[scottb613]

Csantucci, on 03 June 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

Multiple LODs depending from distance work under MSTS and not under OR. I think it is quite a useful feature (a feature enable/disable checkbox could be made available), especially for people with slow computers.

LOD's work - don't they ??? I was just watching some rolling stock transition last night based on distance... LOL at least I was pretty sure they were transitioning... Is this in regards to specific models ??? Concur - even with modern high performance machines - I've found LOD's help a great deal when dealing with trains in the 40-100 car length... If done well - you can barely notice the actual transitions... Yep - I'm a fan of LOD's...
:)

Regards,
Scott

[Csantucci]

Maybe a lost a bit then... sorry.

PS: At least for tracks I am quite sure that distance LODs aren't implemented.

[Genma Saotome]

Csantucci, on 03 June 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Maybe a lost a bit then... sorry.

PS: At least for tracks I am quite sure that distance LODs aren't implemented.

Which tracks? Might be a problem w/ the shape files, not Open Rails.

[Csantucci]

Bernina route tracks have some LODs that are well visible in MSTS, but OR seems to use only the higher detail LOD.

[cjakeman]

copperpen, on 03 June 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

No, but it can be fudged in the physics.

Thanks for bringing it up. I've added it to the Wish List.

[cjakeman]

dennisat, on 03 June 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

Power and braking by a single controller.

MSTS also allows automatic "blending" of friction and dynamic braking though I've no idea if the simulation is accurate.
Most modern UK MUs have a single power/brake controller and modern EMUs usually have dynamic (even regenerative) braking as well.
I have put this up as a bug report which I believe is being worked on but I thought I'd put it here as well to keep it visible.

Thanks, Dennis.

Yes, I picked up your bug report and I have a version that works. Haven't committed it yet though.

[eric from trainsim]

While not exactly a feature, there are some cases where MSTS selectively ignores some error conditions that OR doesn't, and vice versa...

Last week, I'd mentioned loading world files where an errant VdbId count line exists, but there are no corresponding VdbId's defined.

MSTS ignore that situation and continue loading, whereas OR throws up an index out of bounds error. The fewer hard stops, the better...

[cjakeman]

eolesen, on 03 June 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

While not exactly a feature, there are some cases where MSTS selectively ignores some error conditions that OR doesn't, and vice versa...

Last week, I'd mentioned loading world files where an errant VdbId count line exists, but there are no corresponding VdbId's defined.

MSTS ignore that situation and continue loading, whereas OR throws up an index out of bounds error. The fewer hard stops, the better...

That seems to be a problem worth fixing, if we can (and better error-handling is part of the objectives for this release). Would you raise a Bug Report on it, please?

[rdamurphy]

The routeset() function...

Robert

[Lindsayts]

Csantucci, on 03 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Bernina route tracks have some LODs that are well visible in MSTS, but OR seems to use only the higher detail LOD.

OR does use the LOD's on the track of the Bernina Bahn route you can see the detail of the track change around 100 or so metres ahead of the loco, one can see the curves go from straight angular rails to curved rails.
I have been meaning to get at the Shape files and edited the LOD distances and move them out a bit.

Lindsay