BVE 2/4 - OpenBVE

[TJay1724]

Ok. I know a lot of you here at BVEstation love OpenBVE. I have no problems with that. What I do have a problem with is the way things are developed here. A lot of you have great talent, however, I've read many posts lately about trainsets being worked on for BVE 2/4 and OpenBVE, yet all I see being released are trainsets for OpenBVE, with no mention whatsoever of a BVE 2/4 version like some of those posts originally stated. It's a trend that bothers me as well as many other NYCT developers because how do people expect more NYCT content to be developed for BVE 2/4 if we do not have the trainsets necessary for the lines. Me personally, I have nothing against OpenBVE, however, the original BVE was meant as a simple simulator and coding for routes and objects were made to be simple. OpenBVE was meant to be a little more open but has become difficult and convoluted and annoying to code for. Thus I will never code for OpenBVE. I know that it is the developer's decision which program to develop content for, but always remember this: not everyone can code routes and objects, and not everyone can develop trains. Having said that, I may have to leave the BVE world if this trend continues.

[Simon]

openBVE routes are coded the same way as BVE routes. I don't understand where you get that idea from. The A line from BVE2 runs the same on openBVE. It's just that openBVE reads little errors in BVE2/4, but they can always be ignored. openBVE is actually more user-friendly than BVE2/4. I believe that you are under the illusion that EVERY openBVE train requires an exterior which is hard to make. However, that is not the case as the R142A and the recently released R143 have no exteriors. openBVE's train editor has an extensive documentation on how to code the trains and enough visuals in the Train Editor to get you started.

openBVE simplifies the process in selecting the route and train. Back in BVE2/4, you would have to manually alter the route file or use BRR to select a different train from the route. In addition to that, openBVE gives you a grade map and the stops, which was inaccessible in BVE2/4 before loading the route.

I understand your concern of the lack of content for 2 and 4, but actually give openBVE a try as it doesn't seem like you spent a lot of time playing around with it. I could be wrong, but get back at me.

[Bombardier01800]

openBVE routes are coded the same way as BVE routes. I don't understand where you get that idea from. The A line from BVE2 runs the same on openBVE. It's just that openBVE reads little errors in BVE2/4, but they can always be ignored. openBVE is actually more user-friendly than BVE2/4. I believe that you are under the illusion that EVERY openBVE train requires an exterior which is hard to make. However, that is not the case as the R142A and the recently released R143 have no exteriors. openBVE's train editor has an extensive documentation on how to code the trains and enough visuals in the Train Editor to get you started.

openBVE simplifies the process in selecting the route and train. Back in BVE2/4, you would have to manually alter the route file or use BRR to select a different train from the route. In addition to that, openBVE gives you a grade map and the stops, which was inaccessible in BVE2/4 before loading the route.

I understand your concern of the lack of content for 2 and 4, but actually give openBVE a try as it doesn't seem like you spent a lot of time playing around with it. I could be wrong, but get back at me.

There is a difference. OpenBVE has a LOT more commands than regular BVE. Me, I use it just because it's what works best on my computer, but I code for BVE while making sure it works on OpenBVE

[Phantom909]

It's just that openBVE reads little errors in BVE2/4

Again another misconception by the OpenBVE drones. There are NO errors in my BVE Routes. For the 100,000th time, OpenBVE in NOT BVE . There is no link from mackoy`s page for it. OpenBVE findes errors because it is a flawed program.


BTW TJay, glad to see you here, send me a PM when you get a chance so we can talk

Joe

[TJay1724]

Thanks guys for responding. Please keep in mind that i am not coming down on anyone. I think you all do excellent work. What I'm saying is that, I have worked extensively with openbve. It is not structured the same as bve 2/4. There are objects that I have made that show up fine in bve, but gives me massive errors in openbve and do not display properly. The animatio objects are a b***h to code. I enjoy operating routes in openbve, but not to code for them. As far as the trains go, I was referring to the fact that the R142A was annouced for bve one to one and half years ago, and myself as well as many others have been waiting for that set. And now it gets released and it's openbve only. I enjoy coding high quality routes for you guys. Fictional or not. But how am I supposed to when we don't have the trains necessary to run them?

[Bombardier01800]

Now I truly see your point, and agree with it. and welcome back TJay I really like your routes.

[Rayvon]

Thanks guys for responding. Please keep in mind that i am not coming down on anyone. I think you all do excellent work. What I'm saying is that, I have worked extensively with openbve. It is not structured the same as bve 2/4. There are objects that I have made that show up fine in bve, but gives me massive errors in openbve and do not display properly. The animatio objects are a b***h to code. I enjoy operating routes in openbve, but not to code for them. As far as the trains go, I was referring to the fact that the R142A was annouced for bve one to one and half years ago, and myself as well as many others have been waiting for that set. And now it gets released and it's openbve only. I enjoy coding high quality routes for you guys. Fictional or not. But how am I supposed to when we don't have the trains necessary to run them?

It's finished actually, we just need to make the run sounds. I just talked to error about it the other day. We still have BVE 2 and 4 projects in progress, but it's been easier to release content for OpenBVE and then continue on because of the amount of editing it takes for BVE 2/4 compared to Open. That in itself may make it seem either flawed or watered down, and I do agree with your views. It has also been hard because of my frustration with XP recently. I dual boot, so if I need something done quick I'd rather work on Windows 7 than wait the extra time for XP.

If you need any trains that are out now then drop me a pm and I can possibly make a temporary port until the other projects are out

[Bombardier01800]

Ray, you make the OpenBVE to BVE conversions right?

[Rayvon]

Ray, you make the OpenBVE to BVE conversions right?

