Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: New Train Simulator aimed at good physics and graphics!Help needed!

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SurvivorSean View Post
    Good help is hard to find, though I do have at least 1 on my forum who has been around my servers for years. Just for the record what I'm going after is not a train simulator, but it involves trains.

    I've been around since before MSTS as well. I've seen everything from the TD2 TD3 SIAM UKRailSim(I forget what it was but there was a north american content that had US searchlight signals) MSTS and eventually Run8 where I've been content for 6 years. Lately I've been getting restless and honestly it has little to do with Run8. Run8 is their project and their vision and they have their priorities.

    As far as Open Rails lots of cooks in that kitchen I take it? Besides I'm looking to have additional income, not to quit my job or get rich. It's great that so many people can come together etc. But for me personally I've been happy with my purchases and Run8 has done more for me in that 6 years than anything else could. For me personally (nothing else can touch it, at least right now).

    But the Run8 team had a very interesting story on why they did what they did, and 6 years later I'm in the same boat. I want to create, and yes despite my ancient programming skills I do know how to design and program. But knowing and being good is two different things, I'm a hobby programmer at best. But right now I'm within the limits of Run8. Be it the worlds, editors, and content. Program has come a long way, but it's also rendered RTS obsolete.

    Where abouts do you live? You said you like to meet in person? I'm not giving up my FT job. Considering I have a project of my own in mind I'm at risk for any NDA I sign. In fact if faced with it I'd require the developers to also sign an NDA on my project. Anyways it sounds like quite a bit of work.

    As someone pointed out in this thread we aren't getting any younger. This is a niche market and I'm not doing it as I said to quit my job. If this can give me the passion and meet my needs then I may be interested. Just remember RTS was programmed in Just Basic. I've never been a big fan of C, but I did program Commodore 64 assembly if that means anything My project is simpler and can likely launch this year with the right effort and knowledge with 1 programmer. At the moment I'm lacking some of that knowledge. If I'm lucky I may be able to do it myself all in UE4. Bottom line for me I need to see a supplemental income within 24 months or it's not worth the effort. Quite frankly I may not even be qualified with my lack of more recent experience.

    Best of luck in your project. If you think I can help, and this meets my needs then feel free to contact me.

    Thanks

    Sean
    Thanks for your interest, unfortunately, the sim isn't released yet and we thus don't have an income, so we cant pay you yet.
    When the game is released we could contact you again if you would like.
    Currently, we especially need someone that knows quite something about physics, and someone for content developing(or both)
    So if you have interest, we would love your help.
    We just can't pay you yet, and we don't know when we are able to.
    So pm me if you are still interested and we will discuss there

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lateagain View Post
    Eye Candy has been improved (or SHOULD have been) in releases by DTG. What software CAN deliver is not always what it DOES deliver?

    However there's SO much more to a good rail simulator than the graphics. Don't fixate on them too much.
    I completely, for us the most important factor is physics.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    3,020

    Default

    Didn't expect to be paid. I was just hoping the direction would take it so in a couple years we could expect revenue. But based on your current needs, I'm not qualified.

    Best of luck on your project.

    Thanks

    Sean

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SurvivorSean View Post
    Didn't expect to be paid. I was just hoping the direction would take it so in a couple years we could expect revenue. But based on your current needs, I'm not qualified.

    Best of luck on your project.

    Thanks

    Sean
    Ah, i see.
    But could you maybe elaborate a bit on your RTS thing?
    I looked at your site in your signature and you seem to want to build a train sim too in UE4.
    What is your progress on it or is it not going to happen/you haven't started yet?
    Maybe you could PM me with some more info, as i would be interested in what your ideas are and maybe help you on your way a bit.
    (Sorry if you already mentioned it in your first post, I must have read over it then.)

  5. #65

    Default

    Well open rails does need help with graphics. They do need graphics developers.

    Open rails is poised to make some major decisions around graphics and file formats for the future, but haven't really yet, for the most part. It's taken this long just to get the simulator really solid.

