[Kazareh]

copperpen, on 20 January 2018 - 01:51 AM, said:

I tend to think we are supposed to be working on a simulator and therefore electric locomotives do not belong on non electric tracks unless towed by another form of power.

I was under the understanding ORTS was a bit of a combo between the two, depending what one was wanting to do with it.
There are however some routes out there that have 'wires' on them, on certain parts of the route. So.

[Genma Saotome]

copperpen, on 20 January 2018 - 01:51 AM, said:

I had the distinct feeling that we were supposed to be working on a simulator.

Snide comments asserting the superior wisdom of the programmers relative to ordinary users does not do anyone any service.

Quote

If on the other hand we are actually working on an arcade style game, then there is no reason at all why any locomotive cannot run on any track.

Whoa, stop right there. A few posts ago you said toggle the flag over to electric and then I can run, essentially, any locomotive on any track. Which is you are advocating, sim or arcade game?

How about this: Get rid of this stupid check and let end users decide for themselves what they are going to do, exactly as OR was from the start.


You are also evading answering my questions: What other part of OR depends on that test? Or rephrased, what would break if it was removed?

[copperpen]

Genma Saotome, on 20 January 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

You are evading answering my questions and snide comments asserting the superior wisdom of the programmers relative to ordinary users does not do anyone any service.

What other part of OR depends on that test? Or rephrased, what would break if it was removed?

Nothing as far as I am aware, however, the fact remains that if you place a check in the box that says Ignore line voltage you get to run what you want where you want. Therefore I see no need to make any changes to code to accommodate something that is already available in a slightly different form. OR is doing the same as MSTS in reading the trk file to determine if the route is electric or not, if not electric, then electric trains do not run on it. Cannot see anything I have previously said that could possibly construed as snide unless you are referring to my post #10 which was not the intention.

Far as I know the addition of this check some time ago was made because OR changed direction towards MSTS compatibility. Personally I fail to see why a user would need to run electrics on a non-electric route, but like I have already said, just put a tick in the box and it overrides the test, no need to change code to remove the test.

[Genma Saotome]

copperpen, on 20 January 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

Far as I know the addition of this check some time ago was made because OR changed direction towards MSTS compatibility. Personally I fail to see why a user would need to run electrics on a non-electric route, but like I have already said, just put a tick in the box and it overrides the test, no need to change code to remove the test.

Because it is not an electric route, it is for AI trains that are under the wire that run parallel to the real route on perhaps 1% or less of laid track.

There are routes one can obtain that have two railroads in parallel, one uses electric locomotives and the other does not.

What KUJU did made absolutely no sense either as there was nothing in MSTS that depended upon it, just as there is nothing in OR that depends upon it. It is a wholly arbitrary, totally useless bit of code that should never have been put into the software, something that was not included in OR for many years. It should never have been coded.

What I completely fail to understand is why you think it should be retained when it enables no functionality at all with respect to actually running electric locomotives.

[copperpen]

Genma Saotome, on 20 January 2018 - 05:34 PM, said:

Because it is not an electric route, it is for AI trains that are under the wire that run parallel to the real route on perhaps 1% or less of laid track.

There are routes one can obtain that have two railroads in parallel, one uses electric locomotives and the other does not.

What KUJU did made absolutely no sense either as there was nothing in MSTS that depended upon it, just as there is nothing in OR that depends upon it. It is a wholly arbitrary, totally useless bit of code that should never have been put into the software, something that was not included in OR for many years. It should never have been coded.

What I completely fail to understand is why you think it should be retained when it enables no functionality at all with respect to actually running electric locomotives.

As KUJU were producing a simulator and OR is also a simulator it makes perfect sense to segregate electric traction from non electric track. The problem lies in the methodology of applying this where mixed traction is used on the same route on different tracks. I would much prefer the ability to specify where electrics will run by adding a flag to the track itself rather than the route.

Current routes that are available with mixed electric and plain track are set up as electric routes with the end user deciding on what runs where. So, all that is needed at present is to either set the whole route as electric in the trk file, or use the options check box.

[RTP]

In an important route like PRREast there are electrified segments and non electrified ones.
Then, for me make sense to modify the .trk in order to have, or not, overhead wires.
In other way, sometimes, as a developper I need to run electric locos in non electrified routes.
That is the utility of the flag.

Regards.