Proposal RC1: Route Specification and Description Frm

[LawrenceKellie]

Please review and provide any last suggestions before this is "officially" sent to Nels. Thanks. Lawrence

[H1]Proposal RC1*: Route Specification and Description Forum[/h1]

[h2]Introduction[/h2]

[h3]Need for Proposal[/h3]

Microsoft Train Simulator (MSTS) was released a little over a year ago, and several route-building pioneers emerged to create routes. The early pioneers, as the pioneers of any country/land, found this new "land" to be fraught with challenges--the Route Editor (RE) being the greatest. How could routes be built with such a tool?

Notwithstanding such a tool, routes were released--with Michael Vone's Cliff Hanger Route being the first, original, released route. Now there are 133 items listed under the Routes section of the www.trainsim.com file library, and many more routes are available in locations around the world. Even a cursory perusal of the Route forum will show that more are in the works.

At the time of the early, route-building pioneers, the routes were few, and releases were infrequent.

Today, however, that is not the case. Because the route downloads are significantly larger than non-route downloads, it has become apparent that more factual information is required than either the short description in the file library or the "promotions" by the route builder. Therefore, over the course of several weeks, discussions have occurred in the Route Design forum about how that information can be presented.

This proposal is a result of those discussions.

[h3]Goal of Proposal[/h3]

The goal of this proposal is to provide information--factual, objective information--about a route to any and all visitors to http:\\www.trainsim.com, so that the visitor can make a better determination about the route he/she would like to download. Further, it is the goal of this proposal to NOT be a rating tool, and all attempts at making it a rating tool will be thwarted.

[h3]Who Proposal Aimed at[/h3]

This proposal is aimed at route developers, users, and the person(s) posting the information.

For the route developers, they will provide the information about their respecive routes. Route developers' participation is strictly and totally voluntary, and no judgment will be made on those route developers who choose not to participate. Route developers can also request that the information about their route be modified or removed from the listing, again, without fear of reprisal. Route developers do NOT have to have their route in the http:\\www.trainsim.com file library in order to use this service.

For the user, this proposal makes available factual information which can assist in determining whether or not the user would like to download the route.

For the person posting the information, this proposal aims to make his/her job as low-maintenance, low time-consuming as possible; basically, cut and paste the information. The person posting has the right and task to edit the material for readibility and length.

[h2]Proposal[/h2]

[h3]Where Store the Route Information[/h3]

We propose that a new, locked, information-only-type forum, titled "Route Specification and Description Forum" be opened at the http:\\www.trainsim.com forums. This forum will be moderated by Macster and Nels, with one or two other people having access to posting information. Therefore, only three or four people will be able to "post" in this forum. It is desired to have persons other than Macster and Nels to post, as Macster and Nels are quite busy enough without having to take on the responsibilities of this proposal.

[h3]How Route Developers Submit Information[/h3]

Prominently displayed in the Route Specification and Description Forum will be the e-mail address to submit entries. At least the one or two posting individuals will have access to that mailbox, with Macster and Nels optionally having access.

[h3]Nature of Information Stored at New Forum[/h3]

The information stored at the new forum will be factual information that is provided by the route developer of a route. No other person will be able to provide information about that route, however, the posting individuals will have the right and task to edit the material for readability and length. It is requested that the information provided be information answering the following "questions":

[ul][li]Name of Route

[li]Description (~100 words or less)

[li]Installation Method

[li]Size of Download

[li]Size of Installed Route

[li]Fictional or Prototypical Operations

[li]Freight or Passenger

[li]Era or Genre

[li]Location

[li]Lenght of Mainline

[li]Length of Branches

[li]Number of Branches

[li]Number of Sidings

[li]Number of Yards

[li]Mixture of Dual and Single Track

[li]Level of Detail

[li]Percent of Scenery Completed

[li]FPS Specs, with qualifiers

[li]Activities Provided

[li]Non-Default Consists or Rolling Stock Required in Activities

[li](Edited) Add-In Track Sets: Xtracks required, compatible with v3.2 or later

[li](Edited) Tsection.dat file used: Standardized Tsection.dat, release 00008 or later

[li]URL for More Information and Screenshots

[li]Known Problems

[li]Where it can be downloaded[/ul]

Route developers are not REQUIRED to provide any information; however, all information provided will be put into the above format.

[h2]Conclusion[/h2]

It is the hope and desire of all the participants, be they route developers or route downloaders, that this proposed forum and program will provide the needed information that is currently lacking.

End of Proposal

*Release Candidate 1

[zhivago47]

I think it is perfect just the way you have it.......Great job and I hope the rest of the community will approve as well.......I see no reason not to.......Its time has come. We need it......as you say there are so many routes out there now it is becoming impossible to decide which ones to use.........if we all had two 100gb harddrives on our computers it wouldn't matter much but there is no way to have more than 6 or 7 routes at a time and have the space for them.......

Again, thanks for the work you are putting into it.......and I propose you be one of the ones with access to the forum........Most people trust your judgement......and you have been here a long time......

Anyway, good luck and I hope it flies with Nels and all of the route developers.........

Tim

http://www.trainsim.com/dcforum/User...6059074286.jpg
The Spur Line
http://tahunter.net/thespurline
Appalachia RR - Midwest & Rocky Mountain RR - ADFRR Route

[robertreedy]

Aye, aye, Sir! One solid vote here! :-)

[level10]

Very nice idea. Just three thoughts for now:

1) Concerning the listing of non-default items, please include a section where the developer can supply links to WHERE any non-default items were obtained. Not all of the non-default stuff comes from the Trainsim file library.

2) This might be pushing it but what about inclusion of an optional zip file with the non-default stuff available for download, only if no copyrights are violated and the original author doesn't prohibit it.

3) This format could be used (with modifications where appropriate) to locomotives, activities, custom scenery, track objects, and especially utilities.

I hope all of the great contributors here decide to adopt this principle when creating the documentation for their creative efforts. As a very greatful and happy user, to all you developers, keep up the good work!

[mivone]

As before, I am all in favor of this plan: please go ahead, and thanks very much for organizing it!

Three points:

1) Thanks for the plug of my Cliff Hanger Route, but: I think Chris Cyko beat me to it by a day or so! He upgraded his route later, removing the first version, so that Cliff Hanger is now the "oldest" route file at Train-Sim.com. Rather than getting into arguments about "which route was first", why don't you simply skip this point!

2) About the "percentage of scenery completed": how do we measure that? What does "completed" mean? I am afraid that this cannot be answered: in Albula 2 I am laying footpaths, but I am still missing all the flowers, lizards, mosquitoes and pebbles, so it is very far from "complete". The question about Level of Detail should suffice to address this issue, in my opinion.

3) I am not in favor of quoting FPS: when I see such numbers quoted, I don't know what do with them, because I have no idea how to convert them to my PC, and because they depend on so many factors. But I don't mind if others supply that information: I just don't know how to use it.

Michael Vone
Step by Step Guide to Route Building for MSTS - http://trainsimulatorworld.com/catalog/b470.htm
Albula Line Route
Rocky Islands Route
Cliff Hanger Route
http://avsim.com/hangar/utils/mvchallenges/

[chuckzeiler]

Another item to consider is where the DETAIL sliders and other options are set. I can drop 4 FPS just by turning on the Dynamic Shadows. I recall there was some discussion about the detail of bridges in Bill Burnett's Sea View 2 route, which was based on the slider settings.

[mttcrlsn]

I am in favor of a set of standards for routes and this looks like a good start. First to make everyone aware I like to speak my mind and sometimes it takes a moment for me to get my point understandable. I apologized in advance if I may at times sound rough as that is not my intentions.

In the coming months of this winter I hope to be more active with MSTS. I already have a start on the Bluffs & Rivers route which is the tracks along the Mississippi River from St. Paul, MN to Savanna, IL with tracks going to Portage, WI as well (terrain teraforming is almost complete for the 400+ miles). Along with this will be some paintjobs of engines and cars for this area (BNSF, CP, UP, CNW, SOO, MILW, BN, DME, IMRL, IC…)

Now for my comments and confused questions to the detail section.

