Previous Topic | Next Topic

Just a quick question. Would it be easier to include route specifications in a readme file included with a route?
(Wp713)

Alert | IP

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

RE: Route Specification Forum, Kip, Sep-04-02, 01:48 AM, (1) RE: Route Specification Forum, zhivago47, Sep-04-02, 04:49 AM, (2) RE: Route Specification Forum, landnrailroader, Sep-04-02, 07:50 AM, (3) RE: Route Specification Forum, LawrenceKellie, Sep-04-02, 08:30 AM, (4) RE: Route Specification Forum, DKlemm, Sep-04-02, 10:46 AM, (5) RE: Route Specification Forum, wp713, Sep-04-02, 12:33 PM, (6) RE: Route Specification Forum, Kip, Sep-04-02, 03:33 PM, (7) RE: Route Specification Forum, LawrenceKellie, Sep-04-02, 04:02 PM, (8) RE: Route Specification Forum, calr, Sep-04-02, 04:27 PM, (9) RE: Route Specification Forum, mazz, Sep-04-02, 04:28 PM, (10) RE: Route Specification Forum, calr, Sep-04-02, 04:54 PM, (11) RE: Route Specification Forum, LawrenceKellie, Sep-04-02, 05:44 PM, (12) RE: Route Specification Forum, calr, Sep-04-02, 06:11 PM, (13) RE: Route Specification Forum, LawrenceKellie, Sep-04-02, 06:19 PM, (14) RE: Route Specification Forum, zhivago47, Sep-04-02, 10:20 PM, (15) RE: Route Specification Forum, mazz, Sep-05-02, 04:09 AM, (16) RE: Route Specification Forum, LawrenceKellie, Sep-05-02, 08:15 AM, (17) RE: Route Specification Forum, mazz, Sep-05-02, 08:33 AM, (18)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

The forum is more involved than that when it is opened for business. Granted, all routes should have documentations and maps and such, which you'd get once you already have the route. However I think the premise of the "new" route forum goes beyond "route specs"...basically a preview of routes to come and present routes....before downloading a route I think. This was discussed a few months ago about having some sort of system to check routes one would like...or not like. Good idea I think.Kip
The Priest River Railroad "...it's so fictional, it's almost real"
PRRR Wesite Coming soon: PRRR's Hoodoo Pass Route

Alert | IP

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

Well, hopefully there is a readme file with that kind of information in every route, but unless you download the route first you aren't going to see that. What the forum will do is allow everyone to go in and see each route's specs and information all in one area without having to download the route to find it and then decide whether or not they want to download the route. Give it a change to work and I think it will be a good thing for everyone, including the route creator. Someone might have missed a route they might like but for not knowing it was available somewhere.
Tim
The Spur Line
http://tahunter.net/thespurline
Appalachia RR - Midwest & Rocky Mountain RR - ADFRR Route

Alert | IP

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

This sounds like a great idea to me, but I don't know if a new forum is required. It seems to me that once a route is ready, inserting a copy of the README file into a message to this group would be sufficient.I think we usually know when routes are coming on-line. Most of us brag about our routes sufficiently (I may over do it , so the fingers point at me) that everyone knows what we are up to anyway.J. H. Sullivan

Alert | IP

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

Where were you guys for the last 3-4 weeks? This was discussed in depth here in the Route forum during that time. I posted several proposals which were refined to a final one. The final one was up for almost a week before I implemented it.Further, Nels is in full support of it. Here is a comment from an e-mail to me about this:"Well, I'm certainly in favor. A major reason for opening Train-Sim.Com in the first place was to provide information for train-sim users, so any proposal that does that I'm happy to support."Here are the pertinent threads:http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/6202.htmlhttp://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/6248.htmlhttp://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID6/6278.htmlLawrence

Alert | IP

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

Most people don't read the readme's in my experience. Most questions I get on installing the IC route are in the readme.

David Klemm
Illinos & St Louis Divisions
IC Version .9 uploaded

Alert | IP

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

I don't honestly have a problem with stating facts about certain aspects, but I do however feel that a seperate forum isn't exactly necessary. But hey, it's not my site... Thanx
(Wp713)

Alert | IP

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

Personally, it's exactly what we need. This separates the two components concerning routes. One is the specifications and overall summary and the other questions and comments of a route in ones' possession. If I read the criteria correctly, the new forum will not be open for discussions. How many questions have we seen on the other forums (not just the Route forum) on what the route is or like. I think the new forum would be just a platform for information on each route without being mixed up with the other "gobbly-goop".Kip
The Priest River Railroad "...it's so fictional, it's almost real"
PRRR Wesite Coming soon: PRRR's Hoodoo Pass Route

Alert | IP

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

You are absolutely correct, Kip. Any and all discussion will NOT be allowed, in fact, each and every post must be approved by the moderator(s). If one moderator has a question about whether a specific post should be allowed, they will conference about it and make a decision.Also, each post which is allowed will be immediately locked so you cannot respond to it.This is all being done so that a user has someplace to go to find *facts* only about a route, not what this person likes, that person likes (which is, of course rating the route!), but facts. They may be cold. They may be impersonal. But no one, including the developer (who provides the facts), can argue about them. (Well, I suppose you can, but it wouldn't do any good.)Lawrence

