[Coonskin]

Quote

Id much prefer a better sim than trying to make something that keeps MSTS fans happy.

Break the connection with MSTS and you've lost ALL of the content being used in ORTS and now you're faced with the prospect of not only having the need for ORTS-based route editors, activity editors, terrain extraction programs, etc, etc, but also faced with the need to build an ENTIRELY NEW "ORTS-based" library of routes, locomotive, rolling stock, scenic items, and other such content, FROM THE GROUND UP. (Let that one sink in.)

IMHO, breaking from MSTS at this point would be the KISS OF DEATH for the ORTS project.

Toughest part of ANY sim hitting the market is adequate CONTENT. It takes YEARS for a well-supported (read thousands of users) user base to slowly build usable content, and that's in FAR LESS time than it would take for a SMALL group of hobby/part-time developers (such as would be the case for ORTS) having to do so.

[Csantucci]

I completely agree with Coonskin. MSTS compatibility is an essential plus of OR, due to the large contents base.
By the way there wasn't unanimity in the previous posts, as someones say they don't use OR because it is not 100% compatible with MSTS (but in my opinion at this point the incompatibilities are very few), and others say they are not interested in MSTS compatibility.

About the reason why people don't build contents exclusively thought for OR (e.g. activities), I think that a reason is that OR is a work in progress, so there is the risk that what runs today won't run tomorrow.

[markus_GE]

I agree with both, Andre and Carlo. If OpR was to no longer Support MSTS files, I´d never again even post in the OpR section!

MSTS Content has been developed in a time period longer than I even knew of MSTS. And I am seeing this as a HUGE Advantage over all otehr sims. There´s a gazillion of "add-ons" (hate the word, though) avalable out there, that would be just condemned to go to the happy hunting grounds with no other sim than "poor old MSTS" (sorry for saying this, but ain´t it true?) supporting them. It would be millions of hour of work lost. Not to mention the Money those who bought payware for MSTS would have wasted then.

I guess the originally intended path for OpR would be the best: Try to Combine compatibilty to old MSTS Content with a - later to be developed - newere from of add-on Content. This would best align with both opinions, I think.

Cheers, Markus

[disc]

Wasn't the plan, to make an own route format ORTS, which will be edited by the OR route editor, and MSTS routes can be converted to this new format? Then OR wouldn't have the MSTS limits, yet the contents will be useable.
By the way, i think what is needs the most of the updates on routes, is the scenery (3d models and textures), so i think the main priority should be the new 3d and texture format first, and it's probably much easier to do than a new route format and editor. Currently a lot of content makers want to make better models for OR, but the .s format is really appalling (lack of modern features, lack of export tools), just like ace texture format.

[gpz]

I think a good way towards a real route editor would be a step-by-step approach, where a first step could be the ability to make simple modifications of existing MSTS routes. So I think

1. A new playing mode should be defined beyond Explore Route, e.g. Machinate Route
2. with an ability to jump anywhere on the route. For example hit Ctrl+G, and a form with an abilily to enter X and Z coordinates appeared.
3. A possibility for modifying existing scenery objects' position should be implemented, with an additional possibility of adding new objects as well.
4. A possibility of checking the log-file-reported route errors visually should be implemented. E.g. when a log file has a warning of some invalid track section linking, or any other wrong linking, it should be possible to go to that location, and be able to display the related numbers there, for being able to determine what would be the correct number to modify the related files by a text editor.

At this stage the possibility of laying tracks could be still left to MSTS route editor. And anyway, the possibilities above would be needed for a dedicatied OR editor as well, so the work would not be superfluous.

[Genma Saotome]

I think we can all agree that there are issues w/ MSTS... and just like money, there are always more good ideas about what to do than there are resources to do it.

When the OR team gets around to tackling a route editor they'll have to decide early on whether the edited data will be written back into a .w file or something brand new. IMO choosing the later will likely mean a route editor will be available at a much later date -- more design work and less agreement on what the new file should be (format itself is no big deal... json looks promising, but questions of a new directory structure, extent of data normalization, etc., are open questions).

