Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: TrainSimulations.net and MSTS Releases - Gauging Interest

  1. #1

    Default TrainSimulations.net and MSTS Releases - Gauging Interest

    Hi everyone,

    As many of you know, TrainSimulations moved new development to the Open Rails platform this past spring. We have had a lot of requests to bring back MSTS releases as well. The large part of the decision to move away from MSTS was the limitations of the platform, lack of support from MS, lack of functionality with Windows 10, and zero growth within that market. I understand that many of you have maintained loyalty to the MSTS platform, so I would like to ask the following:

    TrainSimulations would like to explore providing MSTS versions of their current and upcoming new releases. This would be primarily train packs, since our new route developments will simply not work in MSTS. These would be stand alone releases, separate from the OR releases. In other words, we will not be bundling OR and MSTS products together. Obviously, as end users, you will have to decide which of the products you want to buy. I can't guarantee that every trainset we do will be functional in MSTS at this time, either. Our latest release of the SD70ACe is about 57000 polys. Open Rails can handle that with no trouble, but the same may not be the case with MSTS. It may require a reduction of detail and/or simplification of the model. Is there a demand for this?

    Thanks,
    [email protected]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    387

    Default

    What your new routes will use if not MSTS/OR?

  3. #3

    Default

    Actually, we have started using TSRE for Open Rails route development Fantastic work Goku, one of the best, if not the best, tool ever developed for the MSTS/OR community. Thanks for doing it.

    Thanks,

    [email protected]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Eltham, Australia.
    Posts
    6,389

    Default

    Hi Jason,

    One of the other sites ran a poll asking for the primary simulator.
    If I remember correctly, OR ran at about 60%
    Given we now have Goku's route and activity editors, the potential is that more people can get into route and activity creation.

    I think that the focus must be on OR as it is the future.
    Cheers
    Derek

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    617

    Default

    I think your decision to fully utilise the advantages of Open Rails over MSTS for new content has been absolutely correct Jason. That said, if you do have a large enough percentage of your customers asking for MSTS compatible new content and you guys are willing to produce it within MSTS's limitations, that's a smart commercial decision.
    Cheers!
    Pete

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    Jason, I agree with Pete ( ossie ) with one addition, please seriously consider using OR native physics parameters in the new OR releases.
    For instance, the ORTSDieselEngines block, lighting blocks, ORTS Davis numbers and ORTS CurtiusKniffler numbers...they do make a difference.

    It's one thing to offer higher count models, thank you.
    A bigger step would be to implement OR native physics in the new releases. I have a self interest in less work for myself.
    Keep up the fine work...TS is one of a valued group of fine payware content providers for Open Rails.
    Cheers, R. Steele [Gerry] It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Savannah, Georgia, USA.
    Posts
    3,742

    Default

    Keep it Open Rails. There is a reason why we went from horse and carriage to the automobile.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by R. Steele View Post
    For instance, the ORTSDieselEngines block, lighting blocks, ORTS Davis numbers and ORTS CurtiusKniffler numbers...they do make a difference.
    Ultimately, that is the goal, but it's not quite clear how to implement those physics parameters, as of yet. I think it's something that requires tools and/or more documentation. If such things exist, well, I'd be really happy to be pointed in that direction.


    EDIT: I have been using Fcalc for years, and never knew about its ability to generate the Davis equation numbers, until just now. Well, that's one element of the physics you can expect going forward.
    Last edited by jdilworth; 10-23-2017 at 08:05 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Open Rails is the way to go.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bloomington, Indiana
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Jason showed a comprehensive list reflecting the state of MSTS, but ORTS also has its problems: mainly unfixed bugs and volunteer programmer turnover. Such is the world of open source, always, and it's tough to make money off it.

    I would ask the question, why the hardened decision not to bundle both ORTS and MSTS train set versions? Any particular reason?

    My latest trainsim purchases were for Valley Pass train sets, MSTS compatible, adaptable with extra work IF I want to run them in ORTS with satisfactory results.
    - FTLDave

    "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." - Wernher von Braun

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •