SLI Poll Results

[geepster775]

Also, I do not require the models to be 50,000+ polys.

I do agree with this, that 50,000 polys are not required tomorrow, and there is alot of "psychological overshoot" among with "wishers" of the community, but my agreement is not so much based on continued compatibility with MSTS. Its more related to development schedules, where it adds needlessly to the time to crank new material out.

[R. Steele]

That is sort of discounting the fact that maybe the people who claimed to use both sims want products that can work in both sims. I know that that was what I meant by putting both! ... Geoff

The rub is you don't know what others meant by checking both sims. Perhaps they only use MSTS for the toolset.exe portion.
This is an unscientific poll using a small sampling from a small community - beware of any assumptions made from the data.
Probably the only statement that could stand half a chance of being true is that people that visit the SLI website are using OR more than MSTS.

[PerryPlatypus]

As MSTS ignores what it is not programmed to read in an eng file, there is no need for a separate Open Rails sub folder with another eng file unless you are going to use includes for common data structures.

One reason is because there are a number of physics-related parameters that OR handles a lot differently than MSTS. For MSTS, in many cases people had to use fudge factors and unrealistic values in order to get closer to realistic operation. But Open Rails handles physics completely differently, so in many cases it is important to have parameters such as MaxPower and NumWheels be changed so that Open Rails can more accurately handle things. With MaxPower, many people have reported that Open Rails automatically reduces the power to replicate loss of power between the engine and what you actually get at the rail. In MSTS, we usually automatically reduced MaxPower by 10% or some factor, but to get realistic performance in OR, it may be necessary to increase the MaxPower value to replicate reality. This is just one case, there are plenty of others. It may not make a huge difference in some cases, but on a route where you are down to a crawl with a heavy train on a grade, that 10% fudge factor can make it or break it, along with many other fudged values.

Perhaps I do not understand 100% how this sub-folder works, but I assume it would be able to account for the matters I have just described? I will get around to testing that out in the near future.

[lateagain]

Its not 40%. Its only 14% that would truly lose out if they went O/R only. If I were them, I'd drop MSTS. As the feature sets of both sims diverge more, it will be increasing the workload to custom tailor products to service both sectors. To me, the 14% wouldn't be worth the added time commitment.

....err No it won't ....well not unless TrainSimulations (SLI) suddenly release a whole range of new models (and by that I mean models of REAL models they haven't already covered). They already cover a great deal of the EMD catalogue from the 70's onward (and some earlier stuff in some packs) and quite a bit of the GE catalogue for the same era. That means they already have the MSTS .engs so how is including two sets of .engs be such a big deal. IF they went OR only they'd then have to update all their .eng files anyway. Including two sets of .engs to be selected by the end user is hardly difficult?

What you have to realise is that excellent as progress on OR has been and much as I like it for US routes there are still things it can't do. NOT a discussion for this thread as there are plenty of threads on that already?
I mention that because we don't ALL run OR exclusively for a variety of reasons. Using MSTS as a platform for the stuff OR doesn't handle and then using the stuff that it does in OR.

Just because some folk ONLY use OR is not a good reason to lock MSTS out of the frame.

So far MSTS is still the base used by many who create stuff and the LAST THING OR needs is any hinderance to the development of new stuff.

IN TIME the need to use MSTS will probably fade as new utilities and tools are developed but ditching it now because of a "shiny new toy" mentality in some quarters would IMO be very foolish.

[MCDemuth]

What you have to realise is that excellent as progress on OR has been and much as I like it for US routes there are still things it can't do. NOT a discussion for this thread as there are plenty of threads on that already?
I mention that because we don't ALL run OR exclusively for a variety of reasons. Using MSTS as a platform for the stuff OR doesn't handle and then using the stuff that it does in OR.

Just because some folk ONLY use OR is not a good reason to lock MSTS out of the frame.

Yes, I still hear that many MSTS users are still clinging to MSTS, because they claim that there are still some issues with ORTS, that they don't like.

