Removing reliance on MSTS default route data.

[mestevet]

Jeff,

I agree that I would NOT nominate the ORTS team to take on the task I'm suggesting.

But I don't agree with the inference that finding/making direct replacements for the Default MSTS isn't an important task. I point to all the existing routes which use MSTS default items, often and typically copied by batch file from the default routes during installation. How many add-on routes are there out there that use them? I'd wager it would be an easier task to come up with direct, one for one replacements to "stand-in" for the default MSTS ones for those who may not have access to MSTS in the future, for any reason, than to try to go back into dozens or hundreds of routes and replace any reference to a default MSTS item and install a "suggested" replacement. I also don't think that it would be a wise strategy to say "tough" to folks who can't, for whatever reason, obtain MSTS.

I DO understand that currently OR requires the existence of an MSTS installation, however, try to envision a future where that may not be the case. As I've said, MSTS IS getting less available, and I doubt it will get MORE available in the future. But also consider a future where computer systems may pass by the installation of MSTS. I point to the inability of TSM to be directly installed on Windows 7 computers (there IS a workaround which requires an older version of Windows). Or perhaps there are other unforseeable reasons why the original MSTS may not be widely available for many users.

Looking at that UKTS thread, it seems to me that a lot of them are coming to a similar conclusion.

Look, if it isn't done, I can see what will happen: unathorized distribution of MSTS content through "backdoor" methods. If that happens and whoever owns the rights to it now objects, that could cause significant trouble for the train-simming community as a whole. I look at this the same way I've suggested that we attack "pirates" of normal MSTS equipment: produce a better option and the pirates won't get traction.

Like any other "Library" effort, I can see that what it's going to take is just one guy, or a small group doing it. My point is that I would participate, but don't feel like I would want to be the only guy trying to do it.

Steve

[twpol]

I DO understand that currently OR requires the existence of an MSTS installation, however, try to envision a future where that may not be the case.

Some Open Rails developers have been putting in time and effort recently in figuring out what exactly prevents OR from "just working" with only 3rd-party routes and content available (i.e. with no MSTS); there is surprisingly little that actually stops it in V360.

[OTTODAD]

Some Open Rails developers have been putting in time and effort recently in figuring out what exactly prevents OR from "just working" with only 3rd-party routes and content available (i.e. with no MSTS); there is surprisingly little that actually stops it in V360.

I have been thinking about this since the first ORTS beta release.

It may be close to running non-default MSTS add-on routes, using their existing tracks and road databases, signaling scripts, forests and other data.

But to create new or modify existing routes and their activities the MSTS Editors will be required and unless the ORTS team creates their own it will go nowhere without MSTS !

O t t o

[jeff9595]

But to create new or modify existing routes and their activities the MSTS Editors will be required and unless the ORTS team creates their own it will go nowhere without MSTS !

O t t o

Lol... Otto!... we'll get to that! Patience

Jeff......................
OpenRails team

[OTTODAD]

Lol... Otto!... we'll get to that! Patience

At the age of 82 I don't know how much time I have got left to see it all happening, but wish I could do more to help ORTS succeed, like I have been doing for MSTS, RS and now RW !

Take care, guys !

O t t o

[mestevet]

OK, I just whipped up a candidate replacement for a default MSTS shape, my own original shape, using my own original textures. Most of it was stuff I had "laying around" like brick, concrete, roof, window, door and chain link fence textures from my own photography, most from existing projects I have on my hard drive. I constructed it to first match the existing shape dimensionally (so it would fit, if used as a replacement), but couldn't resist "upgrading" it a little bit to, in my opinion, make a little better match to the original.

I just chose to do the first one, alphabetically, in the USA1 "NEC" route: "AberdeenStation," which is a very simple model of the station at Aberdeen, MD. So far, I'm aware that it's been used in two routes, aside from the default NEC: Vince Cockeram's NECv4, and the PRR Eastern Division (at least it was copied from the defaults, I haven't looked in the RE to see if it's actually there - a lot of things were upgraded in that route).

My rebuild:


The original:


Note that it is NOT my purpose to make a "whiz bang" replacement - this isn't intended to be a truly accurate model of the Aberdeen Station (I'd drive down there and take photos of it if I was going to do that!)

