Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78

Thread: Long Train Operation

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Backwards compatibility is important, but is not 100% ecompassing nor should it be forever. There has to be some form of obsolescence planning involved, pathways to move users away from obsolete and unusable material. Already we have route design techniques that when optimized for Open Rails make the routes unplayable in MSTS. Same goes for activities. Activities are designed today that use features in open rails that make them unplayable in MSTS. New payware rolling stock being assembled from former MSTS multi-part shapes and produced now as one-piece shapes that exceeds MSTS capabilities.

    In another thread, Randy stated he only uses 4 GB of his 30 GB TRAINSET folder. He found out that 87% of that 30 GB was unused, most of it likely comprised of abandoned or unsupported freeware. He did the responsible thing and actually analyzed and managed his TRAINSET folder. I have a hard time supporting perpetual compatibility with a bunch of unused material just to accommodate those who are lazy and feel exempt from applying the same analysis. There has to be a mechanism to slowly peel away from past.

    ORTS has lost more users to new sim franchises that came along simply because it has not moved fast enough to escape the MSTS gravitational pull of limitations.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csantucci View Post
    In my opinion refinements and improvements in OR shouldn't require changes in pre-existing rolling stock to continue using it as usual. If these refinements and improvements require such changes, they should either subject to option checkboxes or should become operational only if additional parameters are inserted in the .wag and .eng files. Backwards compatibility is important IMHO.
    100 percent this!
    Call me lazy all you want, but some here have zero clue about actual life versus a video game, and it shows.

    Some people moved on from ORTS not just because it's taking time to step away from MSTS, but because it is a hassle with all this updates and upgrades one has to do.
    Most want plug and play, and I don't blame them. That's why I often run Train Sim World when I just want to relax, versus get frustrated that yet again I need to update my rolling stock and engines, for them to still work.

    When you spend numerous hours on a project, for it to become obsolete, to me that's a slap to the face to all those still trying to provide rolling stock and engines for the community.

    Shrugs.
    -Shawn Kelley-
    Retired ORTS/MSTS Content Creator
    Conductor - Eastern Maine Railway
    Probably on everyone's ignore list by now.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSRX View Post
    When you spend numerous hours on a project, for it to become obsolete, to me that's a slap to the face to all those still trying to provide rolling stock and engines for the community.
    100 percent that!

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSRX View Post
    100 percent this!
    Call me lazy all you want, but some here have zero clue about actual life versus a video game, and it shows.

    Some people moved on from ORTS not just because it's taking time to step away from MSTS, but because it is a hassle with all this updates and upgrades one has to do.
    Most want plug and play, and I don't blame them. That's why I often run Train Sim World when I just want to relax, versus get frustrated that yet again I need to update my rolling stock and engines, for them to still work.

    When you spend numerous hours on a project, for it to become obsolete, to me that's a slap to the face to all those still trying to provide rolling stock and engines for the community.


    Shrugs.
    Quote Originally Posted by CSRX View Post
    Real life, you do the same dang thing on a daily basis, waiting for air to pump.
    So you want a video game, not a simulation, with MSTS is a game, ORTS is closer to the real deal, with a few minor irritating issues that are bit unrealistic at the moment.

    As mentioned, don't want to wait, hit the "Shift ?" button combo.

    Anyways, I need to buy a few more items from TS.
    Puzzling, contrary views, take a breath hoss. I can't fathom what you would find acceptable, all the models you've graciously repainted or provided still work for me, nothing is obsolete. I suppose the case is, when the issues become irritating to you, then they become a reason for complaint?

    Anyway all this is quite a ways from the point of the thread.

    Which was:
    If you are operating long trains, then you will be interested in potential derailment issues, and your trains will need to be marshalled appropriately.

    Open Rails supports derailment detection, and this feature is demonstrated in the mini route described here -

    http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...51#entry278251

    The scenarios described are based upon actual Accident Reports describing derailments.
    I can see Carlo's point about:
    If these refinements and improvements require such changes, they should either subject to option checkboxes or should become operational only if additional parameters are inserted in the .wag and .eng files.
    steamer_ctn has posted about having the derailment parameters apply only to advanced physics, not simple physics...which is more in the plug and play area.

    Perhaps you should direct your energies to asking if that can be accomplished? I'm finished.
    Cheers, Gerry
    It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.
    Forever, ridin' drag in railroad knowledge.


  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Torino, Italy.
    Posts
    880

    Default

    I'd add that there is further way to provide backwards compatibility while not renouncing at more accurate physics calculations, and that is the Experimental Option "Correct questionable braking parameters", which could be extended to "Correct questionable physics parameters". What this option does is to check at runtime some .eng parameters and, if they are outside reasonable ranges, which can occur quite frequently for old rolling stock, to correct them on the fly (only in memory) so that such rolling stock runs as it should under these more accurate physics calculations. This of course can't cover 100% of the cases, or provide very precise substitutions, but it can give a good contribution to keep old stock usable without re-engineering effort.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,423

    Default

    No matter how you try to spin it against me Gerry, ORTS is still a computer game.
    While backwards compatibility still works at the moment, and most of my equipment still works at the moment, there will be a day it doesn't. To be honest as well, updating current items I plan to release, versus not updating some of the older models that still look really great in the sim (older NEPS stuff) you can tell they act differently than the current standards of ORTS.

