Running OR without MSTS?

[R. Steele]

MS is still around, and they still own (unless they released everything back to Kuju without anybody noticing) MSTS and all of its assets. They haven't abandoned anything...

I understand, I was just blowing off some steam. I do wonder why MS is not more generous, why not just give the MSTS assets to the community, it's not as if they are a valuable commodity to them. That's the altruistic take, reality sets in with all the legal and business considerations involving copyright and intellectual property rights. Two legged critters weave some complex patterns, some are useful, some not so much.

Although I will say that when the overall pressure is to do the right thing AND the right thing also has a public benefit FOR the corporation involved sometimes the legal and business considerations dissolve, as if by magic.

[R. Steele]

... with (in alphabetical orderAURAN, BVE, MSTS, ORTS, RUN8, Trainz, TS 2016, ZDSimulator (what did I leave out?).

Did I goof, Auran and Trainz are the same thing? Sorry about that. See what I know - damn little and forgetting that.

[NW 2156]

In all fairness then I must admit, I would like to see the payware vendors that are leaving the hobby put their content up either on www.trainsim.com or www.uktrainsim.com Some of those early packages are pure outdated and should rightfully be retired. But, Some of those packages are still good enough and deserve their place in the file library at either site. There have been several sites that have either closed up shot or just faded away over the years.

Some of them would be

BATS

EuropeanBahn

3D Perfection

The old Dekosoft Pro sets. I wish they would make the rest of them available again.

Abacus

Auran's MSTS content no longer for sale from Auran.

Railwaves

Etc.

Robert

[NorthernWarrior]

Has anyone from the OR inner cadre actually looked at opening up a dialogue with MS or Kuju over distribution of the default assets?

That aside, I still think some in this thread are completely missing the point about why route creators build freeware in the first place. It is to recreate in virtuality a small piece of the real world, perhaps a long lost old railway that they hold a particular soft spot for. That they then choose to share that vision with a wider audience should be a cause for celebration and thanks, whether or not it relies on default content or the author has been able to produce custom assets and textures. Not everyone is a competent 3D modeller or texture artist - does that make their work any less valuable than someone fortunate enough to have greater ability (or to have bought Mosaic when it was freely available)?

This thread (to me) has shown a rather nasty and elitist side of the hobby which does nothing to improve my ongoing view of ORTS or its future prospects. And expressing sentiments that TS.com should fade away and die, while not in strict breach of the CoC, are not exactly showing much respect for the effort put in by Nels and his associates to support the hobby either. If that's how things are viewed by the OR circle-jerk over at Elvas Tower then maybe the comments should stay over there.

[baldwin]

" OR circle-jerk ". Not seen any of the ORTS management team enter this discussion so far. Any comments made by individuals in this thread cannot be construed as being the opinion of the majority of OR users or code writers.

[NorthernWarrior]

I did say "If".... , so sorry if that offended. However no-one from OR has popped up to condemn the comments or offer an insight in to how they intend to solve the problem, either.

However it doesn't avoid the fact that some of those posting sentiments in this thread are doing neither OR or indeed residual MSTS a service by making elitist comments about the content creation of others and that rankles, quite frankly. You don't see people on Trainz forums ranting that route builders shouldn't use built in content, or older items off the Download Station where these are perfectly serviceable. All route builders strive to do the best possible, exactly because the closer their vision gets to reality, the better, but at a time when residual MSTS/ORTS need new blood to stay alive they need to be encouraging content creation not killing it off to a select few who it is felt are the only ones capable of delivering this elusive "standard".

[geepster775]

Has anyone from the OR inner cadre actually looked at opening up a dialogue with MS or Kuju over distribution of the default assets?

Not a guy from the inner cadre, not even an active member at ET, but really just a power user who owns a thinking cap and who is a member of several forums off the radar where the real development happens. That's why they all quietly went underground, they didn't want to be viewed as somewhat 'elitist' by all those who still carry around MSTS discs as if they were bibles.

As a guy capable of thinking, I would hedge a guess that the OR leadership wouldn't want to be tied down with replacements for old Kuju assets. They would create their own replacements first. You know, new stuff with correct track center distances, correct turnout degrees and the like. No, its not the project leadership who would want to see this direct Kuju replacement approach, rather its the route-collectors among the user base who came from the MSTS world. That's who benefits the most. Those folks as well as the owners of sites like this where the business is dispensing those types of add-ons. Since it's not the OR project management driving this, no need to snub the perceived snubbers, no need to be all elite against the elitists.

MSTS wasn't much of an application, and the world drowned its sorrows by building routes. It's replacement isn't the same. It actually has depth to the application. The user base can put the proverbial MSTS booze bottle down. The newbies who lack MSTS discs, they live without those bad habits inherited from the MSTS days.

[geepster775]

However no-one from OR has popped up to condemn the comments or offer an insight in to how they intend to solve the problem, either.

Is it an absolute requirement that somebody with project authority step up and condemn divergent opinions?

Maybe you could run to other social media and shame the opinion-makers that way.

[NorthernWarrior]

Guess we will have to agree to differ, then. TBH there are far better and more modern simulation products than MSTS or ORTS worthy of my time anyway and my interest in this is largely academic. With (supposedly) over 1 million copies sold MS obviously did something right though, so it just remains to wish those expecting this fresh dawn of "current standard" new routes for ORTS the best of luck. In the meantime I'll be enjoying Forest Rail or WCML North in TS2016 or Avery to Drexel in TANE.

