[captain_bazza]

A modular approach to adding stuff, allowing user contributed coding, something similar to java applets, would be novel and add flexibility. Use of java for utils might be good for some tasks.

Cheers Bazza

[ricksan]

Quote

Yeah, I'm always amazed at what we get away with in MSTS. Sure it's showing its age, but it's still a classic.

That's for sure, Cap!

Was thinking about my own wish list today. Modest proposal: How about, just as a starting point, including the functionality of MSTS? That would be more that some other simulators currently do. Anything beyond that would be icing on the cake! B)

In addition: 3D cabs, procedural tracks and scenery, visual UI, blah blah blah. Oh, and multi-threading, dynamic weather, reflective water -- oops already getting those! And of course all the stuff on the Wish List page of my site.

[captain_bazza]

Just as well there's no set time-frame in Open Source. Paint.NET is a good example. Everyone is awaiting the major version update, 4.xx, currently it's at ver 3.5.3, with occasional small updates. This great program has been in development for many years.

Cheers Bazza

[longiron]

ricksan, on 21 February 2010 - 09:04 PM, said:

Modest proposal: How about, just as a starting point, including the functionality of MSTS? That would be more that some other simulators currently do. Anything beyond that would be icing on the cake! B)

In addition: 3D cabs, procedural tracks and scenery, visual UI, blah blah blah. Oh, and multi-threading, dynamic weather, reflective water -- oops already getting those! And of course all the stuff on the Wish List page of my site.

I'm with Rick, let's get the absolute best foundation for a sim established. If we do that, all the sweets and goodies will be possible and come in time.
chrisvw

[scottb613]

Morn'n All,

Well - from the names I have seen associated with this project - if they can't do it - nobody can...

OK - my interests are a bit biased to the steam side of the house...

- More animations for steam locomotives - seems this class of locomotive was pretty much neglected by BIN...
- A messaging system that does not pause the SIM when displaying text...
- Cones of light that work in both directions or even off a tender...
- Coupler noises that daisy chain down the length of the train when taking up slack - like Trainz...
- Key camera positions that can be placed along a route for optimal viewing...

Best of luck ORTS team and thanks !!!

Regards,
Scott

[Falcus]

Wow, lots of awsome ideas here already.

I agree Long Iron and Rick, first and foremost lets bring the solid Sim. MSTS was solid enough allow it to function this long because of its modularity (IMHO), but as it was a first attempt the glaring deficiencies became apparent quickly, and many still persist today.... If those deficiencies could be taken care of first, all else is second in my book.

After that, theres alot I could ask for.

I think more animations on pretty much everything would open the sim up to a whole new level of realism. Multiple Freight animations for cars, or better yet, loading animations (Not sure if that would be a building animation or a car animation, maybe both depending?). Maybe even the ability for creators to do something like "Macro" multiple animations together, like "Doors open, Payload vehicle rolls in, Payload vehicle rolls out, Doors close"? Could maybe even set it so those macros have in route trigger points (MSTS already has triggers and such in it IIRMC?), so everytime you ran a certain log car past a log loader the loader put a log or three onto the car, even if they just "Magically appeared" itd be better then what MSTS is capable of atm, and just addint the ability to run animations like this shouldn't impact backwards compatability right? More animation I think would raise the interactivity of the sim and more interesting for people (And give Tim a break trying to invent new and creative ways to use the few animations he has access to, lol). One of the things I found I really enjoyed about Trainz was the idea that I wasn't just moving a sting of cars, but a payload. Others here have mentioned that they enjoyed learning about the different materials the Railroads would move through different regions, and this would be along that same kind of thinking IHMO.

Perhaps a way to do the camera systems (Particularly in Multiplayer), would be to show the player the primary camera angle of the other person(s) playing? So if A, B, and C, players join a game, with A and B running trains, and C Dispatching, maybe make it so that at any time, A can call up B's Engineer's View, or C's Dispatch View (Presumably of the real time CTC board or w/e disptach system yall go with). Or maybe even perhaps, just have a CTC view, and then a general map view available, so for instance, if Player A wanted to see the CTC view, he could check on the Dispatchers view of the CTC board, but then if he checked on player B hed see a Top down view on the map? Or perhaps even say a CTC board with Dots on it to represent the different trains, as though its a modern CTC board with Digital GPS capability? Further, why not apply this same system (Whatever this system ends up being) to single player so that one could monitor the progress/location/speed/direction/route/ETA/et al of AI traffic and such? I mean, the game already knows where everything is during a sim right? Why not just let the player tap into that, at least for solo play?

Admittedly I was never able to fully figure out how to use BIN's multi Cab/engine system, however, an expansion on that would be awsome. Instead of just being stuck with A engine that you pick from the list, being able to select multiple engines that start at different locations, with no AI affiliation, and then being able to switch between them at will. One could even link it to the Multiplayer system in so far that, if the multiplayer system can pick multiple locations for multiple engines to start, why not allow the single players to do the same, and be able to switch to those locomotives as long as there is no AI/Other player already there? The ideas I have for this come essentially from vehicle usage in MMOs I will admit, but perhaps theres some help there to be had about how to go about creating/implementing a system like this? I mean, just imagine being able to put a switcher and a couple road engines down in a yard, with a few strings of cars out in said yard, making your consist, then going to pick it up with the road engines and getting underway?

I like the idea of the clock/stopwatch. The clock to me would add more to the game IMHO though. With an active and accessible clock (Be it in the cab, or on a menu, or better yet, both), one would be able to attempt to do things with in time limits.... The railroads have to move things to a schedule, shouldn't the sim at least have the option to keep to a schedule too? I realize MSTS had a clock and shcedule feature in it, but it was anything but accessible IMHO. And it seemed it could only be applied to passenger acitivities? I think being able to have the option as an activity operator to say "Get X load to Y location by C Time" is something missing from most of the game.

Someones already mentioned about Consist creating and editing consists in the game, and though I agree with it being administration problem rather then a sim problem, IMHO a program should be able to deal with its own administration wherever possible, and I consider MSTS' lack of ability to do that a major failing of it.

Quote

That is, my friends, a set of relationships one normally uses a database to hold: One car has one to many qualifiers and one to many qualfiers can be requested when building one consist.

That could be good stuff... but where does it fit in as far as priorities go?

I like this, and bring it up here to say that I think these two things to me would go hand in hand. Its been said here that OR wants to go independent entirely of MSTS at some point down the line once the backwards compatibility issues are taken care of, if Im understanding correctly? If thats the case, then I could point out that if you create a feature, certainly anyone that comes later will want to use it as long as it make their lives more convenient. So by marrying an idea for a filter with going stand alone, you could say "Well, we have this filter feature, and though you don't have to use it, and it wont crash the program when used with old MSTS content, *IF* you choose to use it now that we're stand-alone, it will make everyones lives easier". So though you might have to sit down and hunt through your libraries for that one specific LV RS-3 #3206 thats been your favorite since it came out way back in 2002, if anyone ever makes a new LV RS-3 #3206 and includes in its .ENG description (Or wherever one would eventually end up placing flags for this at the moment fictitious filtering system), everything this filter needs, it will be there and handy, and if you search "LV RS-3 #3206", its there. Or maybe the folks, after creating said filter could give some examples by releasing their own stock ready to use with this filter that have key words in it like "Post-1946, pre-2000" or what have you. I would suggest though to give options for strict play (Trying to follow reality as closely as possible) vs Sandbox (Do whatever you want), so that if someone really wants to run their Big Boy down France's TGV lines with a consist of ATSF Streamlined Passenger cars they can still have the option to do so with the help of the Filter to find all of that in their library. Anyway, to the point of what Im trying to say is that, maybe make some rough outlines now, and maybe try to make it a feature of OR once its standalone (This would also ensure that OR is a stand alone program, as IMHO having convenience on this level would DEFINITELY put it in a league different from MSTS)

I REALLY like the idea of being able to refresh the library from with in the game. That way if you want to run one route with one activity, it can drop whatever isn't needed once loaded. It just seems like the intelligent thing to do, I don't know exactly how the system in MSTS works, but my understanding of it is that it eats Ram in exchange for keeping track of everypiece of equipment in your library? Couldn't we find a better way to do that? A way that doesn't eat up as much ram keeping track of equipment that you're not even using? Ive long been known to run newer, bigger, beefier programs on under powered, slightly out of date systems and finding ways to keep doing that.... So yea, this sounds like something that would appeal to me and the millions of others out there like me that have actually blown Ram sticks to the cause of saving money on bigger newer systems, lol.

Anyway, if you read all that, you get a gold star, and my thanks for sticking with it,
Alex (My real first name)

[johnfrum]

The ability to set camera parameters in the Number 5 (train pass-by) view.

If I had my druthers, I'd have that view set at an altitude above ground level at the camera position of around five to six feet and a distance from the track (where the train is running) at no less than six feet.

Other folks might well want different perspectives, but I like to see the train go by from a position where a human observer might be standing. Bird's-eye views from a 500-foot altitude aren't my cup of tea.

-JF-

[Genma Saotome]

johnfrum, on 05 March 2010 - 02:53 PM, said:

The ability to set camera parameters in the Number 5 (train pass-by) view.

An idea I had is to set up multiple camfigs, each unique to a specific role, and then let the player choose which one he wants to use. Something along the lines of:

Engineer / Fireman -- pretty much limited to cab views.
Brakeman -- caboose cabview, on the ground walking, side sill/ladder on a car, caboose steps.
Model Railroader -- a lot like MSTS only a bit farther up, no interior views.

I dunno if any of that really adds enough value to warrant the work to accomplish it... but I am kinda keen on the brakeman idea, esp. if there's a way to enable/disable changing from ground to train based on train speed -- IOW, anything more than, say 3mph, and you cannot get on or off. How many of you guys drop your speed to represent what that guy who throws a switch needs? Change a lot of folks habits right quick when your man can't get down in time to throw the switch and you head up the wrong path as a result. :sign_oops:

[captain_bazza]

Quote

Change a lot of folks habits right quick when your man can't get down in time to throw the switch and you head up the wrong path as a result.

Happened a lot in RW and sometimes in MSTS. In one of the MSTS add-on routes (Sumpter?) there are some three way points!!!!

Cheers Bazza

[captain_bazza]

Quote

In other words, where the MSTS track monitor would simply show a freight and passenger speed that was absolute, the OR monitor might say, "This block is cleared for 100MPH running but the signal ahead means you're capped at 30MPH, so that's your effective speed limit" with 30MPH being displayed on the monitor.

I wonder how many train simmers are that involved they really know the road and what the various signals mean? I support the idea if it leads to education and more knowledgeable operation.

I would love to see a track schematic, for switching points in yards. This would allow a track to be set through various points.

Cheers Bazza