[ATSF3751]

Hey guys,

I know I have not been on the forums too much lately as I have been very busy with other priorities at the moment but hoping to get back on here soon and get back into modeling. However I would like to bring up something that I have been thinking about a lot lately and it's something I think we should try and start doing as soon as possible.

Being that the community is mainly older folks and not so many of my generation on here or Trainsim.com it has come to my attention that we need to start trying to get the younger generation involved and interested in Open Rails other wise it will die.

Me being one of the very few younger modelers and game players on here I would really like to see Open Rails continue as a leader in game development. I have always enjoyed running Open Rails for it's realism in train physics and the ease of being able to modify the coding. However many other train simulator games are way ahead of us when it comes to eye candy, graphics and other game play features that I think Open Rails would benefit from greatly if implemented.

Let me ask you this! Do we want to keep Open Rails alive and get younger folk involved or do we want to see Open Rails not go any farther then it is currently and die a slow painful death as the older generation either give up on it or pass away?

The technology is there already so why is the Open Rails team not using it to improve the gaming experience?

Yes Open Rails is open source and the coders are doing this all on there free time and not getting paid but in my personal opinion it would be very beneficial for Open Rails to have some sort of way to give donations so we can further the development and get some more of those features into the game that it is lacking that many other Train Simulator games already have!

We need to get with the times and put in some of these features instead of focusing so much on physics because truly that is all Open Rails has going for it currently. Yes I know many of you will disagree with my argument but all I am trying to do is give you the facts coming from someone who is younger and only uses Open Rails for there Train Simulator gaming!

Yes I have tried other rail simulators like Train Simulator 2019 and TRAINZ but they do not give me the realism that I am looking for when it comes to what I mentioned earlier with physics but they do give me the eye candy that many of the younger generation want from a train simulator game.

Now I do see a future for Open Rails but not in the way many here see it and want to challenge all of you to try and see it from someone who is from a much younger generation than many on these forums. I am not trying to start arguments with what I am trying to propose but what I am trying to do is look out for the future of Open Rails and would love to see it come to its full potential that I truly believe it can be!

Brandon

[Jonatan]

I've been with MSTS since 2001 and I migrated to OR when operating systems gave me no other option. I play it because I've invested many many thousands of hours and nearly two decades in custom content creation with the tools and formats I've become accustomed to.

At this point I'm not able or willing to reinvest that time in learning another simulator with its own modelling techniques, formats and code, and all the accompaning software. So for me, OR is all I have as an outlet for my creativity.

I agree there's alot more that can be done, but with everyone involved in its development having their own "niche" interest that they will not deviate from, ORs development will not progress in the direction or pace some of us would like. The answer most often given to any such request is to start coding for ourselves.

OR's longterm future is uncertain at best, as are most things in the virtual world. I can only hope it'll remain for the forseeable future but... I don't know.

Here's to hoping! :cheers3:

[Looky1173]

I think that there are two things that must be done to attract more enthusiasts to Open Rails. First, official content editors must be developed to greatly lessen the hassle that currently goes into developing routes and content for Open Rails. Second, the graphics could use some improvements; after all, it's not only the physics that defines how realistic a train simulator is, but to some extent it's the graphics too. Of course, both of these seem and would be monumental undertakings, so let's break them down into smaller, manageable steps that we can start acting on today!

To develop content editors, we must:

• Establish new JSON file formats to replace SIMIS files. I'm aware that there have been some discussions about this, but they were mostly derailed by controversial opinions, with some advocating for JSON while others arguing that SIMIS files are perfectly capable and need not be replaced. I argue that if we stick to SIMIS files, official Open Rails editors are not going to see the light of day. Why is that? Well, SIMIS files are not industry standard; no universal software libraries exist for parsing and more importantly since we are talking about editors, modifying them. They are also hard to extend while keeping compatibility in mind. Indeed, new OR tokens usually start with "ORTS" to avoid potential conflicts, which I find a bit cumbersome. To break free of the restrictions of MSTS, we need to review every single MSTS and OR token, determine whether they are needed or not, rename them if they have confusing names, and pack them into new JSON files with well-defined schemas. While we are at it, we should opt for JSON5, because it is "an extension to the popular JSON file format that aims to be easier to write and maintain by hand". We can get started on this point immediately, as it's purely "theoretical" and doesn't require coding.
• Once we have redefined OR files, work could begin on some content editors as JSON libraries are abundant for all programming languages, making it relatively easy to create a frontend for purely informational content editing (in opposition to a visual route editor). In parallel, the new file formats could be gradually integrated into OR. This way, it would be quite feasible to create wagon, engine, consist, route metadata/configuration, and timetable editors.
• The development of a route editor would be a way bigger technical challenge, but it's likely what would attract the most people to OR. To do this, we must extract the Viewer3D classes from RunActivity to be used as a standalone 3D engine which could be plugged into a route editor. I've read that there have been some efforts to do this a few years ago, but they have been abandoned or forgotten about.
• Once we have a standalone 3D viewer, development on a basic route editor could begin. The editor should prioritise the ability to place glTF objects, based on Peter's hard work to make OR support this industry standard 3D file format. In fact, there are many shape libraries online with permissive licensing that provide a huge deal of glTF shapes, especially for vegetation and scenery, which could really spice up OR routes.

