MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backwards compatibility

I could strike a sensitive nerve here but here goes...Everybody wants to see MSTS 2 to be a VAST improvement over MSTS 1. And everybody also wants to be able to see MSTS 1 route,activity and rolling stock compatible with the next evolution of this wonderful simulator. After all, so much sweat and time expended by so many has gone into making MSTS what is is today.But my question is: Can MS give MSTS2 100% of the possible improvements and maintain all the backwards compatibility? Will compromises have to be made? If so, what level of backwards compatibility can we expect?

Alert | IP

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

RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, OTTODAD, Jan-30-04, 08:37 AM, (1) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, dgauci, Jan-30-04, 10:38 AM, (2) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, OTTODAD, Jan-30-04, 01:04 PM, (3) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, dgauci, Jan-30-04, 01:21 PM, (4) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, andrewpickell, Jan-30-04, 03:36 PM, (5) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, chucksc, Jan-30-04, 03:42 PM, (6) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, andrewpickell, Jan-30-04, 04:43 PM, (7) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, chucksc, Jan-30-04, 05:52 PM, (8) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, JonN, Jan-30-04, 07:46 PM, (9) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backwards compatibility, heffed, Jan-30-04, 07:47 PM, (10) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backwards compatibility, TimHarvey, Jan-30-04, 08:41 PM, (11) RE: MSTS 2 Getting it right vs. backward compatibility, OTTODAD, Jan-31-04, 10:08 AM, (12)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Welcome to the Forum, Ian ! > But my question is: Can MS give MSTS2 100% of the possible
> improvements and maintain all the backward compatibility?
> Will compromises have to be made? If so, what level of
> backward compatibility can we expect? I think MICROSOFT are facing what England had to after changing from BROAD GAUGE to what we now know as STANDARD GAUGE and the Industry is facing changing from 16/32 bit to 64 bit Computing.Everything had to be changed, Infrastructure, Rolling Stock, etc. ! Some of the Graphics may be convertible from ACE to whatever Graphics Format MICROSOFT are going to use, but think that they and I myself, being a programmer and aware of what problems conversions and re-writes can bring, would prefer a fresh start from scratch ? O t t o

Alert | IP

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

You don't have to abandon everything from the past in order to move forward into the future. While operating systems and hardware have come and gone the basic concept for a computer has remained the same.Yes Microsoft can create a MSTS-2 that builds on MSTS's strengths while improving upon it's weaknesses. The basic concepts are the same, even if they use different methods to get there.I don't see any reason why they couldn't maintain some backwards compatibility while introducing new features requiring new methods and modifications. A 3D model is still a 3D model, a graphic file is still a graphic file. I already have the tools to open an ACE file and then convert it into any other graphic file format I choose.

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-04 AT 01:05 PM (EST)

Hi Dennis,> I don't see any reason why they couldn't maintain some
> backward compatibility while introducing new features
> requiring new methods and modifications. A 3D model is
> still a 3D model, a graphic file is still a graphic file. I
> already have the tools to open an ACE file and then convert
> it into any other graphic file format I choose.Not sure which would be more cost effective and easier for Microsoft, trying to maintain Backward Compatibility or start again ? A completely new design would make more money for them as well as other commercial developers ?You are right about being able to convert Graphics from one format to the other. Programs like the IRFANVIEWER can do it at the drop of a hat, forgot about that ! O t t o

Alert | IP

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

>Not sure which would be more cost effective and easier for
>Microsoft, trying to maintain Backward Compatibility or
>start again ? A completely new design would make more money
>for them as well as other commercial developers ? Starting completely over in a way that makes all existing items incompatible would only serve to royally tick off their existing customer base who already have invested a lot of time and money in the existing product and third party addon's. They won't do that, very bad for business.

Alert | IP

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

I'm not a big flight sim fan...but I was under the impression that Microsoft's Flight Sim releases were all compatible with earlier versions. Is this true or not? Maybe Microsoft will follow a similar process? Andrew Pickell
RTC Trainee
Centre for Rail Training and Technology

Alert | IP

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

Andrew IIRC for a time they were not..
But Microsoft released conversion utilities that accomplished the same end...Chuck Schneider

Alert | IP

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

Thanks for the info Chuck.Andrew Pickell
RTC Trainee
Centre for Rail Training and Technology

Alert | IP

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

Yeah that was the early versions which had major changes to the underlying infrastructure....
The last several upgrades of MSFS actually use the same folder structure and file conventions so it is not necessary to "convert" the older aircraft... Sort of! Chuck Schneider

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-04 AT 07:46 PM (EST)

Well, if it were up to me (speaking from the corporate perspective) I would consider it very prudent to include backwards compatibility. Why? Because the main market for MSTS 2 is people who already have MSTS 1 and won't want to part with their huge collection of rolling stock (especially payware).Jonathan Nikiforovs.
Milepost 180, CP Belleville Sub.Repainter for Yonder Locomotive Works.

"A crictic is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is logic in this; he is unbiased - he hates all creative people equally." - Lazarus Long

Alert | IP

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

That has been my concern all along. I think backwards compatibility would be nice, but not at the cost of reducing whatever performance increases we can expect with MSTS2.I've always liked the concept of more of a conversion approach instead of direct import.Meaning, I'm hoping to see major graphics engine improvements. Chances seem pretty good that the proprietary file format concept MSTS uses on rolling stock won't figure in to these changes. So instead of "dumbing down" the new graphics engine to directly read these old file types at the cost of reduced performance, a simple utility to "convert" existing MSTS1 rolling stock to whatever format the new engine uses would be the best choice in my opinion. This utility would pretty much be a "no brainer" because as has already been mentioned, such things already exist. It would be simple to add conversion support to the MSTS2 source code.Same thing for routes. (although this most likely wouldn't be as simple, but still possible)-Jeff

Union Pacific is my drug.

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Jan-30-04 AT 08:41 PM (EST)

It says on Microsoft's site though that MSTS1 add-ons can be imported into MSTS2, I would take that to mean everything, but who knows...
"Users also will find it easy to add content from third-party sources, and import content from Train Simulator 1. Updates on the latest railroad features will be available online to enhance gameplay"
Since most Flight Sim add-ons are compatible with future versions (but not all), I would imagine it'd probably be the same with MSTS2. It also says:
"Taking cues from the exacting standards of quality and realism associated with the Flight Simulator product family, this latest edition of Microsoft’s Train Simulator series charges full steam ahead from where its predecessor left off"
Does this mean they're going to use the same/similar graphics engine as Flight Simulator 2004?Speaking of Flight Sim v Train Sim, one of the features of Train Sim 2, I wouldn't mind seeing in Flight Sim at airports...
"A living world. Railroads in Train Simulator 2 run through a dynamic environment, immersing conductors in a virtual world. Virtual engineers look out their virtual locomotive to see people in the stations and on the streets, cars moving about, and animals roaming the countryside. A new dynamic weather effect adds an additional layer of realism. Now players can experience multiple weather conditions on the same train ride."

Alert | IP

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

Tim,most of what you mentioned was said before KUJU handed MSTS back to MICROSOFT, the former in my opinion not capable financially nor programmers wise to make the ACE Graphics Format DIRECTX-9 compatible and improve it to make it better than other Train Sims, mainly Graphics wise and not so much the way they work.Now that MICROSOFT are the Developer, try to put yourself into their shoes. What would you do, convert MSTS into a Graphics Format you know all about, like the one used for their Flight Sim, which was backward compatible for some time, having changed the basis years ago, or try to carry on with the ACE Format ? O t t o

Alert | IP

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