[Jack@Elvas]

cjakeman, on 09 December 2023 - 04:05 AM, said:

James and I are talking with Jason Dilworth at TrainSimulations.net about other issues.

I've also wondered whether there will be 3D cabs and timetables too from them. I've now sent a message about this to Jason and will pass on his response when I get it.

This would be a huge help for OpenRails!

[jonas]

Thank you for your more calm words in your last post, Brandon. I read them largely as concrete answers to my questions here.

So the idea is: more people in the OR-community -> more programmers in the OR project. Seems right to me at first, although I think the objection of superheatedsteam that interested programmers: "...would have found the Open Rails project by now and even joined this forum" is very likely.

But with a larger community, the number of users (gamers) would also increase, not just the number of programmers. And the real reason for the dissatisfaction expressed here in the thread seems to me to lie in the relationship between user expectations and programming realization, i.e. expansion ideas for OR and the actual possibilities of the programmers. Many people have many ideas. But the people who can implement these ideas in software are always in the minority compared to the overall group.
In my programming experience, this ratio usually remains the same. Even with one-man projects, where it's just me who wants to program something for fun for myself, i.e. just one person who comes up with the ideas and then makes the programming possible, I regularly fall for it -> I'm struck by a small (supposedly simple) idea just before I get up from the PC at night, an idea that I can express in a short sentence in less than 2 seconds and that I would like to quickly add to my program. ...and then... I'm still working on it days later.

This is because most of the programming time is not spent on the actual idea, but on avoiding errors with the new programming code. This is where the good programmer may differ from the not-so-good programmer. Realistically, I would say that the ratio of idea implementation to error testing is 10% to 90%. It certainly depends on the convenience of the programming environment and programming language, but for me I sometimes even had the impression of 5% to 95%. Only the "eternal" repeated starting of the program (here it would be the OR simulator) to see if the code works takes a lot of time.
So most of the time is spent on something that is not recognizable to the user in the appearance of the program. This requires a passion for programming and - ideally - motivation! And the greatest motivator for us humans is recognition from our fellow human beings, from the community. And when that recognition comes, we say: We had fun working on this or that!

On the other hand, as a user, which is what I am here in the OR project for the most part, I can understand the enthusiasm that comes to nothing, the frustration that arises when you are overflowing with ideas but hardly see any of them implemented. An idea becomes enthusiasm, eventually euphoria and you are motivated...and then there seems to be no one around who could implement the idea.
If an idea seems very important to me as a user for the OR project, then I only have one direction I can go in, and that is:
Try to find and m o t i v a t e allies in the community to work on the idea, be willing to compromise and do everything you can to contribute according to your abilities!
I welcome suggestions such as setting up a Facebook and/or Youtube account to increase the OR community and thus programming power. Paying "external" programmers to extend the OR code is also a possibility. No one here needs to be asked for permission (or ORMTeam?). It wouldn't be technically different from the OR community programmers, as long as these "external" programmers have to go through the Git verification process as well, it shouldn't be a problem I would say. Everyone here has the freedom to, lets say, create a funding group for "external" programmers to be hired and fulfill their respective user requests for OR. That's also what makes an open source project.

@Brandon, finally something about MSTS compatibility. Is it possible that the impression that OR has a dusty MSTS look and feel has to do with the routes and models of the MSTS era, which are getting on in years but often are still used? Many routes and vehicles do not utilize the maximum possibilities of OR. Whenever I create a city environment as a route builder, for example, I orient myself to the load limit of MSTS because I want to keep it compatible with MSTS. However, the low-resolution graphics and sparse polygons and the reduction in model variety are not OR's fault, but are due to my specifications as a route builder.
If I was sure that my route would only be used by users with OR, then I would have modeled much higher polygon locomotives and cars and used a much higher-resolution and multi-numbered texture set.
So how OR presents itself as more of an eye-catcher is really a question of the quality of the models, 3D cabs and routes used. And the OR programmers are only indirectly involved in this, I think. So the MSTS look will increasingly disappear over time as the models and graphics improve.
The fact that these new OR models and routes will no longer work in MSTS is okay with me, as long as the old MSTS content remains compatible with OR in principle.

Greetings
Jonas

[mrmosky]

jonas, on 09 December 2023 - 07:04 PM, said:

@Brandon, finally something about MSTS compatibility. Is it possible that the impression that OR has a dusty MSTS look and feel has to do with the routes and models of the MSTS era, which are getting on in years but often are still used?

..
If I was sure that my route would only be used by users with OR, then I would have modeled much higher polygon locomotives and cars and used a much higher-resolution and multi-numbered texture set.
So how OR presents itself as more of an eye-catcher is really a question of the quality of the models, 3D cabs and routes used. And the OR programmers are only indirectly involved in this, I think. So the MSTS look will increasingly disappear over time as the models and graphics improve.
The fact that these new OR models and routes will no longer work in MSTS is okay with me, as long as the old MSTS content remains compatible with OR in principle.

Greetings
Jonas

I agree totally with what Jonas has written.

One has to ask why do people still chooses to use MSTS when OR has been around for so long and has so many features.

There could be a number of reasons:

1. Unwillingness to change - stubbornness.
2. Financial - can't afford a newer PC which can run OR.
3. MSTS "Looks Better" - My old grandad wouldn't have a colour tv because he said you could see more on Black and White tv. Or does it look better in some ways?

None of these is a reason to shackle development of routes and models for OR in my opinion. If the content designed for OR is made better, then maybe some more MSTS users will make the transition. I have sympathy with people who cannot afford a new PC, but they have plenty of content to run already.

