Backward Compatibility

[Poltergeist]

Does anyone know what the chances are that all of the great and wonderful stuff that was created for MSTS, will be able to work in MSTS-X? It would be a shame if it didn't work, it would mean that all of the stuff created would either have to be re-done so that it'll work in the new sim, or basically be left behind. Somehow I really do doubt that there will be backward compatibility, since MSTS and MSTS-X will most likely have different graphic engines, and different coding, but we shall see.

[wmalder]

I would guess that the amount of content from the current sim that will run unaltered on MSTS-X will be nil. However, those of us who've been creating content for the current sim will have the opportunity to rework what we have done in a form exportable to the new sim. Frankly, if the configuration and export of models is fairly straightforward then we can expect a large amount of content quickly.

[sstyrnol]

>I would guess that the amount of content from the current sim
>that will run unaltered on MSTS-X will be nil. However, those
>of us who've been creating content for the current sim will
>have the opportunity to rework what we have done in a form
>exportable to the new sim. Frankly, if the configuration and
>export of models is fairly straightforward then we can expect
>a large amount of content quickly.

The good news is that most serious modellers still in the game will not have to start from zero. They can fall back on their source models (possible add some extra polygons for extra detail possible in the new version) and re-export it in the format of the new simulation (hopefully).

IMHO, hopefully this time we won't have that long a time where we basically have to learn how to get a model into the sim in the first place and having a base of now experienced modellers and thus not having to content with mediocre models while guys first have to learn how to model a loco!

Finally, backwards compatibility can be a two-edged sword. For an MSTS1 model to work in MSTS2 (or X if you like), you would have to cope with the short-comings of the old core program, such as limited physics, sounds etc. The new one may be able to process significantly higher amounts of polys, better sound files etc. So in the end, you may even end up having the bare model to convert it into a new format, then having to add new sounds , physics and cabviews. Sounds to me a lot of work, which may be easier done by the original creator.

[robertreedy]

I think the biggest jump-start to any of this will be if they provide a decent SDK to work with as they have with the various issues of FS. It's not perfect, but gives a huge head start when working with a Sim if the information is there to begin with.

RobertR
ADF-M&RM
Cascade & North Western at http://www.vcnwrr.com/

[wakeboarder82]

If I remember correctly, tdragger from MS mentioned a while back that the FSX SDK is a great place to get a jump start on things. I would venture to guess that the .mdl file format will be used in MSTX.

As for backward compatibility, I wouldn't hold your breath Sean. The topic has been beaten to death many times. I for one don't want to have the team worrying about backward compatibility. I'm longing for a fresh start on a new more solid platform.

[sstyrnol]

Sometimes it is a good thing to get a fresh start on something. Think out of the box, employ state-of-the-art techniques to get things done better than before, streamline things!

The important thing is, most serious modellers already have a great library of good 3D models available, all textured and some of them in quality levels higher than ideally suitable for MSTS.

I could wager a guess that once the MSTS-X SDK is available, these models could be exported into the new format, using better physics and sounds than before rather than carrying over old problems into a new simulation!

[funnelfan]

Well, we can hope for a conversion program that could take the basic MSTS shapes and textures, and convert them to MSTS-X. You'd end up having to write new SD and info files most likely, but that wouldn't be a big deal.

[sstyrnol]

>Well, we can hope for a conversion program that could take
>the basic MSTS shapes and textures, and convert them to
>MSTS-X. You'd end up having to write new SD and info files
>most likely, but that wouldn't be a big deal.

The question is though whether or not the copyright owners will like that?!

[funnelfan]

I don't care what the copyright holders think about the program, I want the program so I can convert the many things I have made over to the new format. I'm sure all the freeware makers would love to see their stuff imported into the new game.

[TVRRMAN]

Excuse me here for a sec,

I can understand wanting your equipment back into the game, but such a program being used could also open up piracy issues as well. The Stuff I built under BLLW is copyright 2003-2007 under my name, and I will police the file library and have all models I made pulled should such a program become available.

