Another request.............

[seagoon]

A suggestion to the OR developement team:

Please do not place importance on the animation of line-side facilities and/or non-railroad infrastructure at the expense of what this simulation should be about - the operation of a functional transport system to as-close-as-possible real-life practices.

For example - it is immaterial whether a coal-loader actually shows coal being dumped into a hopper.
What IS important is that the physics & dynamics of the loaded hopper should be as realistic as possible and far removed from those of an empty hopper.

The same goes for passenger conveyance: watching animated characters moving into and out of carriages might look cute but, in a simulation, an unnecessary resource hog.
The important inculsions are the changes in the physics of the loaded/unloaded carriage.

In other words, please do not turn this into a glitzy eye-candy product at the expense of a decent simulation.
We do not need another Trainz or Railworks.

BK

[OTTODAD]

In other words, please do not turn this into a glitzy eye-candy product at the expense of a decent simulation. We do not need another Trainz or Railworks.

Correct ! We need something a lot better !

I am happy with MSTSBin and converted to using DB-Tracks routes. Improvements to it's Graphics are desirable, as is adding some of the useful functionality other simulators have but not MSTS, like forinstance showing a moving map of where the player is in the route !

O t t o

[csantucci]

A suggestion to the OR developement team:

Please do not place importance on the animation of line-side facilities and/or non-railroad infrastructure at the expense of what this simulation should be about - the operation of a functional transport system to as-close-as-possible real-life practices.

Why should reasonable animation features be incompatible with real life practices? And why not animate what is already animated in MSTS?
Carlo

[apco25]

I believe he's trying to make a statement about prioritizing new features in the game. Lets get what we have now perfected and then go on to work on fancy eye candy.

[longiron]

Guys, animating static objects is not a very big programming effort. It's something that can fit within our larger dev efforts.

[seagoon]

Guys, animating static objects is not a very big programming effort. It's something that can fit within our larger dev efforts.

Thanks for the reassurance.

BK

[GoGoran]

Guys, animating static objects is not a very big programming effort. It's something that can fit within our larger dev efforts.

Very well ! Eye-candy is what MSTS was all about when it came out. There were already several railroad simulations available in 2001, such as BVE, which featured complex controls and fairly good physics. MSTS compromised a bit on the controls, but delivered very good physics and - revolutionary at the time - lots of "eye candy," as you call it, which made it a success and which is the reason why I bought it when it came out. I don't call it "eye candy," but realistic graphics. Realistic graphics is the key for the enjoyment of MSTS and its greatest asset. OR should continue in this tradition.

[seagoon]

............Realistic graphics is the key for the enjoyment of MSTS and its greatest asset. ....

With respect, I beg to differ.

The key to the enjoyment of MSTS is the ablity to program functional AI in order to obtain a result that approximates the realistic operation of trains over a section of railroad on which the player is travelling.

With the exception of Zusi, no other current train-sim allows that to be done: Trainz and the Rail Simulator franchises require scripting in order to provide a quasi-AI presence and BVE does not allow for any action other than forward running.
Yet these three products all have excellent graphics and the first two include lineside animations.

The graphics are certainly not the reason that most of us have adopted MSTS over the past decade.
Irrespective of the irritations and frustrations with the use of the Editing Tools, it's the functionality of the sim that has been the attraction.

BK

[conductorchris]

Sounds like the key to msts is that it can appeal to people in multiple ways . . .
Christopher

[tscraftsman]

Current features I really like about Open Rails are:

The ability to be almost like a 1st person yardman with a beltpack being able manipulate switches and set off cuts of cars with a switchlist that you can actually leave up while you work thru it. I have even tried my hand at kicking and humping cars but in some cases the cars roll for quite aways. It does take some prep work just like real life by similar to bleeding the air brakes to allow the car to roll once ya slack in and pull the pin. Too bad ya couldn't actually ride the car in the brakeman view and spot the car by applying the handbrake. Makes for hours of fun and gives purpose to Railyards.

The ability to run extremely long 2mile plus intermodal double stack trains and still maintain a fairly high frame rate all due to the graphics engine I presume.

I feel the Open Rails Team is on the right track pun intended with sticking to developing the essentials at the moment, train physics, signalling, AI traffic, speed and mile posts. Not eye candy simulators with 3D cabs and cartoon looking graphics with Thomas The tank engine type activities where you see coal hoppers being filled And other animation a train crew wouldn't be directly involved in. I use OR as a Train Simulator Not A Canvas Or 3D World To Make Pretty Pictures to overload screen shot forum sections with.

As a 3D modeler I do like the fact that OR is not finicky when it comes to importing my models into the simulator compared to MSTS. The eng and wag files formats are straight forward compared to RW and Trainz

Matt

[OTTODAD]

Yes, Matt, we'll get there eventually, all of us more experienced MSTS users helping the ORTS team to achieve perfection !

O t t o

[tscraftsman]

Yes, Matt, we'll get there eventually, all of us more experienced MSTS users helping the ORTS team to achieve perfection !

O t t o

No Doubt Otto Just putting in my 2¢ Wish I knew a bit about computer programming to help out the cause instead of being a armchair quarter back lol

[lindsayts]

Sounds like the key to msts is that it can appeal to people in multiple ways . . .
Christopher

Absolutely,
Train sims are different things to different people, some (me for instance) would like accurate performance, some want correct signalling others detailed graphics etc. Everyone needs to understand just because the developers are not working on your favorite thing at the moment the world is not comming to an end. It is likely though that OR WILL push the limits of current computers for example it may have trouble controlling and displaying a dozen or so 35,000 ton 204 car trains at once (iron trains in Western Australia, decent frame rates for two at the moment) to name one, we need to understand these limitations and that limits will exist.

Lindsay

[lindsayts]

On the subject of requests, I have just been running the newly released Scotish Central plus route and it would be real nice to be able to have seasonal objects, ie objects whose presence depends on the season used. In the above mentioned route it would be the holiday tents near the sea shore. Considering we are talking about Scotland here I imagine not to many would be on a sea side holiday in winter.

Lindsay

[OTTODAD]

Yes Lindsay, there is a lot that can be done once the functional and visual basics of a new train simulator have been taken care of.

We already have MSTS sun-bathers at the seaside, animated to kiss each other and the sky is the limit once some of your team guys have been taken off the more important programming leash !

O t t o