Bin

[OTTODAD]

M$ releasing the code of MSTS which does not include the MSTSBin improvements George has made would be of little use and the changes he has made binary there is no English language compiler code for anybody to work with.

What is needed is a new train simulator which instead of being backward compatible with MSTS is being coded for the latest graphics and multi-processors technology, which I think is what the ORTS team are aiming for, but still allowing some backward compatibility with MSTS, in particular it's now DB-Tracks which a tracks layer like used by TRAINZ and TS-2012 just can not create switches with to look and function as real as the DB-Tracks ones.

Some of the MSTS functions code could be used, providing that it has been modified to perform as it should have done from the start of MSTS.

I think that this is what M$ tried to do with their MS-TS-2 and Kuju did when creating their Rail Simulator, RS.com is now having problems with trying to drag some of the original RS code into TS-2012 ?

O t t o

[GoGoran]

Any train simulator without full backwards compatibility to MSTS is useless. And thankfully, the OR developpers know this.

[asmith46]

Any train simulator without full backwards compatibility to MSTS is useless. And thankfully, the OR developpers know this.

HALLElUIA ,

I'm going to check out OR ASAP. An entirely new Train Simulator, without use of my $100's of dollars already spent money for MSTS upgrades would be useless and definitely not possible for me. Thanks and keep going.

Al

[OTTODAD]

Any train simulator without full backwards compatibility to MSTS is useless.

You mean for existing users of MSTS ?

Neither TRAINZ, BVE nor Railworks requires anything MSTS !

O t t o

[GoGoran]

You mean for existing users of MSTS ?

Neither TRAINZ, BVE nor Railworks requires anything MSTS !

O t t o

And that's why RW, Trainz, etc. have no appeal whatsoever for me and thousands of users who have, over the course of the last ten years, invested literally thousands of hours studying MSTS and downloading and installing routes and rolling stock and activities, or gone about creating their own stuff. All that invested time and all the precious models, routes, objects, activities etc. would go to waste without full backward compatibility.

[OTTODAD]

Each of these train simulators has something the others have not and using all of them I get the best of what there is.

I have been working on MSTS routes since 2002 and my GOLD-SPIKE-X route is looking good in ORTS and will look even better after ORTS has made the display of distant mountains possible.

As for backward ORTS compatibility read this: http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthr...48#post1744348

O t t o

[asmith46]

Otto, do you not see the point here? People have spent thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars trying to make MSTS work just right for them. Why would they give all the good stuff up which they have worked so hard to assemble for a pipe dream they cannot be assured will even work?

Al

[mikephfl]

I definitely think any good successor to MSTS needs to be backward compatible. I like the way OR is planning new physics, same file name with differnet extension. Then OR and MSTS can coexist with each reading it's own file type. I have way too much rolling stock and engines, not to mention 1000's of hours building my route. I'm not giving all the up unless the new simulator just blows the doors off everything else, but I don't see that happening. My plan is to go with OR when it's finished.

[longiron]

I definitely think any good successor to MSTS needs to be backward compatible. I like the way OR is planning new physics, same file name with differnet extension. Then OR and MSTS can coexist with each reading it's own file type. I have way too much rolling stock and engines.

Plus a set of tools to make it really easy to "convert" from MSTS to OR plus allow the community to add the required new parameters in a single step. This is tremendously important to establish a consistent and understandable format for the new OR files, so the community understands what goes where and why. We are trying to minimize problems, inconsistencies and things done out of ignorance - going forward.

[OTTODAD]

Otto, do you not see the point here? People have spent thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars trying to make MSTS work just right for them. Why would they give all the good stuff up which they have worked so hard to assemble for a pipe dream they cannot be assured will even work?

I do see the point but being happy with MSTSBin / DB-Tracks now, having spent 10 years perfecting some of it myself, am not concerned with other train simulators being able to use all of what it is capable of and add to it graphically and functionally.

If one will be able to let me carry on using what I have then fine and if not look forward to knocking a new one into shape like what I am doing with Railworks !

Variety is the spice of life, I don't have much left of !

O t t o