Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?

This is just a thought, But are we expecting too much from MSTS 2? C'mon admit it we are all looking for the ultimate railroading experience, but in my opinion train simming is still a fledgling idea. Look at flight sims, I remember playing my first flight sim back in the early 1980's on an old Apple II Plus computer that my dad puchased when I was 11. How long have flight sims been in development? 20+ years? A lot longer than train sims. I think it maybe a long time before we see most of the features we want in a train sim ,Career mode, Multiplayer, and others people have mentioned.what are your thoughts on this?Joel

Alert | IP

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

RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, buzzbenz, Nov-21-03, 05:38 PM, (1) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, heavymetal91, Nov-21-03, 07:08 PM, (2) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, Stooopid_person, Nov-22-03, 00:42 AM, (3) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, heffed, Nov-23-03, 05:29 PM, (4) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, OTTODAD, Nov-28-03, 06:54 AM, (5) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, heffed, Nov-29-03, 03:44 AM, (6) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, OTTODAD, Nov-29-03, 10:05 AM, (7) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, DavidYoung, Nov-29-03, 12:14 PM, (8) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, OTTODAD, Nov-29-03, 01:47 PM, (9) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, DavidYoung, Nov-29-03, 03:01 PM, (10) RE: Are the expectations for MSTS 2 too high?, OTTODAD, Nov-29-03, 03:51 PM, (11)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Not really. What i think most of us want is just a version that works better and has less "limits" (like 72 lights per tile, 35 lights per train, 1800 objects per 2-km square, etc etc). Like MSTS1, third party content will make whatever they give much better than MS can do on their own (simply because the man-hours involved would be enormous), just as long as we have a core program that can take it without breaking...------ BUZZ ------

-- Power For You --

Alert | IP

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

You are right MSTS 1 would be pretty boring without the 3rd party content cheers to those who made all the good stuff availible for MSTS 1. I just hope MSTS 2 will be a platform to build upon like MSTS 1, but better Joel The BN will forever live in my heart

Alert | IP

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

>How long have flight sims been in development? 20+
>years? A lot longer than train sims.But now, technology is better, and you can see that MSTS 1 is already better than the first flight sim. So for MSTS 2...

-----You are reading my signature now, don't waste your time reading it!-----
Or probably, maybe you should waste your time reading it.
Eh, where did my signature go?
Oh, here it is, the one you are reading right now? Can't you see it? I know I know, it's probably too bright to see it.
Hey, look at my avatar, nice right? I drew it with my own hands holding the mouse in Paint, with the pencil tool(and the Filling tool!)!
It's a picture of me in Planet Stooopid, where everything is the same as what you call "Earth" except that we are called "aliens" in your planet.
Anyway, I warned you not waste time reading my signature! You have just wasted probably about 30 seconds reading it, where you could have spent the time doing better things, like maybe reading the next post below if there is one...

Alert | IP

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

I agree.The problem was technology. Apple II pluses just didn't have the power to really deal with the complexity of a flight simulator.The sim had to basically "grow" with the technology available.Today, technology is quite a bit more advanced, and can deal with demanding applications with relative ease.A flight sim is also quite a bit more complicated than a train sim. Many more variables to take into account.With a properly designed graphics engine, (look at MSTS 1 to get an idea of an improperly designed graphics engine. ) the technology is more than adequate to produce the train sim we all want.-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

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

Jeff, not being much of a Graphics expert, are KUJU's ACE files compressed Graphics similar to the FS-2002/4 BGL scenery files which are using Bitmap textures.If the MSTS Graphics Engine were to be re-designed to use ACE, existing World Tile and Shape files could that achieve a Performance and Quality improvement similar to what we now get with FS-2004, or would a complete re-design of MSTS be necessary ?O t t o

Alert | IP

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

Hi Otto,>not being much of a Graphics expert, are KUJU's ACE
>files compressed Graphics similar to the FS-2002/4
>BGL scenery files which are using Bitmap textures. Not familiar with FS2002/4, so I'm not familiar with a BGL file. But I do think it's a bit odd that KUJU felt the need to use a proprietary compression scheme as opposed to the fairly standard .bmp. >If the MSTS Graphics Engine were to be re-designed to use
>ACE, existing World Tile and Shape files could that
>achieve a Performance and Quality improvement similar to
>what we now get with FS-2004, or would a complete re-design
>of MSTS be necessary ? Again, being ignorant of FS, I can't comment on performance or quality differences. But I do believe that in order to bring MSTS "up to snuff" would take a substantial re-working of the graphics engine. Possibly even a complete re-write.The .ace files aren't the performance killers, but I think they look inferior to a .bmp Even a .jpg that has been compressed well looks better. If you look at the games available today, the quality of an .ace simply doesn't cut it.This is one reason I'm not especially excited about MSTS content being compatible with MSTS 2. (If indeed that is still going to be the case) I think that in order to make the older content compatible, the only solution is to "dumb down" the graphic quality of MSTS 2. Unless they go the route of converting the .ace to whatever format they are currently using. This way, the converted stock wouldn't look as good as the newer stuff, but at least the quality of the newer stock wouldn't suffer.-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

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

Thanks, Jeff, that's what I thought too !Will be interesting to see what M$ comes up with, eventually ! O t t o

Alert | IP

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

I think some of the expectations might be a bit too high simply because they seem to be beyond the capacity of the average PC.Having said that, my one grievance with version one, which I hope very much disappears in version two, is that the annoying ten-metre requirement between points when tracklaying (i.e. you cannot put two pairs of points immediately next to each other) is just so unlike the real thing which I am trying to model. I can vaguely see some reason for this from my limited knowledge of programming but like the other unrealistic elements (not being able to have working loops or turning triangles, turntables that don't turn, two-dimensional cabs and so on), it would not push the processor to its limits to make it more like the prototype. Fortunately, all the others seem to be included in version two but I've heard nothing about the proximity of points.

Alert | IP

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

David,considering that KUJU the creators of MSTS produced first time what we now got and can do amazing things with as proved by many ADD-ON creators and even lesser experiment hackers like myself, I must congratulate them on what they have come up with, under pressure from M$$$ no doubt.The whole concept of making everything work the way it does, not always to the satisfaction of some, is really amazing and it will take the programmers at Microsoft now responsible for developing it further some time to catch up with what the guys at KUJU have already forgotten ! If they can pull this one off and come up with something superior to MSTS-1 and what the Competition has to offer, I shall never ever again utter a single derogatory word referring to Microsoft and it's Software !!! O t t o

Alert | IP

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

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think that MSTS is fantastic, especially for a first version. Before I bought my PC a couple of years ago the best simulator I had used was 'Mercenary' for the old Atari 800XL. I just hope that the next one is made to reflect the prototype in more ways than the original.

Alert | IP

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

No I didn't get you wrong, David ! You got a point there. Could chain switches with no track pieces in between them with my past model railway layouts, the same applying to real Railways.But there are certain limitations governing what programmers can code and achieve reality, considering certain constraints. A Train Sim which is portraying reality to the letter would be un-affordable, like some of the commercial Flightsim installations Pilots are being trained on.I am happy with MSTS-1 as it is, but would not complain if it were to get better ! O t t o

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.