3D Programs, MSTS (.s) & OpenBVE/BVE

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: 3D Programs, MSTS (.s) & OpenBVE/BVE

Post by graymac on Sun May 13, 2012 1:48 pm

Thanks, Ben, but you'e just driven over the point and reversed over it to be sure. Which point is, with a route chundering machine Ballyfeckin would not be Ballyfeckin - if it had not been hand coded by me it would not be MINE. It might be longer or whatever though I guarantee you it would not be better.
avatar
graymac

Posts : 1740
Join date : 2011-08-28
Location : Co Mayo, Eire

http://www.celtictrainsim.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D Programs, MSTS (.s) & OpenBVE/BVE

Post by Quork on Sun May 13, 2012 2:42 pm

Why only do I have to think now of elder train drivers discussion, whether the old engine is more "real railway" than the new one...? It's a matter of philosophy I think. Just like with the engines. For the one, the old engine is more reail railway, more real work, because you hear and feel the control unit clanking whenever you change the lever position, you have to get a feeling for the engine by years and years of experience to be able to catch those switch moments where the jerk is somewhat less, while the new engine is a toy and not a train because it is more forgiving and less physical work to drive. For the other, the old engine is simply outdated, prehistoric, less safe, it jerks along, you have to adapt to your tool, while the new engine is clean, safe, economic, you can use your feeling to drive as steadily and economically as possible instead of using it up for some dinosaur-age constructions which allow a division of the full force spectrum in 30 steps at best... Which one is right? Both have their arguments and counterarguments. I for myself am rather a follower of the second position, though I still respect and like the old engines. But is one of them right and one of them wrong? I think not. When a dev says, s/he prefers handcoding, just like Gramac, I have great respect for that decision and for their work - if it meets the standards, but they are, inquestionably, when it comes to Graymac's work. But if a dev says, s/he would prefer an editor, if one was available - that's great for me. The standards their route has to meet are neither higher nor lower for me. I care what the product looks like.
avatar
Quork

Posts : 1078
Join date : 2012-05-05
Age : 25
Location : Hofheim a.T., Hessen (Hesse), European Union

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D Programs, MSTS (.s) & OpenBVE/BVE

Post by BruceS on Sun May 13, 2012 2:48 pm

Quork wrote:Why only do I have to think now of elder train drivers discussion, whether the old engine is more "real railway" than the new one...? It's a matter of philosophy I think. Just like with the engines. For the one, the old engine is more reail railway, more real work, because you hear and feel the control unit clanking whenever you change the lever position, you have to get a feeling for the engine by years and years of experience to be able to catch those switch moments where the jerk is somewhat less, while the new engine is a toy and not a train because it is more forgiving and less physical work to drive. For the other, the old engine is simply outdated, prehistoric, less safe, it jerks along, you have to adapt to your tool, while the new engine is clean, safe, economic, you can use your feeling to drive as steadily and economically as possible instead of using it up for some dinosaur-age constructions which allow a division of the full force spectrum in 30 steps at best... Which one is right? Both have their arguments and counterarguments. I for myself am rather a follower of the second position, though I still respect and like the old engines. But is one of them right and one of them wrong? I think not. When a dev says, s/he prefers handcoding, just like Gramac, I have great respect for that decision and for their work - if it meets the standards, but they are, inquestionably, when it comes to Graymac's work. But if a dev says, s/he would prefer an editor, if one was available - that's great for me. The standards their route has to meet are neither higher nor lower for me. I care what the product looks like.

I thank you greatly for wording what I wanted to say perfectly.

BruceS

Posts : 77
Join date : 2011-08-31
Location : Somwhere in the Worth Valley

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D Programs, MSTS (.s) & OpenBVE/BVE

Post by graymac on Sun May 13, 2012 3:06 pm

The work will speak more loudly than it's creator, it will not need to defend itself so long as it is good enough.
Irrespective of HOW it is produced it is the end result that matters. I want to see more examples of good routes. I don't want to see huge quantities of dreck flooding the market as that does harm rather than good.
I use certain utilities to speed production. I use the "Switch" program to construct pointwork, I don't have time to handcode that and the quality is acceptable. Derryck's route shifter has been most useful for duplicating crossovers and suchlike.
Anyway, I would rather do it than gossip about it all day and this gets nothing done. Just let's hope to see a few more "do-ers" in the future, never yet saw a decent route from a saloon-bar developer.
avatar
graymac

Posts : 1740
Join date : 2011-08-28
Location : Co Mayo, Eire

http://www.celtictrainsim.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D Programs, MSTS (.s) & OpenBVE/BVE

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum