Backwards Compatable?

[chrisracer8903]

Will original MSTS content work for MSTS-X by any chance such as locos or routes? -Chris

[drjoe]

This will probably only be possible if done by the original author, and then only if the modelling program used has an MSTSX compatible output "driver".

[imbubby]

I'd rather not have backwards compatibility, since it would mean
"dumming down" the new sim a lot from what is possible these days.

Now, if they could make available a converter utility for we modelers
to convert the old models to the new formats, I would deffinately go
for that. But just throw away the old track and scenic stuff. It
isn't worth messing up the new sim even a tiny bit to conserve the old
stuff. And I say that despite havein spent countless hours building
stuff for MSTS1. I will gladly throw it all away (or at least
confine it to use in MSTS1) to have the new MSTS be as great as possible.

[wakeboarder82]

>I'd rather not have backwards compatibility, since it would
>mean
>"dumming down" the new sim a lot from what is possible these
>days.

> It
>isn't worth messing up the new sim even a tiny bit to conserve
>the old
>stuff.
>

I couldn't agree more. I know there has been a lot of time spent on content for MSTS but it would seriously hinder progress to try and make the new sim backward compatible.

It's kind of like if someone said, "Hey I know we could build railroads and highways but this canal took a long time to build. A lot of people put a lot of time into digging it. I think we should make the highway along side of the canal and make the trucks tow the barges down the canal."

Ok, I know that was a rediculous analogy but really think about it.

[TrainMan_112]

I'm guessing it'll be like FSX and FS9, some things work, some don't.

[oakpalms]

Donovan,

You make it sound very easy to discard items that you have made for MSTS1. Some people have spent years making "track and scenic stuff" for MSTS-1 I think their work should be able to be transported if at all possible. You state, "And I say that despite havein spent countless hours building stuff for MSTS1" However, I did a search at the download section and could not find a single entry with your name.

You must not have shared any of the things you have done. However, many others have shared with us and there are many who have provided top quality products that even compete with payware and in some cases prove to be better. It would be a shame to have their efforts discarded as thought time has passed them by. Some routes have taken a couple of years and even more to complete. That is a lot of wheel to have to reinvent.

In fact, that may be one concern that will keep many MSTS-1 users from converting over to the next sim that comes on the market.

Bob Edwards

[tcain1]

>Donovan,
>
>You make it sound very easy to discard items that you have
>made for MSTS1. Some people have spent years making "track
>and scenic stuff" for MSTS-1 I think their work should be able
>to be transported if at all possible. You state, "And I say
>that despite havein spent countless hours building stuff for
>MSTS1" However, I did a search at the download section and
>could not find a single entry with your name.
>
>You must not have shared any of the things you have done.
>However, many others have shared with us and there are many
>who have provided top quality products that even compete with
>payware and in some cases prove to be better. It would be a
>shame to have their efforts discarded as thought time has
>passed them by. Some routes have taken a couple of years and
>even more to complete. That is a lot of wheel to have to
>reinvent.
>
>In fact, that may be one concern that will keep many MSTS-1
>users from converting over to the next sim that comes on the
>market.
>
>Bob Edwards

Just speculation, based on what FSX uses! GMAX is compatible with FSX so I assume it will be in TSX. So GMAX source files would probably be compatible, not the MSTS ready files. I wouldn't expect Route files to be compatible directly. I think Tdragger did say though, that the company that makes GMAX (Autodesk) is not supporting it anymore. he warns it's risky to count on any continued development with it, but they're trying to work through it. Aces uses 3DS Max for development.

[ricksan]

>Will original MSTS content work for MSTS-X by any chance such
>as locos or routes?

Let's hope not.

[GT Dan]

Bob,

I agree with Donovan even though I am in the middle of "building" a 600+ miles of track route. I would toss the locos I have built in Gmax and all of the excellent items I have downloaded from train-sim.com (ok, not toss - but not expect them to carry over).

The advantages of getting a stable, usable simulator to work with would be worth having to start over, in my opinion! (But it had better ship the the necessary editors to start developing routes!)

[wakeboarder82]

>I'm guessing it'll be like FSX and FS9, some things work,
>some don't.

I'm guessing not. FSX was built on FS9. MSTS-X will not be built on MSTS. It's not apples to apples. FSX still used the same file formats as FS9. I'm pretty sure that the .S, .ace, .sd ect are going to be history as they were proprietary formats from Kuju.

[tcain1]

>>I'm guessing it'll be like FSX and FS9, some things work,
>>some don't.
>
>I'm guessing not. FSX was built on FS9. MSTS-X will not be
>built on MSTS. It's not apples to apples. FSX still used the
>same file formats as FS9. I'm pretty sure that the .S, .ace,
>.sd ect are going to be history as they were proprietary
>formats from Kuju.

