[Genma Saotome]

I hope this is the last comment from me: Yes, some people do not have the resources to buy a new PC much less a bleeding edge PC. That is the reality. And others are not so restricted. That too is the reality. Different needs, different aspirations.

I spent 20 years helping business users understand their data and I knew that with every new project there would by multiple knock-down, dragged out HOT arguments with no apparent reconciliation over the meaning of some word or phrase. EVERY TIME I'd step in an say you guys are talking about two different things, using the same label. So I'd add another word to what ever was disputed that matched what one side was talking about and then another word to what ever was disputed that matched what the other side was talking about... and voilia, the air cleared, the room temperature fell back to normal, smiles all around -- YES, both sides could see it was two ideas using the same label.

Which brings me to this discussion. The one word is Open Rails. Half of this argument is calling for Open Rails to be as best as possible emulator of MSTS w/o any consequences of those darn developers doing their thing. The other side is calling for Open Rails to be as best as possible evolved rail simulator w/o any consequences of those stuck-in-the-msts-mud end users.

You need to fork the code, call one Open Rails for MSTS and the other Open Rails... I dunno... maybe just Going Forward. The first version might need to have some OR Going Forward code pulled out because it's not needed and bloats the code. The second version can look at new file formats and the features that can now be put in.

And best of all each version will not be stepping all over the other versions code anymore. Trimmed down relative to going on as-is. And best of all, both camps get what they want.

IMO it will be better for everyone.

[gpz]

Weter, on 18 March 2023 - 09:15 AM, said:

two elevators are redundant and the older one isn't cool enough for impressing potential rich guests. (...) You were willing to tune ORMG to fit my '2009 laptop capabilities, and what I read now?

Please don't loose sight of that this subject is not about money at all. It is also not hardware related at all. It is purely software only, specifically about windows-versions.

The other problem you mentioned was a GPU-related hardware issue, while this one is a non-hardware-related software issue. No money and richness is involved.

[Weter]

Hello.
It's an ugly part of people-in need psychology - always to count money (in better case - their own).
"How much would all that cost for me?/Is it realy worth it's prise?" - they constantly count inside. (as You've been there, You may know)

Do You mean dotNet6, talking about "windows-versions"? It'd be good, if I understood that right.

So, that means, planned changes wouldn't force major upgrade of end-user's hardware?

[gpz]

Weter, on 19 March 2023 - 12:21 AM, said:

So, that means, planned changes wouldn't force major upgrade of end-user's hardware?

Not speaking generally, staying on topic, this specific subject doesn't imply hardware changes.

[Weter]

dotNet6 do work for me with OR ultimate (a.k.a. FTS)

[gpz]

Weter, on 19 March 2023 - 02:25 AM, said:

dotNet6 do work for me with OR ultimate (a.k.a. FTS)

It works for everyone, except for those who don't want it to work.

[Weter]

:good:
Who wants - looks for any chance
Who don't - looks for any reason

[Hendrik]

I think, if the projects want to go forward it has to let go of the dependency on MSTS.

I signed up a few months ago and was surprised that there are so few routes for OR only. Over the last 20 years people have been building beautiful routes and content, but many still use the old MSTS content and apparently are still using the tools that came with the original MSTS software. I couldn’t find my old copy of MSTS so had to buy a Used copy on Internet to make the content work.

I think that Open Rails will only survive long term if new people keep signing on to the project. That won’t happen though if they need to buy increasingly scarce copies of MSTS.

So, I fully agree with creating a version of OR optimized for MSTS and maintained to make the old routes work on newer operating systems. That way it does not hold back the implementation of new technology, or frustrate people using the MSTS based routes that things suddenly don’t work anymore due to implementation of new technology.

However, Continuing OR with new technology probably means that new route and content building tools will also have to be developed. Plus it needs route builders that are willing to create content using those new tools. I wonder what the interest is to change course, but that should probably be another thread.

Hank

[Weter]

Quote

make the content work

What's exact problem, You suffer?
The content is free, the Train.exe program is not mandatory.

Quote

version of OR optimized for MSTS

What have it to mean? What's the problem here?
Redundant code for still handling MSTS features?

I wonder too.

[cjakeman]

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

Adding functionality without destroying compatibility should be the main objective.

In my view, the Open Rails project has a good record of maintaining backward compatibility. Not 100%, but pretty close.

Eldorado.Railroad, on 10 March 2023 - 09:22 AM, said:

Why? No public consultation on this?

That's my fault for merging a PR (21 Jan) without publicising the consequences first (although it was in the Unstable version for more than 3 months) - sorry.

Hendrik, on 19 March 2023 - 09:45 AM, said:

So, I fully agree with creating a version of OR optimized for MSTS and maintained to make the old routes work on newer operating systems.

It would make things simpler but I don't expect many developers would be interested in maintaining a legacy version of Open Rails. There's nothing to stop someone who wants to try, but I think the community has too many forks already.