messed up hierarchy

[johnnyboy99]

Open Rails 2025-09-18 06-47-06.png Open Rails 2025-09-18 12-35-59.png
i've discovered in more than a few models that their hierarchy is messed up in more ways than one. (At least only in ORTS somehow!) The default genesis locomotive has it's front bogey spinning 360 degrees in random directions. Byron Ashlock's roadrailers have the trailers spinning around rather than the wheels on the bogies. The drivable US2TrackTruck has it's appearance messed up, with the vehicle sitting above ground and it's wheels spinning all wrong (not pictured). Is there a way to fix this?

[SD40-2]

The links are wrong between sub objects, with everything being linked bellow the wheels objects instead of above it. I am not sure if it can be fixed via an outside utility.

[duke1234]

I am not a man to judge but why in the world are you still using the stock genesis

[ossie]

Is there a way to fix this?

Yes, by moving on? Rather than another discussion about 15+ year old MSTS models that may not be working properly in ORTS, look at what is. Both SLI/TS & David Rowe released roadrailer models after Byron Ashlock's version (both of which are still operating properly in ORTS as far as I know) and we had ORTS compatible Genesis locos uploaded to the F/L earlier this year.

[eric]

Indeed. David Rowe's set even includes blanks so that you could make your own.

[fleegle411]

It is indeed possible to fix from an outside utility. You open the shape using SFM and manually edit the node names. The roadrailers have been borked for some time (due to the trailer bodies being named WHEELS) but the wildly spinning trucks is a newer hiccup in OR. I fixed the whole roadrailer set for myself some time back but I am unsure if just dumping the fixed .s files on the file library would be acceptable...

And I might add, what exactly is the point of Open Rails if we start taking the attitude of 'it's old content, no matter' when the only purpose of OR is to make MSTS content usable beyond the original program's lifespan?

[geepster775]

when the only purpose of OR is to make MSTS content usable beyond the original program's lifespan?

Ummm. That's not the "only purpose". Its time to start thinking that MSTS compatibility was a 'courtesy', not a 'purpose'. If it works, fine, if it doesn't anymore, skip it and move on to newer alternatives.

[pwillard]

Let's face it. The original devs made several decisions in the interest of brevity and simplicity that we are still paying a price for. For compatibility with these decisions made by people who had no clue about the longevity of the impact of their choices, here we are. OpenRails was created to address Microsoft's decision to pull the rug out from under all of us who used MSTS and had developed extensive content for it. Several promises were made about MSTS2, and many people were really chomping at the bit for it. When that team and the program fizzled, the idea of the community creating its own solution was born. ( Except this time, with hookers and blackjack being possibilities... thanks to Bender... Oops, I mean Blender)

OpenRails has gone from being a child of this community into its adult self, and with that, some things needed to change. This is where legacy compatibility dies, and sooner or later, you either learn to FIX the old stuff or start learning to make the compatible stuff you need from scratch.

[fleegle411]

Its time to start thinking that MSTS compatibility was a 'courtesy', not a 'purpose'.

That's news to me, and I've followed this pretty closely since the first demo video was posted. From the very beginning it has been emphatically stated that Open Rails was a new simulator that would be backwards compatible with MSTS content, with options for new content in its own formats down the line. The backward-compatibility has always been the central purpose - to keep the body of existing content alive.

I am frankly shocked to find this attitude within the community (I am not aiming at individuals, just to be clear, this is a meta commentary). I do hope it is not lost upon the community that this line of thinking has a high probability of contributing to a decline of players, contributors, and community growth. If someone finds a neat old MSTS add-on that they want to try, finds that it doesn't work properly, and are told by the community, 'get over it,' they'll move on. A potential new community member is run off for no good reason. That's not some clueless newbie leaving. That is someone who might have paid for a file library subscription, who may have said 'I like this, I think I'll try to make something,' or someone who's playing and finding bugs helps refine the code. That is many things, but community building is not one of them.

Casual players and word of mouth do a lot to advance a game's reach, far beyond what any group of volunteer programmers can do. You show me a program where the majority of the content publicly associated with it does not work properly without extensive modifications and expertise, and I'll show you a program that has little future outside the existing player base.