Not arguing here Ted, but I'd also like to ask how you decided and came to the idea that "your sure all freeware developers would love to see their content within the next sim."

BTW, on another note, copyright infringement is a serious crime BTW, and depending on how much the issue is pushed and how far the copyright holder is willing to push the case, there may end up being such a thing as "Jail time" being involved.

[ChrisS68]

IF, somehow, one could bring the old stuff into the new sim, it would still be the old stuff. Don't get me wrong, what developers have done within the confines of MSTS has been amazing, and there's some truly beautiful work out there, but porting it to the new sim won't magically make it better. They'd still be the same models, with the same textures. Then there's the kludge factor. So many work-arounds and fixes have been made to tweak MSTS to get it to behave in a prototypical manner. Who knows what physics models/algorithms will be used in the new sim? We can only assume it will handle physics much better than the old sim. Expecting the new sim to be able to account for all the variables is asking a bit much, and would just hold back its capabilities. You'd do just as well to keep the old sim around to run the old stuff.

Chris

[funnelfan]

Ok, two things people here seem to need to be enlightened too. Not making a program to import MSTS stuff because of copyright issues falls into a certain category of illogical thinking that drives me nuts. For instance, a knife can be used as a deadly weapon, so we should ban knives despite all the practical uses of knives?!? NO of course not, we punish those who use a knife as a deadly weapon, but we don't ban knives altogether!!!

Also, all 3D objects in most 3D games all have some very basic similarities, making them compatible to a degree as long as someone goes to the trouble to write a conversion program. All 3D objects are made up of points linked by vertices and textured on three sided polygons (sometimes 4 sided if all points are in the same plane). Those polygons are grouped into a hierarchy and assigned a material type (which can assign transparency, reflectiveness, ect.) It would be very easy to convert simple objects, and only bit more complicated to convert more complex objects (mostly trying to make the object hierarchy compatible with the new system)

I was already assuming we'd junk the physics of the current models and use physics from the new program. But that is a issue that is separate from importing the basic 3D models.

[sstyrnol]

Well I agree that a conversion should be done for quality MSTS 1 models! Definitely! But I think this is something that should be done by the original author of the model or for private use only (and unsupported by the author).

Redistributing converted models e.g. through the F/L is what I think is highly controversial!

[rdamurphy]

Didn't one of the previous incarnations of MSFS come with an "airplane converter" that could update previous models to the then new sim? I'm pretty sure it was FS98, or possibly even FS2000, or perhaps both?

Robert

[sstyrnol]

Well you can easily run most FS2002 planes in FS2004, these same like you can easily run most FS2004 planes in FSX. The catch is that not always you may have the full functionality, set aside some unwanted side effects like messed up physics or the likes.

The more complex the simulated systems of the plane in question are, the higher the possibility of it not working in the newer simulation and also the higher the possibility of a lot of extra work to be put into it to get it working. Right up to the point where it is not worth it.

I haven't bought FSX yet, simply for the reason that I have an extensive collection of FS9 planes (about 240 individual pieces). I am way to lazy and definitely not willing to go through the list and see what I may get working in FSX. And I am not even talking about the global high-res terrain coverage I bought for FS9, the AI traffic I integrated, the real-time weather addon I bought nor the addon airports I bought. Most of this would not work in FS9 so I would have to spend like 200 to 300 bucks just to get back to the state I have now and that I am not willing to do.

However if Trains 2 or however it may be called will be a stable, functional and state-of-the-art train simulation platform, enabling us to properly integrate real world information, with sensibly easy to use route building tools, proper rail physics, then I am more than happy to make the transition, even if it is mostly to avoid the pain of an (even with BIN) inherently instable simulation with an illogical route editor and its bunch of unfinished functions.