    So again, when one puts in hours for something to become obsolete, that's frustrating, and makes it understandable on why so many have moved onto plug and play games versus trying to constantly work on something just to enjoy running it.
    -Shawn Kelley-
    Retired ORTS/MSTS Content Creator
    Conductor - Eastern Maine Railway
    Probably on everyone's ignore list by now.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Alhambra Sub MP 484/ Southern California
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Its a mixed feeling when it comes to updating stock on an on as ORTS updates the code but when new features come out I can understand the frustrations. Heck I am afraid to make new releases just because everyday I feel something is missing or am waiting on a better feature or something that needs tweaking or/and its just I am too busy working on a real Class 1 railroad taking my sim time away (but proud to be single lol). I have new spines an autoracks in the works but I don't feel comfortable because some features was missing but now in the works which is this topic. Other thing awaits bug fixes and tweaks is in the coupler code dealing with long cushion slack without the need of extra wag files even though its no problem to have some stocks remain with multiple wag files for one wagon as I have seen real stuff matching my idea like a pulled out drawbar instead of its knuckle breaking and even a pin cracking. But me I mix out coupler strengths by the few thousands an tonnage formula ratings bonus as it has always annoyed me in ORTS everything with same rating the 1st out car always broke instead of cars back so some couplers need to have some steroids or be the weakest link.

    But my opinion for those that dislike ORTS team putting efforts out there providing constant testing builds an new features to public instead of their selves like other game/simulation platforms that only put new features yearly where you gotta buy to try an wait next time or years not given new lives for original.... Accept or un accept the changes or help improve if you see something wrong an not bash because you have no motivation to tweak or add the features of parameters. With route riter eng/wag editor I at times have a less timely matter editing or adding to packs of repaints of the same configuration or exact similar shapes with just repaints.

    I agree some check and un check options need to be in the options but way I look at it now in none lazy way with changing or adding features to stock is like the real railroading deal of different crafts fixing issues with engines/wagons or adding something new. So what we need now is a sim version of the FRA to qualify new/old or upcoming releases payware or freeware up to todays an future ORTS standards an give new lives to pre releases in a team like manner? Some may not like it an some may like it but its like offers, as I have in the past had a number of freeware authors respond but then not respond showing obviously no interest of updates an improvements I did to a past release getting new live or you can say makeover oh because they feel some type of way of their old release showing or running that age. I get doubtful of my works too but I update to my interest if I have to or want to. But like I mentioned before I have things I am not comfortable or got the time to release till something is done.
    Last edited by UP_4848_Thunder; 12-20-2021 at 08:32 PM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSRX View Post
    ...While backwards compatibility still works at the moment, and most of my equipment still works at the moment, there will be a day it doesn't. ....So again, when one puts in hours for something to become obsolete...
    That's putting a rather drastic and misleadingly negative interpretation upon the reality of the situation Shawn, because the stated development policy on the OR website ( and in discussions I've read ) show this to be the real intentions of OR development...always has been.
    From the OR website...
    Content Compatibility

    Open Rails will continue to maintain compatibility with content from previous official versions of Open Rails.
    File Formats

    New types of content will use the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON).
    Existing types of content from previous official versions of Open Rails will continue to be loaded without change.
    The content you are so generously ---- and expertly --- offering to the community will be usable in the future ( as is everything in the TS library back to 2001 ) --- but the forward movement of OR towards more realism will hopefully continue.
    Last edited by R. Steele; 01-01-2022 at 05:15 PM.
    Cheers, Gerry
    It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.
    Forever, ridin' drag in railroad knowledge.


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    known universe
    Posts
    2,816

    Default

    edit to my post: I should add, that going forward some of the added features may not be available to users running the simulation with simple physics. With the stated development policy ( above below ) I would expect everything to work reasonably well using simple physics.
    Cheers, Gerry
    It's my railroad and I'll do what I want! Historically accurate attitude of US Railroad Barons.
    Forever, ridin' drag in railroad knowledge.


  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York, USA.
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    Hi Folks,

    As one of the few modelers left - just my two cents. I'm all for backwards compatibility and supporting existing content - with the caveat - that it doesn't become the ball and chain preventing us from moving forward with ORTS improvements. I anxiously await each new addition to ORTS and have high hopes for its future - that's where my focus lies - if I need to make changes to leverage those additions - so be it.

    Regards,
    Scott

Posting Permissions

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