I'm pretty much the only person doing them atm lol

[Haven]

Thanks guys for responding. Please keep in mind that i am not coming down on anyone. I think you all do excellent work. What I'm saying is that, I have worked extensively with openbve. It is not structured the same as bve 2/4. There are objects that I have made that show up fine in bve, but gives me massive errors in openbve and do not display properly. The animatio objects are a b***h to code. I enjoy operating routes in openbve, but not to code for them. As far as the trains go, I was referring to the fact that the R142A was annouced for bve one to one and half years ago, and myself as well as many others have been waiting for that set. And now it gets released and it's openbve only. I enjoy coding high quality routes for you guys. Fictional or not. But how am I supposed to when we don't have the trains necessary to run them?

atm, i am starting to work on a train for BVE2 only. It will have a route in the future (no time soon lyk early summer of 2012)
and im working with another guy from Philly to work on some routes but he didnt get back to me yet so yea. 
Dont worry man! some content is on the way

[Bombardier01800]

awesome

[ipac]

I personally dont find any major coding differences between OpenBVE and BVE 2.  BVE 4 is actually too complicated in my opinion for me to use.

As of now it has become very inconvenient for me to develop exclusively for BVE 2, as modern operating systems (Vista, and 7) no longer work well with BVE 2 or even BVE 4 due to the DirectX issue.  OpenBVE has become my development platform, and I prefer it due to its speed.  I can make a code change and see it in nearly 70% less time compared to loading it in Track Viewer (the Routeviewer for BVE 2 and 4)  I can also use higher resolution textures allowing me to keep a high quality copy for users to use later on if there is a demand for it.

After that I will scale everything down, and test it in BVE 2 in Virtual PC with Windows XP.  Coding wise there is no difference from what I have experienced working in BVE 2 or OpenBVE.  I started developing the R in BVE 2, and continued developing it in OpenBVE.  After I finished I tested it in BVE 2, and it worked fine.

I guess it boils down on what exactly your making, OpenBVE's standards of coding are more strict compared to BVE 2/4 and therefore more errors are detected, where as BVE 2/4 is very lenient.  A couple of typos on the route file go undetected in BVE 2/4.  Color issues are also very strict in OpenBVE as it tries to make the developer conform to a code that will work on all operating systems despite what video card the user has.  BVE 2/4 would allow a certain amount of error between color codes, this is why the G has that issue at Smith-9th Streets on OpenBVE.

As for animated objects, despite me using OpenBVE as a development platform, I don't make them.  I don't have any plans to figure out how to make them either.

My operating preference would be to use BVE 2, since things just feel right.  OpenBVE sometimes feels a bit too unnatural, or it could just be that it doesn't do a very good job at duplicating certain realistic features.  There is a comparison chart online which explains the differences between OpenBVE and BVE 2, and how there is a stress that OpenBVE does have different goals compared to BVE 2/4.

The missing trains are due to an author who created about 3 or 4 of those trains took them down.  Therefore creating major gaps in the trains we have available now.  So you cant really blame the developers for choosing to develop for OpenBVE or BVE 2, regardless.  We're literally playing catchup right now just to fill in those gaps, while trying to keep up with the users demands for higher quality trains on the platform that can support them (in this case OpenBVE)

The development tools are also much more efficient to use in OpenBVE, Route Viewer, Train Editor, Object Viewer all are faster, and provide much more control on how you want to use it.  Train Editor has opened up the possibility for me to develop trains because of its ease of use compared to BVE's Motor Editor.  Object Viewer doesn't have that much difference.  Route Viewer has a bunch of features like a low CPU mode great for my laptop, since thats what I mainly use for development and a quick way to get to a specific location.

The only thing I miss compared to BVE's development tools is the drag and drop interface.  I remember developing the G with the original Track Viewer, making a single addition to the route takes forever when I refresh the route, and if the object was placed in the wrong spot (it usually was) I would have to again wait for the route to reload.  I have lost alot of time just waiting for the damned route to reload, and truthfully the route could have been finished alot faster if I had OpenBVE's development tools.  Today its so much easier working on the R, but my actual free time has attacked me which prolonged the development time.  If I had to use Track Viewer to work on the R, it'll probably take 2, even 3 times longer than I would have.

In my opinion, I dont care what you use, as long you get the job done and it works is all that matters.

So those are just my 2 cents on this whole issue.

Anyway its good to see you back TJay, sorry for any inconvenience the re-registration caused you, and everybody else, but we had to do this to clean up the website, and install a plethora of brand new features that are only supported on this newer version of the forum software.  It was a much needed upgrade for the better.

[TJay1724]

Thanks for everyone's response. I was just pointing out some things. Anyway, I just want to let everyone know that I am still coding and while track viewer does take some time to load things, I still prefer to use it. Now the OpenBVE objectbender program is an excellent tool for both programs and it has greatly improved my coding time. Although there's a trick to it. So you guys should be seeing things from me soon. Also, I know a while back, someone asked me why I do not code real NYCTA routes. The answer to that is with my job, school soon, my children and a host of other things going on, I don't have the time to collect the necessary data. Trust me, I would love to code real routes. But for now, I'll stick to fictional and REAL vintage NYCTA routes.

[Bombardier01800]

Vintage routes are awesome. By the way, did you create the Highbridge?

[ipac]

Yep we're all very busy, thats why the R actually took longer for me to develop even though I've been using Route Viewer.  Once us developers pass that certain age, we lose alot of our free time   

Just wondering, Are you ever going to vintage up a existing non-fictional line, other than the shuttles?  That would be lovely to see.