perpetualKid, on 08 July 2020 - 12:45 AM, said:
I agree with most of what you wrote, exception being in the emphasized portion of the above quote. I also am of the opinion that MSTS compatiblity need not be as rigorously adhered to going forward, although I believe there still are issues that involve MSTS models used in the UK and Europe that do not fully function in OR.
Compatibility, once established should not be intentionally broken ( unintended consequences are always part of human activity ). So at some point there should be a stable version of OR that represents the endpoint of MSTS backward compatibility and development from that point maintains that compatibility but does not further enhance it.
Regarding the total thread, very interesting and informative discussion, too much to digest in one sitting. So many well thought out ideas and proposal leaves one wondering if it can all come together, indeed, within the discussion are gloomy predictions, however, being a glass-half-full type -- I'm hopeful of a satisfactory outcome.
I'd like to personally thank James Ross, whose tireless work sometimes goes unnoticed since so much of it occurs out of sight by the larger user community.Thank you, James. http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/hi.gif