Alert | IP

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

I think this is all a question of semantics. The new route specificaton forum is not really a forum. It is more of a database. The term forum implies discussion which is not permitted in this new forum. I like the idea of having a central information center on routes but putting it in with the DISCUSSION forums seem not to be the best location. The only alternative location I can come up with is the file library and that's not really a good location.
Cal Rasmussen
Beaverton, ORColumbia Gorge Route (The Dalles Dam--Landscaping,building roads,erecting buildings
The Dalles Yard--Laying track)

Alert | IP

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

Thanks to this forum! Or Route information bank, if I can say so..I think this is great, beacause now (hopefully) we have one place to search for route contents, "whats in it for me.."I also think that having the entry beeing formatted and approved by the admins before it gets official, gets us the equalized information bank which I think is good.I think that this "information bank" also in some way force us route builders to give proper information about the route, which in some way gives the route a better quality. Maybe..So, I say... Excellent!!

Alert | IP

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

Wherever the route specification database ends up, I would recommend adding to the subject/title line a qualifier indicating if the route is released or under development. This could go in parenthesis after the route title.
Cal Rasmussen
Beaverton, ORColumbia Gorge Route (The Dalles Dam--Landscaping,building roads,erecting buildings
The Dalles Yard--Laying track)

Alert | IP

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

Notice in the Guidelines, Cal, that one piece of information that can be provided by the developer is "Version and Release Date." That certainly would apply.However, and we haven't specifically thought of or discussed this, but the purpose of the RS forum is to help a user make a decision on whether to download a route or not. If the route is still in production, then it fails at that point--the user can't download it! At that point, the post in the RS forum is more a promotion, which is not one of the goals. You could argue that any information from a developer can be considered a promotion, but when you specifically look at promotions that Rich (Ohio, et al.), Jim {Sniper} (P&ON), myself (Tapiola), Bill (Sea View), Dr. Sullivan {I think} (...hmmm what is it), have done, the RS forum is vastly different.Promotion can be done in a multitude of places, but getting the raw facts with which a user can then decide whether to download that route or not has been missing. That is the main purpose of the RS forum (and I continue to use with word "forum" because that *is* the name of the entity, even though it is not the function)--to provide facts.Lawrence

Alert | IP

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

Sorry, Lawrence. I thought or inferred from the various discussions on this topic that you wanted to include works in progress in addition to routes that have been released. That would serve the purpose of letting people know what is coming down the pipe and to avoid duplication of effort or possibly encourage collaboration on a project.
Cal Rasmussen
Beaverton, ORColumbia Gorge Route (The Dalles Dam--Landscaping,building roads,erecting buildings
The Dalles Yard--Laying track)

Alert | IP

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

>Sorry, Lawrence. I thought or inferred from the various
>discussions on this topic that you wanted to include works
>in progress in addition to routes that have been released.
>That would serve the purpose of letting people know what is
>coming down the pipe and to avoid duplication of effort or
>possibly encourage collaboration on a project. Not a bad idea, Cal. It just never came up during the 3-4 weeks of discussion Lawernce

Alert | IP

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

LAST EDITED ON Sep-04-02 AT 10:22 PM (EDT)

Actually Cal, I think that is an excellent idea and one that I will certainly broach with the other two moderators....although I would say that we would have to at least have the work started, not something in someone's mind. Perhaps a percentage done factor or something before it can be placed in the forum/information center.....
And you are right....it would stop others from working on something already in progress so that they are not wasting their time, but could bring about some collaborationas as well......
I like the idea Cal, thanks for suggesting it.Tim
The Spur Line
http://tahunter.net/thespurline
Appalachia RR - Midwest & Rocky Mountain RR - ADFRR Route

Alert | IP

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

I like this idea also.. Some thing that comes in my mind, one was already said:- There must be some certain compeltion rate to be qualified.
- There must be some regular update ( a month?) on the completion rate. This to avoid that route projects that is not more alive are in the list.
- If no updates are done on a period (three month?), the route is falling off the forum.
- Same as for the "Route Specification Forum", all appropriate items should be listed, althought some of them are subjects for changing due to work in progress.My thoughts...
/Mats Abramson

Alert | IP

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

I have enough deadlines to meet in the real world without having to meet them in hobby. Lawrenceps. Again, where were you during the 3-4 weeks this was under discussion?????

Alert | IP

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

>I have enough deadlines to meet in the real world without
>having to meet them in hobby.
>
>Lawrence
>
>ps. Again, where were you during the 3-4 weeks this was
>under discussion?????
SORRY!!!Was not meant suggest things that should put extra burden on you!
As I understood, the discussion earlier did not cover routes under construction, so therefore I did some comments from that perspective.I fully have respect and understanding that admins should not get more work. Appologize for that idea.Still, I am happy with the new forum for released routes, find it excellent./Mats

Alert | IP

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