To improve the graphics, the following could be done:

• An Open Collective could be set up for Open Rails to accept donations that would be directly used to hire a professional to improve a specific area of graphics, such as water, precipitation (snow and raindrops on cab windows) and lighting. Indeed, there's a shortage of OR developers who understand the parts of the code responsible for 3D rendering -- it really is hard -- so outsourcing graphical coding could be the only option if we want to see progress fast.
• Perhaps those knowledgeable on the subject could write up some documentation on how exactly OR renders stuff for those that are interested in tweaking the 3D code but are at a loss at how to even get started (like me).

Echoing Jonatan's thought, cheers to the future of OR! http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[ATSF3751]

Thank you guys for your input! I really just wanted to get the conversation going and see what others thought. Not only for the ones who play the game but also the coders in the open Rails team as I think the time is now to start looking towards the future for Open Rails and figure out where we would like Open Rails to go in the future!

Now something that came up and I will post on here as well is the challenge people are having with starting out with ORTS! Here is my take on it!

It would sure be nice to have not just a starter pack per say but a more professional way to install the game.

What I mean by this is you download the game from Open Rails.org BUT you include the few routes and locomotives that go with the starter pack along with the route editor and consist editor all in one download and downloaded to the same drive.

That way you can streamline the installation process and people who want to play the game don't need to download multiple things, practically manually install them by having to put the download into a separate drive and when the download is done people are able to use the route and locomotives right away.

This download could be Up To Date Stable Release with less options then the so called unstable/coding and testing version that would only be updated to the site when there is a new stable release available..

Another thing I would like to see is a new upload full screen instead of the little half box that we have currently with everything just crammed into it because honestly its a complete disaster and if I were a teen or young adult wanting a Train Simulator game Open Rails would probably be my last choice because by the looks of how it is set up looks very daunting and unprofessional in my personal opinion.

We need to streamline the operation for beginners of Open Rails with a loading screen that goes into the options menu where they can change the locomotives, activity, route, weather and other game play options.

for the lack of a better word when you first look at the Open Rails screen it is very confusing and daunting. Sure I am used to it because I have been with Open Rails since the beginning but we need to look at it through the eyes of someone who is just getting into the Train Simulator programs.

Brandon

[Weter]

Hello, Brandon.
Am I right, You mean comprehensive complete install pack to click and then to get the game, completely ready for use?
Well, BNSF starter route has ORTS included, but the dated version, which may be, however, auto-updated, when needed by clicking link above the window.
Maybe, making some alternative packs with other routes, equipped with appropirate stock and some activities will meet Your wishes then...

Am I right, You are talking about nice graphic User Interface to control game preparation and settings, like MSTS had?
I didn't see anyone so far, who declared his interest to work on that, alas.

[ATSF3751]

Weter,

I started the same thread over at Trainsim.com and a few others have chimed in on there as well. No one has offered to work on any of these features but it is something I wanted to bring up because it not only is needed but also wanted. I really feel ORTS is falling farther and farther behind and will continue to if something is not done with graphics along with ease of installation. We will in turn keep loosing new members to other Train Simulator games that are far more advanced in that aspect then ORTS is.

Yes ORTS is a fantastic sim for accuracy when it comes to physics but its time we move forward and stop tweaking every little thing when it comes to physics because it seems like that is all the ORTS team cares about. The ORTS team needs to broaden there horizon and look outside of the box for once!