So, as for the MSTS/ORTS votes... The reasons for people still using MSTS could be due to the need or desire to still have certain "features" or "reliability" that only MSTS still provides. But as also mentioned, it is also possible that most of those votes are because of the need for the MSTS Editors... The poll does not make it clear as to why voters still use both. So, it would be unwise to assume it is due to the need for editors and discontinue MSTS compatibility at this time.

When good reliable ORTS Editors are available, I suggest that the Poll is re-administered to clarify the results. Hopefully at that time, the issues that people still have with ORTS will be resolved too...

So far MSTS is still the base used by many who create stuff and the LAST THING OR needs is any hinderance to the development of new stuff.

I still use MSTS, and I make repaints from time to time for MSTS. I have no problem with this. and will continue to do so... because...

1.) I "understand" that ORTS is able to use MSTS content, and other people still want and use content for MSTS.


2.) I have tried to searching for, and asking for help in finding, programs to OPEN and SAVE .DDS files (and "other" ORTS special files)... and nothing....

Most of the existing tools that we have been using to create content for MSTS for years does not seem to support these new ORTS files. In fact, I am frequently have problems saving ACE files in file sizes that are larger than 1024x1024, that so many want now, and I don't understand how others are able to create them. (Mine load with strange colorings: Grey textures have a greenish tint... or the file is completely corrupted... or won't save at all, because it isn't supported.)

Why should I go to ORTS, when I can only create MSTS quality stuff for MSTS?

Someone must know these secrets, since there are some good quality files are being produced....

If you folks want products that are of a high quality, so badly, that will take advantage of ORTS unique features, you might want to either update our existing tools that we have been using for years, like TGATool2A... So it can open and export .DDS files, or help us that don't have expensive programs like "Photoshop" to find new "low cost" programs that can create these files...

Example: Is there a .DDS to .TGA to .DDS converter?

I am sure, I am not the only one here, having trouble keeping up with the times...

Perhaps a sticky with that information might help all of us...

Is there one?


Sorry for my soap box rant, here on #2...

[lateagain]

As I said I don't want to start a "what's wrong with OR" squabble because IMHO there's little that's currently wrong that won't be fixed in time?

None the less UNTIL all of these issues are fixed AND everybody is up to speed with the development it's just stupid to dismiss what's currently being used. That will be THE FIRST POLL IN HISTORY that got the facts right for a start ? All it tells you is what % of the people who saw AND bothered to tick it use. If the number of folk who responded equals TrainSimulations total customer base they'll be folding any time soon anyway Both you in the US and we here in the UK are up to our eyes in POLLS at the moment and how many of them will turn out to be right?

IF Trainsimulations have OR only quality models to release then they won't work in MSTS anyway. Keeping models that WILL work in MSTS with MSTS running capability is obvious surely?

Consider this; those who may not understand the "nuts and bolts" of the .eng file, would, IF TrainSimulations included BOTH .engs be able to study differences and use those as a guide to upgrading or editing other favourite MSTS models .eng file to run in OR?

How many folk have compared ANY two .eng files in CONTEXT to spot differences or diagnose discrepancies? just amongst existing .eng files?

...and BTW Michael I thought your post in #3 was a series of very pertinent questions ...not a rant at all.

[MsSheare]

I think the company should keep making both systems. I can't see any true benefit to cut out MSTS. I do see why people are pushing for more OR content as you are able to do more than Msts, but people are comfortable with something they know intimately. MCDemuth has bought up some very good issues and valid points.

I use OR only having stopped using Msts cause it would lag out and crash where OR runs smoothly. Plus I am learning from Pete about FA so I find OR better for the complex FA it allows, something Msts does not. But, I believe the company should just keep making both and let the customer decide what THEY want.

[smiljacc18]

MCDemuth said "I have tried to searching for, and asking for help in finding, programs to OPEN and SAVE .DDS files (and "other" ORTS special files)... and nothing...."

DDS plugins that save open and allow editing DDS files are available on the Nvidia website...many of us have been using them for years to repaint and model stuf for other games(like TS2016)

[gkhager]

I personally believe that not too much can be gleaned from this poll. It is not specific enough to really determine anything. I think that a poll on the Trainsimulations/SLI website asking what you are using MSTS, OR or both and then saying that you chose the both option because you still use the MSTS tools, is reading too much into the question. SLI has never produced tools for MSTS and they do not expect users to modify their routes using the editor, therefore why would someone think that this question is asking "Do you use MSTS tools and then OR to run the game?".

