Open Rails - Freeware shmreewar

[NW 2156]

I am surprised to read some people believe there is some sort of problem running MSTS content in the Open Rails simulator.

Having been a Charter Member of hte OR team I was the lead advocate in the argument that OR had to be backwards compatitble with all MSTS content. My reasoning t the time was what is now DTG had just released their new sim... I think it was called Railworks... and it was not backwards compatible. All the stuff people had accumulated would not work in that sim. I thought that was a big mistake and hte rest of the team bought into that line of thought.

Subsequently the developers extended the principle to include activities. I personally thought that was a mistake b ut lost that argument. For about 2 years they DEV's busted a nut tracking down each report of incompatibility and fixed it.

I havn't been part of the OR team for a very long time but I'm pretty confident in asserting there are very, very few incompatibilities left.

What IS a problem is there are a lot of content that used to be available, stuff that was referenced in various activities, that has simply disappeared. That's not on OR and much of it can be fixed by substitution, often with better quality models.


p.s. I'm led to understand the OR team would welcome some new programmers. I believe there is a contact us link on their web page, www.openrails.org

Dave, As FTLDave has already stated there are still problems with running MSTS content in ORTS. I am just now moving to ORTs and keep finding models that will not work correctly or even at all in ORTS.

I really hate to burst the ORTS bubble but all is not well in ORTS land.

ORTS also decided from release V1 which was too early and did not have everything from the original blueprint in it as you guys were hoping to do so for MSTS compatibility. ORTS release V1 was premature and some of issues continue to this day.

Some of the many things that bug me,

1. Camera views are horrible in ORTS.

2. Brakes take too friggin long to get pumped up and I have to hold down the dang keys and wait. We need MSTS quick release braking for those who are not so serious about real world operations.

3. Both steam and diesel exhaust need a complete rework. Period. The effect is horrible.

4. Some routes still have dark CTC signals for unknown reasons.

5. Some activities still don't function correctly or in rare circumstances not at all.

6. You still don't have some of the basic features of MSTS like the "GlossMap" shader or environment maps, and a couple other features.

The list goes on.

ORTS does not have drop in plug and play for MSTS content. Some locomotives will not even move unless updated with ORTS physics.

I have heard from a couple former ORTS programmers that ORTS is at a point that it needs a complete rewrite in some places. If true? Than at the moment there is more or less an effort to just slap a band aide on some issues. Reading through the bug reports and fixes seems to hint at something similar at times.

Compare the likes of Railworks or TS20XX to ORTS and ORTS looks just as bad as MSTS.

I am led to believe that ORTS is a program with no future. Just too far behind the 8 ball.

Robert

[ossie]

Robert, as a matter of interest, what are some of the models that you've had problems getting to run in ORTS? I can honestly say that I've never had an issue with model "incompatibility" from MSTS to ORTS, but as I generally only run modern era trains, there's a lot of stuff there unexplored on my behalf. If you've got a list it would be interesting to see if others have had the same problems and if so, if there's anything the "boffins" can come up with by way of an explanation.

[R. Steele]

LOL (I deleted the rest of the rebuttal to Robert, cuz, really what's the point anymore? The world really is round, we've seen it from space.)

[lateagain]

LOL (I deleted the rest of the rebuttal to Robert, cuz, really what's the point anymore? The world really is round, we've seen it from space.)

Gerry,

Those of us who get e-mail notifications of new posts read what you deleted. Unless you leave the whole post up so that folk can question/react to the content ......LOL might as well be deleted too

I've too much on to respond to Robert's post until this evening but he has raised some fundamental issues and IMO they're worthy of a response. Later.

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

So there I was the other night - watching my AI operate without any user intervention - locomotives leaving the engine shed working their way to the yard - the switcher busy at work grabbing various cuts of cars and shoving them together to make up the train for the locomotives meandering over... Another train comes into the yard blowing its horn while a pair of helpers shuffle off to attach themselves to the rear end for the push up the grade to the east... My power finally made it over to the train as the switcher finishes its work and couples - a couple toots of the horn and he moves off onto the main to the west... All without me touching a thing...

What's MSTS again ? Oh the thing I need to generate terrain buffers for Distant Mountains...


