Running OR without MSTS?

[NorthernWarrior]

Well that smacks to me of train sim snobbery, thought "current standards" was something the UKTS crowd were bandying around in 2005. So a route that would not otherwise get built is built using some default content, so bloody what? Better than it not existing at all. It is exactly that kind of attitude which deters freeware route authors from even bothering these days, weeks or even months of hard work dismissed because you didn't use Mosaic or provide lineside fencing.


The hobby has indeed fallen far from the co-operative helpful atmosphere we had in the early 2000's when any and all contributions were welcomed.

Pah.

[geepster775]

Moe made a comment on the RMD West thread about how he did us a "favor" by not separating out the MSTS disc content and giving us a batch file for each of us to run in order to replace it.

Truth is, his "favor" is now considered "the way it HAS to be" if Nels wants any hope of the freeware routes distributed here having any value to future MSTS-less OR users. Either that, or we finally need to separate future freeware routes from those friggin discs. Routes not meeting that new basic standard are causing death by a thousand cuts to this website and file library.

[geepster775]

deters freeware route authors from even bothering these days, weeks or even months of hard work dismissed because you didn't use Mosaic or provide lineside fencing.

Personally, I think people are voting with their feet. It's a natural phenomena.

Over there in payware land, you have routes built to current standards, and over here in freeware disc-dependant land, you have Nels saying "where did everybody gooooooo?"

[crstagg]

Providing that this folder structure contains all the MSTS files ORTS needs to run !

It would he helpful if senior members of the ORTS team could confirm what that exactly is !

RTFM!

Specifically section 4.4 which I quote below.

------------ ---------- ------------ ---------- ----
4.4 Using a Non-MSTS Folder Structure
Open Rails uses a subset of the MSTS folder structure to run. You must create a root folder of any
suitable name and it must contain four folders, together with their related sub-folders:
 \GLOBAL
 \ROUTES
 \TRAINS
 \SOUND
No other files or folders are required in the root folder.

Within the \GLOBAL folder two sub-folders are required:
 \SHAPES
 \TEXTURES
Within the \TRAINS folder two subfolders are required:
 \CONSISTS
 \TRAINSETS
------------ ---------- ------------ ----------

Section 4.5 goes on to explain that one MAY require some files to be placed in these folders from sources such as the MSTS CDs or from file libraries like TrainSim.com. The main point here is OTHER SOURCES than the MSTS CDs. Examples: Tsection.dat, sigcfg.dat and sigscr.dat (are
needed if there are routes that don't have their own specific files with the same names in their root
folder.), track and road sets. I have found that two other files are needed. If one does not have the files dieselsmoke.ace and smokemain.ace in the Global\Textures folder the loco exhaust comes out as square blocks. Of course one can get these files from the MSTS CDs, but there are BETTER ones in the file library here and other locations. I personally like the ones Marc Nelson created ( http://www.3dtrains.com/downloads/misc.shtml ).

FYI: when I beta tested the 3dTrains Feather River route for Nalle Centergran and Marc Nelson I used a modified MSTS mini-install. (Modified as in NO routes from the MSTS CDs were used.) I did this on purpose so that I could report to Marc or Nalle if there was a problem installing the route in a MSTS-mini install. So when I heard that ORTS would "run without any MSTS files" I decided to try it out and created a new mini for WP3 as I mentioned in my post above.

When I obtained Marc's Sherman Hill route I created the file structure as described in the ORTS Manual section 4.4. I did NOT add any other files that section 4.5 said I MIGHT need. I did later add the smoke.ace files which I already knew I wanted. I then ran Marc's installer for Sherman Hill. Marc's installer placed a Tsection.dat file in the Global folder and a soundcfg.dat file. The Tsection had this line at the beginning "_INFO ( Build 00044 - 3DTrains Beta )". The soundcfg.dat is not a copy of the one from the MSTS CDs. Marc's installer of course installed ScaleRail and ScaleRoads in the Global subfolder along with some 3DT_Fence_xxx shape files. The Installer also placed numerous 3DT_xxxx sound files in the Sound folder.

I did not install any other routes or add-ons before I ran the Route in ORTS. It ran fine.

I have since added add-on rolling stock and have found that I needed to add various sound files to both the "Global" Sound folder and to the ...Trains\Trainset\common.sound and common.snd folders.

I say again: "IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE ME TRY IT YOURSELF"

One might ask why have you not created pure ORTS installs for other Payware routes. Well two reasons: One, ORTS does not really need mini installs (or Train Store) to help it run better as MSTS does and two, I'm lazy, it is easier to just work with one installation and use Train Store to filter rolling stock when creating activities or consists.

[crstagg]

I suspect there are very few, if any, MSTS routes either in existence or in the birthing process which don't rely on at least something from the MSTS Global folder or one of its route folders.

.........

I would agree provided you added the word "FREEWARE" to "MSTS routes." See my reply to Otto.

[NorthernWarrior]

Well, whatever - largely of academic interest to me as these days I route build in Trainz or TS2016. Just pointing out there should be no stigma should someone decide to include default items or textures to populate their route.

[OTTODAD]

Reading all that has been posted on this subject over time in this forum, here is what I did today !

Removed MSTS from my WIN-7 64-bit computer's Registry.



Created a special folder for use by ORTS, containing just what has been said it needs from Payware and Freeware 3d-party routes and rolling stock suppliers, for this test having been added by me.



Testing both routes, the WP3 works in ORTS, but the LIRR does not.







I am happy running my many MSTSBin DB-Tracks routes and TS-2016, having again modified one of its routes, the Aerosoft/DTG Berlin-Leipzig route and Freeware routes from my web site, I had a hand in improving too.

https://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?325307-Berlin-Leipzig-Route-Trams-for-Experienced-TS-2016-Users&p=1899541#post1899541

[mikeebb]

Let's look at this another way: most freeware routes, at least here at trainsim, require some assets from MSTS. That might be buildings, trees, tracks (if not using one of the better systems), bushes, default equipment for a basic activity, whatever. In some cases, the route builder might have included those in the distribution (rare, for file size reasons, and dicey for legal reasons). Mostly, there's an "installme.bat" or the like to copy what's needed on the assumption that the user has MSTS installed and therefore has the legal right to use those assets. All that stuff has to be there for the route to work, whether in MSTS or ORTS.

So ... who currently distributes MSTS? MS farmed out rights to several companies over the years after it stopped selling MSTS directly; who's current? Perhaps they might like to advertise here to help Nels out and make a few sales as the master asset base?

Failing that, who might somebody contact at MS to get permission (or even purchase rights) for redistribution of the assets here or at a separate site? Seems like one of those things that should be done for the benefit of the community (which of course MS never really cared about), but due to legal restrictions can't happen without MS (or Kuju?) authorizing it. It's not that anybody would actually want to install and run MSTS as a fresh, new, first-time thing, really, but the underlying assets are still useful and perhaps have value. Another possibility might be to get somebody at MS interested in open-sourcing or open-licensing (NOT the same thing!) the assets, as they have done for parts of .NET for instance. Does anybody at MS frequent these fora?

Failing THAT, how about another open-source project to develop substitute assets that are "close enough" but not actually duplicates of the MS stuff? I know, not practical, hundreds or thousands of things needed. But it *is* a way out though probably the most painful.

[crstagg]

Otto,

You show you installed LIRR consist. But did you bother to test the consist to make sure you had the needed Rolling Stock?

And WGAS about TS-2016? This is an ORTS forum.

[R. Steele]

Failing THAT, how about another open-source project to develop substitute assets that are "close enough" but not actually duplicates of the MS stuff? I know, not practical, hundreds or thousands of things needed. But it *is* a way out though probably the most painful.

Absolutely the best suggestion. Do we really need to keep having discussions about using 15+ year old assets?

[geepster775]

Failing THAT, how about another open-source project to develop substitute assets that are "close enough" but not actually duplicates of the MS stuff? I know, not practical, hundreds or thousands of things needed. But it *is* a way out though probably the most painful.

Sounds like a big project that really should be unnecessary at this late stage, all because plenty of (better than default) shape file, texture file, and track and road system options have existed (at least since 2010) that could have been used in route building instead of disc content.

Projects like this only exist because some people poo-poo the desire by others to shed those discs. They let the dysfunction continue, all in the spirit of camaraderie and brotherhood not seen since 2002 when that was all we had. Today, there are (and have been for > 5 yrs) plenty of options.

If anyone wants to get the lawyers views, fine, but it seems to me the last few routes have been released under the "My God, its 15 years old, look the other way" policy.

[R. Steele]

Sounds like a big project that really should be unnecessary at this late stage, all because plenty of (better than default) shape file, texture file, and track and road system options have existed (at least since 2010) that could have been used in route building instead of disc content.

Projects like this only exist because some people poo-poo the desire by others to shed those discs. They let the dysfunction continue, all in the spirit of camaraderie and brotherhood not seen since 2002 when that was all we had. Today, there are (and have been for > 5 yrs) plenty of options.

If anyone wants to get the lawyers views, fine, but it seems to me the last few routes have been released under the "My God, its 15 years old, look the other way" policy.

Yep, IMHO, Microsoft and KUJU have abandoned their rights to anything having to do with MSTS. All the assets (for what they are worth can't be much - and ownership, if any, are spread over who knows or cares how many business entities ) are in the public domain now...as a group, we should test that. Anyone need free copies of a set of MSTS CD's? (horrors! donnybrook!! brew ha ha!!! conflagration!!!! end of civilization!!!!!)

I am a newcomer to this community, but you folks spend WAY TOO MUCH bandwidth arguing over minutia about different sim platforms.
Honestly, there is an embarrassment of riches with (in alphabetical order) AURAN, BVE, MSTS, ORTS, RUN8, Trainz, TS 2016, ZDSimulator (what did I leave out?). I have tried them all, and my finding is....there is a train simulator out there to fit almost any taste, skill set, experience or preference!

And... the skill and talent in virtual model making (routes, rolling stock, architecture, flora, etc.) runs from rank amateurish to very polished professional.

I really think you folks should get off your collective duffs and get a little outreach going to enlarge the community. Have "V Scale" ( or whatever you wish to call it - that will provide another round of discussion) at Train fairs, Train Museums, anywhere an interest is shown in models or 1:1's. I know of only a couple of people that are demonstrating OR, and the RUN8 folks have done public demos also - they are probably others I am unaware of.

A traveling set of laptops could show off a number of demo routes for whatever platforms seems appropriate. You gotta get to the kids out there. APPS on phones do not do justice to the full potential of the various simulators we all use.

[EricF]

MSTS isn't abandonware, which itself is a murky, uncertain place best avoided where copyright concerns arise. It's definitely not public domain -- no known rightsholders have ever made that declaration, and unless they do, it's under US and similar international copyright protection for some time to come. Actually, it may be far worse off, in a way. If I recall correctly from earlier discussions on the forums, the rights have been split up and scattered through Microsoft selling at least some rights (Distribution at minimum) and then the Atari games bankruptcy and a few other names that had distribution rights in other parts of the world, all in various financial straits. It's a hopeless mess. I doubt there's any one rightsholder at this point that can do anything but sell MSTS in their approved region without consent of the others, and good luck finding the right authorities to do that.

There were discussions in the early days of Open Rails about creating new, open-source replacements for default MSTS assets. The prospect of creating all new scenery, track and signal objects plus textures was daunting. It's probably true that there are enough similar freeware assets that could be rounded up as replacements -- provided their authors were receptive to the idea. The problem then is filling in the remaining "holes" for missing assets not already covered by existing freeware and producing them, then wrapping it all up into a standardized distribution that's known to work consistently. Theoretically, it's possible. But just the logistics of it could easily become a project unto itself beyond the core Open Rails project. One that might need a timeline to completion of 5 years or more just to get to a full "beta" stage of 100% open-source replacements, no MSTS assets needed -- simply because no one can afford to do it full-time.

But a plug-and-play replacement of all MSTS assets would ensure backward compatibility for OR with respect to all freeware routes that need them -- which is a worthwhile goal. It's the best way to keep what are essentially core assets updated and viable for the long run. The alternative is an increasing popularity of MSTS ISO downloads in some parts of the world, treated like abandonware. Unfortunately it's out there, folks, and not just on the dreaded torrent sites. You don't have to search hard to find it out in the open. Not the situation anyone here wants to see. An improved set of drop-in replacement assets for the core MS/KUJU bits, plus modern editors for Open Rails would bring everything into a better future.

