[eric from trainsim]

Paul and Rick, I think you guys are missing the point that others are trying to make but not stating as clearly:

Does it make sense to have new software create a workaround to accommodate a workaround to accommodate flaws in old software?

I'm sure there are dozens of routes where it was used, but hundreds sounds just a bit hyperbolic. I've been building routes for 10+ years, and have never used that technique to "fix" crossings.



We're lucky the developers found a fast solution, but also consider that your fix comes at a cost -- there's now additional CPU time needed in the name of backward compatibility. It might be tiny, but it all adds up.

If there were a switch or option to disable all of the various backward compatibility workaround fixes, maybe I'd be a little more supportive of creating workarounds for workarounds within OR...

[charland]

I think the point Rick and I were trying to make is OR can do both, and as of this morning there is a patch out that does just that, it let's vehicles hop over crossings that were not made correctly, and ignores any tracks used to keep cars away from the tracks and not dip down to the lower track level. This was discussed on the weekend and a solution was suggested by James Ross, and now the patch is out so that's where the discussion should have ended. For some reason someone decided to make an issue of it even after the solution was out, not sure why.

There are no routes available that have been created using the new OR route editor, that might take a year for the first one to come out. There are over 8000 routes in the Train Sim library, why wouldn't you want them to continue to work properly... that's the point.

Paul

[Csantucci]

eolesen, on 11 July 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

We're lucky the developers found a fast solution, but also consider that your fix comes at a cost -- there's now additional CPU time needed in the name of backward compatibility. It might be tiny, but it all adds up.

Hi eolesen, that's only two tests, the CPU overhead is really negligeable and the benefit is significant. Where CPU overhead may be significant, like removing the very rare forest trees on cross-tile tracks, it may occur that I prefer not to provide fixes (maybe some other developer would).

[hiball3985]

eolesen, on 11 July 2017 - 05:24 AM, said:

Paul and Rick, I think you guys are missing the point that others are trying to make but not stating as clearly:

Does it make sense to have new software create a workaround to accommodate a workaround to accommodate flaws in old software?

I'm sure there are dozens of routes where it was used, but hundreds sounds just a bit hyperbolic. I've been building routes for 10+ years, and have never used that technique to "fix" crossings.

Unless you build the crossings like something from 2001 and every crossing is 90 degrees how do you do it? All the better routes use many crossings other then 90 degrees and this is the only method I know of. So these fixes in OR are a necessity or we just have to stop using the routes and sit on our hands waiting for an OR only route.

[Jovet]

waivethefive, on 10 July 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

We just need to stop adding all these dumb features like zero degree nodes and excess track under road crossings into routes. You cannot insert all these MSTS handicaps unneeded by Open Rails into a route and then complain when Open Rails reacts to them queerly. If time is such a concern, then stop adding them to begin with. Look at the cumulative time to be saved.

Wouldn't it be better to have the ability to set custom clearances when we place level crossings via TSRE? Route builders should have the ability to set distances that are longer for crossings that are sharply angled and the car spawner simply reads the data and holds the vehicles back. No need for all this stubby track buried under roads, nor any elevation comparisons added to the code to 'save the day'. Of course, such a proper fix would require moving beyond the MSTS RE, a challenge in and of itself among the self-proclaimed 'old guys'. But I'm sure Open Rails will still be at fault somewhere, anyhow.

waivethefive, on 10 July 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

No one ever asked anyone to fix old routes afflicted with problems caused by Open Rail's display of embedded MSTS handicaps. All that was asked of them is if they want it to run properly in Open Rails, then build it properly for Open Rails from the start, without the MSTS baggage. The Open Rails project should not be in the 'route rescuing' business.

You are completely missing the point. Open Rails needs to respect those "dumb features to accommodate MSTS" because 97% of the content that OR is using was created and intended for MSTS...before OR was even dreamed up.

Open Rails has enhanced MSTS in several ways, but it's still going through growing pains. There are lots of features and enhancements that can be added, but they have to be added. And then they have to be implemented by route builders... and older routes are not going to just magically implement those improvements. Until those "enhancements" are added, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the contemporary crutches. And even when those enhancements are added, those old crutches may remain.

Everybody has different goals and strategies when making routes. I have yet to see a perfect and ideal route. Every route I've seen has aspects that I think were done wrong, some of which I take the time to correct. It's silly to argue about whether something like how roads should be placed around crossings. Life is just too darn short.

[Rick-MONON]

After applying the patch:

On the Stable 1.2.3766 I get a fatal error on startup

I could not find x.3897 to download to test it.

On the latest testing x3892 it WORKS LIKE A CHARM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I switched to OR because of the superior performance it could give, and thank you again for living up to the OR Teams Mission Goal
I quote:

"Better Than Microsoft Train Simulator

One major technical objective has been to achieve backward compatibility with existing Microsoft Train Simulator content, extending the life of community and commercial content developed over the last decade and more."

We appreciate you guys a lot if it is not said enough...............

Csantucci, on 11 July 2017 - 12:21 AM, said:

Attached you have the modified runactivity .exe files to replace in x.3897 that don't let the cars run under the road level.
Pls. try this before I upload the patch.
Runactivities_crossings.zip

[R H Steele]

Rick-MONON, on 11 July 2017 - 07:19 PM, said:

I could not find x.3897 to download to test it.

Rick, Carlo probably assumed you knew about James Ross's site that contains all the builds >>> http://james-ross.co...jects/or/builds
3897 is the latest posted there. (as of the time of this post)

[lineman]

Just tried this patch on the PE with OR 3897 and it works wonderfully!!! What a difference not having those diving automobiles crossing the tracks. Well done!!

[Csantucci]

Nice that it works! Fix committed in x.3898.

[atsf37l]

Csantucci, on 11 July 2017 - 10:55 PM, said:

Nice that it works! Fix committed in x.3898.

And working like a charm! Thanks Carlo! You da man! :bigboss: