Open Rails VS Other Rail Simulators

[CSRX]

Should there be a Trainsim.com version of OR? Starting with whichever version that this community decides is already the best, and the only changes allowed being improvements as suggested in these pages?

This, I could get behind this idea.

[landnrailroader]

Okay, where do you download it, and is that the actual name of the item?

Jerry

[BrandonS261]

I could get behind that as well Shawn!! Sounds like a great idea to me!! I have been wanting to learn how to do some coding anyways!! It would sure be nice to get a stable version with all of the best parts from each OR version.

[ossie]

Should there be a Trainsim.com version of OR? Starting with whichever version that this community decides is already the best, and the only changes allowed being improvements as suggested in these pages?

I have to admit this thread has been a bit of an eye-opener for me. I'd always ASSUMED that the development team had if not an end goal in mind, certainly specific "mileposts" in terms of what they were wanting to achieve with each stable version. The impression I now have is that it's much more scattergun and that rather than being a release that had issues that needed to be fixed, 1.6 maybe points to a change in approach where rather than improve on and/or fix issues from the previous version and add new features, changes and additions are being made without consideration to backwards compatibility (not with MSTS but previous versions of ORTS) or specific "standards" that we'd become used to in earlier versions. Hopefully that isn't an unfair assessment on my behalf and if it is, please set me straight.

In terms of my major interest in the sim pretty much any version released up to and including 1.5 will keep me happy for the rest of my days but like many, I did have the hope that ORTS would continue to be tweaked, improved, modernised etc over the next few years by a group of people working with a common goal. I hope that still turns out to be the case.

If it doesn't, to (eventually) get back to David's point, do we have people here with the time and ability to create a "best of" version for TS.com? If so, what would that look like? For instance, the guys that post the MG screenshots always have me thinking I need to get a version of it up and running but how does it compare with content in 1.5 for instance? Are they compatible with each other and if we got a TS.com version, would that be a one-off version or if there are features in 1.7, 1.8 etc (if or when they are released) that are improvements/great new additions would they then need to be worked into new TS.com versions and who makes those decisions?

As a non-techie, those are just a few things that came to mind reading David's post. I like the idea but I'd also be interested to hear from those of you who understand programming etc as to how doable it is.

[dcarleton]

Start with the best version that is already out there, as decided by the members here, and put that into the library.

Then if anyone here wishes to add new code based on their own work or new code from the official version, they can compile a new edition of the Trainsim.com version including their changes to the code, and place that into the library as a beta.

If the new upload engenders praise, it stays in the library and eventually becomes the official Trainsim.com version. If however it gets shouted down, it comes out. One good reason why it might get shouted down is if it includes nice-to-have changes but doesn't improve gameplay or eye-candy.

[eric]

Should there be a Trainsim.com version of OR? Starting with whichever version that this community decides is already the best, and the only changes allowed being improvements as suggested in these pages?

Since I'm still on record as an ORTS team member, I don't want to jeopardize that by actively leading a mutiny. However... people are definitely free to collaborate here with developers who want to do some of those improvements.

What I'll caution is.... forks tend to wind up being a one-way street. And it's hard to put the feathers back into a pillow once you unstuff it and half of them have blown away.

[BrandonS261]

Thank you Eric for your honest opinion and I totally understand where you stand. It would just be nice if the rest of the development team thought like many of us here on Trainsim.

[pschlik]

It is incredibly disingenuous to act like the OR development team are opposed to y'all. Everything I've done has been in response to some specific demand from the community (and honestly, I think every change can be traced back to some request as freaking everything has been asked for at this point). I would not have touched superelevation at all if the TrainSimulations team hadn't repeated (they weren't the first!) the request for multiple track profiles and which had already gained a reputation as one of those "OR team won't do this" things.

I started working with superelevation effectively immediately after those posts were made. And that was pretty much all I did with OR for 6 months.

And what do I get? Superelevation dismissed as another one of those silly features that nobody uses (that is an exaggeration, not every response to superelevation has been dismissive). So, am I an asset to the community, finally moving the needle on something that's been asked for forever? Or am I just another stereotypical dev in my ivory tower doing whatever the hell I want and ignoring the community?

Whichever case it is, the development team cannot win (at least, not with everyone simultaneously). Does the next update not have a feature (whether or not the feature is actually being worked on)? "Devs are so stuck up they won't do what we want." Working on the feature but not done with all of the 1,000,000 edge cases that come with having 25 years of content to desperately try to maintain compatibility with? "Devs just break old content." Finally finish the feature and get it into a stable version? "Devs are so selfish only making features they want." Tacking on a "no disrespect to the devs" to a post doesn't suddenly counteract all that antagonism. I don't know about you all, but that doesn't sound like inviting working conditions. I wouldn't blame someone for skipping OR and using their skills on a different open source project.

[baldwin]

The various OR forks are there for specific reasons. The OR_CZ fork was developed specifically to cater for the CZ rail operations, and along the way they made improvements to various items of "eye candy". Far as I am aware it lags behind the main stream of the game in some aspects while being ahead in others.

The Monogame version started out as an attempt to get OR working with the Monogame engine and since has become a testing ground for more features before they move to the mainstream.

The mainstream has three versions, Stable, Unstable and Testing with the latter being out on the bleeding edge of development. All three now run on Monogame.