Like I put on Trainsim.com forum that I started tutorials on how to drive the locomotives would sure be nice for beginners and right now the way I see it ORTS practically just throws you into the fire and says figure it out yourself with no guidance on how to drive a train other then looking through a very long manual to figure everything out and not something I would want to do if I was new to Train Simulators!

We have to start getting the younger folks involved if we want to see ORTS have a future! I know many on Train simulator forums are stuck in there ways but when you break it all down there truly are not many younger folk playing with ORTS as there are with Train Simulator or TRAINZ.

When I first got on these forums meaning here and Train Sim there were many younger people on them that have now moved on to other platforms because of the eye candy or other features that the other Train Simulator games of the times features like real consist and route editors, the ease of the menu and installation and game play.

We need these things implemented into ORTS in order to bring in new people and when people look at ORTS don't get discouraged and turn to another Train Simulator game because it looks too complex to use. That is why I am pushing for these implementations and the need for tutorials on how to do things and a download for the game that is specific to beginners.

ORTS will never become what it could be if some of the community doesn't open there ways of thinking and begin looking outside of the box and listening to what others have been trying to tell the ORTS team for years!

Yes many may think I am just bashing ORTS but I am trying to open everyone's eyes to reality and trying to save ORTS for future generations because I for one have always been a fan of ORTS and MSTS from day one and will continue to support ORTS into the future as long as it is around.

Brandon

[Genma Saotome]

ATSF3751, on 26 October 2023 - 05:00 PM, said:

ORTS will never become what it could be if some of the community doesn't open [their]* ways of thinking [to] begin looking outside of the box and listening to what others have been trying to tell the ORTS team for years!

Brandon

*spelling or grammatical corrections by me

The OR team is what it is, does what it does, has had many years to change direction/emphasis but it followed the course it wanted to do. We got a good MSTS emulator as a result and, if memory serves, just two minor new features to add to any route (instancing and .dds files, the later of which reduces fps). OTOH, route runners got better physics, better graphics, timetables, better smoke, etc. etc. Which means any recent route release is pretty much the same as one released 20+ years ago but the content of the route itself is unchanged.

IMO, today, with fewer active resources to call upon it is unlikely to change course now to deal with what should have been done 10+ years ago -- world and activity editors with new file structures.

As I said above, we got a good MSTS emulator. If what you do is run activities/timetables, you are way ahead of the past and should be very thankful of what has been accomplished. If not, well, you too know something: what could have been. That's the way it goes sometimes.

[Weter]

If telling about tutorials, yes: there was even a discussion here - to split Manual into two or three, focused on gameplay and quick start; physics, editors, content development and program features. Brandon, I'd advice You to discuss possible cooperation with Philip Esque, who already works on tutorials, partially about steam (NG in his case) locomotive handling in ORTS. And generally - about encouraging ones (model railroad hobbyists, particularly), having yet no any experience, to begin usage of ORTS. I believe, Your efforts might be joined.
Gergely, I hope, new JSON files will not cancel support for traditional heritage MSTS/"old" ORTS content with their SIMIS syntah and it's sometimes "confusing" token names.

[railguy]

Not long ago, my son-in-law was here for a family visit. He is an expert programmer and code writer as part of his work. During our visit, we got talking about railfanning (he is not a railfan himself) and train simming. During that discussion, I showed him the OpenRails sim. He was impressed about how detailed it really is. Within minutes, he was downloading the code for OpenRails on Github. He was quite impressed on what the OR team has accomplished. We talked about the various shortcomings of the sim and, several times, he said, "That might not be too difficult to fix." He is the kind of person who would certainly delve into coding to solve problems. Unfortunately, he, like so many people today, is already working 12-14 hour days 6 days a week in his regular job. And, as one can imagine, he doesn't want to get into the "politics" of what code to write, etc.--he has plenty of that in his work. Still, I hope that someday he might want to approach the OR Team with some of his expertise.

Now, as to the current state of OpenRails. Make no mistake, I love what the OR Team has accomplished. They have taken OR much farther than I could have possibly imagined. Yes, there is much more that can be done--and should be done. But I'm very grateful for what we have to date. All that said, we must confront some realities:

MSTS is DEAD. Yes, there are some hangers-on, but the MSTS platform has no future and has had none really since OR came on the scene. Yes, backward capability for MSTS content to run in OR is important, but anyone producing MSTS content that is not modernizing to OR standards of physics, etc. is swimming in a stale pond that is drying up.

