebaLorenzo, on 16 March 2023 - 08:57 AM, said:

Hello, I always edit the fx to improve the lighting (to my liking) and now I found this and the truth is a disappointment because if I want to keep the updated version I have to play with graphics that are not what I am used to. I wanted to know if someone could help me with a video tutorial to compile these new files since I was looking for information and couldn't find it. Thank you!
(Google translator)

need to install once:
- Install .NET 6 from here https://dotnet.micro...s-x64-installer
- open a command prompt, type

dotnet tool install -g dotnet-mgfxc

now when you are done making changes in fx file, compile the file:
- open a command prompt, type

dotnet tool run mgfxc yourfxfile.fx yourfxfile.mgfx /Profile:DirectX_11

- copy the resulting mgfx file into openrails\Program\Content folder


Obviously, "yourfxfile.fx" may need to include the full path.
And if you point "yourfxfile.mgfx" including full path to the openrails\Program\Content already, no need to copy.

[Weter]

Scott,

Quote

If the programmers lose interest - we're dead in the water.

These words may sound cruel for us-limited in ways, but I totally can't disagree with what You've said: that's absolutely true.
OTOH, I agree with what Steve tells:

Quote

Conversely, when users lose interest you are also VERY "dead in the water"

So,

Quote

The whole purpose of this project was to not upset everyone involved in it. That compromise is a strength

[gpz]

Eldorado.Railroad, on 14 March 2023 - 10:11 AM, said:

By all means, this needs to be fun for ALL of us. Developers and users alike. The whole purpose of this project was to not upset everyone involved in it. That compromise is a strength. The magic of this project is that code (in the form of content) is still being used/reused to advantage. We have rescued abandonware. Is it ideal, no, it never will be. I would not equate the need for fun with throwing out all that was previously of value and was/is still working. I get bored too, and certainly cannot make Open Rails my whole life, there is not enough time for that. Adding functionality without destroying compatibility should be the main objective. It is a fallacy to think that this project has mirrored/updated the original MSTS simulator to 100% completion. With so many things left undone/unfinished it is unfortunate that not all of this can be fun, for funs sake. I appreciate the very hard work that some do here, as I have done so myself, it certinaly has not all been fun and there have been many failures.

If I understand well, you are not asking some delay of switching to .NET 6 until you prepare your hardware/software for being able to cope, but you want to enlengthen this delay FOREVER. Am I right? Or can you define an exact time span you would like OpenRails to "wait for you", in numbers? Or would that time span be infinite? (I don't know, I'm just guessing, you tell me.) In the latter case I don't think your request for waiting for you is valid at all. In the former case it would also be nice if you could specify how exactly you will use the requested time, e.g. delivery of your hardware, installing a new W10 VM on it, etc. I guess it is not something as earning money for the new hardware, because .NET 6 may also run on a cheap many old years one. I'm sorry, but I'm an engineer, I am used to talk in numbers. Or, alternatively, we are waiting for some specific action to be taken place before we can proceed? Or what are we waiting for?

[Eldorado.Railroad]

gpz, on 17 March 2023 - 02:47 AM, said:

If I understand well, you are not asking some delay of switching to .NET 6 until you prepare your hardware/software for being able to cope, but you want to enlengthen this delay FOREVER.

As an engineer I think you can respect the need for planning. As an engineer we like to work with known quantities and we re-check our calculations. As an engineer, we try things out, before assuming it will work on a larger project. As an engineer I respect the desire for deterministic outcomes. Most engineers I know are a rather conservative bunch. I am one of those.

Software development is a different story. Somebody, someplace comes up with a "new" idea. Throws together a bunch of code to see if the proof of concept might work. Then comes the task of scaling it up and also the hated task of testing the code in the "real world". The testing is most hated part because bugs show up that prove that the written code provided by the software developers is not working as expected. There are more test cases not accounted for.

In the end, the users are the ones that use the code that was developed. They are the ones who will discover the test cases, that either make or break your logical contructs.

In this open source project we are faced with the dilemma that the code that was written or being written is not being directed by those who provide direction only. So those who come on board with this project have their own niche directions which may or may not come to fruition. Items that are missing in this project, have been missing for years, and will continue to be so, unless something changes. This requires flexibility and effort for those currently "in charge". The outcome of this project cannot be left to "rot on the vine" by inaction. We might like a "unified field theory" for coding but not if that leads to stagnation and skepticism about any new idea. To be clear that last statement is aimed to ALL concerned. We also need to see clear outcomes and "substantial" benefits to changes that are made, for the sake of change. You have already indicated that Monogame is a "dead end", so why upgrade to Monogame 3.8.x? MGfx gives us what exactly in performance? The way Open Rails has implemented MGfx is not even optimal with respect to Monogame's implementation guidelines (as I read on their site).

By all means use/change ".net 6" on your own system(s). Show me that Open Rails runs 50% faster with ".net 6". Show me that we have a route editor with it installed as well. Activity editor too? To much to ask for, right?

I could probably buy five x86 machines right now without too much trouble. But I am not going to, nor do I want to. In my line of work nor do I need them. All of my Open Rails work is done on separate machines, mainly for Blender. Every time I consider installing VS, Open Rails moves onto yet another version and O/S (recall what I said about engineers being conservative!). When Microsoft comes out with a completely new version of VS, that is when I can trust that the "old" version can now be used. No cutting edge SNAFUs to deal with, thanks!

It is important to not lose sight of the fact that many users might not have the financial resources to upgrade hardware/software. Not all live in first world countries that have this stuff hanging around in a local store that is available at any price for the asking. I am not inclined to throw multicore CPU 64 GB machines away, just because Microsoft says so and Intel has made bad business decisions.

If you are willing to trust Win10 and Win11 for daily use, more power to you. In my case I cannot see the benefit as so many alternate platforms fulfill my needs without the need or intrusion of Microsoft. In effect, installing Win10 or Win11 on some hardware would relegate it to be used only as a game machine with limited trust (like an Xbox/PS5/etc). There are too many forced upgrades and forced system changes (AND BUGS!) with the current Microsoft platforms for my patience and time. BTW, Microsoft stopped selling Win10 licenses in Jan/2023. Read about Win11 and you will see why holding off is a good idea. YMMV. At some point the younger amongst us will see that some upgrades are only really purposed to empty your wallet. At some point we learn to live with the bugs/limitations and create ways to circumvent problems and extend the lifespan of our investments, in both time and money.

Peter, with the greatest respect and I hope the reverse,

Steve

[gpz]

Imagine a rised building with an elevator. You believe the elevator is dangerous, so you always use the staircase. But it is not enough, you also want to force everybody else to use the stairs.

[Weter]

Excuse me, Peter-Zoltan, for joining argue, but here's my opinion/reply
As far as I understand Steve, his "gold-plated Guest's elevator" becomes more and more expensive, demanding to pay for it's usage every day; and even more - for it's almost menstrual upgrades; but household service is going to scrap older "service" elevator, installed behind the first one, due to the fact, that two elevators are redundant and the older one isn't cool enough for impressing potential rich guests.

I could understand that, being You profit-oriented, but no (or somehow yes?)
*profit may exist in form of self-esteem improvement, not only as monetary kind.

Spoiler

What in this world is happening with You, my long-time epistolar mate?!
Two years back, it seemed to me, You were willing to tune ORMG to fit my '2009 laptop capabilities, and what I read now?
It's right idea - doing something for own fun, but causing that others being in suffer...

I'm feeling myself very upset to see this misunderstanding between two very clever persons, wishing the best future to ORTS project, on their own way each.
I hope, this contradiction will eventually result some consensus, rather mutual offending.
I hope, this argue would deliver Truth - as ancient greeks told.

[edwardk]

The use of .mgfx is not new, but I am guessing the 3.8 release of monogame is requiring it. This also means that the 2022 version of Visual Studio needs to be used from now on. Where do we stand with what release is using monogame or will be using? As far as I know, the release from Carlos is the only one.

Edward K.