[markus_GE]

Having followed the discussion right from the beginning, I´ll butt in with my two Cents too:

If dropping XNA means MSTS Content can´t be loaded in OpR anymore, than please Keep with XNA - Isn´t OpR supposed to in the first place be as compatible as possible / reasonable to MSTS? Now think what dropping MSTS Content would mean!

BTW; I don´t bpther which OS OpR runs on. If it is Windows, I´m fine with it, sice I´m a Windows user ever since I got to first boot a Computer. Also, Windows is what MSTS is designed for, so OpR should in any Event be compatible to Windows. If other OSs are added too to the compatibility list, why should I oppose this? And if OpR goes Linux only - well, we´ll see how large the community will then still be (though I would probably belong to it still then).

Cheers, Markus

[disc]

No one talked about linux only, or even linux version in the near future. Just saying every linux "style" applications are full multiplatform, runs on linux, mac, windows, android, ios, x86, ARM, PowerPC... Applications that are heavily rely on microsoft things are not, these only run on windows with x86 cpu, as DirectX, .NET, all meant to lock applications to windows, and nothing more.
In OR XNA used for 3d engine, the MSTS contents loading is done by the OR code, not by xna.
XNA is abandoned, directx is start to be a burden (see the new replacement initiatives like mantle api, and opengl with extensions), and x86 market is shrinking, ARM is growing. Also, microsoft never was a trustable company, see the disabled directx features in win XP, or the tries to cripple and prohibit to use opengl on windows, or what happens with XNA or silverlight.
That's why i think it's better to leave behind XNA, and directX, and every platform locked dependencies in the future.

[James Ross]

 Lindsayts, on 21 October 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

I get the strong impression the OR community is hostile to Linux.

I think this may be over-stating things a little; there is also an important difference between hostility and indifference. Personally, I have no objections to OR running on Linux (or any other platform). I don't think most other people would mind, either.

The real issue to me is that it must continue to run, and run well, on Windows. Making multiplatform programs of any sort (I have experience in doing such things across Windows, Mac, Linux and even OS/2) is hard work - even on a high-level platform like .NET. There are always platform-specific issues to deal with, sometimes critical ones, which are nigh on impossible to solve unless you can get the relevant developers access to that platform. That becomes even more problematic with a game, as virtualisation is still catching up with hardware-accelerated rendering/3D. We have had enough problem with just ATI/AMD rendering issues because of limited developer access - just think how we'd cope if something broke on Linux or Mac.

In the near-term, my goal is to move from XNA 3.1 to 4.0. This will at least give us more options - including the likes of Mono Game - for the future. Where we go from there is quite undecided right now. :)

[wacampbell]

 Lindsayts, on 21 October 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

I get the strong impression the OR community is hostile to Linux.

I also think that the majority are indifferent to Linux including myself. But unfortunately the opposite is not true. Just read disc's post above. It seems a majority of the Linux community are hostile to windows and paranoid that Microsoft exec's spend their every waking day plotting its demise. Truthfully, I think Microsoft spends as little time thinking about Linux as the rest of us do.

I spent some time exploring the Linux world and thought I would take up the torch. But the community vibe there is just not one that I want to be part of. The open source and sharing aspects of it are great but its overshadowed by excessive venom and paranoia. Its too bad.

[gpz]

 wacampbell, on 22 October 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

The open source and sharing aspects of it are great but its overshadowed by excessive venom and paranoia. Its too bad.

This didn't appeared just from the air, it has an over a decade long history: Microsoft FUD
Maybe not in the last 1-2 years, but they used to do spend a lot of time (and money) thinking about Linux. :)

 James Ross, on 22 October 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

In the near-term, my goal is to move from XNA 3.1 to 4.0.

Can I start committing changes to graphics code that are prerequisites of migrating to XNA 4, but still run fine in 3.1? (Like replacing the fixed-function alpha testing by HLSL clip(), redefining TriangleFans as TriangleStrips, and... don't remember :dance3: )

[James Ross]

 gpz, on 22 October 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Can I start committing changes to graphics code that are prerequisites of migrating to XNA 4, but still run fine in 3.1? (Like replacing the fixed-function alpha testing by HLSL clip(), redefining TriangleFans as TriangleStrips, and... don't remember :) )

I think that should be fine, though obviously be careful. :dance3:

[Coonskin]

Having been in computer gaming since about 1994, and having some experience in developing, both in racing simulations and train simulation (MSTS), I am of the opinion that computer gaming is always going to be faced with "moving goal posts". My shelves are full of obsolete racing simulation games that are no longer supported for various reasons.

Hopefully, the OR team can persevere and continue forward in an ever-changing computing world and will extend the life of MSTS. If (or more accurately, "when") the ever-advancing technology of computing leave MSTS behind, then I will indulge in MSTS on an out-dated machine until some non-replacable hardware failure occurs on said machine, and then that will be it for me in regards to train simulation. I seriously doubt I have the required tenacity left in me to learn a completely new medium and all the attendant support programs (RE, AE, Mosaic, DEMEX, etc, etc) all over again.

Go team.

[Lindsayts]

 wacampbell, on 22 October 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

I also think that the majority are indifferent to Linux including myself. But unfortunately the opposite is not true. Just read disc's post above. It seems a majority of the Linux community are hostile to windows and paranoid that Microsoft exec's spend their every waking day plotting its demise. Truthfully, I think Microsoft spends as little time thinking about Linux as the rest of us do.

I spent some time exploring the Linux world and thought I would take up the torch. But the community vibe there is just not one that I want to be part of. The open source and sharing aspects of it are great but its overshadowed by excessive venom and paranoia. Its too bad.

I had a bit of a think over this post...........

As the Linux v Windows thing is a matter of personal opinion and experience so in the end no resolution could ever be reached, But I a could give in my view a word for word accurate reply by just swapping the operating systems name around.
In the world we live in most hostile acts are the result of uncertainty and doubt, the microsoft world has long felt threatened by linux and the Windows world has in the past and still is throwing much FUD on Linux about.

I am not advocating anyone take on Linux or the OR devs to do a linux version but absolutely locking an open source GPLed program to Windows so no one at all can try and port it to another OS to me makes no sense at all.

Lindsay

[cjakeman]

 Lindsayts, on 22 October 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

absolutely locking an open source GPLed program to Windows so no one at all can try and port it to another OS to me makes no sense at all.

I agree. It makes no sense at all and it's not what we're trying to do. Our focus is on making a very good simulator, rather than a very portable one.

[copperpen]

 cjakeman, on 22 October 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

I agree. It makes no sense at all and it's not what we're trying to do. Our focus is on making a very good simulator, rather than a very portable one.

Most definitely the emphasis should be on making a good robust simulator first. Portability issues should be considered as a secondary item to the core development.