You can look at ORTS as a cup half full - or half empty... I guess I'm lucky - I look at it half full - other than the diesel exhaust that needed a little fix - I've never had issues with ORTS running MSTS content... As far as Steam physics go (my niche) - TSW physics are laughable - I don't think there's been a sim made that comes anywhere near what ORTS has accomplished... If you want a prettier sim paint better textures and try the Monogame ORTS with ReShade... Sure there are things that need to be improved - but I'm getting far more enjoyment out of ORTS - as is - than I ever did from MSTS...

In addition - the developers have been hobbled by those insisting we maintain backwards compatibility for ancient operating systems - at a minimum - ORTS should drop support for an OS when Microsoft drops support for an OS... I believe that's one of the reasons they've stuck with XNA for so long...

ORTS obviously needs more programmers - I'm sure anyone is welcome to pitch in - I think Carlos, Peter, and Chris are the only ones actively developing (my apologies if I missed anyone)... It's a labor of love with individuals putting countless hours of their own valuable time into this project - strictly for the enjoyment of the community - gratis... Personally - these talented and steadfast individuals need a standing round of applause for what they've managed to accomplish - it's amazing... I'd buy them all dinner and drinks for a night out on the town if I could...

Just my nickels worth...

Regards,
Scott

[Erick_Cantu]

I certainly hope they don't bring back the MSTS-type reflection mapping, and instead give use a global environment map (real time would be nice, but would require later iterations of DirectX than the WinXP ultracons are willing to go for, I suspect) and a map that controls its intensity (such as a specular map alpha channel, that would make the most sense).

But yes, more advanced shaders are something the sim really needs. Some of these things were pretty common around the time the original MSTS came out. Even FS2002 had reflection mapping. I think the primitive materials are part of the reason why developers aren't exactly flocking to the platform.

But without more programmers, as pointed out above, it's going to take time. If I had the skills, I'd help, but all I can really do is deliver content.

[rickloader1]

+1 Scott!
I`m doing the same in ORTS - a 1950s historical timetable.
I think the op is just trolling. What is a shmreewar?
rick

[R. Steele]

Gerry,

Those of us who get e-mail notifications of new posts read what you deleted. Unless you leave the whole post up so that folk can question/react to the content ......LOL might as well be deleted too

I've too much on to respond to Robert's post until this evening but he has raised some fundamental issues and IMO they're worthy of a response. Later.

Yes, you're right...however, when I logged in this morning I found I could not edit that post...maybe it's me (little mental fog this am) or maybe some forum discipline being meted out.

I'm in agreement with yourself, Scott and Erick...there are some things that need looking at. The diesel exhausts is a little buggy, the exhaust section in the ORTS DieselEngine file could be looked at some more, the shaders, and other things..we all know what they are and many people are working to improve the sim.

This Open Source project has come a long way since 2010...lot's of hard work by volunteers! So it kinda burns me up when someone starts the trolling nonsense again- "Cameras views are horrible" - etc. geeze is Robert really that shortsighted?

It's time OR got a little respect...or keep your trap shut so the rest of us can enjoy it, roll up our sleeves, learn, participate, and contribute to the future of this project.

[advut]

I will write about what I think of the issues raised by Robert and later some pros of ORTS. I can afford to spend some time expressing my thoughts on something that I've used for quite a few years.

1. Camera views in ORTS is just different. While it has the awesome 8 key free camera, the 2 and 3 key camera isn't as good as MSTS because those are focused on the couplers rather than loco or rolling stock body as was the case with MSTS.

2. You can set brake pressure charging rate to 1000 PSI/s and get quick charging. I don't care about real world physics so I use it like this.

3. Completely agree on this point.

4. I don't understand dark signals etc. So, don't know.

5. Some default MSTS activities don't work correctly on ORTS. So, forget about 100% third party compatibility. Have to workaround using dispatcher window but I did notice compatibility has increased in recent versions.

6. Don't know about gloss map but yes the lack of MSTS environments is a problem.

Now, some PROS of ORTS.

1. Ability to increase viewing distance. This combined with nicely designed routes achieves looks which MSTS would never achieve. Then there is ReShade compatibility if you use Monogame version.