[EricF]

IMO the best thing would be for MS to release the MSTS assets (not the program code) in some public way for download... <snip> That way there's no question what the definitive version 1.0 is (as there would be if people redevelop assets and give them the same filenames as the originals), and the base is available to everybody. That also avoids breaking a lot of older stuff that will never be redeveloped. But it would have to be done by MS to make it legal.

(Emphasis is mine.)

That would absolutely be the best solution, and probably the easiest way to lead toward upgraded drop-in open-source replacements. But getting a corporate behemoth that has cancelled and closed down support for their older simulations to return to one of them -- even in favor of letting the community carry it forward -- doesn't seem very likely. It could put a huge dent in illicit trading of what's still their IP. I really wish they would. But more likely, the hobbyist community will have to go it alone.

On the other hand, Microsoft has at least licensed out FSX to Dovetail and Lockheed. Maybe there's some small hope. The hardest part would be finding the right contacts within the Microsoft corporate structure who could actually do something, or find the right people who can.

[R. Steele]

....This thread (to me) has shown a rather nasty and elitist side of the hobby which does nothing to improve my ongoing view of ORTS or its future prospects. And expressing sentiments that TS.com should fade away and die, while not in strict breach of the CoC, are not exactly showing much respect for the effort put in by Nels and his associates to support the hobby either. If that's how things are viewed by the OR circle-jerk over at Elvas Tower then maybe the comments should stay over there.

emphasis mine

Sir, I have not had the pleasure of shaking your hand and looking you in the eye...but the above statements (especially the emphasized) assure me that I would not want to shake your hand nor see the narrow-mindedness lurking in your eyes. The statement reveals more about your state of mind and how you view the world than you would honestly admit. Uncharitable remarks, to say the least. Shame on you!

For my part, I have not gotten that impression from this thread.

That said, I completely agree with this part >>>
BUT...I think most readers are perceptive enough NOT to miss this point.

That aside, I still think some in this thread are completely missing the point about why route creators build freeware in the first place. It is to recreate in virtuality a small piece of the real world, perhaps a long lost old railway that they hold a particular soft spot for. That they then choose to share that vision with a wider audience should be a cause for celebration and thanks, whether or not it relies on default content or the author has been able to produce custom assets and textures. Not everyone is a competent 3D modeller or texture artist - does that make their work any less valuable than someone fortunate enough to have greater ability (or to have bought Mosaic when it was freely available)?

[R. Steele]

Regarding my last post (#41) - can we get any further (or is it farther ... father? for the Groucho fans) from the OP's question?

I've been out of the loop for awhile, and am curious about running Open Rails without MSTS. I used to have a copy of MSTS when I first downloaded OR years ago, but I've recently suffered a complete hard drive failure and am just now getting back to the virtual railroading community. Can I run Open Rails without MSTS, and can I run MSTS routes and equipment without a copy of MSTS? Any help is appreciated!

Thanks,
Alex

[kraus]

This thread (to me) has shown a rather nasty and elitist side of the hobby which does nothing to improve my ongoing view of ORTS or its future prospects. And expressing sentiments that TS.com should fade away and die, while not in strict breach of the CoC, are not exactly showing much respect for the effort put in by Nels and his associates to support the hobby either. If that's how things are viewed by the OR circle-jerk over at Elvas Tower then maybe the comments should stay over there.

Some of the elitists at Elvas Tower would prefer this site to close.

http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...ost__p__203654

Suggestion #1: Don't operate it like a schoolyard playground.

I will not miss the site if it goes away, but I know the loss of its file library would have a huge impact on the community. If that could be preserved somewhere else that would be fantastic.

This may explain why registration is closed to the public as they try to hide their true feelings.

[NorthernWarrior]

but the above statements (especially the emphasized

As I said earlier, I am sorry if that caused offence to some people and it was on reflection somewhat harsher than what I intended to say. Little point going back and changing it now, what's said is said and if that makes me a pariah in Train Sim circles, so be it. Just frustrates me sometimes to see what almost amounts to obsession surrounding ORTS when it is pushed as the best thing since sliced bread and the cure all for our allegedly ailing hobby.

The short answer to the OP question therefore is, yes, if you want to run all these so called veteran/heritage MSTS routes lovingly crafted in free time over the last 15 years, you will need the MSTS default files installed.

[OTTODAD]

The short answer to the OP question therefore is, yes, if you want to run all these so called veteran/heritage MSTS routes lovingly crafted in free time over the last 15 years, you will need the MSTS default files installed.

Better still you can use their DB-Tracks versions, my dear departed friend Norbert Rieger has supplied his super realistic tracks and switches for.

I am not interested in ORTS at all and only try to show their team where I think that there is room for improvements, MSTSBin doing what I want !

Click on the images to enlarge them.

1-DB-TRACKS-ROUTES.jpg2-DB-TRACKS-NEC4-PHILLY.jpg3-DB-TRACKS-WUPPER-11-COLOGNE.jpg4-DB-TRACKS-WUPPER-11-COLOGNE-FPS.jpg