[Guilford309]

Going along with my previous post, I edited the region a bit, so that the box leaks over the tracks, Went into ORTS, and the trees better hug the rails. However, If this ever is reverted back to the way MSTS handled it, it will be much work to go through and re-edit once again. So maybe I will just hold off on the forest regions until something is final with this process of the regions. Though, I must admit, I personally would like to have this route finished and released before this time next year. That is... if I actually can spend at least two-three hours per day doing so..

[Csantucci]

I'm too in favour of
- either a checkbox to select forests shrinking
- or a parameter in a route's file (e.g. .trk) instructing ORTS how to behave (shrink or not shrink).
If I remember well, for a short time the checkbox was available within the ORTS options.

It would be highly undesirable to need to have two different versions of the route.

[James Ross]

Okay, so last time I checked the "avoid trees on track" code was completely disabled. Any differences in the extent of placement of trees from MSTS is a bug that should be fixed - we can't place the trees in the exact same places, but we can and should get the extents right.

[Csantucci]

Simply removing the tree-free frame around the forest area requires this simple patch, that I sometimes use for myself:
 Forest.cs.patch.zip (498bytes)
Number of downloads: 222

If it is decided to add a checkbox somewhere within the options, I can candidate to prepare the patch.
If it is decided to add a flag e.g. in the route's .trk file ( ORTSForestFramed()), that doesn't make any harm to MSTS - my favourite solution - I think I'm able to prepare the patch.

[James Ross]

There should be no need for any options, in Open Rails or the route, for this. Just need some thorough testing.

[Csantucci]

Maybe a frame could only reduced and not completely removed, to avoid tree branches above the tracks. A good compromise could be having a planting area defined as follows

       var plantingArea = area - new Vector3(size.X / 2, 0, size.X / 2 ); 

[James Ross]

Well, the planting area should be adjusted to match MSTS... that's what the testing is needed for. :whistling:

[Csantucci]

As I believed to remember, comparison tests MSTS-ORTS have already been done, and reports can be found in these threads:
http://www.trainsim....ng+trees+tracks
http://www.elvastowe...s-on-the-track/
They are related to versions starting from 1483. In that period the forest area had no tree-free frame around it as far as I can see in the code. As reported, it comes out that in such situation OR in principle behaves as MSTS (minus about 1.5m as written here below), and in both simulations tree branches can partially extend over the forest area. Jtang affirms that probably MSTS does not plant trees within a frame of 1.5 meters around the forest limits. This is similar to my proposal of a tree-free frame of half the width of the tree (this would prevent branches to extend outside the forest limits).

But what remains different between OR and MSTS is the allocation of the single trees; so, if a modification like my proposal is committed, Guilford309 that started this tread will be very happy, but I'm quite sure that there will be someone complaining about trees on the track. So, due to the fact that building a simulator that declares to accept MSTS contents generates some extra burdens that not always lead to the most elegant solutions, I remain of the idea that it is necessary to accept a route-related flag that defines if a larger frame is needed or not around forests.

[James Ross]

I've just gotten rid of all the weird hacks in OR for forests, so they should be behaving much more like MSTS regarding area covered, etc., but obviously the exact placement of each tree still won't match.

[James Ross]

Csantucci, on 17 April 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Jtang affirms that probably MSTS does not plant trees within a frame of 1.5 meters around the forest limits.

I played with forests in the MSTS editor and could not see any such exclusion around the edge - trees would happily go right up to the edge with their branches hanging over the boundary.