[Genma Saotome]

New month, new wish list.

[Jeffrey Kraus-Yao]

Erased.

[captain_bazza]

Quote

reading Rail Simulator GeoPcDx shape files.

Treading on the toes of a commercial enterprise requires a pet lawyer, or very deep pockets.

CB.

[gpz]

Jeffrey Kraus-Yao, on 01 February 2015 - 02:48 PM, said:

With this month to be implemented in the future: reading Rail Simulator GeoPcDx shape files.

Adding support to this format will not help in our problem finding a replacement format instead of the .s file, which is hard to export to from recent modelling software. This format has the same drawback: exporting to it is only possible using a commercial software, that is out of our control, and that may be changed by its owners at any time to be incompatible with what was implemented. Instead, a better effort would be to implement support for a free and standardized format. This way we could also avoid the various legal issues your idea leaded to.

I don't feel adding support for GeoPcDx files fully fits the idea behind OpenRails, to develop a free alternative train simulator.

[Jeffrey Kraus-Yao]

Erased.

[gpz]

Misunderstanding here: There is no need to develop a new proprietary format, only to choose one. For such a format tools are already available to create content. (You seem understood this at the end of your post by showing a candidate. Another one is e.g.: glTF.)

In contrast, when talking about GeoPcDx: The "other" program will receive an update to be incompatible with OpenRails' implementation the next day it is introduced; need to develop an own free export tool in any way; there will be noone maintaining our version of format anymore, thus in some years we will be in the same position as we are now with MSTS .s; OpenRails probably will face legal actions against it.

Only a decision of choosing a real free format carries a chance for not having to face the above.

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

Why not piggy back on what the MSFS guys are doing - THAT WAY - we can leverage the host of tools that this much larger community has already made or will make - for the benefit of ORTS ??? They have a very active development community on "FS Developer" improving the tools almost daily... I have to export my models from 3DC in "DirectX" format before using tools to create "MDL" files for MSFS... I really don't think MS would have an issue with someone "reading" their files - as there are a host of payware/freeware developers who have already created tools to actually make MDL files - and they didn't get MS permission to do so... Honestly - since both the S file and MDL file are MS's - the legality is no different than we have at this very moment... I don't know the advantages/disadvantages of the MDL format over the S format though...

Just a suggestion...

PS - this shape discussion should probably be it's own topic and not embedded in the "Wish List"...
:shock6:

Regards,
Scott

[gpz]

scottb613, on 02 February 2015 - 04:24 AM, said:

I really don't think MS would have an issue with someone "reading" their files - as there are a host of payware/freeware developers who have already created tools to actually make MDL files - and they didn't get MS permission to do so...

This is not authoritative, because those tools' purpose is still making files for MS product, the flight simulator. A better test here would be to examine whether competitive flight simulator(s), like FlightGear is using MDL format, and if by doing so they didn't face legal actions against them by MS.

[charland]

How about a way to properly set up a tender light and have it be controlled from the engine. As long as the tender is attached to the assigned engine, the engineer just has to change direction to get the tender light to come on. Right now, the light cone is straight back from the engine and if you're in a curve it's obviously not from the tender.

Paul :-)

[scottb613]

Hii Paul,

Yes please - I've been wanting to setup proper tender lighting for years !
:shock6:

Regards,
Scott