TSRE is actually a pretty darned good tool that either needs to be "finished" to eliminate its bugs, or replaced with an editor with similar features on a different platform. "Marrying" TSRE and TrackViewer into the same editor and integrating them as part of OR would solve much of worst disadvantages of OR.

Beating a dead horse, OR MUST improve rendering of scenery, weather, lighting, etc. to make OR a competitive sim, not only with the likes of TrainSimulator 20XX, but with other simulators and sophisticated video games. As someone else pointed out, the most realistic physics in the world won't make a simulator realistic without realistic rendering of the "world" on the screen.

Activity creation is another weak spot that OR inherited from MSTS. I've created dozens of activities for myself, but I don't distribute them because they rely on my own inventory of rolling stock, some of which are personal renumbers, etc. How many of us have downloaded an intriguing activity, then had to spend hours either downloading or replacing rolling stock necessary to run the activity? Loose consists, in both MSTS and OR, can be a real pain to modify in an activity. More casual users will usually just give up without ever running the activity. A few episodes of that and they may leave OR and not come back.

Finally, OR must recognize that, to survive, it must serve two masters, each with its own interests and requirements. Put simply, the two groups are those that want to run OR as a GAME and those who want to run it as a realistic SIMULATOR. As an example, I repeat this: I have activities that I have created that, if I run as a "game," I can complete in an hour; if I run the same activity as a realistic simulation, it will take 4-8 hours to run. I prefer to run OR as the latter, but many prefer to run as a game. OR needs both to survive.

My $0.02. Thoughts and comments appreciated.

[Jonatan]

I like what Dave said about an MSTS emulator. For a bunch of us who've invested countless hours into content creation in the MSTS era, that's what we wanted tbh. It's easy for others to say "this is old hat and can be done away with" and it's not very fun to hear that from someone when alot of time has been spent on making it.
Yes MSTS IS DEAD and we need to improve things, but it doesn't make years worth of content creation and peoples prefered build qualities or varying skills to make content null and void. There is no "OR standard" one can apply here without massive discrimination.

I use OR soly for the reason it allows me to continue my already established path, which I explained I'm unable to deviate from because of invested time and routine, even if it's not the best in comparison to other simulators.

In a way I think OR should remain an MSTS emulator with extra features, that's what it's been doing well for its life. Throwing dirt on that is like claiming NES, Amiga or old game and OS emulators are useless. "Why would you wanna play those old things?" Same as the people who use them: nostalgia.

When people are clamering for a complete reboot to make a new sim, then I question why they haven't moved on to the other, much better, prettier and fancier sims? What's holding them on to the MSTS emulator if not the content that they're currenty using?
Surely much better versions of said content is availible elsewhere, then?



Daves point on the OR dev team doing what they do and have done is correct. Whatever's the driving force for their obsessision about just physics can't be changed and won't be changed. I'm about ready to just accept there's no longer a reason to ask for improvements in so-and-so fields because it's of no interest to them. And I myself am far too techno-illiterate to do anything about it.

As far as I'm aware of -and it may be incorrect- Open Rails is a personal pet project started by some nerds and geeks that happened to become what it is, as so many now-famous and ubiquitous softwares we take for granted once started off that way. Anyone remember that dork teenager Mark Zuckerberg and his quirky program "Facebook" he made to chat with his friends? Or that guy Bill Gates tinkering with something called "Windows" in his shed? That never took of, did it?



I'm not ungrateful for what we have in OR, even if I was sceptical and hostile towards the differences and challenges it introduced in the beginning. Sometimes my thoughts aren't properly translated into words and I come off as insolent and thankless.

OR allows me to continue to create with my established skills and familiar softwares, and while not perfect, it does what I want it to do well enough. As it have done for other legendary virtual master mechanics, tinkerers, carpenters and world painters such as Tim Muir, Andre Ming, Rick Grout, Chris Gerlach (currently involved in a monumental route project) and many more I can't recall right now, but they're not forgotten.

I've spoken to a good few of them, and what I've taken away from interpreting their words is they might've been in the same boat as me hadn't we had OR, the MSTS emulator.


Wade, I'm glad to hear your son-in-law looks positively at the problems OR is facing, and that they seem fixable. While not asking for him to participate, people like him are welcome and needed for the continued development of softwares. :good: