[captain_bazza]

At this point in the development there is so much to learn and discuss. We do need somewhere to do that.

Cheers Bazza

PS Net connection problems.

[Matej Pacha]

Lindsayts, on 11 September 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

I apologise in advance if this reply sounds WAY to negative............

You have miss understood what I was asking for, please read the first post more carefully without assuming what answer is required.

...

I'm not sure if I understand well, but you may find the answer in my explanation: The ORTS physics is very basic now and a kind of close to the MSTS physics. Being involved into ORTS physics team, I've tried to make it more realistic - this is very challenging and enjoyable to me (hope you understand). The ORTS physics model, I mean the way the tractive force is computed, has not changed over two years or more. The approach of MSTS physics is painfull because of a lack of sense in the MSTS performance. I didn't understand the ORTS aim to be the MSTS replacement. I just saw an ability to build an ideal train simulator (and I believe that many of us have the same opinion). That's why we are in the middle of MSTS and ORTS with poor results.
If I understand well, you would like to get the same performance in ORTS and MSTS. I can say that it is not possible now. The physics in MSTS is really "a piece of work" - just run the DASH9 locomotive, apply full throttle and run the train from zero to maximal speed. Make a record of the tractive force and speed, compute the output power and tell me, if the computed power is always lower than a rated power of the locomotive. If the output is higher - on what physical principle can a diesel engine be overloaded? Etc. Thus, we are happy that the ORTS train can be operated but with different performance parameters, hopefully closer to the real world.

We can continue in our discussion but I'm a bit overloaded last days.

Matej

[captain_bazza]

Quote

If I understand well, you would like to get the same performance in ORTS and MSTS**. I can say that it is not possible now.

**No, that's not what we want, OR is/will be a great improvement, but even at this stage steam performs well. Even if very good physics are applied, not every locomotive, even within a class, gives the same results in the real world.

Cheers Bazza

[Genma Saotome]

Many useful and interesting thoughts from several people....

Lindsayts, on 11 September 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

What I would like to see is a forum to be able to explain some of the parameters such as the very much misunderstood parameter "power" to enable a better understanding and hopefully allow more of the rolling stock creators to produce more realistically performing rolling stock.

Got it. I'll set something up.

Quote

Note 1: Most rolling stock come with a restrictive intellectual property rights license, this restricts one from modifying/correcting the eng file and redistributing it. Interestingly 4 MSTS model builders disagreed with me on this saying the license only covered the model itself shape and texture files. The problem with this stance is that the cabview and eng files do NOT have an exclusion clause in the license. I sort a legal opinion on this and it said that that means the cabview and eng files were covered by the IPR doc and there fore cannot be modified and redistributed.

Lindsay

There isn't anything in an .eng or .wag file that is protected by copyright because there is nothing creative about the contents -- its all just data and data is not protected by copyright. OTOH, sound files and artwork are protected by copyright law because they are creative, even tho they are represented by data. Essentially, "60mph" is inherently uncreative data whereas the digital data of someone whistling a tune is protected because the act of whistling is inherently creative.

Any other restrictions have to done via contract (e.g., EULA) and there isn't a contract without consideration. To have consideration, when you obtain something you value (e.g., some files) you have to give something he values in return (e.g., money). Absent consideration, there is no contract and absent a contract, whatever restrictions that have been stated are observed only by courtesy. IMO the later is rather important -- we are talking about our peers here -- but courtesy is not legal binding.