I can see no progress being gained by adding yet another fork specific to Trainsim.com, devs are thin on the ground.

[BrandonS261]

I first want to applaud you're efforts and thank you for all of the hard work you have put into OR. Yes it may seem like we are bashing the OR Development team but we are not and never meant for it to end up that way. My main question was trying to compare OR to other simulator software out there in today's modern age.

Yes Open Rails a huge step up from the MSTS days and yes it still has its flaws still in some areas but in other areas it is a fantastic simulator in many respects.

You're hard work over the years does not go un noticed and I honestly was curious why there were so many different OR versions out there that have different features in them and why some of the best features in all of the different versions have not all been implemented into one version?

That got a few of us thinking of a Trainsim version and it was only an idea and never something that someone wanted to implement.

Sure I have looked at the coding myself for OR but am too afraid to mess with it in fear of screwing it up. It seems fairly easy to figure out once you dig into it and do some research however.

I would love to be more involved in the testing and implementation of Open Rails in the future and see the Simulator grow.

My question is how do we go about that and how would we get some of the younger generation involved?

My intention was never to bash the development team and just to ask questions on the future of Open Rails but it seems like this forum has opened up a can of worms. Sure I have not been the nicest to the development team over the years but I do appreciate everything you have all done over the years. For Eric in keeping Trainsim alive for all of us to enjoy and for the creators who have worked countless hours on there own projects for all of us to enjoy.

That all being said there will always be limitations with Open Rails and not all of us will be happy no matter what the development team does. I can however tell you I am happy with what they have done so far and hope it continues into the future.

I am sorry if I hurt anyones feeling with anything I had said but I was only trying to shed some light on the future of Open Rails, the community and what they would like to see and where the developers stand on everything.

Brandon

[JSMR]

But hey - We've got Superelevation...! 😏
(which I never use)

Why not? Along with loco / cab movement, its such a visual enhancement i cant not use it.

[ossie]

I wouldn't blame someone for skipping OR and using their skills on a different open source project.

Firstly Phillip, thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts and while I can understand why it would feel that way to you, I really don't think anyone set out to take the opportunity to "bash the devs" just because they could. The damned if you do, damned if you don't factor exists daily in my work life and depending on which side of the fence you are on, I know reality can look very different.

In terms of ORTS, I've never had a discussion with any other user where gratitude for the work you guys have done hasn't been first and foremost and the understanding hasn't existed that you are a group of volunteers operating in your own time to produce ORTS updates when and as you can. From Brandon's first post onwards those points were repeated here. From your perspective though I'm sure that where that gratitude and understanding starts to pale is where our individual wants surface and how many of those you guys must get and the way in which some of it is expressed. I'm sure the real world railway employees have been keen to see the physics aspects etc improved, people like me that just like to look at and/or drive trains would like more "eye-candy" and the route and model builders are probably frustrated at limitations that impact how much detail they can get onto a model or onto a tile.

I said earlier in the thread I'm a rare visitor to ET so perhaps not knowing these things is my own fault if that information exists there, but I did raise the question of whether we should be coming to ET looking for information or whether a regular "updates from the devs" type thread here might be helpful. For instance, I'd be really interested to know if you guys have a end-game in mind, and what the path to it looks like. The lights issue is one that always comes up. Is it part of your plans, if so when, if not why? Is it simply not doable with the existing game engine for instance or could it potentially be incorporated if x, y & z happened first? Again assuming it doesn't already exist at ET, if you guys had the time and inclination a regular "this is what are currently working on" thread here would be appreciated, or even a Q&A type format where people could be asking questions about issues with 1.6 or perhaps volunteering their skills if you were highlighting areas you needed assistance with. That's just my 2 cents anyway.

Again, thank you for your post and as a community we are very grateful for the work you guys have done and continue to do with ORTS.

[dcarleton]

Why not? Along with loco / cab movement, its such a visual enhancement i cant not use it.

Nothing against superelevation, it works just fine. It's just that the routes that I run on most of the time were released well before superelevation was anticipated, and it just doesn't look correct on those routes. The inside of a curve may dig into the terrain, or the outside rail pops out of the level crossings; I find it more of a distraction than an enhancement on those routes. But then there are higher speed routes where the effect of the superelevation makes the experience much more real.

Actually, in real life, on routes where the traffic is mostly freights moving at moderate speeds the superelevation is not that noticeable. From this very chair I can see a double track mainline with a track speed of 30 mph. It's in a curve, and yet the superelevation is not perceptible.

Now the other feature mentioned, loco/cab movement, is absolutely indispensable - especially on the routes that I run on most of the time. Hats off to the OR development team for finding a way to implement both of these features so that they can be used separately or together.

[steamer_ctn]

ET is main communications interface for the OR project, so I would suggest that if you have input to the project that this is the place to offer it, as it is unrealistic for the OR team to monitor all the user forums that discuss OR or its derivatives.

This posting might be of interest.

[eric]

I agree. While discussion of ORTS is always welcomed and even encouraged, the management team and development team are hosted there. cjakeman does pop up here from time to time, but the brunt of activity takes place there in public --and-- private forums.

I don't normally do this, but last call for comments, folks. I've still got Ken Plaza's trusty padlock on my shelf, where it's polished and ready to deploy. He would have already used it.

Let's wind this thread up and move on to more productive discussions....