MSTS and MSTS-X

[tnbriggs]

I tried to post this as a reply to Otto's post regarding MSTS bin and MSTS-X but it's been locked so I'll try this instead.

Let's face it, MSTS as released by MS/Kuju was a mess, and in some ways, still is. For the novice or casual game player, I'm sure it's lots of fun, but for most of those who read or post here, it is far from being an accurate or realistic train simulator and can be extremely infuriating when we try to do what a real railroad can. Only through the extraordinary efforts of a critical mass of MSTS users has the sim come close to being a worthwhile experience, and we are supremely indebted to those contributors. We should thank them all deeply.

While we all hope for the best, it is unlikely that MSTS X will be any more of an accurate or realistic train sim than MSTS was. Sure, it may look nicer but it will likely suffer from the same lack of understanding of how real railroads work as the original (everything from incorrect routes which confuse percent grades with degrees, inability to couple to the front of an active locomotive and ever uncouple from it again, switching and associated CTC and ABS fog, incorrect locomotive and rolling stock physics, etc., etc., etc.). It is almost certain that most of the add-in routes developed for MSTS will not work in MSTS X and so, for many of us, it is likely that the kludged condition that is currently the state of MSTS will be as good as it gets.

We should all encourage, not dismiss, the efforts of any who continue to improve what we now have.

[derekmorton]

>it is unlikely that MSTS X will be any more of an accurate or realistic train sim than MSTS was

And what do you base that on?

MSFS has been going for 25 years and the guys have got it to a point where real pilots are impressed.

Why should we not expect that same from MSTSX?

[drjoe]

Derek is correct that MSTSX will probably get it close to "right". However, I agree that we need to continue MSTS improvements as much as possible. For me, if MSTSX requires Vista, I may never run it. I don't think I am going to "upgrade????" to Vista. When a new PC is finally required, if there is no longer a way to load it with XP, then a Mac or Linux machine is in my future. Of course, that may change, but for now, I want no part of Vista's intrusions onto the user's computer. While I didn't experience the problem myself, I "watched" the nightmare that the last Windows Authentication's attempt to prevent piracy of the OS caused many legitimate users. I can only imagine the mess that will result from Vista disabling your CD burner because you are burning your self-created multi-media file that Windows thinks has no "digital rights". I also am not willing to give up the "investment" I have in MSTS. As long as I have a computer capable of running it, I will be running trains in MSTS, so I certainly want to encourage all who are improving it.

[OTTODAD]

Yes, Derek and Joe, all good points !

The MSFS-X coders may know all about the latest in graphics technology, further developing a simulator which has been created by real pilots and other avionics experts back in Cambridge, USA and has been further improved based on real technology such as online Air traffic control and real world weather.

But how much do the MSTS-X coders know about real railways, KUJU had a few of, alas more versed in UK railways than USA or European ones ?

Until we get a properly functioning MSTS-X for a reliably working VISTA and lots of add-ons for it, MSTS fans could do with an official MSTS-2 release, which they can install and run out of the box ! ;-)

As for VISTA, this recent article in the UK Computing media reflects the views of many, including mine !

Take care, O t t o.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/115752.jpg

[Richard]

Hello Group,
I'm pretty sure I read on one of the blogs at the new Train Simulator site that the new MSTS will not require Vista, but to get it's full potential you may need DirectX10. Will have to go back thru the Blogs again to make sure I read that correctly ;) Also I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but I do think KUJU is shooting them-self in the foot by not releasing any North American content with their new simulator. I hope they do well as a little competition is good for all the consumers. if MSTS comes out with a new simulator that does not require Vista you know what new train simulator I'll be buying :) else I shut the lights out after everyone else has left :) :)

Take care,
Rich S.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Rich !

To be able to use DirectX-10 you will need VISTA and an expensive graphics card designed for it, there not being a version for WIN-XP.

MSFS-X runs under DirectX-9.0c and am not sure how it will be able to use DirectX-10 unless it's graphics engine is coded for it and applies it if it detects it being installed on a VISTA computer ?

The latest DirectX-10 capable graphics cards are backward compatible for DirectX-9.0c and improve MSTS quality and frame rates somewhat, but nowhere near compared with what you what you have spent a lot of money for ! :-(

O t t o

[TrainMan_112]

If you want it even more realistic, go get a job with the railroad. Simulators can only go so far. And for a sim released in 2001, MSTS did not too bad. The only big problem is that it's a terribly unstable program. Look at TRS for example, it's one of the most stable programs I've used. I'm not saying it's better, just more stable.

While content may not work with the new version, it's a step we have to take.

[tnbriggs]

I based my conclusions on history, both Microsoft's (which as a company, in general, does not produce very good software) and that of my experience with MSTS during the past 4 years -- only time will tell whether history will repeat itself or not.

I used FS4 years ago and it seems that the operational issues (and hence the programming) for a railroad simulation are considerably different than for a single-instance aircraft simulation. On a basic level, very seldom does a pilot attempt to fly backwards (a train frequently needs to reverse), to disengage one of his motors from the airframe (coupling and uncoupling multiple power units is a common occurrence for a train), or to travel on the land for more than a very short distance (lots of difference between taxiing for 1 mile on a runway and running for 150 miles on a rail route). The fact that a railroad must operate within and through the created terrain, rather than above it, and with a variety of rolling stock being both added to it and subtracted from it means there's a real difference between FS X and its applicability to MSTS, and it's that difference that I fear MS will not be able to deal with sufficiently.

Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that the programmers at MS have the full understanding of railroads that many of the contributors here do. Bob Boudoin's understanding of the physics of rolling stock and Mike Simpson's streamlined approach to correcting the sim's myriad errors are examples of the expertise that we all benefit from because of their willingness to share with us. Since MSTS X will likely be mostly incompatible with MSTS and will suffer initially from many of the same problems, if those long-suffering contributors don't feel the urge to go through all of it again, then the users of MSTS X will be on their own.

Much like Joe Morris anticipates, I have already made the switch to a dual boot MacPro and don't regret it at all. The XP side is still occasionally flaky when saving during complex activities in MSTS, but I would recommend it as an alternative to the agony that Vista is destined to be.

[tdragger]

>While we all hope for the best, it is unlikely that MSTS X
>will be any more of an accurate or realistic train sim than
>MSTS was. Sure, it may look nicer but it will likely suffer
>from the same lack of understanding of how real railroads work
>as the original (everything from incorrect routes which
>confuse percent grades with degrees, inability to couple to
>the front of an active locomotive and ever uncouple from it
>again, switching and associated CTC and ABS fog, incorrect
>locomotive and rolling stock physics, etc., etc., etc.). It
>is almost certain that most of the add-in routes developed for
>MSTS will not work in MSTS X and so, for many of us, it is
>likely that the kludged condition that is currently the state
>of MSTS will be as good as it gets.

While I can understand some trepedation that the new sim won't offer everything on any given individual's wish list I think this attitude might be a wee bit extreme. The new version is not a "spruced up" version of the old--it is a completely new sim. I would not assume that it will suffer from the same perceived shortcomings. More likely it will be much better in many ways, include some entirely new functionality, and likely not include a few things from the old version. Also, as with Flight Simulator, it will almost certainly not be perfect and, in fact, will still have "room to grow" over many future versions. In other words, apples vs. oranges to some extent.

The proof will be in the pudding, to be sure, but to make so many assumptions at this point seems a bit premature.

mike @ msft

[mrmike]

Terry,

Why knock or judge a product that has not been released yet? Your remarks are pure speculation. Kuju & Microsoft are both working hard to correct the mistakes of the past.
Let's all be fair & not rush to judgment until both products are released.

BTW: Kuju is including North American content.

Mike
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/mrmike1/PELogo.gif
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y177/mrmike1/sylvester.gif
This smile says it all

[OTTODAD]

I don't think that anybody is knocking or pre-judging the next train simulators, having seen very little of KRS from KUJU so far !

What we are saying is that they and the MS Games Studios need programmers who have a full understanding of how railways operate, work and function, their infrastructure, their signaling and what the physics of all rolling stock are supposed to be.

I can see KUJU still being able to draw on the experience of MSTS coders who are still working for them, but can not imagine where the Games Studios will be able to get such experienced coders from.

We are talking "Simulators" here and not "Games", where everything has to function like in reality. In MSFS forinstance planes and their instruments performing just like the real ones, everything in a cockpit functioning as it should and aerodynamics being the same as with real planes.

KUJU was showing their KRS in the Microsoft booth at the Las Vegas CES in January. Are you thinking what I am ? ;-)

We shall have to wait to see more of what is in the offing and how the railways realism of either of these new train simulators will compare with MSTSBin 1.7 ! ;-)

But I can't help thinking that there will only be one new train simulator in 2007/8, the market not being large enough for two competing train simulators, half a million copies each being sold over time not enough to repay investment and make a reasonable profit on top ?

O t t o

[JohnDWW]

I think we should remember that Kuju did the programing in MSTS. I'm sure Microsoft developers are aware of the challenges of developing a new Train Simulator.

Does Microsoft have people aware of real world trains. The person who heads up the develpment of new train simulator has that knowledge. He has been involved with trains in one form or another according to his blog.

I had the privilege of meeting Rick Selby in Sacramento several years ago and found him quite knowledgeable about railroading.

To suggest they develope games only is not true. FSX is an example of development over time where it is used by people to practice their flying skills. I use it to keep my instrament skills up to par.

John

[OTTODAD]

Hi John !

>To suggest they develop games only is not true.

I don't think anybody did !

FS was started by a bunch of real pilots as a hobby until it grew so big that M$ took it in-house !

MSTS-X needs a bunch of real steam, diesel and e-locos drivers to get the same head start ! ;-)

As a real ex-private pilot I appreciate the reality of MSFS and it will be guys like Bill Prieger and Peter Smith, real loco drivers, who will pass judgment on the reality of new train simulators rolling stock !

O t t o

[kmanc21]

>What we are saying is that they and the MS Games Studios need
>programmers who have a full understanding of how railways
>operate, work and function, their infrastructure, their
>signaling and what the physics of all rolling stock are
>supposed to be.
>

What they need are programmers who can understand the input that is available from outside experts on the things you are talking about.


>I can see KUJU still being able to draw on the experience of
>MSTS coders who are still working for them, but can not
>imagine where the Games Studios will be able to get such
>experienced coders from.
>

As a programmer I can tell you that you can "learn" what you need to develop the program without having to have actual coding experience for the application.


