[SP 0-6-0]

This is an issue I can relate to on both sides. I do agree with Dave on ORTS needing changes made to eng and wag files before things work right or at all. Hmm, So much for plug and play here. ORTS did state a goal before release of V1.0 that they are striving for one to one with MSTS. So far I see several short cuts taken and some things skipped completely.

I still say I should be able to pop in a CD with my commecial routs and have the locos and route work straight away out of the box. Instead I have to edit files and use DPU just to get the smoke on the diesels to not look like blotchs of black squares.

This I feel is always going to be a doubled edge sword.

Robert

[copperpen]

I do not think that it was ever the intention that ORTS would be 100% compatible with the old MSTS, merely that it would be capable of using content. Even with the old MSTS, there was still a requirement that you had to tweak files to get a better result. You have to remember that at no time has the people who write the OR code had access to the MSTS code, all has been done by dissecting files and inspired guesswork. The areas where you do not see anything are probably those that have not been worked on or it is found to be not possible to get things to work like MSTS.

[Genma Saotome]

As one who was part of the beginning I can say it was clearly understood that OR was not intended to be a modern version of MSTS. As a matter of fact there was the occasional debate over the importance of carrying forward old content. At such times, when I commented, what I had in mind was what I perceived was the failure of (what is now called) DTG to provide for MSTS content in their new simulator. Everybody was bitterly complaining there wasn't any content except for what shipped. It seemed to me to be a no-brainer that to avoid similar complaints the OR program should take care to carry old content along with it no matter which direction it chose for the future. It would make end users happy and relieve the development team of making content in some new way.

And AFAIK, so it remains today.

[cjakeman]

SP 0-6-0, on 22 January 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

I still say I should be able to pop in a CD with my commercial routes and have the locos and routes work straight away out of the box.

It's the target we've been aiming for though I don't think we will ever manage it 100%.

At this point in our progress, it would help if we had a guide on the steps needed to adjust a product for MSTS so it works well in ORTS. That would:

• identify and illustrate the issues
• gather together the good advice that is currently scattered around the forums
• remove the MSTS-specific material in the Open Rails manual making it simpler

Is this something you would be willing to help with, Robert?

Best wishes,

[R H Steele]

Relative to the rest of you I'm very new to all of this.
But, my half-penny worth is that this is a period of transition. MSTS is a seminal but also archaic train sim platform and [imo] ORTS has, mostly, fulfilled it's backward compatibility mission. I also agree with Dave, that going forward that mission will probably stay on the table. OR has yet to fulfill the promise of new files types designed for OR, a suite of editing tools (I would love to see an AE for ORTS)....but I'm sure that will happen in time. The "outside" development of Goku's RE is being hailed by some route creators as a very welcome tool. Perhaps that will merge into the OR development line, perhaps not.

I think we're a little ways from a "plug-an-play" ORTS environment, where you purchase (or download a free) model or route and not have to adjust one little thing to get top notch performance in OR, with all the bells and whistles working...turntables, signals, shapes, animations, 3D cabs, etc... that will also happen someday...perhaps none of us will see it.

I also like think all of us are participating in this wonderfully crazy project by seriously - carefully testing and discussing (without acrimony but with an eye towards experiment and evidence ) Open Rails. That's an interesting opportunity...people should make use of it.

Years ago (in the private conversations? - I've read what public ones I could find) did you people actually believe Open Rails would get this far? Well, it's a testament to the talent, patience, willingness to co-operate, and downright stubbornness of all of you! Thank you.

[Lindsayts]

cjakeman, on 23 January 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

It's the target we've been aiming for though I don't think we will ever manage it 100%.

At this point in our progress, it would help if we had a guide on the steps needed to adjust a product for MSTS so it works well in ORTS. That would:

• identify and illustrate the issues
• gather together the good advice that is currently scattered around the forums
• remove the MSTS-specific material in the Open Rails manual making it simpler

Is this something you would be willing to help with, Robert?

Best wishes,

As has already been stated one of the problems here is the simplistic way MSTS set up rolling stock particularly steam loco's, as a consequence most supplied steamers have had to have there eng files "hacked" to work anything like correctly even in MSTS So its almost mandatory to have to edit the eng files. At least now with Openrails its relatively easy to produce an eng file that has a good hope of a steamer performing in a reasonable fashion.

Lindsay

[Genma Saotome]

R H Steele, on 23 January 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

Years ago (in the private conversations? - I've read what public ones I could find) did you people actually believe Open Rails would get this far?

Perhaps I was very unrealistic in my expectations but at the start I thought that well before now people could create new OR based routes on tiles that were not (stupidly) skewed, using software that replaced RGE, DEMEX, Mosaic, and RE, recording the results in files that were not KUJU designed and creating content whose non-3d Modeling aspects were also not KUJU designed (e.g., .wags, .engs, .sd's, etc. etc.).

And here we are and essentially none of that has occurred. Which is why I've pretty much given up on the notion that OR is the way forward. In fact, for both route builders and content creators there may not ever be a way forward, but that's beyond the point.

All that has been done is mostly replace train.exe for the end user (which indeed is an accomplishment very much worthy of praise). But nothing much has been done to replace anything else* much less present a new way forward. For several years now it's been very, very disappointing.


* I'm sure there are folks who would chip in here and ask "What about Goku's editor?". We're I to be starting a new (skewed) MSTS route I would gladly commit myself to using it instead of KUJU's junk. But I've invested many years in my projects and having seen others fall before the inherent risks present in the KUJU design, which I understand and have occasionally have struggled to over come, I cannot bring myself to put everything so far accomplished at risk in order to use a different toolset that still has to deal with the design flaws KUJU built into its files (i.e., I'm speaking of the inherent flaw presented by the relationship between the .tdb and the the world files in the context of track and interactives). I won't do it. Period. And so in that situation I can and do say nothing much has been done.

[SP 0-6-0]

Chris, I would be interested in gathering information from TS.com and watching for tidbits here on ET. I sometimes visit UKTS.

I would be interested in running specific threads on TS.com and ET for specifically discussing issues with the physics and file interactions in MSTS that is missing in ORTS or does not work correctly out of the box.

Robert

[roeter]

cjakeman, on 23 January 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

It's the target we've been aiming for though I don't think we will ever manage it 100%.

It wasn't always so. At first, the main reason for having compatibility was that it gave OR a chance to start off without the need to develop everything (routes, shapes, signals, rolling stock) from scratch. It was seen as a base from which everything could be build, slowly replacing MSTS files and definitions by OR's own.
But as time went on, the targets moved ever more toward the full 100% compatibility, and OR's own development took second stage.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[cjakeman]

SP 0-6-0, on 23 January 2017 - 03:49 PM, said:

I would be interested in running specific threads on TS.com and ET for specifically discussing issues with the physics and file interactions in MSTS that is missing in ORTS or does not work correctly out of the box.

That'll be very helpful. Many thanks for reponding so positively.

May I suggest that a first step might be some research here on Elvas Tower and on TrainSim for good advice and even documents which have already been offered but not properly collected together? I seem to remember that there have been quite a few.