[R H Steele]

Lindsayts, on 21 July 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

This rubbishy simulator you are running down has produced some real excellent routes and rolling stock and a MAJOR reason (I think anyway) for this is that Microsoft abandoned the simulator but left it on sale. This allowed what really should be described as the "impossible" to occur, that is a stable trainsimulator interface. With this stabilty came much knowledge on how to "work" the simulator to advantage.
Lindsay

Logic as bad as msts. Talented people using inferior tools produced the routes, rolling stock, etc. Kudos to them, respect to them, grateful to them, not msts, I usually thank the carpenter, NOT the hammer. Their love of railroading pushed them to do. MSTS was all they had to use their product on, Time to let it go.
I am glad msts was in the historical chain that eventually led to Open Rails. Again, not germane to msts relevance as a contemporary, useful, resislient, robust, train simulator. Historically interesting, and I'm grateful, but it stops there.

Lindsayts, on 21 July 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Its also very likely that without MSTS there would be no openrails. In the opensource operating system Linux with something like 15 to 20,000 different open source software items availible there is not a single mechanical simulator of any kind. A rail simulator is a specific case in a little known open source category (mechanical sims) and to produce a good one requires a VERY rare mix of talents and knowledge in an indivdual.
Lindsay

Oh Please, that is saying that without the first wheel we would not have steel belted radials. Yep, true, but so what. Who is still driving around on the first wheel. I remember the first TV I saw, had a little circle of a screen. While I remember it fondly I am not pining to watch it again. Rest of it is Immaterial to the point of msts has WAY outlived its usefulness. Yep people are still playing pong, and always will, but they aren't foolish enough to stand it next to contemporary games. Everything else you say is true, but not to the point about msts, just throwing facts at people.

Lindsayts, on 21 July 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

The past is the roots of its future, but the past is land where the people have different values that are not often understood today so criticism of the past is most often futile.
Lindsay

You take a very specific opinion about a very specific piece of software and blow it up to be an criticism of the past as a whole. Again I agree with you about the past, but how specifically with facts does this rebut anything? Come on punkin, stick to the subject. Geeze I even mentioned a love for model T's. Don't infer something not there.

Lindsayts, on 21 July 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

I have tried all rail simulators except for Run8 and as far as I am concerned MSTS (with MSTSbin) is a good deal better than all other sims.
Lindsay

As far as you are concerned, good, glad you enjoy it. Happy for you. Good deal is a qualitative statement - list some of those qualities that make msts better than all the others (except for the one you have not tried)
Me thinks this is where the altar get hauled out.

Okay, Lindysayts, we had cordial exchanges prior to this and now I have raised your hackles. (I had an aunt that raised hackles, made tasty hackleberry pie too). I haven't felt this fiesty in a long time.

I don't know if I have the inclination to answer many of these. We'll see. If I need to be stopped, someone in authority just PM me. (No that does not mean "Punch Mouth" for pete's sake!)

Edit- you know my answering was a mistake. This is someone else's thread that's being hijacked by my blather. I am going to start a new thread in the Open Rails entitled
"The Real problem with Open Rails" - look for everything there. Apologies again to FS.E652 091

[markus_GE]

Hijacking threads can be annoying at times, but also educating.

Anyway, to keep things fair, one also has to say that we have a wishlist for suggestions like the ones this thread was originally started for. OTOH I forget if such a thread has already been started for July...

If you don´t mind, Gerry, I´ll try to move your posts posts from here to your new thread, if I can manage to do it.

Cheers, Markus
(Admin)

This post has been edited by markus_GE: 22 July 2014 - 01:32 AM
Reason for edit:: Correct spelling

[FS.E652 091]

For the replacement of the tracks, do you know the new DBTracks??? well, for why the author have not replace the DBtracks with the original Msts Trakcs?? also there is the possibility to replace it??
in Open Rails a 3D newely Tracks can compare Msts with Railworks :oldstry: , and i hope that the team have a lot of surprises to show on Open Rails!!

[markus_GE]

Hi Baldo,

AFAIK it is possible to replace MSTS standard tracks and also Xtracks with DBtracks - or was it Scalerail? Anyway, both of these are great 3D track shapes, though a bit of a performance hog in the game. The only problem is that converting routes can be a heck of a PITA, telling from my own experience (once started out with Scalerail and some part of the ATSF transcon... nevre got far)

Cheers, Markus

[jared2982]

If a straight drop in track set was made for the original A1t shapes and the ones expanded on by XTracks using the same names all of the headache would go away. You would simply drop them into the global/shapes directory overwriting the original and presto, you're done. I have looked at 3d track designs and even produced a single 30m track piece. That piece contained ballast, ties on 24" centers tie plates and spikes and rails. It came in at 1300 polys for just one piece. A bit pricey in the poly department especially for MSTS. I know OR handles thing better but a yard loaded with track like that might even slow OR down a bit. It is also very time consuming to produce these pieces to even test it out especially when you don't know for sure if they are even going to work out in the end.

[markus_GE]

Would be great if it worked that way so easily. Actually, that´s just what I was trying to do on a per-route basis. In the end, however, it simply was too tedious for me. I´ll stay with programming helper utilities to make managing the roundhouse on your HDD a little easier :(

Cheers, Markus

[FS.E652 091]

Thank you guys for the questions!!

P.s, i have noticed that i can't see the experimental section on Open Rails Site ( whats the version xxxx for example contain )

[Genma Saotome]

FS.E652 091, on 23 July 2014 - 01:44 AM, said:

For the replacement of the tracks, do you know the new DBTracks??? well, for why the author have not replace the DBtracks with the original Msts Trakcs??

He died.

[markus_GE]

FS.E652 091, on 27 July 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

Thank you guys for the questions!!

P.s, i have noticed that i can't see the experimental section on Open Rails Site ( whats the version xxxx for example contain )

Try going to the main www.openrails.com page, the in the downloads section in the menu click on program and get the "Supporters Download", as the X releases are now called :)

Cheers, Markus

[Lindsayts]

As far as I am aware the problem with 3D ballast in MSTS and therefore OR is the standard MSTS ballast is just a texture applied to the track base. With 3D ballast the track needs to be higher by the ballast depth so with DBtracks one has to add the depth of the ballast to every track sections height parameter.

It may be possible in OR to have with say DBtracks to have a "use 3D ballast" option its value being the depth of the 3D ballast, OR simply adding this value to each track sections apropriate x,y,z parameter. Then one could use DBtracks or any other 3D ballast track sections (if any are availible) with little effort. This is not a complete answer as things like platform and level crossing heights must take account of the ballast depth, platform heights (around this way anyway) being measured from the top surface of the rail.

Lindsay