If there are still features of MSTS that are better, then what are they? Maybe they can be addressed.

All of my models are OR only, because of the 3D cabs. However I don't want to make low poly models, with hexagonal wheels.

Geoff

[FS.E652 091]

I would also add that one of the reasons that pushes some people not to choose OR is due to the fact that it does not have an Editor for the creation of decently made Routes and Activities, let's say that they are full of bugs and instead of helping you, sometimes they ruin you, especially the activity editor! therefore we should also look at the proper functioning of the tools available for editing.
Personally I have chosen Open Rails for years because MSTS is now set aside for me, Open Rails represents the future turning point both qualitatively and performance-wise, working in the routes field, the program offers many possibilities and potential, and as I have always said on this forum, there would be many aspects that should be improved both graphically and technically... there are environments to improve, weather conditions etc..etc.. but, in all this time, I have also dedicated myself to the creation of activities, creating more than 50 for my scenario, I can guarantee you that the activity editor complicates your life, there are endless bugs, waiting points that don't work, signals that remain red, traffics that don't appear, in short, they are misleading situations that even make you lose the desire to carry out activities...! However, it is also right to expose these problems so that those in charge can still improve this aspect in the future.

[Genma Saotome]

jonas, on 09 December 2023 - 07:04 PM, said:

If I was sure that my route would only be used by users with OR, then I would have modeled much higher polygon locomotives and cars and used a much higher-resolution and multi-numbered texture set.

Jonas

FWIW I stopped building content for MSTS a few years before Open Rails came on the scene. It seemed pretty obvious that MSTS had huge visual and performance limitations and I felt I could not build what I wanted to build in something as limited as MSTS... something would eventually show up that would replace it. Since then most of my textures have been scaled to 6-8 feet square. I get clarity like this:

click on image for full size


I always believed it was important for OR to drag MSTS content into the future... for myself, a content creator, I never realized a broad statement like that would include activity emulation. It would have been better to have build new route and activity editors and DISPLAY the old routes and content in a new simulator. That was the vision but it didn't happen.

At least there is more modern graphics, now somewhat dated.

[Genma Saotome]

mrmosky, on 10 December 2023 - 03:05 AM, said:

One has to ask why do people still chooses to use MSTS when OR has been around for so long and has so many features.

There could be a number of reasons:

1. Unwillingness to change - stubbornness.
2. Financial - can't afford a newer PC which can run OR.
3. MSTS "Looks Better" - My old grandad wouldn't have a colour tv because he said you could see more on Black and White tv. Or does it look better in some ways?

I'll add:

4. Lack of knowledge -- so much has changed one can't figure it all out.
5. Lack of time -- most of my time goes into content creation, not keeping up w/ new physics.


Ask "Jack@Elvas" what it is like arriving w/ no MSTS background... where does he start? What are new physics vs. somewhat old physics vs. ancient physics? What is a path? How do I create a new path? How do I create a new activity? How constraining are activities?

I spent 3 hours on the phone w/ Jack earlier today and all of the above and more were discussed. There is nothing that I know of to help a completely new user.

To be fair, that has never been part of the lengthy to-do list of the OR team and it makes sense to keep it off their to-do list, coding takes time. But no one, including myself, has ever stepped up to that task -- and others -- that are largely information; What's the ESD_Alternative_Texture() code for rain? Can you have more than one ESD_Alternative_Texture() lines? Many more basic questions, answered once, put in one guide, would really help everyone, new or old, to OR.

[jonas]

An addendum to prevent misunderstandings: I work with the MSTS RE and AE for my AddOn because I am familiar with them and because this sets an MSTS-storage-and-performance-limit for my route, which saves me from having to set my own criteria for such a minimum Limit - the minimum system requirement are expected to be named. So it's for me about the lowest denominator of the AddOn's user community.

My aim is definitely not to promote the continuous use of MSTS. The development of OR features must not be restricted by the “corset” of low-niveauet MSTS limits. The fact that I still have to work in a MSTS-related level has primarily something to do with the AddOn users reality.

But the basic compatibility of OR with the old MSTS things remains an important topic for me, as has often been discussed elsewhere in the forum.

So I see Geoff and Dave's 5th points with a smile :-) about my own antiquatedness:

mrmosky, on 10 December 2023 - 03:05 AM, said:

...
1. Unwillingness to change - stubbornness.
2. Financial - can't afford a newer PC which can run OR.
3. MSTS "Looks Better" - My old grandad wouldn't have a colour tv because he said you could see more on Black and White tv. Or does it look better in some ways?
...

Genma Saotome, on 10 December 2023 - 03:07 PM, said:

...
4. Lack of knowledge -- so much has changed one can't figure it all out.
5. Lack of time -- most of my time goes into content creation, not keeping up w/ new physics.
...

Lets see how we will continually overcome these reasons by expanding the OR community.

[Genma Saotome]

mrmosky, on 10 December 2023 - 03:05 AM, said:

3. MSTS "Looks Better" - My old grandad wouldn't have a colour tv because he said you could see more on Black and White tv. Or does it look better in some ways?

With MSTS at VGA resolution (or whatever it was in 2001) you could not see how bad the textures and shapes were. At 4k you just about want to claw your eyes out so you can't see that old krap.

[ATSF3751]

Another major setback that OR has is the fact that it is only able to be played on Windows systems! Apple and Lynex systems are not even thought of or mentioned and that is a huge issue I see in Open Rails. Please correct me if I am wrong with this!

Brandon

[Weter]

One ET member works on Lynux adaptation of ORTS. (David Webb?)
There might be iOS emulators for running win application, but I can be wrong.