ORTS Specific Content?

[baldwin]

To stand this argument on its head, there have been a few shapes that work in MSTS, and to all intents and purposes one can then assume that the s file is therefore not "broken". However, bring them into Open Rails and several OR patches have had to be made to get these models to work properly in OR.

To say that a shape that works in Open Rails must also work in MSTS is pure nonsense. Open Rails is allowing model makers to push the boundaries for s files way beyond what MSTS can display. Open Rails was designed at the outset as a simulator able to display and run models/routes/activities built for MSTS, but this capability was and still is limited to version 1, note that, built for MSTS.

To further suggest that Open rails in a further release will invalidate a shape that will not run in MSTS and further, fail to display it in Open Rails is something that I have never seen mentioned in any Open Rails forum, public or private.

[kraus]

I am not incensed that I spent $12 on models that do not work in MSTS. I specifically bought them to learn why they worked in Open Rails and not in MSTS with the goal of fixing Open Rails so that it does not open defective shapes.

The shapes in the Dekosoft model can be altered to work in MSTS so I can use them. I also learned more about shape files and what needs to be changed in the shape reading code of Open Rails to prevent it from opening bad shape files.

Another analogy is file paths. A file path is composed of a drive letter, folders and file name. Windows file paths are limited to 260 characters. So a file path that is longer may appear to be valid but is not a Windows file path.

A shape file that can be opened by Open Rails but cannot be opened by Microsoft Train Simulator is not a valid shape file even if appears to be a shape file.

[kraus]

Which tools are used to create shape files that cannot be opened in MSTS? It seems these tools need to be patched to prevent the creation of invalid shapes.

This has been discussed in the private Open Rails forum with the recent release of shape files that work in Open Rails but not in MSTS.

The initial shape code was written with incomplete knowledge of how shape files are formatted. With better knowledge of the format of shape files Open Rails can do a better job of validating content and show error messages for invalid shapes.

[apco25]

This entire thread gives me a convoluted headache....

[R. Steele]

This entire thread gives me a convoluted headache....

Yep, it's a LULU! (LOOLOOL??)

[ConCat]

This thread was giving me a migraine after it got hijacked and before being moved here.

[crstagg]

Shape File Viewer can open the Dekosoft GP30 shapes so does that make it broken too?

[Traindude]

Why WOULDN'T we want OR-exclusive content? OR has the capability to have custom physics parameters that Kuju overlooked or ignored. In MSTS, simulating anything not within Kuju's programmed parameters had to be "faked."

Case in point--MSTS and Kuju assumed that all steam locomotives were conventional, rigid-frame (non-articulated), hand-fired coal burners with no fancy gadgets whatsoever, and unless you could "fake it" in some way for the locomotive you were modeling, MSTS' existing steam physics were useless.

[MCDemuth]

I thought the purpose was to design content to work in Open Rails...

If a shape file works in ORTS...Mission Successful...

krausyao, You said that ORTS ignores certain coding, allowing these shapes to load. That indicates it does not need that coding in the first place. Why should there so much concern over this damaged/broken code since it does not affect ORTS? Why alter ORTS to load fewer shapes, thereby restricting future development? If anything it should load more.

Who made the determination that the shape file is "broken", because it does not work in the outdated MSTS?

[dredick]

Who made the determination that the shape file is "broken", because it does not work in the outdated MSTS?

That would be Jeffrey, in his (un)infinite wisdom.

[UP_4848_Thunder]

Someone wants ORTS to cry an crash like old MSTS that can't handle certain things as a warning or just not run in ORTS???? than run MSTS if you want things to warn an cry crashing the sim to you just like some that want to simulate skills an testing for probable cause or on purpose when it comes to derailing run MSTS. MSTS bin can't even do the solution what ORTS someday might do someday an maybe run multiple FA shapes to reduce too much poly congestion on one shape like MSTS.... still no ORTS problem unless they are invisible like TA MSTS 1.2 SD40-2 shapes become. New FA shapes eligible for addition to those models that have a FA already taken up space is no room for another in MSTS but still works an loads of choosing than make a MSTS seperate eng an shape may help or trying even polymaster?

[kraus]

What are the benefits of having shape files that work in Open Rails but not MSTS? The disadvantages are the market is smaller.

The Dekosoft shape with 3-subobjects only works in Open Rails while after it has been fixed to have 4-subojects works in both Open Rails and MSTS. How is the 3-subobject shape better?

[MCDemuth]

The disadvantages are the market is smaller.

The market for the MSTS Sim Engine is already dying, and getting "smaller".

The MSTS Sim Engine is out dated! It is 14 Years Old! Why should anyone still be forced to design products for it?...

Let It Die!



If you restrict what the ORTS Sim Engine can do, so that everything still runs in the MSTS Sim Engine...

WHY... HAVE... ORTS... IN... THE... FIRST... PLACE... ?

I know... Let's just go back to updating MSTS Bin instead! (That is never going to happen!)



As it was previously mentioned by another member, some Steam Locomotives now being designed for ORTS have too many poly counts. ETC. It would not matter how they are grouped: 4-subobjects or 3-subobjects... The MSTS Sim Engine still won't be able to load it.

MSTS Sim Engine users are quite aware that the software has this limitation, and we don't expect to be able to use ORTS Designed Content...



As Consumers, those of us still using The MSTS Sim Engine, have a choice...

1.) Either... Stick with the 14 year old MSTS Sim Engine... And ONLY use limited MSTS Designed Content...

The MSTS Sim Engine only still Works on Windows XP (is that the lowest version?) through Windows 7+ (+ being a few Windows 8 situations), and there is no guarantee that it will be able to be used at all on Windows 9!

2.) OR... Start Using the new Open Rails Sim Engine, that can ALSO use ALL the limited MSTS Designed Content, now currently available (At least when the bugs have been fixed.), as well as the new ORTS Designed Content (Such as those steam locos)

The ORTS Sim Engine, which has many new features, as well as utilizes today's technologies, currently runs on All Windows Operating Systems from Windows XP and newer, and will be able to be used on Windows 9 and beyond (I am sure a patch or new version will make this happen.)



PLEASE STOP TRYING TO FORCE SUPPORT FOR THE MSTS SIM ENGINE!

There is no need to...



And as for the market, any company can still design content for The MSTS Sim Engine, if they still choose to do so. In the end it will still all be usable with the ORTS Sim Engine.

BUT, most importantly...

Sooner or later, everyone will be using the ORTS Sim Engine...especially when the newer Windows Operation Systems will no longer be able to run the old MSTS Sim Engine, and consumers have stopped using Window 7 and older ones. This means that all the ORTS Designed Content that is being released now, that will not currently work in the MSTS Sim Engine, will be able to be used by everyone any way. They will download it/buy it then, if they don't already have it now.

[cjakeman]

It is almost certain that the release version of Open Rails will not render the current shape file in the GP30 Pro Edition set so it will then need to be patched for both MSTS and Open Rails.

No, it isn't at all certain.

Open Rails policy regarding errors is;

• If the error in the content is ignorable without causing other problems (such as an unknown shader/material), we log a warning and continue loading.
• If the error will cause further problems, we log a warning and skip loading that item.
• If the error will cause serious problems, such as likely being unable to play the activity, we log an error and abort the whole game.

If we can make use of the data, we will.

Hope that helps,

[eric]

Guys, we have Chris's official response, and Dekosoft's official response.

Debate is over, and it is time to move on....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk