Can We Make This One A Bit More User-Friendly, Microsoft?

[TrainMan_112]

I'd like to see Microsoft design the new simulator with custom-content and the customers with limited knowledge about the workings of a program. I've learnt a lot of things about computers JUST from running MSTS, and of course, the help of the dedicated community. But still, I dislike the format and interface.

Microsoft may have been skeptical about a train simulation program, and doubted the demand and popularity, so, they did not design it with custom-content in mind. The fear of train simulators being unpopular has obviously been killed; and it would benift the community greatly if we had something a bit easier to work with.

However, designing interfaces and formatting the interfaces to make the simulation more user-friendly isn't really Microsoft's style. We've seen the 10 versions of MSFS, and none of them were developed with any consideration for the less-knowledgeable, in my opinion.
Because of this, I'm banking more towards KRS because I've seen screenshots of the interface, and it seems that Kuju has put time and effort into making it enjoyable and easy. Don't tell me that shuffling around and renaming files is fun and easy, because it's not.

Anyways, post your opinions on MSTS, and if you think MSTS2/X should be more user-friendly.

[Hobart]

I don't care about every rivet being digitally remastered but a more user friendly interface and sim would be nice. Take for example a snippet of MSTS current game logic.

1) its snowing
2) there's a missing terrtex file in the route's snow folder
3) stop the game to inform user of missing file
4) branch 1 - continue? no -> exit game.
5) branch 2 - coninue? yes -> exit game w/ send/don't send


I see don't see a downside to making small changes like...

1) its snowing
2) there's a missing terrtex file in the route's snow folder
3) throw all caution to the wind and load the normal terrtex file without interupting the user, while placing the error msg in a log file to be checked out later, or never }( ahh ha ha ha.

[Richard]

I don't really have a problem with the interface of the program other than the scrollable and drop down lists should be able to hold more information than they currently do, but I do have a real problem with the stability of the program. MSTS bin has done wonders to help with the stability of the program. My hope is the next version will have better memory management and have an interface for the Raildriver controller, so it does not have to read keyboard interrupts. On the route builders side, It would be nice if the RGE was able to import accurate DEM data and generate flags for track placement without relying on third party software. I would also like to see the ability to check and rebuild track and road databases without destroying interactive objects. In the next version I would also like better documentation, the current Tech Docs range from poor information to zero information. I also agree that error handling needs beefed up, why stop the Sim for a missing snow or night texture if a summer daytime texture is available. The AI dispatcher needs to be a little more intelligent and the Sim should not stop if an AI train fails to spawn or derails, you should be prompted on what course of action to take when an AI train suffers a problem. Just my 2 cents :) I look forward to the next version of Microsoft Train Simulator and thank them for their new commitment to this great hobby :)

Take care,
Rich S.

[OTTODAD]

Hi Richard !

Scrollable and drop down lists should be able to hold more information than they currently do.

Do you meant like this ?

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/up1/121353.jpg

Until Jak Fearon puts them back on his web site they can be had here:

www.otto-wipfel.co.uk/downloads/hitw-extended-menus.zip

O t t o

[ctillier]

>I see don't see a downside to making small changes like...
>
>1) its snowing
>2) there's a missing terrtex file in the route's snow folder
>3) throw all caution to the wind and load the normal terrtex
>file without interupting the user, while placing the error msg
>in a log file to be checked out later, or never }( ahh ha ha
>ha.

Try to think outside the MSTS box. The code wasn't developed by the same people now working on MSTS-X, so it's highly unlikely that concepts such as terrtex files or snow folders will have any direct equivalent.

On the other hand, I agree with your general sentiment that a new sim needs to be much more robust than MSTS, which is so fragile that it crashes when you sneeze.

cheers
Clem

[Richard]

Hello Otto,
I have those for the current MSTS, I was just noting that I hope the next version will have those right out of the box so we do not need a third party add-on :)

Take care,
Rich S.

[landnrailroader]

For what it's worth, here is my two bits. All that has been mentioned is correct and yes, it is hard to use the various editors in MSTS. HOwever, the part that annoys, and even scares, me the most is that when you do a save, you get two messages, one being to save objects and the other to save the scenery. I assume that if you so much as selected a track piece to use the "y" key, but did not actually move the piece, then the track database (or road) is also re-written. Given the touchiness of the software, I would hope that you can set an option to force the software to ask whether to save the track or roads. When laying track, the option could be set to "always save", otherwise it could be set to "ask whether to save---".

Jerry Sullivan