>We are talking "Simulators" here and not "Games", where
>everything has to function like in reality. In MSFS
>forinstance planes and their instruments performing just like
>the real ones, everything in a cockpit functioning as it
>should and aerodynamics being the same as with real planes.
>

Yes a simulator, which means that it will not and cannot be a 100% replication of the real world application. It needs to be very close but not completely accurate in every detail. Look at commercial flight simulators, they are not a 100% replication of the actual flight of a commercial plane. But, they are darn close. I don't think that anyone is expecting that the next generation of train simulator to be an exact duplication of real world operations.



>We shall have to wait to see more of what is in the offing and
>how the railways realism of either of these new train
>simulators will compare with MSTSBin 1.7 !
>

Can't help but think that either new simulator will be superior to even Bin. Why? Because any program written to improve a prior release is usually, hedging my bet here, better than any patched version of the prior program.


>But I can't help thinking that there will only be one new
>train simulator in 2007/8, the market not being large enough
>for two competing train simulators, half a million copies each
>being sold over time not enough to repay investment and make a
>reasonable profit on top ?
>

Obviously, MS thinks that they can make a profit here or else they would not have jumped back into the development process. I believe one of the blogs even said, if not directly, that they now have a business case for the next generation MSTS. So, to rule out one of the train sims for the future is not a reasonable conclusion.

[OTTODAD]

As a programmer I can tell you that you can "learn" what you need to develop the program without having to have actual coding experience for the application.

Being a commercial Accounting Software programmer myself I can tell you that you could not create such software unless you know all about the rules of Accountancy, Taxation, other related Legislation and knowing all about it would have to translate all this knowledge into efficient and workable program code, which does what it is supposed to do and passes the inspection of the Tax Authorities !

I don't think that anyone is expecting that the next generation of train simulator to be an exact duplication of real world operations.

Neither do I ! But I expect rolling stock, tracks, switches, signals, etc to look and function like the real ones, the same as planes work like real ones in MSFS, I should know something about, being a real pilot ! ;-)

So, to rule out one of the train sims for the future is not a reasonable conclusion.

I am not ruling out Microsoft, being the commercially stronger outfit to develop and marked new software, but having ditched MSTS-2 they could do the same with MSTS-X if things don't go the way they want them to ! :-(

O t t o

[kmanc21]

>Being a commercial Accounting Software programmer myself I can
>tell you that you could not create such software unless you
>know all about the rules of Accountancy, Taxation, other
>related Legislation and knowing all about it would have to
>translate all this knowledge into efficient and workable
>program code, which does what it is supposed to do and passes
>the inspection of the Tax Authorities !
>

Or be able to call on those that possess the necessary knowledge, as that knowledge has no bearing on being able to apply the logic required and write the code.


>Neither do I ! But I expect rolling stock, tracks, switches,
>signals, etc to look and function like the real ones, the same
>as planes work like real ones in MSFS, I should know something
>about, being a real pilot !
>

I would expect the same functionality.

>I am not ruling out Microsoft, being the commercially stronger
>outfit to develop and marked new software, but having ditched
>MSTS-2 they could do the same with MSTS-X if things don't go
>the way they want them to !
>

A reasonable expectation is that one will focus on the Americas and the other on European operations.

[Richard]

Hello Mike,
KUJU is shipping a North American route with the first version? I haven't checked out their site for awhile. The last time I looked they said nothing for North America will be available in the first release. Has this changed? and if yes, have they announced what it will be?

Take care,
Rich S.

[tpilot]

Ken,

Well said!!!

[tcain1]

I used FS4 years ago and it seems that the operational issues (and hence the programming) for a railroad simulation are considerably different than for a single-instance aircraft simulation. On a basic level, very seldom does a pilot attempt to fly backwards (a train frequently needs to reverse), to disengage one of his motors from the airframe (coupling and uncoupling multiple power units is a common occurrence for a train), or to travel on the land for more than a very short distance (lots of difference between taxiing for 1 mile on a runway and running for 150 miles on a rail route). The fact that a railroad must operate within and through the created terrain, rather than above it, and with a variety of rolling stock being both added to it and subtracted from it means there's a real difference between FS X and its applicability to MSTS, and it's that difference that I fear MS will not be able to deal with sufficiently.


I have to disagree with you there. FSX already has the capabilities of reversing. Of course not flying backwards, (except in a chopper) but on the ground you can reverse thrust to slow up and reverse the aircraft momentum. I also submit to you the aerodynamics that makeup a aircaft flight model, which this sim already handles is much more complicated then the dynamics of a train. Sure there are differences, but a plane flys in 3 dimensional space where a train only accelerates and decelerates. The main difference is it rides on rails. This sim has delved into some of that with the inclusion of ground traffic, but would need to develop it further. Also the concept of signaling would be totally new. Also the AI engine would have to be modified to that of the way railroads do. Not to mention with FSX's ATC capabilities, it could be modified to handle the role of a dispatcher. There are a lot of potential in the capabilities that this platform already models, with modifications can really bring train simming to a new level!!

[OTTODAD]

There is a lot of potential in the capabilities that the MSFS-X platform already models, with modifications which can really bring train simming to a new level !

The only real potential the MSFS-X platform has, which can be applied to other than Flight Simulators, is it's VISTA DirectX-10 and also backwards to DirectX-9.0c graphics engine code, which will no doubt be used for MSTS-X also.

Most of the rest of the code is of no use to a Train Simulator, which runs trains based on totally different physics, along fixed paths, following totally different rules compared to planes which can fly anywhere in open airspace or to pre-programmed by FMCs flight path destinations, following beacons along the way and soon GPS data !

You can not use any of it in a Train Simulator and will have to create new code for it from the basement up, if you have coders which know how to translate real railway practices and functions into CC++, .NET of whatever code ! ;-)

O t t o

[tcain1]

>There is a lot of potential in the
>capabilities that the MSFS-X platform already models, with
>modifications which can really bring train simming to a new
>level !
>
>The only real potential the MSFS-X platform has, which can be
>applied to other than Flight Simulators, is it's VISTA
>DirectX-10 and also backwards to DirectX-9.0c graphics engine
>code, which will no doubt be used for MSTS-X also.
>
>Most of the rest of the code is of no use to a Train
>Simulator, which runs trains based on totally different
>physics, along fixed paths, following totally different rules
>compared to planes which can fly anywhere in open airspace or
>to pre-programmed by FMCs flight path destinations, following
>beacons along the way and soon GPS data !
>
>You can not use any of it in a Train Simulator and will have
>to create new code for it from the basement up, if you have
>coders which know how to translate real railway practices and
>functions into CC++, .NET of whatever code ! ;-)
>
>O t t o
>

Otto, with all due respect I don't think your seeing the forest through the trees here! As it is today FS is not only a flight simulator, it can also model watercraft. (See below) It's not a far stretch to think it couldn't be modified to handle the physics of a train. I'm not saying it won't take modifications t the physics model, but a lot of the hooks that would be needed are already built in. The concept of momentum on the ground based on power and weight, as well as external forces like wind is already built in to the sim. Braking is also, however that would have to be modified to use incremental braking as well as the air brake bleeding. The other main things that would be needed as stated is being able to ride on rails, switching, signaling, crossing gates and being able to model trailing railcars and coupling. Here are a few of the other features, that are already built in, or can be modified to work with this sim.

Tilt rail, or elevated curved track - With FS's roll capabilities, it could be used to model tilt rail or elevated curved track.

Scenery- I know many here think this will be an entirely new scenery base, but I think there is evidence in some of the statements in the developers blogs, that suggest the intent is to use the existing scenery base of FSX, at least as a template to build on. This would allow the linking through multiplayer between the sims. Which is one of MS/Aces main concepts in the FSX platform. Even if this scenery is different, since it will be using the same graphic engine, FSX scenery would probably still be compatible. Major 3D landmarks already exist, and in the proper locations. The biggest challenge here is adding tunnels through the scenery mesh, which function does not exist now.

Autogen - With this, you already have a ready made 3D scenery base based on landclass data for an area, which is not just local, but covers the entire globe. In areas that you want more detailed accurate scenery designers can place them with scenery tools, as well as create different land class scenery for an area.

Mesh - FSX already has the capability of modeling elevation mesh to 1m. Right now the hihest available is 9m mesh though. FSX default right now is 38m, (at least in the US, in other parts of the world where data isn't available, it would probably be 76m)

Weather - Already modeled, not only specific conditions like in MSTS, but real time weather conditions world wide.

Communications - FSX ATC capabilities, could be modified to handle interactive communications between a dispatcher and the engineer. This function already has the ability to dynamically identify locations such as airports, center by name, that could be modified for this som to identify yards, stations, dispatch loacations etc...

AI - FSX already has this ability including the new ground traffic AI as of FSX. Which with modification and refinement, can be set to model
a train. Modifying it's use of waypoints, could be used for station stops.

Mapping, FSX has the capability of tracking your route as well as AI traffic, so you could now pull a map up and see the position of other AI traffic in relation to your train.

Views. With FSX's new view capability, you have a multitude of options for views. You now will have the capability to operate the train with a very detailed virtual cab (With of course the option to use 2D cabs.) You can place the view at a station and watch AI trains go by, the flyby view is adjustable, so you can see the whole train pass by. Yard tower views, top down views etc...

Expandability - With the ability to add functions via dlls, and simconnect, 3rd parties can add functionality in the future. Many have done remarkable things in the FS community!!

I'm not saying it's a complete one to one match, and there will need to be alot of new functionality, but a lot more in this platform than just the graphic engine code could be used to enhance it's capabilities. This I think is our best shot of getting a sim with most of the functionality we've been looking for. Only MS/Aces know if they are going to do all some or ay of this! but it is possible with this platform!!!

Just to show it's more than a flight sim here's a shot of a yacht entering New York Harbor (I wouldn't recommend it if your prone to sea sickness!!:))

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/115860.jpg

[OTTODAD]

Hi Thomas !

Yes, I am aware of the scenic, terrain, weather and ATC capabilities of MSFS-X I also have, as well as having had all the previous versions since FS1 ! ;-)

This is what I meant by the new MSFS-X DirectX-9/10 graphics engine, displaying quality graphics like these with suitable video cards.

They can model planes, their interiors, instrumentation, comms and controls as real as you can get, all functioning as they should and hope that they can do the same for trains running on rails, their front couplers working as they should ! ;-) Sorry, I couldn't resist !

O t t o

P.S.: Where is New York ? Have you lowered the objects density settings ?

