We have to start all over again

[BNSF5767]

Since there will no be any of the same files used for modeling, we'll have to start all over :( Is there any way you can release some utilites so we could at least get started in the near year?

[nikos1]

Thats a good thing, who wants to see all those models built under the restraints of a 8 year old game in a all new sim.

[marcus92]

actualy i can agree to some part with that, compared to the modles in the new game the old modles will look realy low poly, i think i will be nice to see locomotives with the same standar as what we have allready seen and maybe even a higher standar, but i realy do hope they do give you a guide who to add the man in the cab ;)

[burgerbern]

Cannot agree with that, there are a lot of very high quality models and paintjobs that have surfaced in the last year whose finish are as good as any of the previews we have seen, i am looking forward to MSTSX but would be nice if some of my real favourite high quality engines and wagons could somehow find there way over to the new sim,

[marcus92]

yeah i didnt say ther wasnt high quality locos and paintjobs for msts, i only saide that compared to the built in stock in MSTS2 it wouldnt look as highquality as it did in the first version. that does not mean ther ISNT good locomotives for the simulator.

[rdamurphy]

Keep in mind, that NOBODY's said that I CAN'T import my tank cars into MSTS-X. And the RS guys even said it was possible, and gave me some encouragement, that I can import them into RailSim. I already know I can import them into Trainz.

A 3d model in Windows, for a DirectX game uses - get this - the DirectX format. This is why ShapeViewer is possible, it simply taps into the DirectX API.

The problem comes with whether or not the 3D modelling software supports the game format or not, as far as naming conventions, required textures, and, of course, heirarchies.

In actuallity, Autodesk 3D Max supports everything out there, and it's what all the Pros use. If you can get it into 3D Max format, you can get it into the game. That, my friends, is the trick! We'll have to wait and see what the new game brings, and they may yet decide to do a GMAX gamepack - or it may not be possible under the circumstances. Autodesk may bend to demand and sell an "amatuer version" of 3D Max (not likely) or someone (3D Canvas?) may make a converter that will import a GMAX file, and export it into the other games. (Already been done...)

Robert

[USRailFan]

Keep in mind, that NOBODY's said that I CAN'T import my tank cars into MSTS-X. And the RS guys even said it was possible, and gave me some encouragement, that I can import them into RailSim. I already know I can import them into Trainz.

AFAIK several people have already successfully converted both MSTS and Trainz models into RailSim.

[rdamurphy]

And, quite frankly, the HARD part is learning to 3d model. Learning how to 3d model in a different application isn't that difficult. I can switch back and forth between TSM and GMAX pretty easily, and I'm going to go ahead and give the free version of 3d Canvas a try, to see how it works for me. They seem to be very interested in supporting whatever people want, and highly motiviated towards putting out a quality product. I just don't want to fork out another 70 bucks to get an upgrade when MSTS-X comes out...

Robert

[Vince]

And, quite frankly, the HARD part is learning to 3d model. ...
Robert

Agreed!
I started with GMAX and being quite the dummy where it comes to this type of software, failed miserably.
It wasn't until the first really smart 3D modeling software came along, GoogleSketchUp, that I was able to do some simple modeling. Smart? Look through their code; It has a module in there called an Inference Engine. I guess it tries to 'Infer' what the modeler is trying to do, and provides helpful suggestions. For example; drawing exactly parallel lines.
With SketchUp, it was very easy to get started, after completly running through all the Google provided tutorials :)

And I think it's already been mentioned by the Team that you will be able to convert what you have created for MSTS1 to TS2.
So just as Paul wrote an exporter for Google SketchUp to MSTS shape ( .s) files, I'm sure new utilities will be written in due time.

[rdg7600]

While we will need to start over, I think the previous knowledge gained from other simulators before it (MSTS 1, TRS, RS) While I don't model or paint anything I don't think it's going to be the end of the world.
Also, if your worried about something like this, keep using MSTS 1 until they can build up the MSTS 2 addons. I don't think I'm going to buy MSTS 2 out of the box so I'll be happy using MSTS 1 until the time comes that I find an MSTS 2 at when I want it.

[Vince]

While we will need to start over, ..........


That's not true Cody. It's already been discussed that there will be exporters for the various 3D modeling programs to the TS2 format. Thats not 'starting over' as the model already exists and only needs to be exported to TS2 format
And that's a very looong way from completely building a model, in fact, comparing building the model with exporting the model to the Sim, the export is a trivial thing.

Example; It may take me from about 1 to 24 man hours to BUILD a model, starting from scratch so to speak.
To export that model to MSTS format takes about a minute. using a free utility available in the F/L.

I'm sure utilities to export my models will be written and will be just as easy to use as the ones I use presently. And I will happily pay for them if asked to.

[landnrailroader]

I am somewhat concerned about this "world of rails" gimmick that is touted a lot. As for me, I prefer to sim. lines that have been abandoned, some as far back as 1885 or so and often it is possible to generate marker files for those routes from aerial imagery using UsaPhotomaps or some such.

So far, nothing has been said about whether one can model a route that is outside the corriders that "X" includes in its world of rails. At the moment, I am working with the Milwaukee Road, Coast Div. in Washington state. Fine, the NP which is more or less parallel exists and so w-of-r might reasonably contain that and all I have to do is improve on it.

Then in one area they mention the powerful tools that will come with "X" and then in another mention a SDK as if it would be a seperate item. I am not convinced that this is
the end-all product yet, and I have recently loaded the second improvement to KUJU and will take another look there as well. KUJU has only a very few really serious flaws in my
opinion.
1. - inability to use specific frog angles, preferably selected by frog number
2. - inability to locate track at a specific elevation above sea level
3. - difficulty in setting specific gradients.

I wonder if these issues, which were essentially solved either by Microsoft on others in MSTS-1, will be included in "X".

J. H. Sullivan
(landnrailroader)

[landnrailroader]

This issue has been hashed over quite a bit. I believe the idea behind most of the export utilities is that the utility would export a model, if one had the original source files for it. This would mean that one would most likely, only be able to export one's own work, thus
eliminating any actual or implied copyright issues.

FlightSim has either included, or has later provided, exporters for earlier version of FS
models, and I can recall very easily exporting FS-5 models to FS-9 for example. In those
cases, the exportation was on the actual FS file and not the source file.

J. H. Sullivan
(landnrailroader)

[rdg7600]

That's not true Cody. It's already been discussed that there will be exporters for the various 3D modeling programs to the TS2 format. Thats not 'starting over' as the model already exists and only needs to be exported to TS2 format
And that's a very looong way from completely building a model, in fact, comparing building the model with exporting the model to the Sim, the export is a trivial thing.

Example; It may take me from about 1 to 24 man hours to BUILD a model, starting from scratch so to speak.
To export that model to MSTS format takes about a minute. using a free utility available in the F/L.

I'm sure utilities to export my models will be written and will be just as easy to use as the ones I use presently. And I will happily pay for them if asked to.

I must say I'm very happy about being wrong this time. Happy to see that not all is lost in this. I must say I still feel like a newbie even though I've been doing this for over a year. I think I got caught up in the thread title and not the facts in the posts. Next time I'll read deeper before posting. Thanks Vince, I owe you about three now.

[BNSF5767]

I am somewhat concerned about this "world of rails" gimmick that is touted a lot. As for me, I prefer to sim. lines that have been abandoned, some as far back as 1885 or so and often it is possible to generate marker files for those routes from aerial imagery using UsaPhotomaps or some such.

So far, nothing has been said about whether one can model a route that is outside the corriders that "X" includes in its world of rails. At the moment, I am working with the Milwaukee Road, Coast Div. in Washington state. Fine, the NP which is more or less parallel exists and so w-of-r might reasonably contain that and all I have to do is improve on it.

Then in one area they mention the powerful tools that will come with "X" and then in another mention a SDK as if it would be a seperate item. I am not convinced that this is
the end-all product yet, and I have recently loaded the second improvement to KUJU and will take another look there as well. KUJU has only a very few really serious flaws in my
opinion.
1. - inability to use specific frog angles, preferably selected by frog number
2. - inability to locate track at a specific elevation above sea level
3. - difficulty in setting specific gradients.

I wonder if these issues, which were essentially solved either by Microsoft on others in MSTS-1, will be included in "X".

J. H. Sullivan
(landnrailroader)

See here in my city we have stockyards that would once the main hub of the city with rr tracks and all, these days it's a ghost town in the stockyards except for some businesses and Triumph Foods

[Vince]

I am somewhat concerned about this "world of rails" gimmick that is touted a lot. ...................

J. H. Sullivan
(landnrailroader)

Jerry, is there a concern here about importing marker files into "X" due to the WoR has 'everything' (modern) in place?

If we can get markers in we can lay new track. I DO understand that we will be able to lay track. The question is can we import markers?
Do markers even exist as they do in MSTS?
In a different format probably, but thats not a problem.

The question I have is will we be able to remove Wor track or re-arrange WoR track already included in the new sim?

Utilities are going to be needed just as they were in MSTS. You can bet them becoming available as the needs arise. I'm very optimistic on this because of the very talanted software folks who occupy these forums. This community would be nothing except for them. :D

[Vince]

See here in my city we have stockyards that would once the main hub of the city with rr tracks and all, these days it's a ghost town in the stockyards except for some businesses and Triumph Foods

Yes, exactly. A location where there was once a complex rail system but not included in the World of Rails.
So we need to generate markers of the area from old track maps and photomaps.
Import them into 'X'
Once you've done that, you begin route building. ;)

The concerns I have about this, see in my post to landnrailroader above this one.

[TrainMan_112]

Who cares if we have to start over? I'd rather start over fresh than have a bunch of old MSTS models in MSTSX.

[landnrailroader]

Jerry, is there a concern here about importing marker files into "X" due to the WoR has 'everything' (modern) in place?

If we can get markers in we can lay new track. I DO understand that we will be able to lay track. The question is can we import markers?
Do markers even exist as they do in MSTS?
In a different format probably, but thats not a problem.

The question I have is will we be able to remove Wor track or re-arrange WoR track already included in the new sim?

Utilities are going to be needed just as they were in MSTS. You can bet them becoming available as the needs arise. I'm very optimistic on this because of the very talanted software folks who occupy these forums. This community would be nothing except for them. :D

Yes, I am concerned about that. Markers should be includible. We probably won't have the likes of Demex as I haven't heard or seen anything out of that group in quite a while, but we do need something like that to adjust terrain with. Note that the WorR is said to be of lower resolution - fine, but we need to be able to generate precision resolution where it is needed. It will not matter what format is required for markers as long as it is defined. If you have tried KUJU at all, you know that their markers must either be sequential (bad, bad) or carefully named. I have not used their sequential markers at all for the plain reason that I often go back and add markers where I need more precision.

Mention was made of a stockyard that is no more - there are several of those, and my offerings for the last 3 years have been of the ABANDONED parts of the Milwaukee Road, and I have almost abandoned my HO trains as a result. So yes, there is a concern along the mentioned lines -- removing or adding track in the WorR, markers, etc. etc.

J. H. Sullivan
(landnrailroader)

[Vince]

Who cares if we have to start over? I'd rather start over fresh than have a bunch of old MSTS models in MSTSX.

What is the matter with the MSTS models? Are they defective in some way?

The MSTS model of the Pennsylvania Railroad K4 Pacific, in the F/L, is one of the finest I have ever seen,
with properly quartered drivers to boot!

So why should a beautiful model like this be 'started over'? What benefits would you see?
Specifically, why would using 3dCanvas AGAIN to build the same model only this time export the model as MSTSX format?

I find nothing 'wrong' with any of the models in the F/L and I know how much time goes into creating them. I thank all these modelers for their fine work.

Trainman112, you obviosly do not understand that a model in MSTS is the same as MSTSX.
They BOTH come from a 3DCanvas model. With added shaders in 'X' IIRC.
.
So why would you call the fine MSTS models [a] "...bunch of old MSTS models"? :confused:

[rdamurphy]

Allow me to agree with Vince. If I can build a model, then "export" it into four or five games, why not? I still look with admiration at some of the early MSTS modelling efforts, can anyone honestly say that the TrainArtisan stuff isn't still very good? People have more options now with P4 Quad Core processors and 8 gigs of memory, when I bought the game, I had a P2 223MMX with 128 megs of memory, and an 8 meg ATI video card! A long train of boxes with square wheels brought it to it's knees!

Justin Cornell's SD40-2 was - and still is - a masterpiece, not because it was an ultra detailed model, but because of what it represented.

Robert

[Capt_Scarlet]

What is the matter with the MSTS models? Are they defective in some way?

The MSTS model of the Pennsylvania Railroad K4 Pacific, in the F/L, is one of the finest I have ever seen,
with properly quartered drivers to boot!

So why should a beautiful model like this be 'started over'? What benefits would you see?
Specifically, why would using 3dCanvas AGAIN to build the same model only this time export the model as MSTSX format?

I find nothing 'wrong' with any of the models in the F/L and I know how much time goes into creating them. I thank all these modelers for their fine work.

Trainman112, you obviosly do not understand that a model in MSTS is the same as MSTSX.
They BOTH come from a 3DCanvas model. With added shaders in 'X' IIRC.
.
So why would you call the fine MSTS models [a] "...bunch of old MSTS models"? :confused:

I'll say upfront I'am not a modeller so correct me if Iam wrong but it's my understanding that when you export to a new format, the textures aren't transferred with the model so they will need to be redone and updated ?

The main problem from my understanding with using old models in a new graphics engine when compared to models made to take advantage of that new graphics engine is that the older models unless updated will stand out like a sore thumb ( quality wise ) to the default content ( assuming that content is of a high quality which looks like the case with TS2 ).

Is this true ? If so I would think how well a model transfers over will be dependent on a number of factors and therefore some will fit in easily with minor adjustment and some not. Having said that I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "lower quality" models ( I don't mean that in a bad way ) might be suitable for inclusion as part of WOR and its autogen content where it might not look out of place when compared to a high detailed route.

John

[rdamurphy]

No. None of that is true. An identical model and textures can and will look completely different in different games, depending on the game and the game engine. MSTS will do things now that it wouldn't do 7 years ago, because of the capability of current video cards. Hence the "switches" and "enabled" features people use that didn't work before.

A 3d model is a 3d model no matter what game you use it in, if you're talking about Windows and DirectX. The different "formats" are just customizations that the game companies use for their own purposes. As far as shaders, textures, shadows, etc, all of that is built into DirectX and has nothing to do with the games themselves.

My main question is why no one has managed to get an MSTS model into RS (to my knowledge) and why nobody seems interested. I use GMAX, and quite frankly, don't want to take the time to do it, more than any other reason...

Robert

[Capt_Scarlet]

My main question is why no one has managed to get an MSTS model into RS (to my knowledge) and why nobody seems interested. I use GMAX, and quite frankly, don't want to take the time to do it, more than any other reason...

Robert

They have over on UKTS but that is why I said what I said as the modeller had to update the textures and colours etc so that the model didn't look "flat" when compared to other content.

John

[buzzbenz]

Issue 1 - Models:
Having exported a model i built for MSTS into Trainz, i can say from experience that there IS a BIT more to exporting into other sims than simply re-running the exporter, at least depending on how the model is built. The main thing was/is how the sims deal with translucency, and i think that stems from MSTS absolutely requiring textures to do everything whereas Trainz does NOT (and i don't believe the FSX engine does either). On a first attempt, there is a lot of "trial and error". So, i would expect SOME delay when the new sim comes out as modeler's learn the quirks about what needs to be done to modify a model so it works correctly. However, again from my experience, once the modeler has learned that, it's likely to be a piece of cake to start whipping out existing models. Probably not an issue for the Pros out there, but for those that just do this on a more recreational basis i would expect some learning curve to be involved (but thankfully probably small :) ).

Where things get interesting though is getting the models to work with the new FEATURES of the sim. For example (again using Trainz since i've done it before), in Trainz, passengers will actually fill up the cars when you pick them up at a station. Well, MSTS didn't support that. So, attachment points had to be created, and at 78 seats, even copy/paste operations still took some time for that :)

In short, both viewpoints are correct - as is, the existing MSTS models may be able to be exported fairly quickly, and they may not "stick out like a sore thumb", but what they WILL be lacking is features that may even be found on stock equipment. THAT'S where the updating will take some time.


Issue 2 - WOR:
MSTS-X is built on the FSX engine, so while no one but the developers know for sure, my guess is that there will be a lot of similarities. In FSX, you can use "excludes" to eliminate anything default from a small patch of Autogen to an entire airport and even an entire city. Never seen how far that can be pushed, so it may be that it would be possible to eliminate most of the planet, leaving nothing but barren terrain :) I'm of course hoping all these things are simply part of GUI editor and happen "behind the scenes" in the new MSTS.

And this is all speculation at this point - but again, considering this is built on the FSX engine, i am actually expecting you'll have the entire planet in the sim, so i would surmise you can eliminate any default trackage, towns, what have you and go and build the historical (or fictional) railroad of your dreams - so long as it's based on Earth anyway!

[rdamurphy]

And I agree with you 100%. I guess my point is that I won't be starting over, since before MSTS, I had never even opened a 3d program before, let along learned two of them! That's why I'm not that intimidated by the idea of swithing over to a new one, although if I can get away with it I wouldn't.