If others feel this model is worthwhile, I will make the shape and texture PLUS the original TSM .dst files and .psp original texture files (with texture pieces layered for easy re-use) available for public use.

Steve

[dcarleton]

If others feel this model is worthwhile, I will make the shape and texture PLUS the original TSM .dst files and .psp original texture files (with texture pieces layered for easy re-use) available for public use.

Please do!

David Carleton

[emd645e3c]

Nice work Steve.

Replacing all those old shapes would certainly make a lot of routes stand out more.

Steve

[OTTODAD]

What would benefit most from a better graphics engine in ORTS are forests, trees and other vegetation.

My mate Frank Carver of the MSTS Marias-Kootenai and GWR-Toddington routes has achieved this below in the latter, using UK-Finescale tracks and another mate, Mike Sinclair, improving MSTS stand-alone trees to almost 3D, but can not do anything about the 2D trees in forests.

Will be interesting to see what ORTS can show, using suitable for it's graphics objects.

O t t o

[mnjrr]

Hi Steve,

Your replacements look so much better than the default objects. I know you just created the replacements as an experiment to show what is attainable. Have you thought about getting in contact with Doug Knightly, who proposed the idea over at UKTrainSim that the train simulator community come up with replacement shapes?

[longiron]

I think a simple, shareable Google spreadsheet would suffice to track this effort. To that end, I've created a Google spreadsheet that anyone can edit with this link to it: https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc...CKGl0bkC#gid=0


Just sign up for whatever shape the modeler wants and complete the information as each is done. The community can add more information (i.e. columns) at its judgement.

I kick started the list using Jeffery's list of of shapes used by more than 25 routes. It's based on a variety of North American, Australian and European routes.

chris van wagoner

[OTTODAD]

Been thinking about what the effect on ORTS frame rates would be if using masses of 3D trees in forests ?

RS.com now about to create custom creatable Block Objects rectangles like the forests in MSTS, got a feeling that the trees used in them should be the rotating with the view 2D ones to avoid frame rates being throttled ?

How say ?

O t t o

[GoGoran]

Been thinking about what the effect on ORTS frame rates would be if using masses of 3D trees in forests ?

Better not to even think about it now. But in a couple of years, when computer and graphics cards performance has multiplied, it might be possible.

[muskokaandtahoe]

Been thinking about what the effect on ORTS frame rates would be if using masses of 3D trees in forests ?

RS.com now about to create custom creatable Block Objects rectangles like the forests in MSTS, got a feeling that the trees used in them should be the rotating with the view 2D ones to avoid frame rates being throttled ?
O t t o

Modern video cards hardly break a sweat when processing great gobs of identically skinned polys so what you are mentioning here is really no big deal. OTOH, if you do some experiments in OR that with those forward facing forest trees you'll notice there isn't anything visually lost once they're a certain distance away from the camera...so why use more polys from that point further out?

We have talked about this fact and the initial conclusion was in order to fix it we'd need to be able to add something to the world file to indicate that trees in this forest right here get 16 polys, trees in that forest over there get 8, and trees in the other one waaay over there in back get 1. There are a couple of ways to implement this (and to do so w/o changing any world files), but the thinking is the solutions are either too awkwards for users to do or best left until such time Open Rails has its own world editor and world files.

Speaking for myself, I'd really like to see the "awkward" solution tried, if for no other reason than see if it makes enough of a difference to the appearance of forests to be worth puting on the Editor's to-do list.

[OTTODAD]

As I do a lot of sightseeing driving outside the cab I did a test to compare what I see in MSTS and ORTS.

The latter using flat 2D trees in forests, turning towards the viewer, they show no 3D depths like Mike Sinclair's stand-alone trees and the MSTS forest trees.

Forests trees also cast no shadows and if they did in ORTS would show a flat one.

They are like backdrops as used in movies and looking at them other than full frontal would not be very attractive.

Also appears that ORTS can not handle this cross-planes tree in flat format.

Anyway, I am not going to make any more suggestions or report experiences running MSTS routes in ORTS until after it's next release and will depend on the response to my feedback I shall get from ORTS team members.

O t t o