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/115863.jpg

[tcain1]

>
>Hi Thomas !
>
>Yes, I am aware of the scenic, terrain, weather and ATC
>capabilities of MSFS-X I also have, as well as having had all
>the previous versions since FS1 ! ;-)
>
>This is what I meant by the new MSFS-X DirectX-9/10 graphics
>engine, displaying quality graphics like these with suitable
>video cards.
>
>They can model planes, their interiors, instrumentation, comms
>and controls as real as you can get, all functioning as they
>should and hope that they can do the same for trains running
>on rails, their front couplers working as they should ! ;-)
>Sorry, I couldn't resist !
>
>O t t o
>
>P.S.: Where is New York ? Have you lowered the objects density
>settings ?
>
>

No, actually my setting are high. Extremely dense scenery, Dense Autogen, texture resolution 1m, mesh resolution 19m, traffic 100% UT traffic file, and max weather settings. My screenshot is taking at the Mouth of New York Harbor, at the Verrazano Bridge, not the Brooklyn Bridge in your shot!!

[HAC]

MS will/has been consult(ing) with RR folks. Can't say more, signing an NDA with MS on MSTS-X.

Cheers
Harold (ex-CPR retired)

[Richard]

Hello Group,
After reading thru the Blogs on the Microsoft Train Simulator site, I think it would be safe to say it's probably going to be "Microsoft Train Simulator II", even though they have not officially released a name. MSFS-X refers to Flight Sim version "10". Keeping with the current use of Roman Numerals and this only being the second version of Train Sim, then it would stand to reason the next version of TS would be "II" Food for thought :)

Take care,
Rich S.

[OTTODAD]

Yes, Rich, your's is a reasonable assumption.

However, if the next MSTS is compatible with VISTA DirectX-10 then then M$ could be tempted to call it MSTS-X ? ;-)

O t t o

[tpilot]

>However, if the next MSTS is compatible with VISTA DirectX-10
>then then M$ could be tempted to call it MSTS-X ? ;-)

Other thoughts - Microsoft might not want to risk having it confused with the previous MSTS-2 that got cancelled.

It may well be that we as the user base may accidentally pick the name as if the speculation about the product becomes known as MSTS-X, that may be the least confusing thing to call it.

[OTTODAD]

Not bad at all, Thomas, compared with the real one ! ;-)

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/115900.jpg

What does this scene below viewed from New Jersey towards Manhattan look like in MSTS-X, which should give us an idea of what the visual quality of MSFS-X buildings is when viewed at this level, compared with what the N.&.J.C route shows us, this picture is from ! ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

P.S.: I just had a thought ! What if the M$ Games Studios use the MSFS-X world terrain mesh and simply build railroads on it, using it's world weather as well ? In the case of the latter you could then start driving on a sunny day and head straight into a thunderstorm and perhaps sail ships to tie up at piers to unload containers from them and then load them onto trains ! ;-)

Somehow I get this feeling that this is some of the things they might be up to ? :7

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/115902.jpg

[tcain1]

I think you're right about MS's goal's I think ultimately we may end up with a MS Transportation Simulator instead of a individual Train and Flight simulator. The trick is that they do it in a way that doen't detract from either's capabilities. Here's your requested shot, Not sure of the exact location it refers to, but this one is opposite the main line tunnel out of Penn Station. I also included a shot from the East River side near where Amtrak and LIRR trains enter the East River Tunnel! Little loss in quality from Jpeg conversion.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/115918.jpg


http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/115919.jpg

[OTTODAD]

That is simply fantastic, Thomas ! :7

The exact location doesn't really matter because your scenes show what MSFS-X is capable of even at this level, we can expect to see similar of if not better in MSTS-X or whatever ! ;-)

Thanks for doing that ! Now I am really looking forward to the next M$ train simulator !!!

Take care, O t t o.

[ragtimer]

Confirming what HAC posted,MS have received technical input from some in the real RailRoad world,also thoughts on improvements needed over the original sim.It would be good if some more of you experts out there would pass on your thoughts to them regarding e.g model physics,steam loco performance parameters,braking systems,signalling requirements.Then it will be just as easy for them to get it right as get it wrong.

[Macster]

I'm gonna ramble on about a bunch of stuff....bare with me, I'm also not awake

If Microsoft wanted to do this right, they would get on-board with EMD and GE like they have with the Airlines. Since after 9-11, if airlines, manufactures, etc continue to fuel airlines, it should not be an issue for railroads. MS will need to talk to old heads, new heads, managament, bean counters, etc if you really want to make this simulator worth while to upgrade.

Sure, pretty graphics are great but it is nothing without the physics and realism of for example, your 16,000 ton potash train, heading up the Blue Mountains at a gingerly 9mph with 4 AC motors on the head end and 5 more AC motors mid train. I want Train Simulator to at least look, sound, and feel like I am the engineer or I am the railfan sitting track side posed with my Canon 30D with my jaw wide open listening and feeling the ground shake *Subwoofer required for effect ;)*

We aren't going to have the true realism of running a freight or passenger train and some fool decides to go across the gates and you dump the air to avoid him/her. We aren't going to see a animal that is running along side of your tourist train. We aren't going to see the teenager bumping his/her iPod, you laying on your horn or whistle frantically as you try to warn them of you. We aren't going to have to slow our train down to a crawl as you wade through an area that a flood has hit and water is above the rails.

We are going to see trees swaying in the wind, rain or snow hitting the windshield, thunder and lightning rolling across the sky, bright blue beautiful skies with poofy clouds all around. We are going to see deer and elk running around or strolling in a group.

