Starmap/Moonmap questions.

[cjakeman]

OR is not capable of handling MSTS environments at this point in time, and there is no weather/sky programmer active on the team as far as I am aware.

One of our developers who had to take time out has just returned with ambitions to improve the environment features.

I'll ask him to check this thread.

Best wishes,

[ossie]

That's fantastic news Chris! Thanks for letting us know.

[qballbandit]

Ditto, excellent news, Chris - and thanks very much!

[rdamurphy]

So.... You've already discovered the option of increasing the area of the sky map. Remember, however, that a 4096 x 4096 texture is four times larger than a 2048 x 2048. You could go larger, with a corresponding exponential increase in size.

The MSTS environment is a serious work-in-not-progress! However... I'm going to get back on it, as soon as possible. Be aware however, that progress on the environments is sometimes glacial (pun intended). The .env files in MSTS are actually quite a mess. There's not really any organization to them, they're hard to parse, there are parameters nobody knows what they do, if they do anything at all, and some of them just flat don't work in OR or look horrible.

The Kosmos .env files are flat masterpieces! They are exquisitely written, and the parameters are perfect. For MSTS. Translated into OR, not so perfect... There's going to have to be some interpretation to get the same results.

As for the moon-sun times, those are hard-coded into OR and are going to take a bit of effort to get them to work with the .env files.

Just as an example, OR uses a sky with a sun included, and it moves the entire texture across the sky. MSTS uses a separate sun and moon texture and moves them across a stationary sky as "satellites." You could, conceivably add additional "satellites" such as planets, multiple moons, or even the ISS and move them realistically across the sky in MSTS.

Now, having said all those good/great/bad things, it all comes down to framerates. A Train Simulator is about the most complicated game ever done, most games don't have hundreds of moving objects and hundreds of stationary ones, and the complication of track, roads, terrain, and everything added to the sim WILL lower framerates, so, it's all a trade off. I've experimented with water that would make you seasick, but the framerate drop was completely unacceptable.

So, we'll see where this takes us, if you'd like, please try the MSTS experimental environment box, and see what you think needs improvement (everything?) and, please, be patient. Earth wasn't built in a week! Oh. Wait...

Thanks,

Robert

[peterman]

Now, having said all those good/great/bad things, it all comes down to framerates. A Train Simulator is about the most complicated game ever done, most games don't have hundreds of moving objects and hundreds of stationary ones, and the complication of track, roads, terrain, and everything added to the sim WILL lower framerates, so, it's all a trade off. I've experimented with water that would make you seasick, but the framerate drop was completely unacceptable.

So, we'll see where this takes us, if you'd like, please try the MSTS experimental environment box, and see what you think needs improvement (everything?) and, please, be patient. Earth wasn't built in a week! Oh. Wait...

Thanks,

Robert

Howdy.... I just want to throw in my two cents here... I find that OR uses the water in the MSTS ENVIRO folder ( without checking MSTS ENV option ) quite nicely and without a huge knock on frame rates. It has clarity and depth ( you can see the bottom of the lake ), calm and wavy and decent ice in winter.

I know someone is going to say ..." I don't see a difference!"... my answer to that is..." you need to manipulate the .ace files to get the results you want.

Peter

PS... my frame rates are 45+ which may seem low to some, but that's because I run with dynamic shadows turned on.

[ossie]

So.... You've already discovered the option of increasing the area of the sky map. Remember, however, that a 4096 x 4096 texture is four times larger than a 2048 x 2048. You could go larger, with a corresponding exponential increase in size.

The MSTS environment is a serious work-in-not-progress! However... I'm going to get back on it, as soon as possible. Be aware however, that progress on the environments is sometimes glacial (pun intended). The .env files in MSTS are actually quite a mess. There's not really any organization to them, they're hard to parse, there are parameters nobody knows what they do, if they do anything at all, and some of them just flat don't work in OR or look horrible.

The Kosmos .env files are flat masterpieces! They are exquisitely written, and the parameters are perfect. For MSTS. Translated into OR, not so perfect... There's going to have to be some interpretation to get the same results.

As for the moon-sun times, those are hard-coded into OR and are going to take a bit of effort to get them to work with the .env files.

Just as an example, OR uses a sky with a sun included, and it moves the entire texture across the sky. MSTS uses a separate sun and moon texture and moves them across a stationary sky as "satellites." You could, conceivably add additional "satellites" such as planets, multiple moons, or even the ISS and move them realistically across the sky in MSTS.

Now, having said all those good/great/bad things, it all comes down to framerates. A Train Simulator is about the most complicated game ever done, most games don't have hundreds of moving objects and hundreds of stationary ones, and the complication of track, roads, terrain, and everything added to the sim WILL lower framerates, so, it's all a trade off. I've experimented with water that would make you seasick, but the framerate drop was completely unacceptable.

So, we'll see where this takes us, if you'd like, please try the MSTS experimental environment box, and see what you think needs improvement (everything?) and, please, be patient. Earth wasn't built in a week! Oh. Wait...

Thanks,

Robert

Thanks very much for the detailed response, Robert. Very much appreciated.

Just out of curiosity, I did try a 8192 x 8192 starmap and liked it. On Seligman, with a 130 double stack consist and dynamic shadows off, my framerate didn't drop below 58, so going that large hasn't created any FPS issues there. The advantage of that size over the 4096 texture was that I was able to get more "depth" in my sky. Even a 12pt brush on that size texture didn't blur so for a desert route like Seligman, it looked good. Probably overkill for a route in/near cities where stars are less visible, but perhaps dialling in a little fog would hide the smaller stars and give a more realistic "smoggy" look to the sky??

I don't envy you guys the task of trying to pick through what can be incorporated and what needs to be replaced and then doing that. Keeping in mind the issues you highlight of framerate & the amount of time required for the work to be done, it would be interesting to see what order people's wishlists were in. I can live with my starmap now, so my top 3 would be a night time only moon and snow & rain "upgrades" but I'm sure whenever/whatever you are able to come up with for ORTS environments, or ORTS in general, will be gratefully received by us all.

Thanks again for the info!

[rdamurphy]

New commit to add correct tiling from .env files is now uploaded. Should be available in experimental version of OR soon.

Robert

[qballbandit]

Good to hear, thanks Robert!

[ossie]

Great news Robert, thank you!