Stable Version - Open Rails 1.0

[Rick-MONON]

Yeah, that was my three biggest reasons for staying with MSTS since I have a PC that runs all routes well.
Engine lighting, the light cone and the diesel smoke, and some engines have brake issues too of course.

[conductorchris]

I am running open rails happily and I haven't tweaked engine settings for smoke. So it's not like that is a mandatory requirement. I'm sure things would look better if I did, but other projects have my attention instead and as is out of the box is mostly fine for me. We all have our personal things we notice -- for me it is using accurate roadnames and car types in activities. And banishing default stock. And nice sound.
Christopher

[baldwin]

Hi Chris,
Steam loco footplate staff added by a Freight Animation applied to the tender appearing around the smokebox!
Although my original bug was corrected, it has since resurfaced. I re-reported it and received a new number, but have heard nothing for some time. Sorry, I don't have the dates to hand, but it's at least a couple of months since my re-report.

Cheers,
Ged

I have checked several engines on several routes, and all crew are on the footplate. Which ones are not working for you?.

[woodfyr]

Geeeez,

Talking about "blowing smoke". Just let it (1.0) happen.

My thanks and congrats to the OR D Team for a fantastic job. !!!!!!!

[seagoon]

Geeeez,

Talking about "blowing smoke". Just let it (1.0) happen.

My thanks and congrats to the OR D Team for a fantastic job. !!!!!!!

Hear! Hear!
The amount of work that you blokes have put in....and continue to do so....is resulting in a simulation that bears little resemblance to the original MSTS.
You all deserve a standing ovation, in my opinion.

[slipperman]

Hi Baldwin,

I have checked several engines on several routes, and all crew are on the footplate. Which ones are not working for you?.

This loco is from UKTS_23425_Bristol_Jubilees and is shown on the Bristol to Birmingham Route.
Other locos having a footplate staff FA on the tender show correctly. This is due to the parameters used. This loco has the line :
FreightAnim ( "..\\common.crew\\BA_1\\ccw_8F.s" 0.25 3.0 0.0 )
If the 0.25 value is changed to 0.0, the staff appear in the correct position, BUT their feet and lower-legs are buried in the footplate!
What I find difficult to comprehend is how such a relatively small value can cause the staff to appear many metres away from their correct location!!
For information, I am using X2977.
Cheers,
Ged

OR_FootplateStaff.jpg

[Shawmut]

I've routinely downloaded ORTS since its early days and am eagerly looking forward to 1.0. The work the team has done - for free - is absolutely fantastic.

That said, there are a number of reasons I still use MSTS regularly, and none of them have to do with lights or smoke. Here are my reasons:

1. Some routes just look better in MSTS than OR. Why? Because those early blurry textures look better in a 16 bit system than a 32 bit system like OR. Think of it like the ads you see with a model of advancing years: the photography takes place at a distance and vaseline is rubbed on the lens (or a similar digital routine is used). So it is with some routes I run.

2. I find the night textures in OR very unrealistic, with way too many stars and no change in the lighting based on the horizon vs. looking straight up. Also, checking the "Use MSTS environments" variable produces in some cases ridiculous looking skies.

3. But the most important reason for me to continue to use MSTS is that activities run correctly right out of the box. I've converted some activities to OR, but it would have been impossible to do so without being able to see where trains appeared and ran in the original sim. I know that a lot of guys just run trains on routes and leave it at that, but for me the crowning achievement of the original MSTS was the ability to create complex and entertaining activities. After a while I get tired of driving for miles on end just to see a couple of trains (and yes, I really don't care that "it's prototypical," I've been prototypical at work all day long and when I game I like to have fun). Activities by really good act authors like Denis Gionet are, for me, like playing a really good RPG by a skillful gamesmaster.

Now, no doubt these issues (with perhaps the exception of the 1st one I listed) will be addressed by OR in time. And there's no denying that some fabulous advantages have come about with this new sim. I look forward to the day that I can truly ditch a sim designed in 2000-2001. But that day ain't yet.

Dave

[NW 2156]

Dave, I feel your pain. I personally have my own reasons for disliking OR, Some of these reasons you have already mentioned. The OR team should have stayed more in the box with what MSTS is and not taken on some of the other features they have incorporated.

I know MS just will not release the source code for a more than 10 year program. A program that was screwed up streight out of the box. How on earth MSTS could be of any importance to MS now is a mystery. It's not like they could rehash it and try to sell a new DirectX7 program all over again. If the code was released, Doing so would be a Godsend to those working on OR or any other sim trying to emulate MSTS. I would like to personally incorporate some MSTS into OpenBVE.

Don't get me started on MSTS-2 from 2003. Was supposed to come out a few days before my B-Day. I am still angry over that one you bunch of doggy dodo M$.

If I ever strike Gold I will buy MSTS V1 and the very first MSTS V2 then I can do what I want with the source material. But till then OR still holds a lot of potential. I believe OR may eventually fully make the grade and convince me to switch over completely. Unless Jointed Rails new program is successful and I take up that program.

Robert

[cjakeman]

3. But the most important reason for me to continue to use MSTS is that activities run correctly right out of the box. I've converted some activities to OR, but it would have been impossible to do so without being able to see where trains appeared and ran in the original sim.