We might finally have superelevation, we might be able to use that evil front coupler with 110 grain empty cars you are dragging to the yard and be able to uncouple without the send/don't send. We might get those random computer faults from those modern GE and EMD motors and we might have issues were we really have to set out a car or locomotive cause of a defect.

But at what cost to us at this point?

My thing is also doing the big nasty upgrade. I personally am very happy with running Mac OS 10 Tiger and recently I have been using Open Suse Linux. If I was to do an upgrade at this point and time I would wait until the Summer for prices to drop, then I am going to shell out $2500 to $3000 so I won't have to worry about the next 2 Windows launches and heck, I'll have 2TB (Yes, Terrabytes) because we can download movies of various assortment online, heck, as it is now, I am using just shy of 500gigs for videos I have took, games I have, photos I have taken, the movies I have bought. Games nowadays are a mild one to NINE gigabytes of disk space. You need a min. of 1 gig of Ram just to be able to run an operating system stable and 2 gigs to be ahead of successful multi-tasking.

I guess what I am getting after is, the choice to upgrading nowadays is simply a cash cow. Sure you can lay down as much money as you want but when simple drivers don't even work, why would you bother? Or why would you bother doing an upgrade when most of your components just don't work?

Yes, doing an upgrade is a big mission and is expensive. Most home owners went out and bought new computers instead of upgrading.. it's cheap and easy but never reliable. I guess the real choice of doing any upgrades, just for a game will depend on it's realism.. because without that element you can't be realistic about your upgrades...

Oh a hidden secret that I have learned from FS and TS.. when you want a lot of traffic, you need to at least DOUBLE your specs all around... think you can fly into O'Hare full spec's because Sacramento Intl was empty when you took off.. think again. Same thing when you run a big activity and you come up to a huge yard... it is all in the matter of what you want..

[OTTODAD]

Excellent comments, Brian !

In response to me showing tcain1 MSFS-X scenes over at UK-TS a member pointed to this video of it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJW9BbZgyY0

If we can get similar quality of scenery and objects in MSTS-X, without the elephants, then it will really be something to look forward to, providing as you said they get the physics of rolling stock right and their tracks and switches look and function like the real ones. ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

[Macster]

Yeah, I guess the burner will be when we start seeing screen shots of the project in full swing.

I came to a funny realization that when I start taking video of trains, I'm gonna gobble up my hard drive space like no tomorrow :(

btw.. keeping it back on the realistic end of the spectrum we need to realize that Train Simulator and Flight Simulator both are made for expansions. Train Simulator 3 (that is what I am officially calling it simply because there was a failed TS-2 already) if and when it does come out has to show this community that what we have built and worked so damned hard to create because we were basically abandoned that Microsoft will work to show us what this game will do and will ACTUALLY LISTEN to us.

Besides, I want my damn DPU capabilities...

[tnbriggs]

Thanks to all for the points of view and the civil manner in which it was all done. I think we all collectively agree that we sincerely hope the new MSTS will be everything we want it to be, while fully understanding that there will inevitably be some shortcomings. This sort of discussion, if MS is reading and watching and is truly interested in producing something worthwhile, can only help.

[tdragger]

Well said.

mike @ msft

[OTTODAD]

Hi Mike !

I am trying to motivate Nels and his Admins to open a new forum for MSTS-X like TS-UK did.

Would make it easier for you to keep your eyes on what is being discussed and suggested ! ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

[landnrailroader]

The latest release of MSFS that I have is the 2004 version, and I bought a reduced price version of that at Walmart about the same time that I bought the Atari release of MSTS. I kind of regret getting both because of two factors:

1. Both require that the cd#1 be in the drive or else the sim will
not work.
2. As the CD#1 is copyrighted, no program I have will allow me to
make a backup copy of it.

The original MSTS did not require this, nor did earlier releases of MSFS or CFS-1 & 2, so I hope that the new release does not have this requirement either, or if it does that it include a utility that will copy (only) the first CD. CD readers (or DVD) have been known to occasionally devour the media so a back up is desirable.

Because of the above problem, I put the new MSTS on my server where I will keep only clean simulations, i.e. those not requiring X-tracks or Bin, both of which I intend to use starting later this year, and I simply removed the MSFS item and put it on the shelf. Earlier version work just fine for this former VFR rated private pilot.

J. H. Sulliva
aka landnrailroader

[OTTODAD]

Hi Jerry !

There has been a FS9.exe patch around for a long time which does away with the "Insert CD" demand:
http://www.simradar.com/File/3253/No_CD_fix_for_patched_version_of_FS2004__FS9_1_.ht ml

There is also the MSTS Version 1.2 update from here:
http://www.microsoft.com/games/trainsimulator/
which does the same. ;-)

O t t o

[landnrailroader]

Thanks Otto, got em both.

Jerry

[tdragger]

That would be nice. While I'm no stranger to scrolling, it does take some guesswork to know which threads to read.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Mike !

Dropped the Admins another reminder requesting a new MSTS-X forum, all about it's development and progress being front page news to train simmers ! :7

While I got your attention I would like to ask you the same question I posted here:
http://forums.flightsim.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=32&topic_id=20941&mesg_id=20941&page=
but relating to what hardware you guys are using to stretch MSTS-X to it's limits on your computers, to give us an idea what it will take to get the best out of it, without having to wait for it's first Service Pack, due to be released soon for MSFS-X ! ;-)

No point you guys working your guts out to give us an outstanding product if our computers are not up to it ! :-(

Being 78 now, I would like to buy one more computer to last me to the rest of what's left of my life, I can use for MSFS-X and MSTS-X and also output the sims running to a new 40"+ flat panel digital TV, but don't want to waste my money jumping on the VISTA bandwagon too soon !

