[atsf37l]

EricF, on 22 July 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

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.

Well said, Eric. :oldstry:

[jared2982]

I'm with you on this one Herb. I like what I see in OR but it is still lacking where my interest are. But that's ok for now. Step 1 should be a working sim that we can use to replace MSTS for operations and have a full v1.0 working release. Then we can proceed to improving on what we have and create the editors. Let us not forget that MSTS did not have editors when it was first released either. However until it does come with route and activity editors I must continue to use what is available in MSTS. That's just the way it is.

The OR team does a good job and they do at for free. This leaves me no right to bitch about anything they do so I want. I will continue to make suggestions where I feel it necessary. If they are used I am grateful and glad I could contribute if only to put an idea into motion, if not then oh well. As for the politics of other forums, well there are reasons people don't visit them just like there are reasons people don't visit other countries. Take that however you want.

Now for a continued suggestion and to add fuel to Herbs fire. The ability to move from one engine to another is a very important function for prototypical operation of mountain railroads. We need to be able to do it without being hooked to the engine we need to move to and without invisible engines. It is an important feature that should make its way into OR at some point. My next suggestion is also an item that was used in early mountain railroading for turning helpers in tight locations and at engine service facilities. Yes, the illusive functioning turntable. Anyway those are my thoughts. Not worth much but I doubt they will be deleted by a moderator because of it.

Thanks for reading.

[Genma Saotome]

eolesen, on 22 July 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

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.

<< ADMIN COMMENT >>
Yes indeed, please take the complaint over there please.

[Genma Saotome]

jared2982, on 22 July 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

I'm with you on this one Herb. I like what I see in OR but it is still lacking where my interest are.

Emphasis added.

Let me insert a very speculative thought here -- s p e c u l a t i v e -- for your consideration. AFAIK, none of the programmers who have recently been working on OR reside in North America. Given the fact that this Open Source project is entirely of voluntary programmers it is natural that they do have considerable leeway to volunteer to work on certain features where they personally hold an interest. Yeah... there are purely technical issues as well as certain project priorities... neutral issues like fixing a particular bug, but that said there are also existing interests and knowledge brought to the table by each programmer, both of which may occasionally present themselves in the code with an understanding highly influenced by geography.

As an example, not long ago there was a lot of open thinking going on WRT a particular feature and throughout the discussion one could find the word platform appearing. Frankly, I'd be perfectly happy if there were no features whatsoever for platforms as none of the routes I have an interest in would be degraded by their absence by any amount greater than could be measured physically in microns... and IMO that would be true for most every route set in North America. But there it was in the discussion, seemingly a very important feature.

Of course I do know in many places in the world it would be a very important feature to include in routes and as such it does need to be in the code. My point in raising this example is not to be critical of the feature or the discussion around it but to show how the background of who is developing the code does have an effect on what features get developed and why they have the functionality (or lack of functionality) that occasionally makes one pause and think: The trend is right but it's not quite addressing my interests.

I think the solution is to hope more volunteers from North America join the team and contribute. More programmers mean more work gets done and more from North America means more perspectives, which could result in a more robust set of features... everyone could benefit from that.

[R H Steele]

Apologies, did not realize it was poor form, having read other discussions here concerning same situation. Anyway, no complaint, just stating an observation of fact.
In regards to form - have never received or desired points for form and am not worrying about it now.
Said my piece - mouth now zipped.

[R H Steele]

eolesen, on 22 July 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

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.

Well Howdy, and thanks I'll do just that.

[R H Steele]

EricF, on 22 July 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

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.

I think you've hit on something there. Just today I was reading a piece about the economic theories of "boom and bust" the destruction of old business models/patterns and the emergence of new ones. People get used to patterns and ways (models) of doing things. I suppose the smaller the community the more rigidly they would adhere to something. So when the new (no matter how much more beneficial) appears and begins to replace the old pattern people are upset. Critical of the new, sometimes unreasonably so. Having used MSTS for only a month or so and then discovering Open Rails did not present any obstacles to overcome other than a learning curve - which I was already performing with MSTS.

I am interested in something - someone here should know this. When MSTS was first released, were there any other train simulators in production. Then, currently being used or soon to be released? If there were, are they still around? And in what form?

[jared2982]

MSTS was the first. It was released in mid 2001. June or July maybe. I believe it was the first on the market. Auran's Trainz was released not long after MSTS and has gone through several changes over the years making some if not all of the original content unusable. Others may be able to expand more on that as I have only used the program briefly to evaluate it. Besides those I don't think there was much else out there until Rail Simulator came along in 2007. I have always speculated that RS was a revamped and sooped up version of MSTS2 that MS never released.

[R H Steele]

jared2982, on 22 July 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

MSTS was the first. It was released in mid 2001. June or July maybe. I believe it was the first on the market. Auran's Trainz was released not long after MSTS and has gone through several changes over the years making some if not all of the original content unusable. Others may be able to expand more on that as I have only used the program briefly to evaluate it. Besides those I don't think there was much else out there until Rail Simulator came along in 2007. I have always speculated that RS was a revamped and sooped up version of MSTS2 that MS never released.

Interesting, thanks. Especially the part about Auran's Trainz early content being unusable. Makes Open Rails legacy compatiblity all the more remarkable.

Anyone else with the historical skinny?

[captain_bazza]

@James and Dave, well put, mates, sums it up well.

Cheers Bazza.