Default rolling stock

[OTTODAD]

I keep noticing the community seems to have a strong desire to cling on to old ways of doing things despite software like OR moving beyond anything MSTS could do.

So far I have seen little that ORTS can do better than MSTSBin, much of what MSTS can do it can not, it's better graphics having few 3D objects to display and there is much of what MSTS can display and use ORTS can not and in consequence frame rates are higher.

Have a look at my past screenshots of routes using DB-Tracks, distant mountains, tracks joints and driving over switches sounds, routes like Carlo Scantucci's Swiss Bernina, Horse Shoe Curve, Donner Pass, Cajon Pass 4, Seaview-5 and it's animations, Port Ogden & Northern, to mention but a few, drive them and you will experience the difference !

Alt-Enter to view Full-Screen !

https://www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/video/...cks-routes.wmv
www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/video/seaview-gecko.wmv
www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/video/bernina-msts.wmv

B.t.w., these are my tunnels with tracks in the Bernina !

Now show me any mountainous MSTS route like my Gold-Spike-X which displays, functions and sounds like the above in ORTS !

O t t o

[haverfordwest]

OR is not a finished product, not even near it. MSTS is 11 years old and no longer being developed, even unofficially with mstsbin.

So it is not a fare comparison, its not comparing like for like.

[apco25]

The potential of OR will far out strip the last version of BIN. Bin while great simply works with and around what was coded a very long time ago. The game is not static, but its game engine is. Even BIN is no longer being developed now. Its 2012 and we're stil displaying content in 16bit graphics? Seriously, we need to move on. Distant mountains will likely return in the next OR version. Sounds will only get better. If I was capable of coding I'd be helping the OR team. Each version of OR improves upon the last and I can quite confident the finaly product will make MSTS look like a toy.

MSTS is great for a 10 + year old program. All I am pointing out is that we should be working on the future and not holding on a to a past that is going to be obsolete soon.

[seagoon]

So it is not a fare comparison,.....

I agree 100%; it is definitely not a fare comparison. It's not even a fair comparison.

BK

[haverfordwest]

Definitely not a fare or fair comparison, Brucie baby.

[lindsayts]

One hopes that now and in the future various MSTS developers around the world will let go at least a little and provide the various default items that will allow OR to be independant. REMEMBER or is being developed by volunteers so they and the rest of the world can have a real decent train sim, we need to give what support we can.

The contention also that OR is no improvement over MSTS with MSTsbin is amazing, while it appears not that many are real interested in the rolling stock physics, this in OR is a real major improvement over MSTS, as is the abilty to run at decent screen resolutions, not to mention FINALLY being able to display a decent high resolution cabview. There are items that need to be done such as proper support for the animations, and support for distant mountains amongst a lot of others but the progress for the apparent small size of the development group is excellent, remember well these people are volunteers and do have lives to leed.

"Rome was not built in a day"

Lindsay

[derekmorton]

So far I have seen little that ORTS can do better than MSTSBin

Otto,

You are not keeping up with where OR is at.
Open Rails is is Preview, that means that a lot of functions are not yet completed.

[apco25]

Can't we have real world physics and great graphics display? I certainly want both!

[OTTODAD]

MSTS is 11 years old and no longer being developed, even unofficially with mstsbin.

There is nothing much that needs to be changed in MSTSBin that can not be modified by experienced users and is still being enhanced by guys like Norbert Rieger who is gradually replacing all X-Tracks with his DB-Tracks, some of us are using to convert our favorite routes, new Freeware ones being created and Payware ones being released by http://www.eisenbahndiscount.de/micr...8c5e3d64a59240 , also using DB-Tracks.

Frame rates of 25 p.s. is what cinema films and TV use and are good enough for my old eyes, displayed on a 19" monitor and with AA 8X and AF 16X is good enough for MSTSBin running at 1024x768 !

Faster CPUs for crunching it's graphics data, displayed by capable graphics cards makes it still the best Train Simulator !

Is there a Train Simulator which can do better right now ?

It will take years to replace all that MSTSBin has to offer with 3D scenery, objects and rolling stock, suitable for use by the ORTS better graphics, using multi-core CPUs and it's hopefully less sluggish improved rolling stock physics, signalling and AI handling, etc, etc.

O t t o

[haverfordwest]

MSTS still looks horrible and i can't even run it on my 23"WS monitor. Without the image being grossly distorted or having to have a huge black void down each side, which is wasted viewing space to me.

Give me OR anytime for the graphics and in time the rest of the goodies will be developed for it.

[longiron]

I think that we've ridden this horse as far as its going to go.

I thought some insight into OpenRails future could move the thread in a positive direction. The team believes between the upcoming release and one more after that - OpenRails will approach v1.0. It may not have everyone's favorite feature, but we'll be darn close. While we're working on that, we are doing planning for the follow-on release which will focus on content creation tools - Editors - that will take OpenRails into an independent future while continuing to support existing MSTS content - the best of both worlds.

For example, I'm attempting to get Abacus to consider a new version of TrainSim Modeler which supports a host of new features, shaders and other ideas we have for next generation content creation. Along with that we've done some preliminary experiments with plug-ins for Blender that support these items. Another example is we are working on next generation ENG/WAG file formats that simply them and add support for improved physics. These new formats won't be backward compatible, but OR will offer conversion tools to make moving ahead as easy and intuitive as possible.

I hope this gives the community a better understanding of what the future holds. Please don't ask about timing as we just cannot commit to dates being a volunteer development organization. But be confident, the OR development team is committed and enthusiastic as ever.

[Paul pal]

That's excellent news. when you mention "...shaders and other ideas", you mean shaders as the shades within OR or DirectX shaders (ex.: shaders 2.0; 3.0...)?
Would it be possible to OR -or more correctly, XNa, to "go" DirectX 11 ?

To Otto and all owners of NVidia cards: you can improve visual, by installing "NVidia Inspector" When you open it, click on the small "tools" button then a new big window will show you literally hundreds of AA and AF combinations! You could leave AA and AF to 8 and then change other parameters. If you want I will open a thread and exchange with you some ideas and parameters!

It's nice to see Open Rails going 1.0!!!! The best to you all !

[longiron]

when you mention "...shaders and other ideas"

We are talking about ambient occulsion and other shader (lighting effects) that can make models appear more 3D and realistic. All work best with Shader Model 3.0

See these threads for the other ideas
http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...in-open-rails/

http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...g-experiments/

[conductorchris]

I am thrilled, as always, to hear where OR is going.
Christopher

[kingconrail76]

I've said it from day one...until there are "Editors and Tools", ORTS is nothing more than MSTS eye-candy. Efforts to provide these "plug-ins" for Blender (or even better, 3D Crafter) should have been made a very long time ago...but the ORTS team said it was not important.

How can we (the Content Creators) build "ORTS Default" equipment, if we don't have the Tools to do so? How can we implement "effects" or "Physics" when we don't know what they are?...it's all been an aks-baskwerds adventure if you ask me.

Abacus will not provide a 32-bit/64-bit Installer for it's exsisting products; I would not hold my breath waiting for them to develop a new "3D modeling Program" specifically for ORTS content/features...and even if they did, who at this point would spend the money to purchase it after being shafted with their previous offerings?...much better to go the Blender, Gmax or 3D Crafter route....and I say that knowing full-well how much easier TSM is to use than all others...I truely LIKE TSM...Abacus, not so much.