Can MSTS and OR content work together?

[thescreecher]

As you can see, I have lots of locomotives in MSTS and have got them to run in OR. However, I am wondering if I can run both MSTS and OR locomotives together. I do not want to put the OR locomotive in a separate installation profile world later.

[Unoriginal]

You can run MSTS grade locomotives with ones built for OR just fine. Only problem I've seen is having routes that use dds textures with routes that use ace textures in the same installation, as it screws with track textures.

[thescreecher]

Well I'll tell you my scenario. I do not want to create a new installation profile and I want to run the OR and MSTS locos in the same installation profile. The new locomotive that I want to run was SPECIFICALLY built for OR.

[thescreecher]

And what I mean is, putting the OR locomotive in the MSTS folder

[rdayt]

The only problems you're going to have is with routes because they share the Global folder. That's where all of the track and road shapes calling for .ace textures are. ORTS uses .dds.
You don't want to put new OR only routes like Train Simulations in your MSTS install. It'll go kablooey.
You can add OR only equipment to your MSTS trainset folder but don't expect it to work in MSTS. The MSTS stuff will continue to work in MSTS.
OR only and MSTS equipment work together just fine, in OR.

Randy

[crstagg]

Depends on how the ENG file is created for the ORTS loco. If it is created with two ENG files, one for MSTS in the main folder for the locomotive and another for ORTS in the OpenRails folder a sub-folder of the main locomotive folder, then that loco can be run in either MSTS or ORTS separate or in combination with another loco created for MSTS. But if only one ENG file is created to use features of ORTS then that loco may or may not be capable of running in MSTS. It definitely cannot be used in MSTS if Include statements are used as MSTS does not recognize Include parameters. However, if all the statements that MSTS expects to find in the ENG file are present and ORTS statements provide the ORTS specific features, then it probably could be run under MSTS as MSTS would just ignore the ORTS statements.

As to running a loco created for ORTS with a loco made for MSTS using ORTS, YES that could be done as ORTS was written to use MSTS content.

[geepster775]

Recent content made for Open Rails WILL NOT RUN in MSTS anymore, which is going to impinge upon any strange desire to combine it all. Newer content has unrecognizable-to-MSTS physics, are overbuilt with too many polys, and use file formats MSTS does not recognize. In other words, everything that will make MSTS puke. Hence the effort to segregate newer ORTS routes and rolling stock away from the MSTS grade material.

Once you get past this false need of yours to avoid learning ORTS in depth or shed this fear of more than one installation, and find the simming experience more valuable than crashing trains, and get on with developing a valuable installation that is optimal for Open Rails rather than MSTS, the smoother your experiences in this hobby will be.

[Erick_Cantu]

I don't mean to come across as rude, but every single one of the questions in the multiple posts you've made are answered in detail in the Open Rails manual. I think you might benefit from reading it.

[R. Steele]

I'd call that good advice, OR team has developed an excellent manual. As a life long voracious reader...I have run across people for whom reading is not a preferred option...for numerous reasons. Sometimes, physical, cultural, and linguistic traits are in play.

Not reading --- imo a feature ( or is it a bug ) of the current quick consuming digital world.

[thescreecher]

I was just too lazy, guess ill give it a read I guess

[R. Steele]

I was just too lazy, guess ill give it a read I guess

That's the fine spirit....scan through it, it is searchable, check out the beginning chapters on the folder structure and getting set up....you'll just have more questions --- no worries, that's what the forum is for. People do appreciate it when others show a little initiative to do some research for themselves.

[eric]

Keeping a single profile isn't impossible, but you're going to have to accept the risks and consequences.

-- if you install a newer route which overwrites your GLOBAL directory, you're going to have to install DDS track textures into each of your legacy route TEXTURES folders
-- If you have ENG/WAG files with ORTS only features, it might cause MSTS to barf on startup if it the CON/ENG/WAG files cause one of those inexplicable TRAIN database errors

You can have multiple profiles without losing anything... I keep my TrainSimulations routes isolated, but do copy over the TRAINSET and CONSISTS folders into my vanilla MSTS directory.

[wwhall]

My suggestion: Just quit running MSTS. Now, as to the MSTS locomotives. There is a good fix for that. Gerry Storey built a whole folder of ".inc" files that will allow an MSTS locomotive to run with OpenRails physics in OpenRails. All that is necessary is to add the appropriate "Include" line to the .eng file, with a path to the location of the .inc file.

Find them here:
orts_std_eng_ver2_updates.zip
orts_std_eng_ver2.zip orts_std_eng_ver2.zip
orts_standard_engines.zip

And many thanks to Gerry for building all of these files. I've converted hundreds of my locomotives to use them!!!!!

[R. Steele]

I appreciate the mention of my MSTS to OR "conversion kits" for engine files by wwhall. In the 3 years since I released those there has been some excellent work done with producing pure OR engine and wagon files for Open Rails, and introducing new OR physics. Much credit goes to Erick Cantu for the NAVS series of releases, both payware and public release. ( Payware available at https://www.tigertrains.com/Store/in...tegory&path=27 ) and to the TrainSimulations payware routes/equipment at https://www.trainsimulations.net/

It certainly makes it easier not to have to do conversions. So there are a few options in how you mix the MSTS and Open Rails content, best is to think about this before jumping in and making a hasty move. For now I'd point OR to the MSTS content and get used to running the most recent stable Ver 1.5. You can tinker with conversions, learning include files, and putting together pure OR eng and wag files...it's a hobby...enjoy yourself.