1. FPS - I my option this is worthless as no two computers will have the same results even if the hardware is identical. This comes from experience as a network specialist and testing that I have done with MSTS using various parts for computers I build. I really see no point in FPS numbers except for the designer to use them as a "benchmark" to suggest the need or lack thereof for fast computers.

2. Percent of Scenery (or percent of anything) Complete. Nothing is ever complete. Percentages are based on a total possible done divided by actual done. I would suggest that for the scenery completed maybe have miles or tiles with mostly scenery completed followed by miles or tiles total.

3. Installation Method - Is this needed and what would go here for the details?

4. Freight or Passenger - Ditto on #3. What is meant by this subject?

5. Length of Branches - Okay how the heck would this be calculated? What is the definition of a Branch as compared to a mainline?

6. Mixture of Dual and Single Track - What is meant by this subject? Why is it needed? What would go here for the details?

7. Level of Detail – Isn’t this scenery?

8. What about a version and release date of the route?

9. Fictional or Prototypical Operations, Freight or Passenger – Suggest replace both these with one subject Theme. Example;

Theme: Prototype – based on railroad along the upper Mississippi River

10. What about a grade profile subject. Example;

Grade Profile: Most flat grades less than .75%. Maximum mainline grade of 1% Sparta to Tunnel City eastbound.


So far this looks to be a very good start.

[LawrenceKellie]

Please see http://www.trainsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/6202.html for some background.

Lawrence

[LawrenceKellie]

Please note that these are guidelines to the route builder to answer. The need seen for these guidelines is to help the user have more information *before* spending time (and money) downloading huge files.

There is no way that we can ever get everything that someone wants. However, out of all the previous discussions, these points have come up as ones that would be good to have.

I will now respond, with alacrity I hope, to some questions.

level10: Non-default equipment. If you have been reading the other forums, the message is coming loud and clear to document these types of things. About using this format for anything in the file library, yes, it could. However, since a route is at least 10+ times the size, several have stated it would be nice for the user to have this information before downloading.

Mivone: First route. Point taken, will be removed. Percent scenery, certainly, nothing is ever "done." That's not the point. The point here is does it have scenery or not, or is it just blank terrain with track. A good example of this is David Klem's IC project. The fact that a route developer feels that more or different scenery needs to be added to a route is not the point. We all "tweak" the routes. Regarding FPS. Certainly there are lots of factors. However, if showing that on a fairly robust computer you are only getting 1-4 FPS, that would certainly show important information. Again, using David Klem's IC route as an example, in the last update he cautioned that an area of the route now brought certain computers to there knees. This is the type of information being asked.

chuckzeiler: Absolutely. See above on my response to Mivone.

mttcrlsn: Again, FPS, see above for Mivone. There is not ANY benchmark, in my opinion, that can be *absolutely* correct. There is always room for error. The same here. However, as I mentioned above to Mivone, it is a guideline. Percent Scenery--asked and answered. Installation Method--this is a very important point, and reading the background to this project will shed light on it. All other points are considered.

Thanks, all, for the comments.

Lawrence

ps. Sniper once said that Nels said getting route developers to agree on anything is like herding cats! I agree. :) However, I think that we have made a significant step and we can lead this community in providing more information to users before spending time (and money) downloading huge files. :) lrk

[DRGWK36]

Lawrence - good proposal. Thanks for all the work you've sunk into this. I think it's a great idea and will be very helpful. I agree with your responses to the comments. Let's not get too tied up in the numbers for things like % scenery completed. I'd suggest something more qualitative - none, scant, trees only, partial, full, etc. Either that or limit it to ranges - 0-25%, 25-50%, etc.

Beyond that, I have no comments. I vote we go with it pretty much as it is. Nothing's perfect, and trying to get there will only keep us from having anything. There's an adage in engineering, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Let's toss this puppy out there and let it swim!

Andy