Wow! Great stuff has happened!

[Kafovofa]

I was here 5 years ago, running MSTS on XP. Since MSTS struggled on Windows 7 and 10, I lost interest and put it on a shelf. I came back expecting a desolate disaster, but instead I came back to OR. OR is an incredible improvement. I've lost my MSTS disk, but it took 10 seconds to make the MSTS file tree, find some nice freeware, and start running OR. The lack of an activity editor is gonna sting, but I think I can make do with a consist editor for awhile. Really, great job you people!

[conductorchris]

The lack of activity editor does sting, but check out the new timetable mode in open rails. You can made a full timetable of trains on a route, drive any one of them (the rest are AI) AND populate the sidings with static consists. The only thing it's not good at is switching. If you want switching, you could have a look at activity generator from skyline computing as it can give you endless switching activities without activity editor.
Christopher

[R. Steele]

In any activity you can switch to another train (provided it has a cabview) and run it as the player train. Access the Train List Window in game using Alt+F9, read manual section - 7.8 Changing the Train Driven by the Player

So... with timetable mode, activity generator, and the ability to have numerous player trains in any activity, you'll have plenty to do.

First thing, in any activity you do run switch out any AI engine with no cabview to an engine with a cabview/player driveable.

[PennCentral1970]

I finally "bit the bullet" and switched to OR after having run MSTS for 12 years and quickly found out there wasn't much of a bullet to bite.

Having spent years organizing over 200 gigs of MSTS payware and freeware into a dozen mini-routes, I wrongly assumed it would be a major pain to move all that over to OR. I had no idea OR could simply be pointed to my existing mini-routes without having to move anything.

I'm very excited to learn OR and regret not having embraced it earlier.

[R. Steele]

I finally "bit the bullet" and switched to OR after having run MSTS for 12 years and quickly found out there wasn't much of a bullet to bite.

Having spent years organizing over 200 gigs of MSTS payware and freeware into a dozen mini-routes, I wrongly assumed it would be a major pain to move all that over to OR. I had no idea OR could simply be pointed to my existing mini-routes without having to move anything.

I'm very excited to learn OR and regret not having embraced it earlier.

AMEN! This statement should be posted on the OR website.

[motormaster532]

Welcome to the club! One great feature is that you can use the Multi-Player window to "dispatch" your railroad. You can hold the Players' train at interlockings,as well as your AI traffic.No more being a slave to the Activities actual running times to ensure proper meets! Have fun. Brian

[Mark15]

I had MSTS from likely around it's release just never had time to explore it till very recently. Finally finding some time, I started my train sim experience with MSTS. Wasn't long before I realized MSTS just doesn't cut it as a modern train sim. There are no benefits from good hardware and it has many issues that have never been resolved. So I went for OR because I did like all the MSTS addons and the graphics still looked quite good. The content simply needed a better platform to run from. OR is the answer! Development continues, it's headed in the right direction and really has the opportunity to provide a true simming experience above and beyond all the other modern train sim titles if you are a hardcore simmer.

I've found there is still a strong support base for MSTS. Certainly understandable as many people here have used it for well over a decade, you hold on to your old friend you know so well. But any new user or any user prepared to leave nostalgia behind for a better simming experience, straight off to OR they will go! No comparison between the two imo.

[lateagain]

I finally "bit the bullet" and switched to OR after having run MSTS for 12 years and quickly found out there wasn't much of a bullet to bite.

Having spent years organizing over 200 gigs of MSTS payware and freeware into a dozen mini-routes, I wrongly assumed it would be a major pain to move all that over to OR. I had no idea OR could simply be pointed to my existing mini-routes without having to move anything.

I'm very excited to learn OR and regret not having embraced it earlier.

I think you've rung a few bells here I too went down the Mini Route Path a few years back and also left OR on the back burner whilst the development was underway.

The great thing about Mini Routes is that they are self contained, have their own "dedicated" tools/editors and are easily checked for faults using MSTS's many excellent utilities. New stock, acts, scenery can be tried out and tested safe in the knowledge that any problem encountered is entirely due to what you last did to THAT Mini Route.

Pointing OR at your Mini Routes gives instant OR progress to old favourites and whilst there are still certain types that OR doesn't run well (just a matter of time?) you can still use the Mini Route for stuff that doesn't function well in OR.

I don't see OR as replacing MSTS completely. More of an advanced enhancement that will run stuff. Time will tell if more OR content will be created.

The biggest problem for OR has, IMO, been those who constantly decry the use of MSTS compatibility because they keep pushing how much BETTER OR's potential is than MSTS. Whilst that might be true it's like folk raving about "Hydrogen Powered Cars"? OF COURSE they'll be better, BUT they aren't here yet and the stations needed to make them run are only in development! You didn't stop driving your regular car though, or rubbish it because it isn't as good ....did you

It's not just an OR phenomenon though. The same reluctance was shown in adopting BIN a few years back. Problems associated with BIN, but actually usually NOT caused by BIN, caused many folk to be reluctant to adopt it ...EVEN THOUGH it could be installed or uninstalled with complete and secure simplicity.

My advice to anyone who's not tried OR is to forget all the OR Fanbois who sneer at MSTS and just install it and give it a go.

It won't affect any MSTS content. It comes with excellent documentation. There's loads of help in the forums (although Elvas Tower is closed to new members at the moment? still?) and it has quite a few features that were on everyone's "MSTS wish list" for years.

I run both and see no reason not to. OR still can't run some stuff, create some stuff, that MSTS can. That will change but until it does anyone enjoying ALL aspects of the sim hobby can run and benefit from BOTH

[lindsayts]

I think you've rung a few bells here I too went down the Mini Route Path a few years back and also left OR on the back burner whilst the development was underway.