[BNSF4723]

I would personally rather have completely fresh content with all of the new features and abilities of the new simulator than something ported over from a game that will be 8 years old when this comes out (and an entire 3 releases of DirectX behind). I can imagine it would be a programming headache to actually make backwards compatibility with such an old game engine function properly, while retaining the features of the new simulator.

Yah, the stuff we have for the simulator now is really great, but I wouldn't consider any of it "lost" if it weren't possible to port it to a new simulator. I think we just need to move on and look to the future. We've had many, many years to play with the stuff on this simulator.

[landnrailroader]

Copyrights only apply to licensed & purchased items, so it would not be legal to export any existing material that came with MSTS to MSTS-X unless Microsoft expressly gives that permission with purchase of the new product.
Then there is the issue of MLT, and 3Dtrains and all the others who have sold content for MSTS. It would not be legal to export those items, although I doubt anyone would care as long as it was SOLELY FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE. Given the rather poor track of MSTS, and lack of verticle curves, I would just as soon scrap the track items of MSTS and do routes from scratch. If the editor was as stable as an editor should be, it ought to cut in half the time required to create a new route (for me it is about a year, on average, but I do still work full time) as much of the delays come in sorting out problems that should never occur in stable software. For example Microsoft should provide a database rebuild that is accurate regardless of whether linked items are present or not (signals etc.).
Lastly, third parties and MS have provided massagers to make FS-4 aircraft work at least as well in FS-? as they did in -4 (or whatever) and I would hope that MSTS-X will have that capability. Nothing has been heard out of Abacus, but TSM was (and is) the easiest to use object creator that I know of. I did teach myself 3dC, but I don't consider it anywhere near as good as TSM. In the pro version of 3DC, it is possible to export .s files and there is some importation capability as well.
And then lastly, John Stanford produced an unimaginably accurate and easy to use product in DEMEX and I would hope that capability like that, to import seamless USGS data, is embedded in a MSTS-X editor set. I am hoping that spline curves will be available in MSTS-X in both the horizontal and verticle planes so that transitions can be applied between gradients.
I just loaded the "Seattle" route into my machine. I have had it since it came out in 2002 and it is a remarkible route (still in the library) in that the grade changes are accurate as to slope (I think) but very abrupt. It beats me that the train will stay coupled on some of the "hogbacks" which are more like to tips of saw teeth, but a route like this, with vertical curves would be great and realistic.

Jerry Sullivan
aka landnrailroader

[wakeboarder82]

>Copyrights only apply to licensed & purchased items,

Man, I really sick of reading such strange statements on here. It's as if people just make this stuff up. Where did you get this idea Jerry? You may want to check your source. Copyright applies to most original works. It matters not if that work is registered or even if it has been published or not. From the time a person creates an original work, they own the copyright until 70 years after they die. There never has to be any purchase or any licensing process.

I feel like a broken record here over the years, as I have probably made posts like this 5 times. There are so many false statements and misunderstandings about copyrights, trademarks, service marks, and patents on here. No one seems to even know the difference.

One thing I have never brought up but have wondered about for some time now is the past threads about people using someone else's font. There are a handful of people on here who have posted nasty things about people using "their" font. Copyright law explicitly excludes typography and lettering. That's right, it flat out says you can't copyright it. They seem to think because they say it is that it is. Well guess what? It ain't. You can't copyright the alphabet. Some folks sell fonts that contain the service marks of railroads. They have the nuts to tell someone else not to steal it from them! Ironic.

Ok, I'm done my rant, but could everyone just go and read up on copyright law so I don't have to keep repeating myself?

[rwooton]

I think you can forget about backwards compatibility. From the screenshots I saw, it would be like trying to use an FSX airliner on a Commordore 64 with the original sublogic version of the sim.

These are two very different platforms.

I think everyone's biggest worry is going to be having to go out and buy a computer fast enough, with enough ram, and a high-end video card good enough to even run it at all. From what I saw, there's no way it'll run on my P4.

:(