A lot of work has been done by Carlo in this area, so it would be worth your while to try again. If there are still differences in behaviour, I'm sure he would be glad to look at them and try to fix them (though not in time for v1.0).

You might also want to try our alternative to Activities - Timetable Mode. This will let you assemble a day's busy schedule and then pick which train you want to drive. It's amazing stuff.

[Komachi]

I like OR; but will echo statements about some of the 'features', and some of them still don't work 'right', and yet we're going to call a 1.0 release...? Sounds premature to me...

Most glaring one for me is the fact the passenger view, and 3D Cab has the 'gyracam' effect... Hate to say it but you all need to call off your 1.0 release, between that, and all the other aforementioned stuff, this isn't a 1.0 at all. I'd put it between 0.8 to 0.9 at most... Too many things are 'half' implemented, or added in and not working right at all for me to be able to consider this a 1.0 version at all... By the way the program is at current time, you also do not meet your original project goal for 1.0 either of matching MSTS foot-for-foot and maybe even exceeding it in areas, all MSTS Features working no less than 100%.

[MCDemuth]

By the way the program is at current time, you also do not meet your original project goal for 1.0 either of matching MSTS foot-for-foot and maybe even exceeding it in areas, all MSTS Features working no less than 100%.

I am concerned about this as well...

All the promoting that I have seen and heard about ORTS has been advertising the same thing you have heard...

I have been waiting to migrate to ORTS, when V1.0 had finally been achieved...because I don't care to jump back and forth between the two sims to experience different features...as well as experience bugs with a beta version of the software...

And Now some MSTS features won't be in V1.0?

When will those be available...In V2.0? and when will that be? Two or Three...or FIVE years from now?

Does that mean that those of us will have to keep using MSTS to be able to use all those un-included features for all that additional time?

Many seem to be quite happy with current version of ORTS, so I don't see this need to hurry out a V1.0, and I think many would rather just wait a little longer for the big V1.0 if that means dumping MSTS once and for all...

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

Tough crowd on a group of volunteers - donating - countless hours - for the benefit of our community...

ROFL - MSTS - with realistic complex activities ???

I just wrote several activities for ORTS - where the player train starts out in a yard - full - of freight cars - before it's time for the player train to depart - there is an AI switcher working the yard - grabbing strings of cars from multiple tracks and assembling - not one - but two different trains... One is an AI train - the other is actually the players train... After the AI switcher assembles the AI train - the AI motive power trundles down to the rear end of the train - drops its caboose behind the consist - moves to the front of the train - couples - and pushes the entire train back to couple to it's caboose before blowing it's horn as it leaves the yard... The AI switcher then finishes assembling the player train - moves out of the way - grabs a few cars and moves off to switch an industry - - - this is all without the "player" ever touching a control...

The players locomotive then couples to its train to depart - then - after a bit of a run passing some MSTS style AI traffic - comes to an interim yard - which also coincides with the start of a steep hill - there is another AI locomotive switching cars to assemble a coal drag at this yard... The player train stops - the AI locomotive completes its switching moves - then automatically couples to the rear of the players train and now becomes a helper - without user intervention... The player then departs the yard and climbs the hill with the aid of the helper - they stop at the top - once again the helper - automatically - uncouples itself from the player and comes back to life as an AI consist - at which time moves off to assemble yet another AI train to take back down the hill while the player sorts a few cars - ending the activity...

All this with plenty of activity messages guiding the player - that don't PAUSE the sim - when displayed...

Try that with your Dad's MSTS... No skin off my nose if people try ORTS or not - all I can say is you don't know what you're missing unless you really give ORTS a fair try - with all the enhanced features...

Anyone have the Cumberland ??? I'll gladly share the activities...

Regards,
Scott

[eric]

Stable Version - Open Rails 1.0

Nobody is forcing the upgrade on anyone.

There's an unwritten rule in software development... You spend as much effort going from 80 to 95% of a project as you do getting from 0 to 80, and just as much getting from 95 to 99. At some point, things get descoped or deferred, and new features are added. In 25 years of software development I've yet to see a project of this magnitude delivered to 100% of what the original goals were.

You can fish or you can prep bait. The ORMT decided it's time to fish. Those who do the work get to decide when it is v1.0, not the takers.

Personally, I'm ready to break a few chains that the MSTS code base holds us to.

If you're not, feel free to stick with Bin.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hminky]

Came to train sims 2009, MSTS is an old dated game.

MSTS wouldn't be on my computer without OpenRails.

Thanks guys for a great train sim

Harold

[ftldave]

Declaring a 1.0 release without meeting the project's stated milestone goals indicates to me that the version number doesn't really mean much now. I've always wished the ORTS team well, hoped for their success, but it's no good to ignore the project's shortcomings.

No, we don't have to try it but I, for one, had hoped the 1.0 milestones would be achieved. There's nothing wrong with that. And ROFL all you want, there were some pretty complex activities created for MSTS by dedicated designers who must have spent countless hours of effort and testing.

I think it made very good sense for these items to be on the 1.0 Open Rails Milestone list:

MSTS Compatibility: Matching or exceeding all features.
Outstanding bugs from 0.9 resolved.
Final signaling and AI behavior is in place.
Rolling stock sound effects, smoke behavior, etc. match MSTS.
All Microsoft activities operate as expected with travelling at start, speed limits and late running.