However, just this week, I got an email from someone who's pointed out some great new features in 3D Canvas, I might actually have to give it a try...

Robert

[TrainMan_112]

What is the matter with the MSTS models? Are they defective in some way?

The MSTS model of the Pennsylvania Railroad K4 Pacific, in the F/L, is one of the finest I have ever seen,
with properly quartered drivers to boot!

So why should a beautiful model like this be 'started over'? What benefits would you see?
Specifically, why would using 3dCanvas AGAIN to build the same model only this time export the model as MSTSX format?

I find nothing 'wrong' with any of the models in the F/L and I know how much time goes into creating them. I thank all these modelers for their fine work.

Trainman112, you obviosly do not understand that a model in MSTS is the same as MSTSX.
They BOTH come from a 3DCanvas model. With added shaders in 'X' IIRC.
.
So why would you call the fine MSTS models [a] "...bunch of old MSTS models"? :confused:


Really? http://tsinsider.com/assets/0/76/96/122/6bd43d21-a3ba-411c-8520-d6affb7828fc.jpg

http://tsinsider.com/assets/0/76/96/122/d76493af-3eeb-4b1c-8f0d-0ae46293ce28.jpg

http://tsinsider.com/assets/0/76/96/122/2cf80527-9840-477c-87d6-d141f52bc655.jpg

Find me some MSTS models of that quality.

http://tsinsider.com/assets/0/76/96/122/37400ca0-13b7-4c3b-b38d-0cf6f1269a6c.jpg
I don't recall seeing that type of cabview in MSTS...

Sure, there are some MSTS models that are nice, but the power behind the new program should be taken advantage of.

[rdamurphy]

True! It does make one wonder, however, what some of the MSTS models would look like in the new game, though, doesn't it?

Robert

[Vince]

>>........url's snipped<<.............
Really?
Find me some MSTS models of that [very high] quality.
I don't recall seeing that type of [3D] cabview in MSTS...
Sure, there are some MSTS models that are nice, but the power behind the new program should be taken advantage of.

You miss the point. I DO agree the the new display engine will render models in higher detail. The point is that the models were created for MSTS by some 3D modeling program and exported as MSTS shape files.
So now all the modelmaker has to do with his existing 3D model is export as a MSTS-X type shape file.

That is not 'starting all over', it's just exporting the same model in a different format, a format that ,as you say "the power behind the new program" can utilize.
Exporting is trivial compared to actually building the model, and is this case, the model is already built. And so very little extra work. :D

[Capt_Scarlet]

At the end of the day isn't is the case that with TS2 a model can have a higher poly count and definition a higher detail level when compared to a model in MSTS ? Doesn't this mean that some ( obviously not all ) models "might" need some reworking to improve them ? I suppose that the real test will be when modellers are able to actually do this and see if they are happy with the results when compared to the default content.

John

[TrainMan_112]

You miss the point. I DO agree the the new display engine will render models in higher detail. The point is that the models were created for MSTS by some 3D modeling program and exported as MSTS shape files.
So now all the modelmaker has to do with his existing 3D model is export as a MSTS-X type shape file.

That is not 'starting all over', it's just exporting the same model in a different format, a format that ,as you say "the power behind the new program" can utilize.
Exporting is trivial compared to actually building the model, and is this case, the model is already built. And so very little extra work. :D

EXACTLY. The SAME model in a different format.

So if we all import MSTS models into MSTSX, MSTSX is just MSTS with the World of Rails.

[kevarc]

Not really, while it may be the same model, how the new sim actually handles it can make a big difference. It also enables the modeler to go back and refine his model and then export it.

[3Directions]

EXACTLY. The SAME model in a different format.

So if we all import MSTS models into MSTSX, MSTSX is just MSTS with the World of Rails.

Good luck with that :D

[rdamurphy]

Just a bit of a reality check, actually, to this point, this represents about 4 hours work:

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=6018&stc=1&d=1219237473

This version, shortening it to 50' from 60', is an additional half hour invested.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/attachment.php?attachmentid=6021&stc=1&d=1219240754

My first tank car took about 6 hours, since then, there's about an hours work in the other versions.

I haven't built a loco yet, but I would estimate 48 to 72 hours for a diesel, an possibly as much as a 120 or more for a complex steamer.