I've always thought a simple editor of static objects -- add, move, rotate, delete with the date going back into a .w file would be the straightforward way to get started on working out what an editor should and could do. Limiting it to static objects lets the team work out the user interface w/o the complexity of dealing with roads, tracks, and interactives, which have a great deal of extra complexity behind them. And the written output is rather simple and could be replaced w/ ease at some later point when a true OR editor is developed. IMO a simple editor like this would satisfy most end users needs for most of their tweeking needs (twerking needs are a whole 'nuther issue). :pleasantry:

Over time the static object editor could be enhanced by virtue of making it more CAD like -- a route editor IS a 3d CAD editor: you copy/paste/adjust poistion of groups of vertexes with their textures (object placement and rotation, edit the position of terrain vertexes, replace terrain textures, snap a track or road object to another... that's CAD and IMO the route editor needs to provide a fairly robust set of CAD functions; but best to start small).

Texture editing has it's own issues, some similar (e.g., what file format to write), some brand new (e.g., is there a better way to select groups of vertexes to edit?) and so I think that's likely going to require a separate phase of development.

[Lindsayts]

I would like to clarify a number of points........

The main reason for starting this thread I was under the very strong impression that when talking about an OR editor and tools most people were thinking of the final result with all bells and whistles. Now I believe the best appraoch though is a staged approach starting out with simplicty first as has been indicated in the last two posts from Genma and gpz.

The second thing is why I am nagging so much about this. Now as I have mentioned (many times) I do not run Windows much and Windows XP WILL be the last version I will ever own (Linux being my main OS). I can see a time in the not to distant future when it will no longer be able to install XP on new hardware. By this I mean my time with Windows is numbered. In fact I habe not run OR for wellover a month new.

For this an many other reasons I am in the middle of programming my own train sim for Linux (I am currently working on a simple route editor). So it does not REALLY bother me if OR goes down the drain. Inspite of this I ____REALLY____ admire what has been done so far and wish OR well in the future.

A great concern though is that the better OR gets the more glaring is the lack of a decent editor. In this "little black ducks" humble opinion an OR editor years in the future will be in the end ______VERY________ counter productive and the devs need to think of a ways around this post OR 1.0 and not post OR 3 or 4 many years down the track.

Linux now for over 20 years,
Lindsa

[gpz]

 Lindsayts, on 24 November 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

(...)I am in the middle of programming my own train sim (...). So it does not REALLY bother me if OR goes down the drain.

Can you post your project's name/website, so I could also choose which of the two I would bother if went down the drain? :)

[steamer_ctn]

I believe that there is enough MSTS content around to satisfy most users, and that only a small number of "new users" (those without MSTS) would be interested in building routes at this time.

I think that the AE is far more important then the RE, as I suspect that a lot more "new "users" would prefer to make new activities on existing routes, but unless they have MSTS, they cannot.

Having said that, at a pinch, most of an activity could be created by editing text files, however, I believe that creation of paths is the one thing that is not possible easily through a text file editor. This approach however only caters for "dedicated" users, rather then general users who want to get started without launching into a massive self education exercise.

Cheers

Peter

[eric from trainsim]

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

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

All that you've mentioned (re-aligning, adjustments to elevation, shifting of coordinates) can be accomplished now without the RE. All you need to do is go into the World files and tweak the objects.

Granted, knowing which object is which is a problem, but it's certainly doable by hand. That's how I spend my half my building time, and I know of at least one other forum user here who also probably spends more time manipulating the raw World files than they do making adjustments in the RE.

All that said, I've been playing around a bit in C# with a rudimentary 2D editor, which would do something similar to the routines in Mosaic and MSTSTrackViewer which decode the TDB and display a track or road diagram. It would plot the axis point of various scenery objects, and allow for some basic adjustments to the parameters, but rendering them isn't going to happen. It's still very much a work in progress and far from ready to show off in screenshots...