[mikeebb]

Yep, IMHO, Microsoft and KUJU have abandoned their rights to anything having to do with MSTS. All the assets (for what they are worth can't be much - and ownership, if any, are spread over who knows or cares how many business entities ) are in the public domain now...as a group, we should test that. Anyone need free copies of a set of MSTS CD's? (horrors! donnybrook!! brew ha ha!!! conflagration!!!! end of civilization!!!!!).

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, and even if they vanished like the happily forgotten Facing Point they will own everything for at least 70 years (the minimum copyright period) and quite possibly forever (ask a lawyer to look at the license sometime - there's no expiration date in it). NOBODY OTHER THAN MS OWNS MSTS and never will, unless MS gives or sells it to them, and in most cases you only OWN the CD it flew in on; the software is licensed. As a practical matter, it will NEVER be in the Public Domain, either the software or the assets.

A former community member got in a lot of hot water by ignoring both free- and payware licensing and copyright. Yes, copyright applies even to free (as in beer) routes which also (in most cases) are licensed, limiting your rights to further distribute them. Even if the developer says it's placed in the Public Domain (a very rare occurrence), in many countries copyright still applies. Have you ever read the notice that displays before downloading a file here? Have you ever gone through the legal notices in most readme packages?

Sounds like a big project that really should be unnecessary at this late stage, all because plenty of (better than default) shape file, texture file, and track and road system options have existed (at least since 2010) that could have been used in route building instead of disc content.

Projects like this only exist because some people poo-poo the desire by others to shed those discs. They let the dysfunction continue, all in the spirit of camaraderie and brotherhood not seen since 2002 when that was all we had. Today, there are (and have been for > 5 yrs) plenty of options.

Yes, there are plenty of options these days that don't involve use of the MSTS assets. The art and science of simulation and modeling has greatly advanced over 15 years - ORTS and some fabulously detailed routes being prime examples. But MSTS served a function: it was the default that everybody had, so for instance a route builder could provide a basic run-through activity using default equipment with the expectation that everybody could use it to check out the route. Without MSTS, there's no default for scenery and equipment any more. At minimum, that complicates route building - more object sources to deal with, and more need to build custom stuff. Despite what we might think, not every simmer in the world is at trainsim yet so even using free stuff from the f/l here for the minimum necessary activity can be an issue. Requiring payware to use a free route is far worse. Yes, there are ways to "change out" equipment but there's still a place for a standard set of stuff that can be used "out of the box" by everybody without cranking up Conbuilder or RR or Yardmaster or even your text editor to make at least one activity runnable.

IMO the best thing would be for MS to release the MSTS assets (not the program code) in some public way for download. License it for personal use or whatever - there are numerous "free" licenses that don't make it "open source" or Public Domain. If some commercial developer wants to use it, fine, but they pay like they would now. Something like the installme.bat files could pull things in from the source site, or could require separately downloading it and populating the MSTS directories that are needed as asset sources. 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.

[geepster775]

I'm not so sure its a necessary thing for the overall health of Open Rails, as I bet quite a few of those users are content with using the free-standing routes they have while waiting for more similar that are in development.

To me, its more of a necessary undertaking for the continuing health of this forum and download library. But this forum and library need to adapt to realities of new users not entering the MSTS sphere, but elsewhere. Up until now, management here seems to have taken the approach of expanding globally (re: India) as a way to keep adding users who still think MSTS is a hot prospect. All it has done is delay the inevitable day of reckoning. But pretty soon, even the global expansion tactic will reach the bumping post.

In all the things Nels has said amid his 15 year anniversary discussion, I've noticed he really hasn't yielded much of an inch. His wagon is still flatly tied to the MSFS/MSTS duopoly, and resists anything that potentially disrupts that and only endorses what makes that stronger. There are days I wish this site would just go ahead and implode, so something else can be reborn in its place, free from past associations, history, and baggage. There will be life after this site, so why not get on with it. Use it as a much needed cleansing opportunity. Declare the bankruptcy, and pay off the camaraderie and brotherhood faction made popular in 2002 with 2 cents on the dollar and unchain yourself.