Modifying Activities

[CNW 5099]

Excellent observation and advice from wwhall [ post #32 ] -- I have been using the same approach for a few years and producing very enjoyable activities, especially when also using the OR Trackviewer to add specialized waiting points to the paths. Making -- editing -- fixing paths is quite easy with the trackviewer.



I use the same routine, instead of copy/paste I use a program called "Beyond Compare" >>> https://www.scootersoftware.com/

It is payware, however there is a free trial to check it out. It is extremely versatile, by opening both the "new" activity file and the original activity file in Beyond Compare you can easily move sections between the files however you want. Since I've become proficient in using the program I no longer copy and paste, especially if I have made numerous changes. I just cannot write enough good things about this piece of software...should be in every ones tool kit. It will merge, compare, and synchronize folders and files, with dedicated viewers for data, binary, executables and images. Copy/Paste errors disappear.

The TSRE Activity Editor will wipe out a number of things in an activity file--certain events, etc. that it is not coded to understand, as Gerry states. My workaround is to copy an activity before modifying it in the TSRE AE. Then after I modify the activity, I open the copied original file and copy/paste the things in the "new" activity file that the TSRE AE wiped out. Also, if I'm just doing a minor edit, such as modifying an event, etc., I will just do it Context, rather than using the TSRE AE. One of the best features of the TSRE AE is being able to place loose consists exactly where they need to be in the route--something that just wasn't possible in MSTS. I will often use the same loose consists and locations in multiple activities. In that situation, I will just cut/paste the loose consist list from one .act file to another .act file, using Context. It's not the ideal way to have to do things, but it will have to do until a full-featured OR AE is developed. I have not used the MSTS AE since about 2013, and I've made dozens of activities since then, so it can be done. Also, the OR Trackviewer runs circles around the MSTS Path Editor in what it can do.

Do you all ever think about uploading your activities to the file library? I know you use custom stock, that's fine as most people should know how to swap out stock by now but I'd love to see some new activities making use of current OR functionality. It's a shame that activity creation/sharing dried up a little over a decade ago when so many great routes were just being released. I always hope one day someone will make an activity pack for the Buffalo Route, which seems to be overlooked and underrated. At this point I'm willing to pay for new activities.

[wwhall]

^I answered this question some time back on Elvas, but I will also answer it here. I have a large "inventory" of rolling stock that I use, gathered over almost 20 years of MSTS/OR slimming. Included in those are a numerous personal repaints, etc. that are not available anywhere. When I create an activity for myself, I use the stock that makes the activity "realistic" and don't base my stock choices on the original source of the stock. So, yes, an activity user would have to replace all kinds of stock in my activities--and that includes loose consists. I use a lot of loose consists in my activities. One activity that I created recently had over 500 individual pieces of rolling stock in dozens of loose consists. As an aside here, I've found that the "edit loose consists" function in TSRE can unknowingly mess with other things in the .act. file.

Another factor is that I often begin my activity creation process by using an activity created by someone else and then heavily modifying it for my own use--some of those activities covered by EULAs. So, obviously, I can't release those.

Finally, because I used to work in the railroad industry, I make my activities as realistic as possible, realism that likely would tax the patience of most simmers. For example, if it takes 2 1/2 hours to build a consist in the real world, I set up my activity to take 2 1/2 hours--taking into account the time it takes a crew member to walk trains, lace up hoses, test air, pump up air, etc. Once underway, if the player train "gets stabbed" by the Dispatcher and has to sit on a siding for 2 hours while a whole parade of trains meets or overtakes his/her train, then that is what happens. So, my activities can often take 6-12 hours to run from end to end. If one tries to run one of those such activities as a "game" without observing the real world time it takes to do things, it will generally break most of the meets, etc.

My fear is that, were I to release one of my activities, there would be a flood of complaints about "I can't find the stock that the activity uses," "I can't make the activity work--the meets, etc. are all wrong," "this thing takes too long to run," etc. My best advice to people is to learn how to make their own activities. That's what I did. Part of the fun of that is creating something out of your own mind, building it, then testing it, modifying it, and re-running it. For the last month or so, I've been taking activities that I created years back for some routes I don't run often, revamping them with better stock, re-making the timing in the activity, adding more loose consists, and taking advantage of the some of numerous OR-specific features that were not available in the MSTS days.

One other tip about activity creation and modification. I typically create consists with a name specific to the .srv file of the activity. For example, if the .srv file name is ABCwestbound_traffic_01, I create a consist with the same name. Then, if I desire, I can change out cars or locomotives in that consist an re-save it with the same name, without having to modify .srv file. That way, if one tires of activity, one can, with low effort, change out every player and AI train in the activity to keep the activity a bit more "fresh."

[geepster775]

This is why Bob Pickering's activity packs were always so popular. He relied upon a handful of SLI routes as baseline requirements for an adequate pool of rolling stock that he employed in his activity packs.

I'm sorry if that does not sit very well with the "file library content is the center of my universe" crowd. File library content is gravy on top, but not the main dish protein on the plate.

Most ORTS routes today and any expansion packs are released with a full compliment of rolling stock and a good share of activities. I think the Mullan route + expansion left the user with about 20 activities fashioned out of the supplied rolling stock. If you installed Mullan in the same installation as Ruel, ORTS Seligman, and Shasta (all the DDS textures routes), you should have a yuge selection of rolling stock from the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s era with both US and Canadian flavor.

I have a highly customized Trainset folder as part of my primary installation, but I also maintain a parallel installation of non-customized, as-delivered content (a Bob-Pickering style combined content baseline) to dork around with for sharable activity creation purposes. If I like the results built on the sharable side, I will then modify and import the activity over to my customized side.

[eric]

My take.... go ahead and release activities regardless if they have payware requirements.

We've been swapping equipment in consists for at least 22 years.

Imagine if ORTS had a default pool of equipment to swap out missing items... (which I believe is how ORTS multiplayer worked at one point?..).

[Unoriginal]

Cool thing about activities is that they can actually be released for everyone to still find some use out of, either that be having everything needed or by swapping everything out. But I guess in today’s age of private clubhouses nobody just wants to share anything and everyone else is just stuck with MSTS era activities.

[eric]

Yeah, I'm getting a little bit tired about the comments over private clubhouses.

Maybe it's intentionally disrespectful, maybe not, but it has no place here... save it for Facebook or Discord where manners don't matter.

[R. Steele]

Thanks Eric. "Manners" --- now that's a fine old word that was loaded with meaning....that I was expected to understand and practice ....especially when told about by my parents, aunts/uncles and grandparents.

[dcarleton]

Some days I wonder who's done more damage to the community - Is it the pirates, or the private release crowd? Are they one-and-the-same crowd?

[eric]

There are varying degrees of private...

Some might consider the DW and ValleyPass "Clubs" for customers to share models as private. I'm a little less inclined to call that private because those are/were stores open to the public. Rewarding paying customers with extras is a fairly common benefit.

Some of the work done on the BNSF heritage units in the screenshot threads is excellent, but they only "share" those reskins with those they consider worthy of downloading over at the Moose Interchange. To some degree, ElvasTower operates the same way. I'm not a fan of that approach, but that's what they've decided is appropriate for their communities, and for the most part, everyone has a chance to join the members-only club.

There are also a few "closed groups" that share reskins including for models they've built but haven't released to the public. While I'm an advocate for making things available either as payware, donationware or a contribution here, but the general rule here is to respect what content creators want to do with their own creations.

And then there's the groups doing reskins and sharing payware models in private... That's a group we know overlaps with some of the pirates...

But let's get back to my earlier comment --- second-guessing what people do with their content has no place here. You're not changing anyone's mind by insulting their choice.