I have tried to bring people into the OR fold before, and it is a hard sell. Why intentionally make it harder by creating a minefield of 'maybe it works, maybe you're out of luck' content? It's not always as simple as 'Go find another one.' The 3DTS Donner Pass Cab Forward steam locomotives have some fairly significant issues out of the box in the latest OR builds. Where are the newer versions of those? Even items put out specifically for OR some years back are starting to have problems because the code has shifted around so significantly. What we are headed for is a perpetually burning Library of Alexandria. Except this time the legacy goes up in smoke as the librarians stand around saying 'just write more books.'

Granted, there are a handful of add-ons that were always rather broken to begin with, those are unique cases and can be dealt with individually. The overarching approach here, however, does not appear to be healthy. A game that wantonly narrows its content base is a game that wantonly narrows its appeal. There is great potential for new content and new features. If the foundation of content is left behind however, what good is that which is built on top of that foundation?

I suppose I will take any thoughts on details for the program over to Elvas Tower where the programmers may see it. For this site however, there is much going for it. I think it is safe to say this site contains the largest library of train simulation content in the world. I pay for a membership because I want to see that library go forward into the future. If I had to sum up my thoughts in 1 sentence, it would be 'We should not just throw that library away.'

[slipperman]

Hi fleegle411,
Well said, Sir!
I support everything you've written. There are a few members of the Community who seem to have the opinion that, because MSTS is almost 25 years old, it should be ditched altogether. It should not be forgotten that MSTS IS the foundation for Open Rails. I also support Open Rails - it's made many improvements for users of MSTS routes and stock.
If, and it's a big 'if', the intention is to cease being able to run native MSTS routes and stocks, where are the new OR routes and stock to come from? Our Community is small and there don't seem to be many (any?) younger route and stock builders taking the place of the 'old guard'!

Cheers,
Ged

[NW 2156]

Openrails is not what Wayne Campbell originally envisioned.

Robert

[dcarleton]

The Open Rails Development Team decided long ago that they did not have to accommodate the workarounds contrived to circumvent the limitations of MSTS. An unintended (?) consequence of that decision is that OR works best for newer users with newer content than for legacy users with legacy content.

[pwillard]

The moment your legacy brakes and physics configs from MSTS didn't work right in ORTS without some extra help, it stopped being 100% backward compatible, and that was eons ago.

[CSRX]

Hate to say it, but there simply isn't enough content creators in Open Rails, to push out content left and right to suit the current needs of ORTS 1.6 and further. It isn't like it was 20 years ago where there were numerous individuals that worked together or separately on so many projects, whether it was routes, rolling stock, scenery, or activities. We just do not have that anymore, and with that, OR will be putting itself out of commission due to this, at least for the North American content. Then, mix in with regular jobs that those still around have going on that consume their time versus spending it on a gaming platform in order to create said content.

I don't know.. Maybe now that I have stepped back and looked at the bigger picture, the sim we once loved and enjoyed, is coming to a close quicker than we had desired.

[ossie]

I can't speak for how much time the developers spend these days trying to make updates "backwards compatible" with old MSTS era content, but hopefully none if that takes time/resources away from future updates.

In terms of gaining the interest of new players, I'd personally find the routes TS have put out in recent times and the standard of work Nash has released (as examples) far more appealing than trying to run 20 year old models with 512 textures on default routes if I was just getting started now. PCs continue to evolve and hopefully the sim will too. At some point people need to draw their own line in terms of what they want to run with MSTS/ORTS and how they can do it if they still want to use old content. I've got an old PC with Doom and Command & Conquer and a few other old classics on it I set up from time to time. It would be unrealistic to expect Microsoft to keep releasing versions of windows that allow me to continue to run those old games on new machines (or for those game developers to keep issuing updates to their games for each new operating system that appears) and I think the same should apply to ORTS development. It's a credit to the developers that so much of the old content still functions fine in the sim and if occasionally we find an example like this, rather than "throw out" the file library because Byron's roadrailers aren't working now, use Rowie's instead.

I'm sure there's still some people use the old route editor (for instance) but I suspect most people have moved on to TSRE because it's more efficient and stable. That's progress and that's the way it should be.