American Content or Lack Thereof

[R. Steele]

.. adoption of Include() file standards...

This is a good point. There is an abundance of excellent models for MSTS ( ..yes, I agree, we could do with brand-new models made exclusively for OR ) and the include file standards provides an easy method to convert them to OR standards of physics and behavior.
People are slow to embrace it, once they do understand the concept, the modular design proves to be easy to use and makes the change over a lot less work.

The benefits are readily apparent, even to a beginner like myself (joined here & at ET barely 5 years ago) - the simulation approaches real world physics...much more realistic. I've been using the same machine ( I do need a vid card update ) for the past 5 years, and I have been running the same activities/same routes over&over again, they are getting closer to what I have been led to expect from reading the threads written by those with 1:1 experience.

Of course, I have to factor in that my experience with the simulator and my understanding of how trains work (brakes, resistance/adhesion, traction, operating principles - etc.) has also moved further along the learning curve...5 years of persistence pays off.
Added to that is the generous assistance provided by others in the community. Thanks to all of those folks.
Dave for one has been writing about the include file standards for years (literally!) now.

Now I'm not denying that this is work to convert to the existing equipment to include file standards to take advantage of OR native physics, but is not that supposed to be part of the enjoyment of this hobby?

There is much more acceptance of OR in the IR community and European rail communities...

One last thing...a five year commitment is nothing compared to the depth of commitment both Eric and Dave have...years++, if not a lifetime...and the many others I have had the pleasure to work with and have email conversations with.
Something to consider...is how to attract and welcome new users to the community...I don't think fascination with trains will be disappearing anytime soon.

[slipperman]

Hi,
Yesterday, while looking for some stock, I happened across an Indian MSTS site which openly allows the user to download MSTS from a torrent site. Maybe this is one of the reasons for the proliferation of add-ons?
In the interests of research, I checked it out - the user gets v1.0, but the same site offers a .rar file containing all the required updates, and more!

Cheers,
Ged

[CPTrainman59R]

A few years ago i downloaded a file pack that contained additional files to make a complete fleet of CPR diesels, more than 20 if I remember. I have always wondered why programmers make a engine that someone else had already made of the same unit number of the other file. It' not as if a class of engine did not have other unit numbers to use. Even the payware producers are guilty of this! Tiger trains & Ed's trains put out a series of 50+ hoppers that look fantastic as unit trains. Supplying a series of addition files to add new or more unit numbers of a car or engine you have spent so much time making just seems more rewarding than making duplicate unit numbers made by some one else. A group of additional unit number to make more cars changing the unit numbers only would be nice instead of looking up a certain number unit & have the file library show you more than one unit of that number & railway, each made by a different programmer. If that can be done then why don't these builders do that and change the unit number if it is already there before they upload to the library. How hard is it if you follow the instructions DW puts out to make drive able engines of there trailing units. Duplicating & adding a new Ace file to make more cars would make a bunch of happy campers I believe!

Rick

[NorthernWarrior]

Sadly you can see what is wrong with the MSTS/OR scene and this community (I use the term loosely) in a couple of threads that have appeared asking for help today.

First of all the guy gets browbeaten if not outright bullied that he should be using Open Rails not MSTS, well if he's having issues with an MSTS route that references MSTS content then he's still going to need it in MSTS to run it! I am starting to view Open Rails like one of those dodgy religious cults, that come round the doorstep to try and purvey their particular brand of the Sky Fairy. If it's that good, people will come to you... (Or replace religious nutters with double glazing salesman).

Then the guy gets firmly put in his place, pretty much called an idiot and must be left thinking... why the hell did I even bother posting here?

I'm the last person to tolerate fools gladly, but if residual MSTS and OR are to gain any ground versus the new sims, the attitude of some people on these boards is not helping.

[pwillard]

Truth is Vern, we've always had some of that and its caused some people to take it personally, leave and never come back.

The golden rule of "forums" is Basically... ASK, HELP or Provide Some Guidance. There is no place for negative emotions, ego, curmudgeonliness... The "I'm better than you", "You are dumb", or "Why don't you know this already" type comments are just the people who should have walked away from the keyboard versus typing in a reply.

I have no idea who is still selling shrink wrap copies of MSTS... but if they exist... maybe it should be pointed out in a Sticky.

If we have bullies... we need to call out the bullies. This is they way it was in 2001... and its the way it should still be now.

And MOST of all... if someone made new content that is a duplicate of what has already been made... so what? There are so many people trying to make SLI "Western" diesels be dressed up like "Eastern" diesels that I say "Thats enough proof that more than one option is OK".

Yes, I made the first articulated hose tank train... Did I make the best one? Heck no. Did It bug me me someone else did? Heck no. So lets not stifle *any* new content. People will make what they are interested in.

Heck, I personally can only make what I actually have plans for and my budget for new drawing references has empty coffers. For now... I'm just remaking my OLD stuff so it will look better in OR.

[qballbandit]

"People will make what they are interested in."

What's more Pete, is that nobody is forcing anyone to download it! I don't get the animosity tagged to this subject either.

[R. Steele]

[I]...I don't get the animosity tagged to this subject either.

me neither, it's another ---

[MsSheare]

"People will make what they are interested in."

What's more Pete, is that nobody is forcing anyone to download it! I don't get the animosity tagged to this subject either.

Honestly i don't know either people will do what they like and want. I am trying to fill in some gaps with some cars and railroads I never get see made. I will try to do my best in painting cars for everyone. It is the only way we can survive.

[lateagain]

Hi,
[ATTACH=CONFIG]73906[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]73907[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]73908[/ATTACH]

From this dainty Reading 0-4-0, thru the L&NE and CNJ 0-8-0's to the Erie's 0-8-8-0's (they had 3), not 1 Freight Camelback. Built to run on the culm from the Anthracite mines, to keep up steam pressure they required the oversize firebox.

Hi Geoff, I thought that's what you meant, improved models of things already made, but I thought this a good opportunity to present that for some, we don't have it all.
Doug Relyea

I'm with you on what could still be made.

Love Camelbacks. They have to one of THE most bizarre ideas ever. Thank goodness for unions??? The driver roasted and the fireman froze!!!!!

My understanding of the large fireboxes was to facilitate burning anthracite. Most of the roads that had loco's burning this had plenty of conventional models with the massive fireboxes so I guess the "Camelback Solution" was actually a design that proved to be NOT the best way to solve that problem. Still "Health and Safety" aside I'm with you for as many models of them as possible.

Trouble is of course that as I'm in my early 70's now and remember Steam "FOR REAL" in the UK I have to remember that you'd have to be 10-15 years older to remember that in the US. There are some advantages to being old? LOL! How sad for the youngsters nowadays to have only GEVO's and Class66's (UK) to witness in action?

One of the things that really got me interested about the sadly defunct MSTS2 was that there were going to be PRR "kettles". Lovely shots of the K4 ....sadly never to be

[ebnertra000]

...How sad for the youngsters nowadays to have only GEVO's...

It's become a bit of a joke here, if a bit unpleasant. Something like "You've been gevo'd!" or "You've angered the Railroading Gods". At 23, I can remember the good 'ol days of SD40-2s, SD60Ms, and geeps, back when dash 9s were still a bit rare. Steam is cool and all, but I've always fancied first and second gen diesel. The local line still plays host to some old stuff semi-regularly, a welcome break. To each their own, I suppose. No matter what someone makes, someone else will like it

[MsSheare]

It's become a bit of a joke here, if a bit unpleasant. Something like "You've been gevo'd!" or "You've angered the Railroading Gods". At 23, I can remember the good 'ol days of SD40-2s, SD60Ms, and geeps, back when dash 9s were still a bit rare. Steam is cool and all, but I've always fancied first and second gen diesel. The local line still plays host to some old stuff semi-regularly, a welcome break. To each their own, I suppose. No matter what someone makes, someone else will like it

Anything past a SD60 SD70 doesn't do anything for me. they all look the same and that is kinda boring. Yet people can say the same thing about 2nd Generation EMD. Yet these units you were actually able to tell who owned it by the headlight designs class lights or Pyle lights. Also I don't find the new locomotives beautiful but rather plain and well dull.

[drelyea]

Hi Geoff,

The wide fireboxes with end cab came after the Camelbacks were outlawed. ( Though the Matt Shay was originally built as an End Cab ) The camelback cab required less material for the control linkages, and fewer joints and bends.

There aren't many pictures about, but there were full length curtains that could be installed for the sides of the Fireman's platform.

They were outlawed for the safety of the Engineer, by the State legislatures at first and then the USRA when it was formed, but only for new construction. CNJ had some rebuilds sitting in standby into the 50's. (No fire, capped stacks)

The real safety issue was broken rods and broken tires. More likely as not, they would come up thru the floor of the Engineer's cab and kill or severely maim the Engineer.

Yes, the renders of the models for Kuju's MSTS2 were incredible for that time. The ability to make animated people and stuff with what became TurboSquid with the version from ACES was even more appealing to me. As well as what appeared to be procedural turnouts.

Doug Relyea

[pwillard]

As a kid, I lived about a mile from a railroad station that serviced passengers and freight. The engines are all electric at the time with overhead wire and pantographs but the switcher/shunter was a beautiful Italian 2-6-2 that would travel down to be right at eye level on the elevated burm (2 stories high and level with the bedroom window of our apartment) so I would get an unobstructed view of all the activity. Truly a joy to watch (and hear) in action.

[drelyea]

Hi,

"What's more Pete, is that nobody is forcing anyone to download it! I don't get the animosity tagged to this subject either."

Are Y'all telling me this isn't lurking behind your Monitors?



(Original artists' credits at bottom of image)

Though in my case, mine says Make instead of Download.

Doug Relyea

[pwillard]

That seriously made me smile.