What would you like to see in Version 1.0 ?

[apco25]

Unless some incredibly good interior views come out I don't see really any use for the #5 view. I simulate operating trains, not riding them as a passenger. The interior views that exist now are almost all horrible. Isn't sitting up in the cab still traveling the rails, with a better view straight ahead. Sitting in the passenger seat always makes me want to look straight down the track or lean out the window, two things you can't do in a modern passenger railcar.

There's better things the OR devs can work on in my opinion.

As for derailments I wouldn't implement anything more than wheels on the ground. Again it's not a crash simulator and frankly the MSTS derailments were insane.

[poochwilly]

I would like to see what all are wanting is for all routes and activities that work in MSTS to work in Open Rails as well, just have to wait patiently, don't like the Mexican standoffs that occur in the new Bala v2 route with Open Rails.

[apco25]

A fix does exist for Bala 2 and its oddly configured signal scripts.

[twpol]

Re: derailments -- Train wrecks are not what the simulator is about. But, in real life, wheels do go "on the ground" but not in a disastrous way for various reasons -- Washouts, bad track, picking a switch, slack run-in on a bad spot... What might be useful is some way for the sim to to offer to recover gracefully from a derailment situation with consequences, rather than a simple end-of-session or reset and continue like nothing ever happened.

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly what we've discussed previously for derailments. You penalise the player (scoring in an activity, getting the train moving again, etc.) but skip the "what happens next" part by simply interrupting when it would have happened, perhaps with something like you said where you see a very small bit of the derailment but no real accident.

I think mostly we're just in need of someone to add the relevant code to identify when we would've derailed (there's been some recent work on curve friction forces).

[Komachi]

Unless some incredibly good interior views come out I don't see really any use for the #5 view. I simulate operating trains, not riding them as a passenger. The interior views that exist now are almost all horrible. Isn't sitting up in the cab still traveling the rails, with a better view straight ahead. Sitting in the passenger seat always makes me want to look straight down the track or lean out the window, two things you can't do in a modern passenger railcar.

There's better things the OR devs can work on in my opinion.

As for derailments I wouldn't implement anything more than wheels on the ground. Again it's not a crash simulator and frankly the MSTS derailments were insane.

Eh well a good number of passenger views at least that I have, are quite good. The BZT Amfleet II's, the Superliner interior's, 3DTS Surfliner, BLW/ZT's stuff, sooo.. I wouldn't say the interior views taht exist now are almost all horrible. And yeah, some folks like the #1 view better. Some like the #5 view too. This sim wouldn't be what it is now if they focused on just the operation side.

Yeah, also that is your opinion, but eh. If they just went off of 1 person's opinion, then the sim wouldn't be what it is now would it? It'd just be a personal program for one person, hah. So we'll see.

Edit: Also, since OR is Open Source, I'd LOVE to be able to code that myself, but I know -nothing- about coding and am dyslexic to boot so. Please don't give me the 'do it yourself' bit because I am -not- able to.

[EricF]

For passenger views, all we have right now is based on MSTS technology -- which isn't much. Passenger interiors are low-poly 3D with a fixed camera; details can only be brought out with clever texturing. To make high-detail interiors with a movable point-of-view camera will require defining new model parameters to include a high-poly detailed 3D interior. It's probably easier to do that sometime beyond version 1.0, and might be best done in conjunction with 3D cab development. Easier to define new code all together; more possibility it can be re-used in a modular fashion between cab and passenger environments -- cab and wagon interiors could be defined along similar lines.

[captain82]

Maybe a way to add in AI trains into a multi player session without having to play an activity.

[eric]

I do great at modifying static data, but trying to do it while moving is a foreign concept to me... That disclaimer out of the way, I suspect that most of the code needed to support a "freeroam" passenger view is already present in the code...

We've got a variety of camera views (1,2,3,5,6) which know the velocity of the train, and move at that speed. The 2, 3, and 6 view already allow you to pivot and rotate/zoom in/out from a fixed point.

I'd think that if the game engine is already able to keep track of the velocity (game global variable??) and the camera's relation to a fixed point on the shapefile (constant?), it should be able to keep track of array containing the left/right/back/forward/up/down distances away from the fixed point within the shape. I'd also think it would be easier to calculate than what's already being done on the rotation views.

Walking between cars might be problematic, but I'd be satisfied with being able to change seats from one side of the coach to another, or to go between levels on a dome or bilevel car...

[eric]

Maybe a way to add in AI trains into a multi player session without having to play an activity.

That would be a great function from the dispatcher display... select one of the predefined paths, and spawn a consist at track speed...

[Komachi]

I do great at modifying static data, but trying to do it while moving is a foreign concept to me... That disclaimer out of the way, I suspect that most of the code needed to support a "freeroam" passenger view is already present in the code...

We've got a variety of camera views (1,2,3,5,6) which know the velocity of the train, and move at that speed. The 2, 3, and 6 view already allow you to pivot and rotate/zoom in/out from a fixed point.

I'd think that if the game engine is already able to keep track of the velocity (game global variable??) and the camera's relation to a fixed point on the shapefile (constant?), it should be able to keep track of array containing the left/right/back/forward/up/down distances away from the fixed point within the shape. I'd also think it would be easier to calculate than what's already being done on the rotation views.

Walking between cars might be problematic, but I'd be satisfied with being able to change seats from one side of the coach to another, or to go between levels on a dome or bilevel car...

Indeed. I took a look at the Cameras.cs in the source files and it's all greek to me. Ah well. BUt yeah, theoretically it should be do-able. I know like with BLW-ZT, a good number of their shapes you sure COULD do that with. Example: ATSF Hi-level lounge. The 'loungevir.s' or whatever it is INCLUDES a downstairs!

[captain82]

That would be a great function from the dispatcher display... select one of the predefined paths, and spawn a consist at track speed...

Exactly, I think Trainz has this feature or something similar to it.

[captain82]

You know another good thing to fix is the locomotive assist in multiplayer. There should be a way to still have control of your train while coupled to another. Normally when two locomotives are coupled, one becomes just a helper and you can't regain control of your train.

[apco25]

What I was really getting at is there are much bigger things that need to be done before the passive passenger view should take priority. Route and activity editors or further enhancing train behavior/physics might be a tad more important.

I'm sticking to my opinion and just brings balance to your opinion or any other one.

Eh well a good number of passenger views at least that I have, are quite good. The BZT Amfleet II's, the Superliner interior's, 3DTS Surfliner, BLW/ZT's stuff, sooo.. I wouldn't say the interior views taht exist now are almost all horrible. And yeah, some folks like the #1 view better. Some like the #5 view too. This sim wouldn't be what it is now if they focused on just the operation side.

Yeah, also that is your opinion, but eh. If they just went off of 1 person's opinion, then the sim wouldn't be what it is now would it? It'd just be a personal program for one person, hah. So we'll see.

Edit: Also, since OR is Open Source, I'd LOVE to be able to code that myself, but I know -nothing- about coding and am dyslexic to boot so. Please don't give me the 'do it yourself' bit because I am -not- able to.

[Komachi]

What I was really getting at is there are much bigger things that need to be done before the passive passenger view should take priority. Route and activity editors or further enhancing train behavior/physics might be a tad more important.

I'm sticking to my opinion and just brings balance to your opinion or any other one.

OH I see, alrighty then. Misunderstood ya, no biggy!

[kevhead]

Yea I'm kinda pushing compatibility with the activities we already have. I know some people have said theirs work others don't. And muliplayer with AI.I Have yet to see muiltiplayer work so I cannot say much about it. I have read a post that people have had them but until I see how it works I cannot comment on that.