[Hendrik]

Weter, on 19 March 2023 - 10:07 AM, said:

What's exact problem, You suffer?
The content is free, the Train.exe program is not mandatory.

I am not suffering :). Many routes, even ones that advertise "only works in OR" have scripts that copy objects and rolling stock from the MSTS folders. If you do not have MSTS installed, they do not work. Many other routes have to be installed in the MSTS folder structure to work. If that content is free, where can I download it? Maybe it is as easy as a version of MSTS minus the Train.exe program?

Weter, on 19 March 2023 - 10:07 AM, said:

What have it to mean? What's the problem here?
Redundant code for still handling MSTS features?

With "version of OR optimized for MSTS" I mean, as was suggested before, a version that has the "OR Going Forward code pulled out because it's not needed and bloats the code".

[Weter]

Quote

scripts that copy objects and rolling stock from the MSTS folders

Sorry, I've just forgot about installme.bat-files. Sounds as well :(

Quote

other routes have to be installed in the MSTS folder structure to work

Here, i suppose it is needed only because route riter won't process folders, having no Train.exe file.
If so, create new text file by mouse right click there, rename it to Train.exe, keeping it empty and voila.

[Hendrik]

cjakeman, on 19 March 2023 - 11:54 AM, said:

II don't expect many developers would be interested in maintaining a legacy version of Open Rails.

That is likely what would happen over time and it would be a great loss as there are so many beautiful routes. But, I would love to see better graphics, more in line with today’s gaming standards. I also think that this would pull in more people, which can keep the hobby alive. Don’t want to call it a project, as projects have an end date and are not supposed to evolve.

I would gladly help with upgrading routes to new standards, I don’t want to go digging around in someone else’s backyard uninvited though, let alone taking credit for someone else’s work. It would make nice projects for anyone more interested in route and content building than in coding. Plus it would carry forward the legacy of the original builders.

The question remains, Is it possible to stay backward compatible while at the same time embracing new technologies? Given this thread, I concluded that the answer is no but I may be wrong?

[gpz]

Hendrik, on 19 March 2023 - 06:36 PM, said:

I would love to see better graphics, more in line with today’s gaming standards. I also think that this would pull in more people, which can keep the hobby alive. Don’t want to call it a project, as projects have an end date and are not supposed to evolve.

I would gladly help with upgrading routes to new standards, I don’t want to go digging around in someone else’s backyard uninvited though, let alone taking credit for someone else’s work. It would make nice projects for anyone more interested in route and content building than in coding. Plus it would carry forward the legacy of the original builders.

The support for PBR shaded objects used as today's gaming standard is already in the unstable branch, you may start experimenting with that even today, if you would like to. The code is under review, so it is not merged to the testing version yet.

Hendrik, on 19 March 2023 - 06:36 PM, said:

The question remains, Is it possible to stay backward compatible while at the same time embracing new technologies? Given this thread, I concluded that the answer is no but I may be wrong?

Actually I don't understand why the idea of dropping MSTS file format support comes up over and over again. I see no limiting factor in keeping them forever while going forward. So my opinion is: yes, absolutely.

[cjakeman]

gpz, on 19 March 2023 - 11:26 PM, said:

Actually I don't understand why the idea of dropping MSTS file format support comes up over and over again. I see no limiting factor in keeping them forever while going forward. So my opinion is: yes, absolutely.

It's also our published policy.

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[cjakeman]

Eldorado.Railroad, on 10 March 2023 - 09:22 AM, said:

If we are going to insist on using .mgfx then it should be clear where the user HAS to proceed to, to make any changes to .fx files. It also would be convenient that the user not be required to install ".net 6" to use the mgfxc compiler. Are any of the developers going to offer their services for compiling experimental changes to .fx files??

Steve,

If you want to send me some .fx files, I will try to convert them to .mgfx for you.

Yes, we should publish instructions on how to edit these files. Are you willing to help with that?

[Hendrik]

gpz, on 19 March 2023 - 11:26 PM, said:

The support for PBR shaded objects used as today's gaming standard is already in the unstable branch, you may start experimenting with that even today, if you would like to. The code is under review, so it is not merged to the testing version yet.

Actually I don't understand why the idea of dropping MSTS file format support comes up over and over again. I see no limiting factor in keeping them forever while going forward. So my opinion is: yes, absolutely.

I misunderstood but that is good news, thanks for clearing that up. I will certainly try the unstable branch to check it out the use of PBR shaded objects. I guess my issue has more to do with how routes are being packaged.
Hank

[Hendrik]

cjakeman, on 20 March 2023 - 12:17 AM, said:

It's also our published policy.

2023-03-20 08_12_04-Open Rails - Contribute - Team Policies — Mozilla Firefox.jpg

I know, I wasn't suggesting to drop MSTS support altogether as I like the routes on MSTS to much for that, but I supported the idea to create two versions of OR as it seemed supporting MSTS was holding back the implementing of new technologies. It is good to hear that that is not an issue though.
Hank

[Eldorado.Railroad]

cjakeman, on 20 March 2023 - 12:23 AM, said:

If you want to send me some .fx files, I will try to convert them to .mgfx for you.

Yes, we should publish instructions on how to edit these files. Are you willing to help with that?

Chris,

Yes.

Quid pro quo.

In exchange for, first, a version of Open Rails post release 1.51 with all of the 64bit/GPU improvements with "Z-fighting" NOT requiring '.net 6" installed.

Sending .fx files to be compiled into .mgfx is rather fruitless. It implies the use of ".net 6" at runtime. This was the whole argument prima facie.

Steve

[James Ross]

Eldorado.Railroad, on 23 March 2023 - 11:58 AM, said:

In exchange for, first, a version of Open Rails post release 1.51 with all of the 64bit/GPU improvements with "Z-fighting" NOT requiring '.net 6" installed.

Sending .fx files to be compiled into .mgfx is rather fruitless. It implies the use of ".net 6" at runtime. This was the whole argument prima facie.

AFAIK Open Rails does not require .NET 6 at runtime - the MonoGame version upgrade only requires .NET 6 for building Open Rails. You should have no problems downloading and running the latest official versions on Windows 7 SP1 (no need for ESU, no need for .NET 6).

If you need to make code changes (now including shader changes) and are still on Windows 7 SP1, you will have to take advantage of someone else to build it for you for free (e.g. GitHub Actions, AppVeyor). The compiled shader files can be freely copied around as well, so only one person needs to build a set of changes for everyone else to use.

If there are specific things you'd like to see improved with the shaders, please point to bug reports or details in the better skydome thread and similar so that we can improve them for everyone, not just those who like to edit the files.

---

If we want Open Rails to move forward, we have to be able to update the libraries we use. In this case, I believe we impacted very few developers and users. If we had kept the text format shader files, that would instead have meant all users needed .NET 6, impacting more users (and the same developers).

While it is certainly unfortunate that we missed the opportunity to announce and discuss the changes to building Open Rails, Windows 7 SP1 is now more than three years out of free security support from Microsoft and other applications which typically also support past that point have already dropped it (e.g. Chrome in February) or will drop it later this year (e.g. Firefox in August).

At this point, I expect that our next stable release (1.6) will be the final Windows 7 SP1-compatible version and we will move everything on to .NET 6 or higher afterwards.