[Lindsayts]

I sort of apalogise for bringing this up again but I feel the topic is VERY imortant and I did not explain myself as well as I could have before, I hope people will take the time to read this post.

I very strongly believe that some kind of decent route editor and tools would give OR a real boost, Now OR's aim is to make the best trainsim possible, this is of course being done in stage's, I believe the editor and tools also for ease of development should be done in stages. The first stage NOT being the all singing /dancing item clearly being seen currently but just a reliable replacement for the existing item. I feel such a simple editor would REALLY cement OR's place in the current universe.

An advantage of this approach is that con currently with the development of the trainsim newer process and file formats would be able to get immediate support. For instance its quite clear from the performance of the current terrain display that a major improvememt could be had with some newer file formats for both high detail (new file format) and distant terrain.

Remember before anyone starts searching for a hit man this just my opinion :D.

Lindsay

[jared2982]

I'm going to 2nd the motion on this one. Also combining the functions of the RE and the RGE along with the ability to import DEMs directly into the RE I believe would really give OR a boost. I realize the ability to import DEMs was not ever a capability MSTS had which, in my opinion, was a major short fall. I doubt Microsoft (Kuju) did all of terrain for the original routes be hand.

[thegrindre]

This will all take place later down the rails. We are still trying to get ORTS and MSTS 100% compatible with each other.
You're just going to have to wait a bit longer, I'm afraid.
It's all on the to-do list, Lindsay. :cool3:

:D

[dcarleton]

Not a full route editor. It would take way too much development time away from finishing of version 1. However-

I feel very strongly that there should be a Maintenance-of-Way mode, where you can run a train to some location close by to where there may be poorly placed objects. You could then be given control of that one world file so that the coordinates of individual objects can be fine-tuned. Highlighting an object would bring up a tool set which would allow small adjustments to elevation, rotation, etc.; but not adding or deleting anything at this time. The most important tool would allow the object to be rotated parallel to the track or parallel to the horizon. This would work wonders with making bridge decks even to the track! Then you could get back on to your Maintenance-of-Way train and head to the next piece of poorly placed scenery.

Adding this one feature to OR will put it over the top for those who still cling to MSTS because they refuse to take OR seriously.

David Carleton

[James Ross]

dcarleton, on 23 November 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

I feel very strongly that there should be a Maintenance-of-Way mode, where you can run a train to some location close by to where there may be poorly placed objects.

I think this is not a bad idea at all as starting point for work on editing tools, as it is small enough in scope that the biggest component is actually likely to be the editing of the file itself (as we currently don't have anything that writes out MSTS files).

It would be worth considering, however, how much we want to spend on supporting editing MSTS files vs. creating new OR files.

[jared2982]

dcarleton, on 23 November 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Adding this one feature to OR will put it over the top for those who still cling to MSTS because they refuse to take OR seriously.

David Carleton

The lack of the editor is what keeps a lot of us in MSTS. My primary focus currently is route building and static scenery. OR has no means for me to build a route for use with OR or a specified file format to export models to. Therefore I am forced to remain in the MSTS world for this. All I can do in OR is drive by and look at it. Without all of us creating content for MSTS OR would just be a better engineered program for running stock MSTS routes and poorly detailed rolling stock and scenery. I, along with others, are waiting patiently for the time when OR addresses what we love about train simulators. Someone has to build it before you can drive it or run an activity on it.

[mauried]

Id be surprised if its even possible to make a decent editor and keep compatability with the MSTS file structure.
The MSTS file structure is appalling, and one of the reasons the MSTS editor is so buggy is because of the way it stores the route data.
To build and edit a route means that it should be possible to add modify or delete anything in the world in any order you like without trashing the route, and trying to do this whilst keeping the MSTS file format will be close to impossible.
From my perspective OR isnt a MSTS clone, and Id much prefer a better sim than trying to make something that keeps MSTS fans happy.

[Coonskin]

Can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself: What keeps me in MSTS is that ORTS isn't ready to replace it.

When it's completed to the point it can replace MSTS, I'll leave MSTS.

Simply put: If I'm going to invest the hundreds of hours required building routes, models, activities, sound streams, etc, that perform with desired results in MSTS, if it doesn't perform likewise in ORTS, then I'll stay with MSTS until it can.

[Genma Saotome]

mauried, on 23 November 2013 - 08:55 PM, said:

Id be surprised if its even possible to make a decent editor and keep compatibility with the MSTS file structure.

It can be done. I believe what happened to KUJU is they ran out of both money and time and so could not build all the features they they intended -- and were needed. One is the relational integrity between the interactives and the ordinary track in the .w files.

A relational database could do that very easily -- and would have other benefits as well -- but I'm not so sure the average end user could handle having one on his PC. So instead you have to forget about all those neat features built into a dbms and instead craft a bare bones equivalent on your own. No fun to do... but there is no technical reason why it could not be done.

[Genma Saotome]

Coonskin, on 23 November 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

Can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself: What keeps me in MSTS is that ORTS isn't ready to replace it.

When it's completed to the point it can replace MSTS, I'll leave MSTS.

Setting aside AE and RE, what do you see as missing that's really important (not just just dotting a few i's)?