Are there any standards for something to be classified as ORTS Ready?? Ex: DDS files required instead of ACE files or in addition to ACE files.
Just curious,
Rich
Just curious,
Rich
-
-
I think it is more of utilizing ORTS features not available with MSTS than any "standards". Such as 3dCabs, second ENG files with ORTS only parameters or different data values in an OpenRails folder, or graphics so detailed to preclude use in MSTS.Charles -
Just to be clear, ALL MSTS content is Open Rails ready. To be called Open-Rails ready probably means some OR specific parameters have been added... there are a handful for both .wag and .eng.
Another "category" is Open-Rails only. The answer to that is basically has anything been done that would cause MSTS to barf? That's easy enough to test too. The surefire changes that come to mind are use of include files and too many polys. OR does headlights differently so a properly coded OR headlight would look odd in MSTS but it would not cause the program to fail.Last edited by muskokaandtahoe; 03-18-2016, 11:47.Dave Nelson
sigpic
Seldom visiting, posting less often that that.Comment
-
A bit of clarification Dave, An include statement on its own would not cause MSTS to barf, but the absence of MSTS critical data "hidden" from MSTS by an Include would cause MSTS problems. Example: If just the Lights section were replaced by an Include, MSTS would not error but the loco would have no lights, Where as if the Mass and Size were in an Include then MSTS would crash.
3dCabViews are another item that MSTS will ignore and ORTS will take advantage of and display.CharlesComment
Comment