The great thing about Mini Routes is that they are self contained, have their own "dedicated" tools/editors and are easily checked for faults using MSTS's many excellent utilities. New stock, acts, scenery can be tried out and tested safe in the knowledge that any problem encountered is entirely due to what you last did to THAT Mini Route.

Pointing OR at your Mini Routes gives instant OR progress to old favourites and whilst there are still certain types that OR doesn't run well (just a matter of time?) you can still use the Mini Route for stuff that doesn't function well in OR.

I don't see OR as replacing MSTS completely. More of an advanced enhancement that will run stuff. Time will tell if more OR content will be created.

The biggest problem for OR has, IMO, been those who constantly decry the use of MSTS compatibility because they keep pushing how much BETTER OR's potential is than MSTS. Whilst that might be true it's like folk raving about "Hydrogen Powered Cars"? OF COURSE they'll be better, BUT they aren't here yet and the stations needed to make them run are only in development! You didn't stop driving your regular car though, or rubbish it because it isn't as good ....did you

Its not matter of MSTS or ORTS and I personally have never seen an ORTS supporter running down MSTS. ORTS is a train sim that supports MSTS content. A VERY serious problem with ORTS is it has as yet no development tools of its own and I know here is Australia nearly all of our route developers have abandoned MSTS because of various concerns, major one of these being the difficulty of getting MSTS's route editor working under later versions of windows (Note 1).

I have not run MSTS for sometime (other than the route editor) because it crashs on monitors larger than 1920x1024. I have though run it (MSTS) on some of the activities for the SOB route, as these do not work correctly on ORTS asthe locomotive performance is entirely different.

I see no reason at this stage to completly abandon MSTS or not to try ORTS it does a large number of things much better than MSTS, it would be worth remembering OR is still in very active development.

Note 1: Incendently MSTS editor an tools runs well under Linux using wine. I have extensively used it to modify a route with no issues at all.

Lindsay

[lateagain]

Incendently MSTS editor an tools runs well under Linux using wine. I have extensively used it to modify a route with no issues at all.

Lindsay

Did you post that in the thread on using RE in Win10? I'm sure a good few posting there would be interested in details?

[ftldave]

ORTS is a train sim that supports MSTS content.

Maybe more accurate and truthful to say that ORTS is a train sim that supports SOME MSTS content.

[mikeebb]

Better is the enemy of good enough, and eventually things will appear for ORTS that don't work well (or at all) in MSTS. There are a few things in the f/l now that say ORTS-only because they use things like detailed textures that MSTS will struggle with. However, having access to that nearly 20 years' of content that people have developed is a massive selling point for ORTS that, if they're smart, they won't throw away (and haven't at least so far). Even if a few things need to be tweaked in .eng and .wag files, the old stuff works, and frankly many (though not all) of the tweaks were and are needed to improve realism in MSTS as well. Yes, to be a complete package the various editors and other tools used for route and equipment development need to be ported or replaced; that's in progress (thank you Goku!). But for many of us who seldom (never?) go beyond hacking some .eng/.wag files ORTS is fully functional now, combined with a MSTS installation for assets and the occasional dive into the Activity Editor.

I liken it to real-world model railroading: motors change, detail improves, even power/control systems change (DCC), but if something fits the basic standards (gauge, scale, voltage, to some extent wheel profile) it can be made to work on a modern system, and the newer stuff (DCC-equipped) will still run on an older layout that's ordinary DC. Standards = compatibility, and MSTS in this case set the standards that ORTS is building on.

[lateagain]

Maybe more accurate and truthful to say that ORTS is a train sim that supports SOME MSTS content.

The recent improvements for eng files in OR have had an unfortunate side effect? Many MSTS models achieved reasonably realistic performance by hacking the "theoretically(?) correct" eng files to pieces until the stock ran like it should. Now those same hacks make these otherwise good models perform badly in OR . I think the US rail sim scene has been protected from some of OR's shortcomings because the vast percentage of traction is Diesel? In Europe we had steam longer, much more electrification and here in the UK one of the most difficult to simulate units of all. The 1st generation Diesel Multiple Units. These were driven by a 4 speed gear box which used a torque converter. The actual power units wouldn't have made the smallest switchers in the states. In MEP Mick Clarke played with these .engs and came up with a really good compromise. If driven like the real thing (throttling back before changing up) they delivered a pretty realistic performance curve. Slow to accelerate they could rattle along at 70+ m.p.h. once they got up there. Now with more realistic eng files in OR these need a rework.

As I keep pointing out ...a work in progress? ...so yes SOME content is still where it's at.

[R. Steele]

I think you've rung a few bells here
The great thing about Mini Routes is that they are self contained, have their own "dedicated" tools/editors

Concerning the "dedicated" part .... I use one AE to edit 45+ OR profiles (mini-routes) - it can be pointed to any intallation (that has a train.exe file in it).
I assumed you need an editor for each mini-route, but that's not the case...or am I missing something?

So far does not appear so, everything has been working as it is supposed to.

[slipperman]

Hi Gerry,

I use one AE to edit 45+ OR profiles (mini-routes) - it can be pointed to any intallation (that has a train.exe file in it).
I assumed you need an editor for each mini-route, but that's not the case...or am I missing something?

Sorry, mate, you've got me confused!!
If an installation contains train.exe (as it must for running MSTS!), then each installation has its own Editors! As far as I know, you can't "point" AE anywhere.

Cheers,
Ged