While I'm sure this is the case with MSTS proprietary formats, (unless Aces comes up with some kind of converter, which I wouldn't count on!) The source 3D files like GMAX, and 3DS Max would probably be compatible. So it may just be a matter of the developers processing the source files to the .mdl format, (the same way it is done in FS9 and FSX) and adding the physics (In the case of Locomotives, and Rolling stock!).

[wakeboarder82]

>The source 3D files like GMAX, and 3DS Max
>would probably be compatible. So it may just be a matter of
>the developers processing the source files to the .mdl format,

Yes, I think that's reasonably safe to assume, with some changes to the source files probably.

[Kenny1234]

>But it had better ship the the necessary editors to start
>developing routes!)


Probably for a price, you know, selling "kits" for add-on developers to use. Puts the power of third party route development into the hands of those (mostly commercial ventures) which can afford to buy the kits and have a reasonable method to recover their investment (payware only).

Should the political panets align, there is a tremendous opportunity here for "make work" which benefits the underemployed/offshored software development types if this is designed from the ground up properly. Any scenario where anyone and everyone can do it will simply be counter to the "make-work" current. The question would be whether thats going to be a political reality and whether the resulting game experience is better. Considering that we have the most rigged business economic landscape in recent times where just about any business subclass has gotten the arbitrary protections which they wanted, I'd put money on it happening.

Its really a two-sided sword. MSTS 1 allows anybody and everbody, regardless of education and professional discipline, and yet that diversity and lack of standards is currently the biggest achilles heel in MSTS 1 operating stability. If you want the tighter standards and more bullet-proof stability, the variety of sources from which third party content currently is derived from will have to decline. Selling SDKs would be the best way to achieve that.

To expect a scenario where the current wide array of third party developers active in MSTS 1 will simply port over to MSTS X when its ready is just not realistic. Economically, it is more profitable to control access to that development ability, and improved game stability would just be gravy on top.

[cbq311]

You want to try this again in plain English? Political?

While I see this coming from kuju, I really do not see it coming from MSTS.

I will gladly throw out everything from MSTS1 for stability and the look of the new sim.

I really do not think that a direct port of everything from 1 to FX is worth it. A crummy skin in 1 will be a hideous one in FX. I would much rather have the control of moving a model to FX in the hand of the original creator than in someone elses hand. We have enough pirates already without opening this can of worms.

[gltech]

>Donovan,
>
>You make it sound very easy to discard items that you have
>made for MSTS1. Some people have spent years making "track
>and scenic stuff" for MSTS-1 I think their work should be able
>to be transported if at all possible. You state, "And I say
>that despite havein spent countless hours building stuff for
>MSTS1" However, I did a search at the download section and
>could not find a single entry with your name.
>
>You must not have shared any of the things you have done.
>However, many others have shared with us and there are many
>who have provided top quality products that even compete with
>payware and in some cases prove to be better. It would be a
>shame to have their efforts discarded as thought time has
>passed them by. Some routes have taken a couple of years and
>even more to complete. That is a lot of wheel to have to
>reinvent.
>
>In fact, that may be one concern that will keep many MSTS-1
>users from converting over to the next sim that comes on the
>market.
>
>Bob Edwards


A graphics conversion app for MSTS1 to MSTS-X is definitely the answer here. I'm a veteran software developer, and if such an app is not provided with the new sim, I will personally develop one, provided the file format information is available. The format information should be no problem to obtain, given the extensive TS and FS communities.

-GLT

[Noisemaker]

I would like some compatibility, especially for structures and engines. Not that I bought a lot for MSTS 1, but do prize specific structures for specific areas. I don't think it can get any better than Ron Picardi's work, and there's some unique engines made that we might not see for some time on the new MSTS X. Terrain, vegetation, transfers - THAT could all be chucked out the window for improvements AFAIC. ;)

[landnrailroader]

This conversion topic has been kicked back and forth every time a new Sim. is announced. Because of different ways of presenting world geometry, coordinates, etc., I would doubt that routes will be convertible, although it may be possible for MSTS-X to have a compatibility mode where old material could be run as-is.
Other than that, there is a question of who has the right to massage other people's material. If the material was "freeware", then IMHO, by default, the originator has given carte blanche to whoever gets his freeware and can do as he pleases with it. It would be nice to footnote the originator in those cases.
Now if the originator, who presumably still has the raw TSM, GMAX, or whatever source files, wishes to do a conversion, then a conversion at the native level would certainly be good to have. IF I reissue one of my routes, I certainly would not want to have to recreate every bridge or other structure that I used on it - and which were my own creations. (using R. Picardi's tool kits)

Jerry Sullivan

[261Steam]

Yah I have alot of engines that I would love to keep like the SP 4449, UP 844 & 3985 and the Milwaukee Road 261!! They all have full consist too!! Wich I have all modefied to look and sound identical to the real things! The only thing is would be the shadowing and sunlight casting off of the engines that I think we would have a problem with but as soon as the new game comes out I am shure that there will be people out there working on the same engines and getting them out there as fast as they can! I CANT WAIT UNTIL IT COMES OUT IN 08!!

261Steam

[lnghairedwizard]

Re:"It's kind of like if someone said, "Hey I know we could build railroads and highways but this canal took a long time to build. A lot of people put a lot of time into digging it. I think we should make the highway along side of the canal and make the trucks tow the barges down the canal."

Ok, I know that was a rediculous analogy but really think about it.
"

Kewl, I'm not the only one into using ridiculous analogies..lol


Bill Bzak

[plainsman]

Hi Jerry,
"If the material was "freeware", then IMHO, by default, the originator has given carte blanche to whoever gets his freeware and can do as he pleases with it."

I am not an attorney, but I think I can safely judge you are not one as well from this statement. My understanding of copyright law in no way agrees with the above!! Unless you specifically DECLARE work as PUBLIC DOMAIN, all your rights are carried forward whether you release as payware or freeware. Now you may not win much in damages if you enforce a copyright to your model of an Alco 628 released as freeware, but you do have the rights to take legal action. If Rambolicious Inc. makes 4.3 Quadzullion Pensavoz on a copy of your work, you may have a pretty good case to recoop some Pensavoz?
Very cheap (worthless) not legal advice,
Bob

[plainsman]

I know it is a jet aircraft capable of mach 0.86, but there are so many nice piston engines already designed and built already in service. We have parts and shops that know how to service them. We understand them. Can't we put a good old piston engine in that new A384, maybe as backup to those 6 jet turbofans. It would only weigh a few hundred pounds, and those things are not THAT sleek, you won't even notice the drag, much.
Move on!!! I have a lot of nice stuff for FS2000 that I can't use, and I am happy to wait for a FSX replacement. The WORST thing MicroSoft could do is try to hamstring a great new product with compatible old software.
Bob

[jmslakings]

Why would you want to put MSTS1 content in MSTS2? These "Backwards compatable" topics are pointless and stupid. Its like saying I want to put Flightsim98 addons in FlightSimX. It does not make any since. Stop and think about if for a second people.

[Vince]

>>"....Stop and think about if for a second people."

Yes indeed, do stop and think for a moment. Think about the many many hundreds who have spent thousands of hours creating content for MSTS!

Are you saying we should throw away all the work that folks like Ron Picardi and Mike Sinclair have given us. I think not.
Making the conversion of models, ie; scenery, buildings and the like would be throwing away a lot of fine work.
That to me is not backward compatability or somehow 'dimming down' the new sim but in fact making it that much more attractive to the modeler/end user.
The modeler has all that great practice making stuff for MSTS and now he gets to carry his well honed skills to new heights.
The end user gets a sim that will be quite rich in both old and new content. Remember I'm talking scenery stuff, models. Rendering models will not be a burden on the sim as I believe a 3D model is a 3D model to any sim. Cheers! and happy Thanksgiving to all.

[jmslakings]

Vince.

Thats just it, most modders of the MSTS community are new to addon making(Modding). Most people don't realize that when a new version of a game is released you have to make all new content from scratch. That's the way the modding community works. Always has been. So yes both Mike and Ron(who are excellent Modders)are going to have to start over agian. If they don't want to thats fine. Someone else will step in to give addon making a shot. I may even take a swing at it.-----Justin ==Happy Thanksgiving==

[Vince]

>>Thats just it, most modders of the MSTS community are new to addon making(Modding).<<

I being one of them. :P

>> Most people don't realize that when a new version of a game is released you have to make all new content from scratch.<<

Lets get real basic.
I make a model of a tunnel portal for my route using GoogleSketch GS). I export as a name.S file. I can now use it in MSTS.
I have a ton of GS files okay? Now one of the guru's comes along and writes a GS plugin for the new sim.
For example, KUJU RailSim has not bee out long and already Mike Simpson and Sniper have written code to help with re-skinning engines.
I have a feeling there will be much forthcoming in the plugin/utility very soon after the sim is released. Hit to the developers; get early copy to the community gurus. It can only help sell your product.

>>That's the way the modding community works. Always has been.<<

Really! Well I'm a member of the community (or at least I thought I was) and I never heard of such.
Or is there an exclusive "Official" member list somewhere? You know. some kind of organization?
And BTW, if it has "always been" that don't make it right.

>> So yes both Mike and Ron(who are excellent Modders)are going to have to start over agian.<<

What start over? I'm sure Mr. Picardi has all his source files. He just exports them in whatever format that the new sim requires.
This is NOT creating new content.
I certainly do have all my source files I used in GS, having created over 100 models for the LIRR route I am building. One of the gurus will step up and write a plugin to export the Google skp source files to the format required by the new sim.

>>If they don't want to thats fine. Someone else will step in to give addon making a shot. I may even take a swing at it.-----Justin ==Happy Thanksgiving==

[isoc]

>>>"....Stop and think about if for a second
>people."
>
>Yes indeed, do stop and think for a moment. Think about the
>many many hundreds who have spent thousands of hours creating
>content for MSTS!
>
>Are you saying we should throw away all the work that folks
>like Ron Picardi and Mike Sinclair have given us. I think not.
>
>Making the conversion of models, ie; scenery, buildings and
>the like would be throwing away a lot of fine work.
>That to me is not backward compatability or somehow
>'dimming down' the new sim but in fact making it that much
>more attractive to the modeler/end user.
>The modeler has all that great practice making stuff for MSTS
>and now he gets to carry his well honed skills to new heights.
>
>The end user gets a sim that will be quite rich in both old
>and new content. Remember I'm talking scenery stuff, models.
>Rendering models will not be a burden on the sim as I believe
>a 3D model is a 3D model to any sim. Cheers! and happy
>Thanksgiving to all.

I have spent thousands of hours working on scenery for MS Flight Simulator. Every time a new version was released, I had to find out what would work and what didn't in the new sim. Sometimes my source files were useful, sometimes not.

But I always felt "on to bigger and better things," even if my FSASM files (which I used to put in every radio tower and airport beacon in Ohio) no longer worked.

I hope very much that the new train simulator is very new, even if some of the custom work on routes (which I did for myself) no longer work at all.

Whenever a new version of FS came out, I always kept the older version on my pc, thinking "after all the custom work I've done, I still want to have it there."

EVERY TIME, I found that after about six months I NEVER even used the older sim. Hope it happens again with the new Train Simulator!:-)

[oakpalms]

Vince,
I think you are beginning to make some sence out of backward compatibility. I think MSTS fans are just hoping that SOME objects created for MSTS can be quickly converted over to the newer sims. For example, you can go back to the step prior to making an ace file and you will end up with a photorealistic image that will not get any better even with the newer sims since that same photo would be used for the new sims.

Some ace files have been made from as low as a 128 X 128 size image--that is very low resolution. But others have been made by 1056 x 1056 size image--a much higher resolution. Just how high a resoltion will be available for use with the new sims and will it even be a square shaped file? In other words with all the computer screens going to wider format then a squared basic image would have to be "stretched" which would render a distortion even from a high resolution MSTS file.

Then becomes the question where do we get a photorealistic image that is wider than it is high. Well a wider photo has been the norm for many years--8 X 12, 4 X 6, 5 X 7 are formats we all know. Train photos were usually turned sideways to get a wider photo rather than a taller portait style. MSTS has forced a backward reduction on all images as anyone who has made an ace file knows. If the new formats call for rectangular images such as 1056 X 2012 or something along those lines then we will get 3d images that are proportionately true to life.

If the new sims employ a format using a square then all MSTS files would carry over the same squeeze used with MSTS and it would just be a question of resolution. However, if they use a rectangular image format then no MSTS image would be true to scale and we would need totally new images based on the new proportions.

Bob Edwards

[landnrailroader]

It makes a great deal of sense to provide some backward compatibility or conversion from older material available. In earlier versions of FS, Microsoft provided conversion utlities to convert aircraft files from an older version to the newer. I believe it would make MSTS-2 a more popular product if the same was done for conversion of OBJECTS, provided one had the SOURCE CODE from MSTS-1 to MSTS-2. This would allow a jump start on new routes and materials, which would, by the nature of things phase itself out over 12-24 months. By 12-24 months into a new sim., everybody would be using newly created content, either theirs, or somebody else' freeware.
I don't make a lot of original content for my routes, but I do make my own bridges, using Ron Picardi's "kits" and TSM, so it would be nice to have a way to read a TSM file into a plug-in and get a <whatever> file out for MSTS-2. If I could do it for my own material, Ron and others could also do it for their materials and very quickly we would be able to create content that was AS GOOD AS that which was done in MSTS-1. Then we work on migrating to totally using MSTS-2 materials.

Jerry Sullivan
aka landnrailroader

[Claude350]

>Why would you want to put MSTS1 content in MSTS2? These
>"Backwards compatable" topics are pointless and
>stupid. Its like saying I want to put Flightsim98 addons in
>FlightSimX. It does not make any since. Stop and think about
>if for a second people.

It may be pointless and stupid to you but for others it may make since. I feel that there should be compatibility between the two. It eliminates the long wait for something new to come out and you can continue to run or use what you have. For those that don't think this way you still have the option of not using it. You can rebuild models to your hearts content.