What I don't want to do is spend another four hours trying to figure out how to get it into the game. Now, it's fairly simple, for MSTS, and very consistent. That's how it should be, and what FS is famous for... That's why both here and at Flightsim.com, you see a dozen brand new models almost daily!

Robert

[3Directions]

That's why both here and at Flightsim.com, you see a dozen brand new models almost daily!

Robert

Repaint or new mesh for FSX ?

:)

[muskokaandtahoe]

The question I have is will we be able to remove Wor track or re-arrange WoR track already included in the new sim?

I read somewhere the answer to that question is yes, you can edit the WOR track.

My own concerns are about how you edit the WOR track. Kuju/RSDL delivered a really strong example of what not do to: push off from the track end going in some approximate direction and hope for the best, using mouse precision as your guide.

The correct solution: Allow the end user to fine tune whatever the mouse is telling the editor by giving the user the means to enter numeric data from the keyboard.

Mouse precision is good enough for "don't care". A route builder can use "don't care" quality some of the time AND very precise, CAD level precision in other circumstances. BOTH are required.

[rdamurphy]

Do you mean like a combination of track pieces and dynamic track, perhaps? I think Otto had suggested that before.

Robert

[purchase6969]

Do you mean like a combination of track pieces and dynamic track, perhaps? I think Otto had suggested that before.

Robert

Here's where I wanna put my 2 cents in!!! :D Hi.
I want to agree with you so much about the things you're bringing up. Wouldn't it be nice if you could use Google Earth to lay track for WOR, so that you could locate and install actual sections that aren't in the new sim?

True! It does make one wonder, however, what some of the MSTS models would look like in the new game, though, doesn't it?

Robert

Yes it does. I have a bunch of pretty awesome repaints of the MLT freeware Dash 9, 14 to be exact. All BNSF. If they had rotating bearing caps, they would make it pretty well in the new sim. I, and I'm sure a lot of others here are hoping and wishing for a utility that will make conversion easier beyond just readme's. Imagine taking the new animations, proposed cabview capabilities, sound effects engine, physics engine, along with particle effects, and putting them with models like those and SD40-2 8010 and GP38-2 2098. :D

[TrirailF40PHL]

Here's where I wanna put my 2 cents in!!! :D Hi.
I want to agree with you so much about the things you're bringing up. Wouldn't it be nice if you could use Google Earth to lay track for WOR, so that you could locate and install actual sections that aren't in the new sim?


If you've ever used Google Earth for route markers, you will find that it is not reliable enough to give you an accurate position - at least in the original MSTS RE. USAPhotoMaps, on the other hand, is near perfect, but does not necessarily have the ability to give as good resolution in some areas as Earth.

-Kurt

[TrirailF40PHL]

Do you mean like a combination of track pieces and dynamic track, perhaps? I think Otto had suggested that before.

An ideal setup would have length-adjustable straight sections, combined with individual turnouts and dynamics for curves.

I dare say that a well-designed editor and GUI could eliminate the need for three individual rail types for each use as well - simply lay the rail, and right click it to toggle straight, dynamic, or create turnout (turnout would of course, generate the proper shape). I dare say a degree-adjustable turnout would be ideal as well - perhaps even an option for a dynamic turnout if needed.

That said, we'll see how MS takes care of it - too late in the game for suggestions of this nature, I believe!

-Kurt

[rdamurphy]

I'm using Google Earth for Route markers. Interestingly enough, it works pretty well, although, in some places, there have been obvious errors.

Robert

[TrirailF40PHL]

Glad to hear you have had luck, Robert. The Miami area wasn't too conducive to it.

-Kurt

[landnrailroader]

If you've ever used Google Earth for route markers, you will find that it is not reliable enough to give you an accurate position - at least in the original MSTS RE. USAPhotoMaps, on the other hand, is near perfect, but does not necessarily have the ability to give as good resolution in some areas as Earth.

-Kurt

UsaPhotomaps works very well for me, and I have done the markers for all of my routes using it. Just recently, though, I was doing markers for industrial tracks around Seattle-Tacoma for my Coast Div. sim. In those areas (also Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, and others) you have three choices of precision if you will. I.e. Topo, Satellite B&W, or "Urban". Urban is very high resolution, so much so that I can pinpoint the exact point of switch for example - you can see either the switch stand, or switch motor. Therefore, I would hope that we can add to or remove from, this WOR thing because otherwise, how can you do a sim. of an abandoned line, which is what most of mine have been.

J. H. Sullivan, P.E. (retired)
(landnrailroader)