Just my two-cents.

Geoff

[canuckster19]

I hope SLI, MLT and others take the step towards OR.

The only problem I see at the moment is there is still no activity editor (as far as I know, is there one? cause I could really use one, I hate having to use an old laptop to edit activities and having to go back and forth with an external USB every time I change a parameter).

Anyways, I just purchased Seligman 2.0 recently as I got back into train simming because of Open Rails and the amount of headaches it cures from MSTS. Seriously, this program is awesome.

And kudos to SLI and Seligman 2.0, really well done for a program that's 15 years old.

[michelouim]

I dont want to reopen the thread, since the last comment is 3 months old, but today we know that polls are sometime wrong ( take the electoral polls as an example ). That SLI/Trainsimulations poll is not scientific, it is just, i think, a fun question. And it is not to be taken as a real image of what is realy going on. For one, i did not answered, and i have doubts about who did, and how many times they did.

I do look at that as a way for SLI/Trainsimulations to justify to go OR only and those who are OR supporters to boost it. It can be good publicity.

I am still an MSTS user, with all good and bad it has. I have too many routes/activities/rolling stock to change, unless someone tells me that 100% of what i have, with no modifications from me, or no $ spent, will move to OR.

What i read in this thread I do compare with what I see on my tv screen, first Black & White, than Color, than HD, the image is so clear, and now 4G, the step is not 7" high like in most stairway but more like moving directly to the next floor. OR is on the next floor compare to MSTS, a 15 years old product. But i need compatibility as I dont have deep pockets.

Maybe i am wrong, but i do compare OR as being a new version of MSTS. Maybe i am still wrong, but i need product makers to not forget about MSTS users and have a transition for them. As an example, and i dont question the move of SLI or others to go OR for the new products they develop and sell, but why remove or hide deep in new packages their MSTS products. Here, i still can find MSTS products that needs, for copyrights probably, their old products. Why should i do a magician trick to find them? It is money they will get easily, isnt it?

Michel Ouimette

[baldwin]

OR is free, no $ involved. Plain vanilla MSTS stock and routes are quite happy in OR. Some activities do not work so well, but with a bit of tinkering in the AE, even those can be made to work.

OR is a new simulator that in its current version is able to use your existing MSTS stock and routes. There are some modifications that can be made to files for a better OR experience, but the changes do not affect MSTS should you feel the need to use it as well.

[commec61]

Michel,

I am finishing up a route that I have been building for the past 8 years. I am testing it in both MSTS and OR. I find that the activities that I have created work flawlessly and are timed perfectly in OR. You don't have to make any adjustments just to try OR. After all, it is free. Like you, I have tons of routes and rolling stock from over the years. I have come to love OR. The adjustments that are usually made are for smoke adjustments to the engines as well as brake and other physics adjustment to get that real feel out of your rolling stock. I do believe that you will be well pleased once you get your 'feet wet' in OR. I am only testing my route in MSTS for those who just don't want to change. OR just has soooooooooo much to offer, and it is still being expanded. Because it is free, give it a try. It won't affect your MSTS installation at all. It only uses what you have in MSTS, but doesn't modify it in any way.

[Claude350]

I liken MSTS to cassette tapes and VHS movies. I still have many but I have a hard time trying to play them when the players are hard to find. I can't remember the last time I ran MSTS.

[ossie]

I liken MSTS to cassette tapes and VHS movies. I still have many but I have a hard time trying to play them when the players are hard to find. I can't remember the last time I ran MSTS.

That's probably a very good analogy. Not being a modeller, I haven't got my head wrapped around the concept of "ORTS only" models yet, multiple FAs aside. I guess when/if we get to the point that models are being produced that just can't run in MSTS, then payware & freeware producers have a choice of whether they want to release a more basic model for MSTS. If they decide not to, then MSTS only users have a decision to make. Until we reach that point, people can keep on enjoying their video tapes and dvds equally, but in the meantime, I think any progress on a 15 year old sim is something to be celebrated not feared.