Nice

[Bananarama]

A model built in 3dMax, in .3ds format, could be used to create content for any of the four simulators using existing convertors.

Hi Robert,

True, to a point. There are a few limitations when using .3ds to create content for any of the sims - especially MSTS+OR. The biggest issue with .3ds exporting is its 8-character object naming limitation - RW uses the first 6-characters for LOD control, leaving you with 2-characters for separating parts of your model.

The second issue, mainly with MSTS, is that .3ds converted content gets whacked at seams where two mapping points come together. Not much of an issue where squared and angled corners are concerned, but a big problem when doing curved surfaces (I had a heck of a time getting the first versions of the F-Unit's nose to look right in MSTS).

Of course, much of these problems can be taken care of by importing the .3ds file into Gmax for export to either Trainz or MSTS. However, Gmax is limited by a combination of the number of polys it can successfully export plus the specs of the user's system. Try exporting a 20k or 30k-poly model with multiple LODs from Gmax and see for yourself on anything less than a tuned upper mid-range PC. Any or all of these issues simply add an extra layer to development time.

Personally, I would prefer to see more development in regards to Railworks. After all, most of the files are compressed XML format and XNA-based - the latter a big plus when creating new shaders and improvements to the graphics. I'm sure there are plenty of other items that can be hooked into with a 3rd-party DLL, thus by passing any need to be online while running the sim. Of course, folks will still need to purchase RW from Steam, and if RS.com were open to the idea, there might be a possibility of creating a limited-use stand alone version that folks can safely tinker with.

With such an open platform available in RW, it doesn't make much sense to be tweaking existing MSTS-content or creating OR-specific ones. Far too many limitations, IMHO.

[rdamurphy]

Marc, I agree. But it does make sense to continue with the MSTS/OR, if enough people want to use it, or embrace its development.

Robert

[saxmusickman]

Marc, I agree. But it does make sense to continue with the MSTS/OR, if enough people want to use it, or embrace its development.

My concern about continued development of MSTS is, and always has been, #1 is it taking away from development of new and up to date sims (no particular one in mind), and #2, at what point does MSTS hit a brick wall? To address the first point, if everyone stays with MSTS, then there is no need for anyone to build a new and better simulator that takes advantage of up to date computing capabilities. On the second point, there is eventually going to come a time when computers and OS's will no longer support the now-legacy software platform that MSTS is built on. It won't do any good to have a copy of MSTS if Windows 9 or 10 won't even run it.

Therein l suppose lies the promise of OpenRails, as I said before, a platform to extend MSTS for a few years more. If OpenRails stays on course, and is not at some point taken over by egos and self-promoting individuals (sic. Linux) who just want to put their name on something, we may have something really good in a few years, with or without MSTS. If nothing else, over the past few weeks i've come to believe that OpenRails should continue to be developed, for the good of the TS community, but also to let Auran and RSC know that they had better stay on their toes because they ain't the only games in town.

[burgerbern]

For me the potential that Open rails is offering is its greatest assett, i have 100s of Gigabytes of high quality Hi res MSTS content (i just do not keep anything i download that in anyway looks as if it was created back in year one of MSTS and there is still a lot being uploaded that way, it has to be good hi res for me to keep) Open rails will enable me to continue to use that content and certainly not display it at any less graphics quality than now, in fact one good point about last nights test is that my nividia graphics card stopped putting out massive grey triangles across the screen bursting out from the tops of rails and pylons etc, which has been a problem for me and many others since the 8600 series was released, i am now using a GTS250 with 1 gig of onboard ram and i still get it. with open rails last night i do not remember seeing it once but i digress, the other good point for open rails is that as well as its being able to run all MSTS content that in time it will be able to create its own native content therefore opening up a whole new world of potential for the train simmer, which will be able to implement much more than can be done under the constraints of MSTS, its being developed by people who know what we want, are not working to an accountants set timetable or are interested in sales potential and profit, they want what we want a railroad simulator that simulates real railroads in a real manner without the constraints imposed by a 10 year old game engine, whose code base inhibits many of the things needed for a real simulation. and for those who do not want to get that serious they can still treat it like any other game, the point is both sides can be catered for, but MSTS at the moment even with all the community improvements over the years has limitations that make it fall short for serious simulation, just like all the other railway programs old and new.

on a side note i felt last night that the hi res stuff i was running actually looked better in the environment it was running in, then running in native MSTS.

[rdamurphy]

My concern about continued development of MSTS is, and always has been, #1 is it taking away from development of new and up to date sims (no particular one in mind),...

I considered moving forward to a "new" sim at one time, and my one simple question about how the heirarchy needed to be set up was met with the answer: RTFM.

So, I did. It explains - very clearly - how to build a Brit 2 axle 4 wheel wagon, but no hint on how to deal with a 4 axle 2 truck US model.

I came up with a method to move all of my 60+ cars into the "new" sim with very little work, all I needed was that one question answered...

I still don't know. And I no longer care.

Robert

[Bananarama]

I must have missed that question, Robert, as I would have been happy to assist. Like MSTS, your work in RW is much needed and would have been well received.

[muskokaandtahoe]

Speaking only for myself, I have oft expressed my opinion that in the ideal a great train sim would do two things: (1) let the railroad technology part of the code be open so technically competent end users could understand what was going on and perhaps enhance and/or extend the code with their knowledge of real world railroading, and (2) "pull" old content into the future, much as model railroading does w/ decades old cars and structures -- not because they look good (because for the most part, they don't) but because for the time being it's what the individual has on hand and can use. It'll get dumped in time and replaced w/ far better models. With that in mind, ask yourself this question: why would you want the software provider to dictate to you what you keep? Especially if they have a commercial interest in euthanizing the old dogs? Shouldn't that be entirely your call?

Anyway, without regard to those thoughts, I'm pretty much in agreement w/ Robert, who mentioned that each sim has it's good and bad points and that folks certainly can own & enjoy more than one. Playing the my "favorite has to be the best one so you're a fool (or worse) for not agreeing" game is, IMO, a complete waste of time.

[Trainguy76]

Rob, when you asked me a while ago about heirarchy, I didn't know either, so I suggested looking at the Wiki. (But I didn't say that as rudely as you put it)

Anyway I have since found how the hierarchy works in 3dCanvas, and this is what it needs to be at the basics for a loco and rolling stock.




The bogies.





Where "horizontal offset" is the offset from the center of the bogie.



The main Blueprint



Note the "Front Pivot X/Y" and "Back Pivot X/Y" That would be the center of your bogies in relative to the rolling stock.

I could help further by PM if need be.

[saxmusickman]

Uh Oh! Train...beginning to...derail........front trucks...slipping ..........off.................tracks!!!

Lets say that i'm wanting to create an asset for OpenRails-Enhanced MSTS. They guidline I always followed for MSTS was 3000 polys max. What would be the maximum displayable now?

[longiron]

At UKTrainsim there's a thread about the development of this Open Rails specific steam engine. http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtop...st=0&sk=t&sd=a

For those without access, this NG steam locomotive was adapted from a MSTS version. No SF, single LOD and no culled polys

Image of the smokebox


Full rendering



"Locomotive is now approaching 70 thousand polys.....the metal guards on the cowcatcher have 3d rent and dents. Why bother, you say? Just to prove it's possible."

I want to thank Captain Bazza for stretching the limits and demonstrating what's possible.

[3Directions]

I want to thank Captain Bazza for stretching the limits and demonstrating what's possible.

Yes , as would I .

[rdamurphy]

Trainguy, just for the record, you were definitely NOT the individual I was referring to. My apologies if I caused any offense.

Robert

[Trainguy76]

I's all ok here Rob.