2. Far better shadows than MSTS.

3. Lets you drive smoothly without stuttering like MSTS did when loading the next bit of scenery. That loading stutter was truly horrible in MSTS.

4. Handles loads of content without needing 3rd party managers like Train Store.

5. Tolerant with many faults unlike MSTS which throws error messages even if the slightest thing is wrong. Nice logging system so you have information when fixing errors later.

6. Works with modern operating systems and hardware. Supports widescreen displays natively. Don't need to hack or reduce settings to play it in max graphics if your hardware can do it. Supports Alt+Tab.

So, IMO ORTS is obviously an improvement from MSTS but not perfect. When some of the negatives especially those in point 3 and 6 gets resolved and it finally moves officially to Monogame it will be perfect for me. Any improvement after that is welcome and bonus addition.

[geepster775]

I asked Rick about the inability to edit posts after a time period, and he told me there was 'abuse'. I chuckled and wondered to myself if the forum software is on a pay-per-post plan. Not really sure how going back 6 hours later to refine your thoughts is abuse.

[geepster775]

Just remember, what bugs you is not necessarily a bug.

People just need to learn the key combinations to control the cameras. Yes, 2 and 3 focus on the couplers. After pressing [2] or [3], hold down the [ALT] key while nudging the [left arrow], [right arrow], [up arrow], [down arrow] and set the location where ever you want the camera to focus. Press [PG UP] to move closer, [PG DN] to move farther away, and scroll your mouse wheel to zoom in. Pressing [CTRL][8] at any time resets any camera view back to the default of looking at the coupler. I'll take this ANY DAY over the non-variable, rigid setting format of MSTS cameras

As for the brake charging, the shortcuts are there. Someone just needs to read the manual. But then, that's not really simming, now is it? Enjoying immediate brake response is more of a game.

If a locomotive doesn't move, it's likely because it's creator used non-standard values or units of measure in their ENG files. Their mistake is not an ORTS bug.

If you dredge hard enough at the bottom of the dated library pile, yes, you will find a few gems that might not work as well as possible. But I will take modern stock and the new activity features over a bunch of necro-surfing any day.

[Erick_Cantu]

We know how the views work, it's still annoying that the camera pivots around the end instead of the center. It's just distracting, especially when you're trying to inspect something quickly. I shouldn't have to do two things at once to keep the camera on the center of the model while I pan around it. It's also totally unnecessary because the #6 camera is already focused on the couplers. It's my #1 annoyance with OR and drives me up the wall every time I am in an external view, to the point where I use the #4 camera instead when the train isn't moving. I don't see it as an either/or proposition, either. There's no reason why we can't keep the functionality as it is, but with the camera centered on the object pivot. Or, perhaps, it could be a switchable option for users who like it that way.

[NW 2156]

ORTS really needs to fix the single pipe air system so multiple part locomotives can be run. The Milw electrics from the RMD route still don't work in ORTS.

Personally, I would like to see ORTS adopt the kind of camera views and abilities as seen right here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki_3IRj42Fg Of course the holy grail would be to add TrackIR support as well.

The shaders and affects used for unloading coal is damn neat in RTrainsim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlAG9Z5LU98 JUst gotta get it so the piles add up on the ground.

Robert

[NW 2156]

To Further add to the above. This setup of being able to walk around in sim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2ZZ...7D7FEC&index=7 and couple the cars and air lines would be very much appreciated. I am surprised that ORTS did not adopt something similar from the get go.

Loading grain hoppers this time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8uG4unmJ-g

Robert

[EricF]

There's one important thing that not everyone trying Open Rails understands -- Open Rails handles .eng and .wag files exactly as they're written. A decimal out of place, an open set of parenthesis, an incorrectly-configured block of text/configuration, and it will either process it as written (and behave as if there's a bug, which there is -- in the input file) or generate an error. MSTS often ignores common errors and runs with undocumented default behavior, but crashes badly on others.

It's the ignore-the-erroneous-input behavior of MSTS that too many people came to rely on, which perpetrated badly written .eng and .wag files, which cause problems in Open Rails -- because they contain errors.

So, yes, sometimes Open Rails requires configurations to be tweaked and fixed -- but the reality is that they should have been fixed a long time ago.