[James Ross]

Genma Saotome, on 14 January 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

James, am I correct that the starmap in use has an ordinary UV mapping such that substituting larger or smaller images will still manage to fully cover the night sky? If so then perhaps by knowing the file name folks can do some experimenting with alternative maps, give us some screenshots, and then we'll have a set of files from which people can choose their preferred image (applying their file after each installed release).

Honestly, I'm not sure what the UV mapping is. As Lindsay says, though, it's just the two image files (one for whichever hemisphere you're in I think - quite basic) so you can easily drop in anything you like and see what happens - just overwrite whichever one is appropriate for your test route and go. It should not matter at all what size it is, unless it happens to be too big for your graphics card. :rofl2:

[Lindsayts]

eolesen, on 14 January 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Before we make the sky astronomically correct, can we perhaps stop having smoke particles pass thru collision objects?

I'd love to have an enginehouse that doesn't always look like it's on fire...

Problem though is collision detection is CPU intensive, from memory OR uses a particle system to show smoke and steam, this means the program has to check EVERY particle to see if it has collided with any part of an object and then determine what path it should take, this usually takes tonnes of CPU power.

In a flight sim it is usual to provide an aircraft with multiple bounding boxs with varying levels of detail, you start by testing the least detailed one first, then go on to the higher detailed ones. This makes sure one gets a correct collision detection, as one can imagine this takes plenty of steam to achieve. Its not unknown though not to both with the detailed ones, as usual every thing one does is a compromise, some will like and some will not.

Computing a true animated model of the world is ___________VERY_____________ difficult, with a sim one in the end will have to put up with things that cannot easily be done.

Lindsay

[Genma Saotome]

New subject: Consists. I would very, very much like to see an end of the practice of activity files holding a list of individual cars; Can we just have a consist name there instead? It would vastly ease the process of migrating those files from one era to another... or one person to another: just replace the original consist name w/ another and Bob's your Uncle, it's done.

Second, the data line for a car contains the .s file name and the folder name, which lacks a path. That, IMO is very disappointing. I've got car folders in directories all over the place, with gobs of duplications for no good reason other than the consist file lacks a place to record a fixed path definition. And so it would be awfully nice to be able to define a path with a mnemonic and use that in each line as needed. Defining them with something like this:

Paths (
	Path (
		PathMnemonic ( $Path1 )
		PathName (e:\bin\MSTS\1950's_Routes\Trainset)
	)
	Path (
		PathMnemonic ( $Path2 )
		PathName (e:\bin\program files x(86)\Microsoft Games\Train simulator\Trainset)
	)
	Path (
		PathMnemonic ( $Path3 )
		PathName (d:\users\dave\msts\freight cars\nyc17600)
	)
)

Inside the consist file use the PathMnemonics as often as needed... when found by OR simply substitute the correct PathName() string. No PathMnemonic() then it works like MSTS does. Done well one could also set up something like this: SFileName.s "$path4\USRABoxcars" for those situations when you've got a bunch of car folders held in one "parent" directory.

[gpz]

Dave, are you aware of that your second problem can be solved in Windows natively? It is called symbolic link. Please read the following article: http://superuser.com...o-i-create-them

(The idea was copied from Unix, which supports it for decades. Some years ago Microsoft finally took back its arrogancy in this subject, and included it into Windows too, realizing that it is an extremely helpful feature in some special cases, like this one.)

[Genma Saotome]

I'm a little bit reluctant to implement more whizzy links than I already have... am already using junctions quite a bit to take one instance of \global\shapes and have it appear in multiple locations. But I think the real problem here is what does the OR code do? I know Chris dabbled a bit to enable relative redirection -- all those damn periods and backslash nonsense that's usually incomprehensible but would a symbolic link name work too? Or a full path? I don't think so... but I'll look into it.

[gpz]

The symbolic link works totally transparently, managed by Windows. So it doesn't matter if you have the file there, or just the link. It works in MSTS too.

[dforrest]

gpz, on 16 January 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

The symbolic link works totally transparently, managed by Windows. So it doesn't matter if you have the file there, or just the link. It works in MSTS too.

Is this in all flavours of Windows?

--------------
David

[gpz]

Yes, as far as I know. But for more detailed info read the web page linked above.

[jpmackay]

I am wondering if that's possible with Tractive Effort KLb to be fixed because we all know that in MSTS that we have seen the number keep going and going up for no reason. But I am not sure if that is already fixed or already on the list that will get this done in Open Rails. If not, I felt that this has to be done a.s.a.p. I can't stand this with the number keep going up.

John

[copperpen]

What version of OR is doing this?. What engine and consist, what route, and is speed increasing or decreasing?. Running on the level, uphill or downhill?.