trains dont derail or crash or anything in Open Rail

[EricF]

Monogame is a more modern, open source framework that implements XNA 4, but across platforms instead of being just tied to Windows/Xbox. It will help ensure Open Rails can stay on a modern platform -- not get stuck in old software design like MSTS is. But moving off of the older XNA platform that ORTS was built on takes quite a bit of work, so other development is a bit slower for now.

As for derailments, I've never had any interest in simulating train wrecks. But realistic effects of exceeding track conditions -- the typical "wheels on the ground" situations like picked switches, string-lining on curves etc. that will cause delays and equipment damage would be nice to have as ways to bring consequences. Time penalties, poor ratings on activity evaluations, things like that.

[Heruraha93]

Monogame is a more modern, open source framework that implements XNA 4, but across platforms instead of being just tied to Windows/Xbox. It will help ensure Open Rails can stay on a modern platform -- not get stuck in old software design like MSTS is. But moving off of the older XNA platform that ORTS was built on takes quite a bit of work, so other development is a bit slower for now.

As for derailments, I've never had any interest in simulating train wrecks. But realistic effects of exceeding track conditions -- the typical "wheels on the ground" situations like picked switches, string-lining on curves etc. that will cause delays and equipment damage would be nice to have as ways to bring consequences. Time penalties, poor ratings on activity evaluations, things like that.

oh okay - alot of the intensive background work that goes over my head but i am glad there are folks dedicated to it - will it retain compatibilty with msts so that one can still make use of all that rich content?

once the monogame work is done they should definitely stick with Open Rails as the title, it is a far far better name for what the product is and is in itself nice and evocative too

yes trainwrecks are not what i care about either - rather just being able have limits and penalties and room for things to go wrong and have to react appropriately - the more stuff that is both realistc and challenging

[joe_star]

oh okay - alot of the intensive background work that goes over my head but i am glad there are folks dedicated to it - will it retain compatibilty with msts so that one can still make use of all that rich content?

once the monogame work is done they should definitely stick with Open Rails as the title, it is a far far better name for what the product is and is in itself nice and evocative too

yes trainwrecks are not what i care about either - rather just being able have limits and penalties and room for things to go wrong and have to react appropriately - the more stuff that is both realistc and challenging

I think a lot of us concur on that. In the past however, it was often dismissed (perhaps rightly at that point) as just wanting a crash simulator. Good to see this conversation has gotten quite mature since then.

[EricF]

"Monogame" is the name of the programming framework. Many games are now written on top of it. Have no fear, Open Rails will retain its name. It's just convenient to refer to the Monogame version as shorthand for the build branch using that framework.

And backward compatibility with MSTS content is still at the core of ORTS development. Although that's a largely solved problem in most areas. The change to the Monogame framework is also aligned with taking more steps into adding new ORTS features and file formats alongside MSTS compatibility. Monogame allows for better management of CPU threads and memory, and that's important to continuing to improve on the physics model in ORTS -- both in how the simulator handles physics, and in the complexity that the file formats can support. So with respect to more realistic and challenging train handling, that's on everybody's wish list and Monogame development is a big part of getting there.