MSTS-2 And Utilities

Downloading the latest KOSMOS Environment additions from "How in the World" and looking forward to 3D-TRAINS improved MSTS "Route & Activity Selection" Screen and with a bit of luck an upgraded CONBUILDER, using the SHAPE FILE VIEWER to show pictures of Rolling Stock rather than saying "NO Pictures available", this question came into my mind:Where will a no doubt re-designed and re-coded MSTS-2 leave all these BRILLIANT ADD-ON Utilities like ROUTE RITER, CONBUILDER, ENGMOD, KOSMOS, SKY CONDUCTOR, SHAPE FILE MANAGER and VIEWER and many others ? O t t o

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

MSTS-2 and UTILITIES [View All], OTTODAD, 01:56 PM, Jan-31-04, (0) RE: MSTS-2 and UTILITIES, Koziolean, Jan-31-04, 03:38 PM, (1) RE: MSTS-2 and UTILITIES, heffed, Jan-31-04, 06:26 PM, (2) RE: MSTS-2 and UTILITIES, Silverliner, Feb-14-04, 12:17 PM, (3) RE: MSTS-2 and UTILITIES, buzzbenz, Feb-14-04, 02:48 PM, (4) RE: MSTS-2 and UTILITIES, heffed, Feb-15-04, 07:42 AM, (5) RE: MSTS-2 and UTILITIES, OTTODAD, Feb-15-04, 08:31 AM, (6) RE: MSTS-2 and UTILITIES, oakpalms, Feb-16-04, 09:42 AM, (7)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Up sh*t creek - possibly.Well - I guess it depends on the level of back compatibility - but I really doubt that utilities would be compatible.So then I guess the author's get the immense fun of making them all over again - hopefully to be even better! It's not a major issue.Koz

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Who knows? Until it's released, it's all a big unknown.Obviously, they probably won't work right off. Would it be a major issue to rework them so they work with MSTS2? Even if they did work with no modification, some of them may now be redundant due to new features added. Remember, most of these add-ons were created because of the deficiencies of MSTS.We'll just have to wait and see.-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

MSTS-1 file formats are reasonably well understood. It is possible to write programs which automate some aspects of this, that, and the other. One thing which is probable is that MSTS-2's file format would be proprietary, tough to crack, and have an unpleasant provision in the EULA which would effectively put third party developers out o'biznez. Auran already heads in this direction.It was also advertised that MSTS-2 will have a facility to convert MSTS-1 content, if not use it directly.Thus it would seem that unless there are some very convincing reasons to rebuild everything in MSTS-2, that MSTS-1 content and utilities which deal with it would have a pretty long life ahead of them. It may be perfectly sensible to leave content in MSTS-1 format and convert to MSTS-2 (or something else?) as needed.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

> One thing which is probable is that MSTS-2's file format would be
> proprietary, tough to crack, and have an unpleasant provision in
> the EULA which would effectively put third party developers out
> o'biznez.Not at all true.
For anyone not familiar with how MS handles simulations, please go to Microsoft's web site and look at the Flight Simulator pages. In there, you will find SDKs - Software Developer's Kits, available freely for download for anyone. In there, you will find that MS has extensive documentation about how to create add-ons for Flight Simulator.You will also find, if you check out other fan sites and such, that Abacus, Wilco, and many others have remained quite successful at making 3rd party add-ons for Flight Simulator.We have already seen this done with MSTS, and i would expect, now that MS seems to be back in control of it, that MSTS2 would be even better than the original. There will be proprietary file formats - but, again based on FS, there will be plenty of utilities to convert stuff into the formats. Plus, the vendors that export right into MSTS1's format will probably be able to find ways to do so with MSTS2 as well.------ BUZZ

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I agree.I don't think M$ would try such a thing. Limiting third party content has a net result of limiting your products appeal to the masses.It's a pretty basic business practice. The more entities you have creating content for your product, the more product you will sell.-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

But there must come a time when new Technology demands a complete re-think of what has been used before, such as caused by the new 64-bit processors and even better Graphics cards using future releases of 64-bit DirectX ?Backward Compatibility has been holding back Computing for years and the time has come to bury the Old and start another Age of Computing. The INTERNET has similar problems and needs to be re-created to suit it's present day purpose and usage and not the one it was originally designed for !Microsoft Flight Simulator was designed in such a way as to allow it's Graphics Engine to be "Future Proof" to some extend, but even that one will one day have to be completely Re-designed to allow the use of Satellite created Landscapes to be shown 3D and not like the current FLAT "Photographic Scenery".O t t o

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I would think that Microsoft has learned a very serious lesson about limiting software to where it excludes others from making use of it and thus creating a monopoly...Recent court decisions would certainly apply to what this question concerns. With that in mind, I would think thrid party software will be quite usable...in some discussions with regard to MSTS 2 it has been hinted at that Microsoft has even contacted 3rd party suppliers for input...it would be very unwise for Microsoft to do that and then stab them in the back.Bob Edwards

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.