Take care, O t t o.

[landnrailroader]

Well Otto, at 68, I am just a kid, but I feel the same way. HOwever, having worked with computers, first a PDP-1170, then a VAX-11/785, then Unix workstations & servers, and now PCs, I would have to say that a computer is obsolete and inadequate as soon as you open the box. That is why I had my last one made to my specification and it cost me under $950 USD. It has a 3.6G processor (Athlon) which is not dual core, 1G of memory, 2 80G harddrives, a DVD reader & Dvd read/write, and a high end Nvidia video card, but it won't handle Vista without another G of member, and I will also need to replace at least one of the drives with something much larger. To replace the DPU with a dual core item will likely require a new MOBO, but I would prefer to only need one more myself. The Video card won't handle Direct-X/10 either, so at a minimum I will need about $500 to upgrade it to MSTS-X level, the way it appears.

Jerry Sullivan

[OTTODAD]

Nels has agreed to create a new MSTS-X forum section in order to separate related posts and threads from other forums, making it easier for the GAMES STUDIOS MSTS-X guys to monitor it !

Keep your eyes open for an announcement and THANKS, Nels ! ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

[rdamurphy]

I'm not sure if anyone here has MS Combat Flight Sim 3, but it has trains and railroads in it. The trains (steam) move, can be shot at, destroyed, and are included in a couple of "train-busting" missions. One mission it's actually easier to blow up a bridge in front of the train than try to blow up the train itself, since if you hit it in the middle, the part you hit blows up and derails, while the rest of the train just continues along.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/combatfs3/groundobjects_vehicles.aspx

In Lock-on: Modern Air Combat, I don't know if there are trains, but the vehicles are very dynamic, and if you stop a convoy, troops pile out of trucks and shoot at you with rifles and machine guns.

Robert

[OTTODAD]

Hi Bob !

Never got around to MS-CFS-3, the version 2 I bought having been a disaster on my computer !

Yes, there is a lot in the latest MS flight simulator and games which are as photogenic as can be and some of this will no doubt be used in MSTS-X, I hope ! ;-)

Looking forward to the next MSTS-X announcements which I think will coincide with the next E3 in July this year ?

I got a feeling that the MS-GAMES STUDIOS will then hit train simmers between the eyes with a demo ! :7

O t t o

[PawloB]

I strongly believe that the new MSTS-X will be better than the current sim. That is usually the next step in evolution. MSTS 1.0 was great. MSTS 2.0 would have been a better program based on what I learned at the show in LA a few years back (to bad it never got released) so why won't this be better? If anyone who is working on MSTS-X is reading this post than my suggestion is simple. "Listen to what the masses are requesting" Sure we all want perfection and hopefully one day it will come. But by listening to "our" suggestions can you profit from this and come out with a package we all can enjoy.So lets have multiple locomotives we can run in a single sim session and allow them to couple in the front and have a nice editor that is easy to use and etc etc etc...... Remember that there are a lot of "serious" railroaders out there that want something they can use and relate too as well as the novices. I want to run a train like it was meant to be. MSTS 1.0 basically allowed the user to take a train ride around the countryside with nothing much else You can make great models and only run them. Oh and here is my "suggestion" to add to the list of requests.

1: Create a place in this forum for only suggestions to the new MSTS-X.
2: If part of my train derails and simply remove that train and NOT end the program. Thanks.

[OTTODAD]

Create a place in this forum for only suggestions to the new MSTS-X.

I thought that this is the purpose of this forum, requested by one of the MS Games Studios team, tdragger, having posted here, as well as by some of us and is no doubt being monitored by others at MS ! ;-)

O t t o

[muskokaandtahoe]

>However, I agree that we need to continue MSTS
>improvements as much as possible. For me, if MSTSX requires
>Vista, I may never run it. I don't think I am going to
>"upgrade????" to Vista. When a new PC is finally required, if
>there is no longer a way to load it with XP, then a Mac or
>Linux machine is in my future.

I'm with Joe on this one. I've been buying, upgrading, and/or building PC's since the early 286 cpu days. I want nothing to do w/ Vista.


[b]Dave Nelson
SLW Route Design: The Cal-P, 1950.[b]
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/Dancing_Genma.gif
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/muskokaandtahoe/Avatars/4ad3d633.jpg

[gltech]

I just hope we don't ignore what could be the one most important thing:

http://forums.flightsim.com/ts/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=175768&mesg_id=175768

And I pray that all these "will the new sim run on my pentium III?" comments won't leave us with less sim than we could've had. You can't build a Ferrari with a Yugo engine.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Glen !

In that thread you say that you are a "Microsoft software developer". Meaning for MS-WINDOWS or for MICROSOFT at Redmond ?

In the case of the latter an insight into what goes on there would be interesting !

YUGO ? You have been around a while too. Are they still making them ? ;-)

Take care, O t t o.

[gltech]

Otto, no I don't work for Microsoft, but I've been developing software for MS operating systems using MS developement tools for almost 20 years. And my org is a MS partner.

