[R H Steele]

 EricF, on 22 July 2014 - 03:41 AM, said:

:clown: But they did such a great job with duct-tape! (Much like ike the Force, it has a light side and a dark side, and it binds everything together...) :clown:

But seriously, MSTS is, well, a train wreck as far as software goes. Without the BIN patch and workarounds developed over the years, it probably would have died off years ago.

The file formats used by MSTS are downright simplistic in some ways -- enough that Open Rails is right to treat them as just a subset of what it should ultimately be capable of. But there's so much content for MSTS out there; it's understandable that engineering enough fault-tolerance into OR when it sees MSTS files is still a good thing, in my opinion. It can use MSTS content as a springboard to bigger and better things.

The proposed MSTS 2 efforts never promised any backward compatibility or interoperability with MSTS -- probably because the programmers looked at the MSTS code and decided it would be better to just blow it all up and start fresh. OR has gone one step better, and has re-built the concepts behind MSTS, but all in modern, cleaner code. OR programmers have likely fought a lot of dragons along the way -- that's something to be thankful for.

It's important to realize that what OR is right now is just the tip of the iceberg -- with things like timetable-based operation, 3D cabs and the multiplayer feature, it's already leaving MSTS far behind. I do look forward to when MSTS "standards" are truly just a minimum or legacy feature subset.

:rofl2: Well said. Especially like the bit that mashed duct tape and star wars togerther - priceless. :rofl:

[R H Steele]

 markus_GE, on 22 July 2014 - 01:31 AM, said:

Very well put, Gerry :rofl2:



Yes, sadly, that´s true. Look for the thread "End Of the Line" (Not End Of the Line II" - that was somebody else)

Cheers, Markus

Thanks for moving the verbage and such, Markus.

[CGW121]

 Genma Saotome, on 22 July 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

.

#Bitchin & moanin: Write it off as just part of the human condition.

Agreed, however that's what one hears so much of. The ones who like it generally are quiet about it which is understandable but one needs to hear well done once in a while. The attitude of do it yourself is directed at the ones who do not read the instructions but just complain. One does not write instructions or a help file to take up space. Most of the problems with coding and msts etc are answered by instructions or old forum topics. I usually read the answer several times through to make sure I understand what they are trying to say. Maybe I am weird that way who knows.

[jorgegonzalito]

Dear Friends:
A very sharp and clever fellow Steele RH analysis. Open Rails is certainly free and so we should be grateful to those who worked in and they even work, take advantage and enjoy the features of that work OR where possible and conceal what is not quite right. Because some continue with MSTS? I can talk about my country: Almost all rolling stock currently circulating or ever circulated in Argentina, is only available in MSTS, there is almost nothing done to Auran Trainz or Railworks. This is the main reason and perhaps Open Rails us the opportunity to continue with all of MSTS, and not have to discard to start all over again. Cheers.

[Coonskin]

I dunno', I think it's simple: Tired of MSTS? Think it's a pee-poor sim?

Fine. Go you way and use the sim of your choice and spare the rest of us the melodrama.

[R H Steele]

Someone at TS refuses to post this same exact thread. However, they will post the thread "Why I appreciate MST" Although Dave Edwards (dedwa15237) edits out references made to the thread "The Real Problem with Open Rails"

Anonymouse moderator at TS continually refuses the let me post in the Open Rail discussion forum this exact thread you are reading here. I have a screenshot below of the thread immediately after I posted it .... it is now removed. No explanation of either the editing or the removal, Of course, certain others are allowed to opine about how bad OR is and always post anything they desire. Double standard, perhaps. It is afterall their private playground and they can kick stand in any other kids face they desire. But they should MAN-UP and explain in public what is so objectionable about the thread. Curious behavior, what is that saying about small minds?

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[atsf37l]

 Coonskin, on 22 July 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

I dunno', I think it's simple: Tired of MSTS? Think it's a pee-poor sim?

Fine. Go you way and use the sim of your choice and spare the rest of us the melodrama.

Gotta concur. I am personally excited about the prospects of OR. The premise is a good one - take what we have and rebuild it for the latest and greatest processors and video equipment with an eye to maintaining compatibility over many generations of "technology doubles every three years" cycles. And, while we're at it, let's change some things and add new ones (like being able to line the switch behind you so the AI doesn't come up to it and stop - or just because it is the right thing to do railroad wise, close the gate after you get in - little stuff like that which make OR so attractive).

But, OR is not ready to run trains like I run trains. It needs activity editors and route editors that have the sophistication and operability of the train-running-parts of it.

Once it matures to the point where it can move the commerce of the rails in a prototypical fashion - something I can get MSTS to do now - then I will likely convert. As an operator of many helper districts in the steam era, where helpers have to be added and cut out, the inability to switch locomotives from the current one to one that is not connected to the train has always been the most serious limitation of MSTS. BIN at least allows you to change cabs but you still have to be 'hooked.' The ability to mouse-click-select a helper on a setout spur and move it to the train, or to set out a helper and still be able to get back to the train's power is essential to these operations and MSTS won't do it. Sadly, neither will OR. Many non-prototypical moves have to be made.

So, for now, I'm satisfied with MSTS for my train simming needs and OR will remain an idle curiosity until there are significant improvements.

[eric from trainsim]

 R H Steele, on 22 July 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

Anonymouse moderator at TS continually refuses the let me post in the Open Rail discussion forum this exact thread you are reading here. I have a screenshot below of the thread immediately after I posted it .... it is now removed. No explanation of either the editing or the removal, Of course, certain others are allowed to opine about how bad OR is and always post anything they desire. Double standard, perhaps. It is afterall their private playground and they can kick stand in any other kids face they desire. But they should MAN-UP and explain in public what is so objectionable about the thread. Curious behavior, what is that saying about small minds?

It's poor form to start questioning moderation on one forum in another forum... Instead of bringing it over here, you should be asking the question over there, i.e. PM the moderator who edited your post and ask why.

[EricF]

Please let's not debate the merits of forums and moderation styles -- I've never seen that go anywhere good. :oldstry:

All in all, I think what we're really seeing is that Open Rails is what's sometimes termed a 'disruptive' technology. It challenges the standing order of things, simply because it's not MSTS. It may never be 100% compatible; 95% or better is good enough I'd say, but that's outside some folks' comfort zone.

It offers, or will offer entirely new approaches to aspects of running a train simulator and its content -- again, not everyone is eager for that.

Being open source, there's a subtle difference in the approach to it from the growing OR community. Open source software, particularly free open source software ('FOSS', for those fond of acronyms...) has a reputation / stigma (depending on how you view it) for fostering more free software. Commercial software vendors fear their bottom line being cut; It's possible some payware developers likewise feel uneasy that OR's open/free philosophy might spill out into the larger MSTS/OR content realm and affect their market share. It doesn't have to be so; only time will determine what really happens.

But here's to giving OR a go to be the best it can; the community that stays with it can only benefit, and I do hope more will join in and take on new challenges, learn new things, and help this quirky hobby to grow a bit.

[pnrailway]

Just a word of warning here. We encourage conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of both sims however please keep things civil and and on subject. We will not tolerate any arguments about actions on other sites. We are all friends here and we want it to stay that way. :oldstry: