[ATSF3751]

Thank You Wayne! It just goes to show what capabilities are out there!

[Genma Saotome]

I've read that UE5 can import .dae, .obj, and .fbx models -- these are all source code so they'd have to come from the original modeler. 20 years after the start I think it unlikely you'll find one of the from .s programs that were highly controversial. I'm pretty sure Blender can export any of those, Sketchup (what I use) can export .dae.

[ATSF3751]

Thanks Dave,

I know UE5 may not be the answer to Open Rails and I have come to terms that it probably is not but just seeing what OR looks like in a UE5 environment gives me hope for what is possible with Open Rails. Being that MSTS is a 20 + year old program and Open Rails is sort of modeled after it I know it may be hard for us to convert it over to UE5 specs. However if we could somehow figure out a way to do so it would be an amazing feat and make Open Rails that much better. Having them both be Open Source programs may also be to our advantage as well but I am not sure on that quite yet.

Yes I know not everyone agrees with me but I think going in that direction even if it is not UE5 would bring in a lot more people to Open Rails. I am also sorry for all of the commotion I have caused over here on the forums with others and I do want to see Open Rails evolve sort of speak but I also understand it will take more then just the ORMT and the coders to do so.

I understand why the ORMT doesn't want to do it as we would have to somehow transfer all of the .S files over to another format that UE5 is compatible with. If we could either find a program or create a program that could make it work that UE5 and OR was compatible with it may work but I think still more research needs to be done before we go ahead and do anything.

With both programs being Open Source I am wondering if they would be willing to make it so .S files could be imported into UE5? Just a thought.

Here is some more info on it for ones that are interested. https://docs.unreale...and-file-types/

Brandon

[Jack@Elvas]

wacampbell, on 20 December 2023 - 03:52 PM, said:

Yes I built these as diorama scenes. Most of the models are ones from MSTS that I had the source code for, and ported over to UE5. These include rolling stock, track, signs, buildings, catenary, road etc. The exception is the vegetation and terrain textures, which are free assets from Epic. The original objective of my post was not to say UE5 is a good choice for a train simulator. But instead to demonstrate that our old MSTS models stand up well when displayed using modern graphics methods.

This makes sense, Do you think it's possible to squeeze better visuals from the assets in other engines as well (ie unigine, Unity, stride, etc?) And if so is there a possiblity to improve the visuals in the existing code base?

[wacampbell]

Jack@Elvas, on 20 December 2023 - 07:14 PM, said:

This makes sense, Do you think it's possible to squeeze better visuals from the assets in other engines as well (ie unigine, Unity, stride, etc?) And if so is there a possiblity to improve the visuals in the existing code base?

I don’t know much about those other engines. It would be interesting to see someone try them out.

[BillC]

Jack@Elvas, on 20 December 2023 - 07:14 PM, said:

This makes sense, Do you think it's possible to squeeze better visuals from the assets in other engines as well (ie unigine, Unity, stride, etc?) And if so is there a possiblity to improve the visuals in the existing code base?

Hi Jack
OR was originally built with XNA, and when Microsoft killed XNA OR switched to MonoGame which is a clone of XNA. Both XNA, and MG are frameworks which allow great latitude in defining file structures, your own parsers, etc. One of the problems when switching to a game engines is that file structures are pushed into a form that the game engine wants.

Some of problems of defining custom file structures especially for large world tiling could be used if the source is open and free. This would eliminate Unity.

FWIW IMHO OR would need a game engine that is open source and supports C#. I am not sure what Unigine supports. Two that fit would be Stride which you mentioned, and Godot which has gotten much attention since the Unity fiasco in Nov. I have played around in Godot with some RPG tutorials with Godot, and the graphics are good. In addition the footprint is small so modifying the source would be easier then Stride. Down side is Godot uses a node style component system then is different then C# supported game engines.

Bill

[joe_star]

For a second i thought it was integration of OR into Europa Universalis! 😂

Interesting idea though for sure.

[pwillard]

from wiki...

Quote

Unity gives users the ability to create games and experiences in both 2D and 3D, and the engine offers a primary scripting API in C# using Mono, for both the Unity editor in the form of plugins, and games themselves, as well as drag and drop functionality

[SYogurt]

I know this has been a controversial topic many times, but the quality of Open Rail's physics is of no use if no one is playing it because it looks 20 years old.

It's time to bring it to a more modern engine. Retaining backwards compatibility can still be achieved at some basic level, but I'll bet developers would look long and hard at making content for Open Rails if there were more users and the first install process had some more base content so that it was newcomer friendly.

Wayne's Unreal demo is a great example that we don't have to ditch 20 years of content to make this work, but we absolutely have to ditch the mindset that people don't care about graphics; they do. It doesn't matter what the engine is to the end user provided it looks good, sounds good, and performs believably.

The biggest problem is this huge backlog of old content we're trying not to break still has things like 2D cabviews and unnecessarily low poly counts. To fix this problem, you need new developers, who need to see a purpose to spend time designing assets for a simulator. I stopped working on my P-32AC-DM and P-42 project mostly because, despite DTG's plethora of issues, I enjoyed myself in their detailed, well lit environment and 3D cabs. I vastly prefer the goals, physics, and sounds of Open Rails to that of DTGs, but as long as the consensus is "eye candy doesn't matter" and we stay tied to routes and locomotives from 2005, there's no point for me to keep playing a game that will continuously get more niche as its userbase ages out.

I mean, harsh reality, but if you can't attract the younger generation, at some point, it will fade into obscurity.

[Weter]

Hi, Brandon.

Quote

Being that MSTS is a 20 + year old program and Open Rails is sort of modeled after it

Not so: I was told, usage of MSTS assets was a compromiss, originally - a temporary measure for starting ORTS running, by borrowing ready, free and well-known content for sim, instead of spending years more for creation of own content. This decision, as other ones suppose - have doomed ORTS, actually planned as totally new and perfect simulator, but not a newer core for old MSTS.