-G

[imbubby]

I have no worries whatsoever about Microsoft's entertainment division
being able to deliver us a much-improved train sim, but I hope it will
run on XPpro, as I am definately NOT going to run the intrusive, nazi
bully OS that is Vista. No, not even to get a better train sim.
And it certainly has NOTHING to do with not wanting to upgrade
hardware, as I regularly do that anyway. It has rather to do with
valuing my privacy, and my integrety, and my freedom, and these are
things which MS increasingly seeks to take away from us with their
operating systems. And what audacity and gaul that takes, as their
OSs are always poor quality to boot. I wish they would get out of the
OS business and just make entertainment software, which they do very
well. In fact, I consider MS to be the best producer of entertainment
software (except for their music software). Their games are always
interesting and very replayable, and their sims are top-notch.

So, MSTSX, YES! Vista, NO!

Please...

[Claude350]

Can someone tell me where the X for MSTS-X comes from? I don't come here everyday like some of you guys and this X thing is crazy to me. Seeing that there has only been one edition of MSTS, who thought of the "X" thing?

[OTTODAD]

Hi Claude !

The X got used by somebody because it will be using much of the graphics capability of the MSFS-X flight simulator and hopefully will be able to also take advantage of DirectX-10, the X being Latin for 10 ! ;-)

O t t o

[Claude350]

I knew that the X meant ten. I was just wondering why it was attached to MSTS. Now I know why. I was aware that MSTS was going to be designed around the graphics used with MSFS-X. I didn't expect the X to carry over. Thanks for the info.

[RedDeath]

>I tried to post this as a reply to Otto's post regarding MSTS
>bin and MSTS-X but it's been locked so I'll try this instead.
>
>Let's face it, MSTS as released by MS/Kuju was a mess, and in
>some ways, still is. For the novice or casual game player, I'm
>sure it's lots of fun, but for most of those who read or post
>here, it is far from being an accurate or realistic train
>simulator and can be extremely infuriating when we try to do
>what a real railroad can. Only through the extraordinary
>efforts of a critical mass of MSTS users has the sim come
>close to being a worthwhile experience, and we are supremely
>indebted to those contributors. We should thank them all
>deeply.
>
>While we all hope for the best, it is unlikely that MSTS X
>will be any more of an accurate or realistic train sim than
>MSTS was. Sure, it may look nicer but it will likely suffer
>from the same lack of understanding of how real railroads work
>as the original (everything from incorrect routes which
>confuse percent grades with degrees, inability to couple to
>the front of an active locomotive and ever uncouple from it
>again, switching and associated CTC and ABS fog, incorrect
>locomotive and rolling stock physics, etc., etc., etc.). It
>is almost certain that most of the add-in routes developed for
>MSTS will not work in MSTS X and so, for many of us, it is
>likely that the kludged condition that is currently the state
>of MSTS will be as good as it gets.
>
>We should all encourage, not dismiss, the efforts of any who
>continue to improve what we now have.
I agree with everyone else in here... you are being far too negitive, which is ridiculous since IT HASNT BEN RELEASED YET lol... yes we all apriciate what everyone did to help make msts better... but I bt you anything that they are happy that microsoft is making a new simulator, and what if someone from microsoft came on here and seen that you were typing all this stuff? not only would they feel bad because all the stuff THEY are doing to bring a more realistic simulator to you is going unapriciated.. and if they were to find out people dont want it, thy could stop the project... and I knwo that you are curious about it too..

[RedDeath]

>>I tried to post this as a reply to Otto's post regarding
>MSTS
>>bin and MSTS-X but it's been locked so I'll try this
>instead.
>>
>>Let's face it, MSTS as released by MS/Kuju was a mess, and
>in
>>some ways, still is. For the novice or casual game player,
>I'm
>>sure it's lots of fun, but for most of those who read or
>post
>>here, it is far from being an accurate or realistic train
>>simulator and can be extremely infuriating when we try to do
>>what a real railroad can. Only through the extraordinary
>>efforts of a critical mass of MSTS users has the sim come
>>close to being a worthwhile experience, and we are supremely
>>indebted to those contributors. We should thank them all
>>deeply.
>>
>>While we all hope for the best, it is unlikely that MSTS X
>>will be any more of an accurate or realistic train sim than
>>MSTS was. Sure, it may look nicer but it will likely suffer
>>from the same lack of understanding of how real railroads
>work
>>as the original (everything from incorrect routes which
>>confuse percent grades with degrees, inability to couple to
>>the front of an active locomotive and ever uncouple from it
>>again, switching and associated CTC and ABS fog, incorrect
>>locomotive and rolling stock physics, etc., etc., etc.). It
>>is almost certain that most of the add-in routes developed
>for
>>MSTS will not work in MSTS X and so, for many of us, it is
>>likely that the kludged condition that is currently the
>state
>>of MSTS will be as good as it gets.
>>
>>We should all encourage, not dismiss, the efforts of any who
>>continue to improve what we now have.
>I agree with everyone else in here... you are being far too
>negitive, which is ridiculous since IT HASNT BEN RELEASED YET
>lol... yes we all apriciate what everyone did to help make
>msts better... but I bt you anything that they are happy that
>microsoft is making a new simulator, and what if someone from
>microsoft came on here and seen that you were typing all this
>stuff? not only would they feel bad because all the stuff THEY
>are doing to bring a more realistic simulator to you is going
>unapriciated.. and if they were to find out people dont want
>it, thy could stop the project... and I knwo that you are
>curious about it too..

sry my e button doesnt work to well at present time :P