Removing reliance on MSTS default route data.

[OTTODAD]

Tested another of Mike Sinclair's trees, his msmajesticoak and ORTS had no problems showing it.

The one which has this problem is his MSWeepingWillow34.

Just thought I'd let the team know in case they want to do some tests.

O t t o

P.S.: Noticed something else. Trees which are close to each other in dense ORTS forests rotate through each other as the view moves along !

[longiron]

P.S.: Noticed something else. Trees which are close to each other in dense ORTS forests rotate through each other as the view moves along !

Rotating "through each other" is the expected and normal behavior for Open Rails. Thanks for doing those tests.

[inflammable]

It would be handy to have the various groups of default files uploaded to common locations, such that a master download for each default route might be collected.

So that you can have one file, and have all updated shapes on a given route, as well as a master file with all six routes. Probably eight files total, a master, six routes, and the global and template collections. I wonder if the files from Global (non track) and Template collections made it onto the list.

I didn't notice this idea in any of the other threads, but it may be there.]

James

[jeff9595]

It would be handy to have the various groups of default files uploaded to common locations, such that a master download for each default route might be collected. James

I wonder if Nels (Nels is still the admin here, right? I've been out of it for such a long time!!) would consider opening a file section for contributions which replace the MS supplied default content? This would enable what James is suggesting, in a simple, organic, rather passive way which might not run afoul of any legal issues.

Lacking this, perhaps we can agree on a "keyword" which could get inserted into all descriptions of content posted to the File Library. Searches on the keyword would then list out all the default content available.

Either way, the end-user would be the one assembling his/her own collection of replacement content. In this early phase, I think we must tread carefully with regard to potential conflicts. Sadly, we live in a litigatious world.


Jeff.......................................

[dkightley]

Some interesting discussion going on....but not all is on the subject of the thread.....so I thought I'd update all on the current state of play of the proposed community project.

I am offering to act as the coordinator for the project, and to collate, verify, document and (when appropriate) publish the replacement "pack" wherever it needs to be published for anyone to access it.

If nobody has any objections, then I'll start working out the necessary process to get shapes, etc submitted to the project, and to maintain a master list of shapes reserved, in preparation and completed so its easy for anyone wanting to help out to get involved.

[Vince]

There are literally thousands of shapes that have been used in the routes in the file library.
Are you going to catalog them all?
That would be a pretty impressive project if you could ever get it done.

Start with just one shape maker, Ron Picardi. He alone has probable over a thousand custom shapes that are presently used on hundreds of routes.
For myself, I am a miniscule shape maker and I have made over 300 for my route. Small potatos!
Good luck.

[longiron]

There are literally thousands of shapes that have been used in the routes in the file library.
Are you going to catalog them all?

Vince,
The objective is to create replacement shapes for just the default MSTS content from the basic six routes. There's been a lot of analysis of what's been used where in other routes, how often, etc over at UKTS on this thread http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtop...f=324&t=111495

There's already of catalog and people committing replacements for the default stuff.

[plainsman]

Sadly, we live in a litigious world.

I would find this a compelling issue for me. I absolutely do not want to create anything which is viewed as a legal liability or that would attract litigation from other products!!!

[SurvivorSean]

It would be pretty sad of Bill M$ Gates and his group to get their panties in a bunch and go after OR for damages. But honestly it has nothing to do with Bill but corporate America (yes that includes Canada and the rest of the world too). Everything is about the shareholder.

I would find it very ironic thought that Microsoft would come after a group not making any money out of it due to supposed losses or damages. In fact if I'm correct MSTS is becoming very close to fit in the category of Abandonware. I'm not going to get into it here in all the details, if you want info I'm sure a google search will shed some light.

Basically though Abandonware basically puts a statue of limitations of a company who produces a piece of software that it no longer supported or updated. There is a website out there that hosts plenty of old titles for download that have never been threatened due to their abandonware status. I'm not promoting pirating especially if the software is still available for sale. But I think what OR is bringing to the table is going to be far superior to any basic MSTS to worry about any of this legal issues as apparently they don't care what the little niche of V-Scale is doing these days. Unless of course they can make some money from it, but that would be hypocritical since they killed a project (MSTS2/Aces) because there was not enough money in it for them.

I for one am thankful to Microsoft for what they gave us as it was well worth the price I paid 10 years ago. But seriously MSTS would be dead if it wasn't for the community who has helped it survive for this long.

Thanks

Sean

[OTTODAD]

ORTS is not using any of the MSTS source code and if it can play any routes created for MSTS and use created for it objects, the user of ORTS has to have installed by MSTS, then what ORTS does is of no concern to M$ !

It's like a non-M$ word processor being able to read M$ *.DOC files.

O t t o

[GoGoran]

Has anybody of the OR team ever thought of writing an email to Microsoft, inquiring about the right to use the default shapes ? Since MS ain't planning to pursue the MSTS 2 project anymore, I could well imagine that they would agree to put the shape files and aces into the freeware domain.

[longiron]

Has anybody of the OR team ever thought of writing an email to Microsoft, inquiring about the right to use the default shapes ?

Yes, after much discussion the Open Rails team decided that it wasn't going to get into the licensing business. There's a lot more than just writing an email; if and that's a BIG if, Microsoft was even willing to discuss the topic, there's negotiations, legal, contracts, liability issues, etc. We believed our limited resources would be better focused on developing Open Rails.

[OTTODAD]

Has anybody of the OR team ever thought of writing an email to Microsoft, inquiring about the right to use the default shapes ? Since MS ain't planning to pursue the MSTS 2 project anymore, I could well imagine that they would agree to put the shape files and aces into the freeware domain.

There are thousands of tracks, rolling stock and scenery objects in the freeware domain which can be used by creators of new ORTS routes !

O t t o

[kox]

Yeah it's better to leave the license things with Micro "patent/license troll" soft

[GoGoran]

There are thousands of tracks, rolling stock and scenery objects in the freeware domain which can be used by creators of new ORTS routes !

O t t o

Yeah, but as you know creating a usable replacement item database is a huge project, nevertheless.

A well-worded email to MS doesn't cost more than fifteen minutes of time.

And I guess you're talking about the creation of NEW routes - what about the existing ones, which more often than not still rely on the default shapes and textures ?