    They do seem to be ready to move to monogame, probably this year. I suspect it won't be long before there is a linex version too.

    I think you could form an open rails graphics team working the way you want and really push things to the next level. This would have the advantage of having the rest of the simulator details already taken care of and an existing team and structure for the long-term. Also you can keep compatibility with the old stuff to allow a strong foundation of having a lot of content but move to new file formats to support better graphics that will in time make the old obsolete but not handicap you by starting with no content.

    Actually, you could do that with your new simulator too - if you can make it load open rails routes and content as well as your new formats, you can have that same advantage. You'd still need new content to show off the new capabilities, but you would not have the problem of having "nothing" to run.

    Christopher

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conductorchris View Post
    Well open rails does need help with graphics. They do need graphics developers.

    Open rails is poised to make some major decisions around graphics and file formats for the future, but haven't really yet, for the most part. It's taken this long just to get the simulator really solid.

    They do seem to be ready to move to monogame, probably this year. I suspect it won't be long before there is a linex version too.

    I think you could form an open rails graphics team working the way you want and really push things to the next level. This would have the advantage of having the rest of the simulator details already taken care of and an existing team and structure for the long-term. Also you can keep compatibility with the old stuff to allow a strong foundation of having a lot of content but move to new file formats to support better graphics that will in time make the old obsolete but not handicap you by starting with no content.

    Actually, you could do that with your new simulator too - if you can make it load open rails routes and content as well as your new formats, you can have that same advantage. You'd still need new content to show off the new capabilities, but you would not have the problem of having "nothing" to run.

    Christopher
    I see, well I am sure there are other people out there wanting to help improving Open Rails graphics.
    I already am working on my own simulator, so i will continue doing that.

    It would indeed be a good idea to use msts/open rails files as a starting point for graphics, but that would need a lot of research on what each parameter in .eng files does and what the structure of a .s is.
    But it is something we will consider.

    I will mainly work on our own Simulator, but if Open Rails needs some help/information on file structure ideas, handling object and other graphics/loading and saving stuff, I can help them a bit.
    Just send me a PM.
    I btw. Can't help with everything as i don't have the time and willingness to spit through the whole source.
    And if i may give them a suggestion:
    I think you can better start a new project, and create it piece by piece so you are sure graphics wise thing will work.
    And then take pieces of the old source as you are developing further instead of modifing it all at once in the current code and then find out you made an error somewhere and can start debugging everything.


    edit:
    And i found this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jID9ELROp0
    Those trains look pretty impressive for Open Rails already, especially compared to when i played Open Rails.
    Last edited by timl132; 01-18-2018 at 03:24 PM.

  7. #67

    Default

    They are DBtracks system, best in class.
    http://msts-tiefbau.de/

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA, USA.
    Posts
    3,303

    Default

    Unless your objective is to match DTG's run around the Christmas tree caliber physics I think you'll find doing real physics is much harder than you expect. Anybody with decent technical skills can figure out a game loop and graphics calls but getting the trains across the railroad as-if they are actually heavy and being pulled by real power is quite another matter entirely.
    Dave Nelson

    Seldom visiting, posting less often that that.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Not to mention all the adhesion variables - rain, wind, leaves on the line, gradients, quirks of individual locos whether run down or in prime ex-overhaul condition. One sim years ago actually simulated the rate of failure if you ragged the loco too much, i.e. constantly pushing into the upper yellow sector on the ammeter or hitting the overload trip if in the red sector too long, the performance and reliability during the run would gradually decline or the loco fail completely at some point!
    Vern.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muskokaandtahoe View Post
    Unless your objective is to match DTG's run around the Christmas tree caliber physics I think you'll find doing real physics is much harder than you expect. Anybody with decent technical skills can figure out a game loop and graphics calls but getting the trains across the railroad as-if they are actually heavy and being pulled by real power is quite another matter entirely.
    No, we are certanly not planning on having DTG like physics.

    @nothernwarior, yes, we are planning on having physics that will include all/most of these variables you mention.

Posting Permissions

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