lol what's more, I'd really prefer not to have trains in FS, otherwise they'll be tempted to ship in the whole of the USA's nuclear waste through Las Vegas to Yucca Mountain...No Nukes in FS please :(

>whatever happened to the guy who developed 3rd party train>stuff in FS2000?I think he went on to develop My Traffic.

>...and we know the ACES>team developed train sim.FWIW...Microsoft Train Simulator was developed by KUJU Entertainment. ACES played some sort of role but I don't think they actually programmed it. Maybe tdragger could tell us what role ACES played in the developement of that software. I have a feeling it might have something to do with the .ACE file format for textures.As far as seeing trains in FSX, it would be cool but unless they are accurate I could care less. I'd rather they focus their attention on flight related stuff. Train Master Train Simulator and KUJU Rail Simulator should be hitting the shelves about the same time as FSX. I think I'll rely on TMTS for my train sim needs, not FSX, although it would be nice to do some aerial railfanning.It's kind of interesting that there are so many people responding regarding trains. I suggest that if any of you are interested in train simming, then you purchase TMTS when it comes out. It is basically a professional training sim being released to the public. Suppossedly a very accurate simulation.

We were the game's publisher, a common practice in the games biz.

I think the main interest trains is just for eye candy... :-wave

I already love MSTS, but then again it is kind of a sentiment thing -- being that me late grandfather was retired from the D&RGW, so i took an interest in TS. it's an interesting passtime when you want something different to do in the simming sector.

Shame about the graphicshttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/149518.jpg

Thanks for the response Mike! I was always kinda curious why the ACES splash screen appeared on MSTS. I figured you folks didn't do any coding. It was just too sloppy for you guys.>Shame about the graphicsYeah I agree, the graphics aren't great but I will say that that pic doesn't really represent the sim too well. That's a MSTS model that they converted and all the art is placeholder artwork. Check out the progression of the sim over at their website. There are some much nicer looking shots. I think it's kinda funny...many hardcore flight simmers all dream of having a super realistic sim where flight dynamics are placed above graphics. Well the train simmers are about to get just that. They have said time and time again that the focus was first on realism, then on graphics. They really have no choice because it is being developed as a training sim for Union Pacific. In other words, they have to get it right. The real beauty is the price: $29.99!http://www.trainmaster.com/Screenshots/tmt...eenshots_01.htmKeep in mind, many of these shots contain placeholder artwork. The distant backgrounds are temporary as well.

> ..many hardcore flight simmers all dream of having a super realistic sim where flight dynamics are placed above graphics. > Well the train simmers are about to get just that.I don't see how you can compare modelling the flight models of planes to that of train models. It should be a few simple formula that apply to all the trains.

>I don't see how you can compare modelling the flight models of>planes to that of train models. It should be a few simple>formula that apply to all the trains.Well I wasn't really trying to compare them, but since you mentioned it... I think it's a lot more complicated than you may realize. Simple is kind of a relative term. Here are a few things that come to mind that factor in to how a train behaves. For one, a mile long freight train has forces acting all over the place. Some cars might be going uphill while others are going downhill. Some cars are loaded and are very heavy, some are empty and light. The leading face of a car can affect the amount of drag. A box car has more drag than a tank car for example. Also, just as a 747 is different than a 172, a GE44 Tonner is drasticly different from a EMD SD70ACe. Not only is the horsepower different but also the amount of tractive effort. Wet rails have a lower coefficient of friction than dry rails. AC traction motors perform differently than DC traction motors. Perhaps the most important factor to accurately be modeled is slack action. Trying to start a train from dead stop with the slack run out is just not going to happen. So I think it's kind of comparing apples and oranges but it's more complex than the average person may realize. There are other things besides the train performance itself. Things like signals need to be accurately modeled. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a matter of red means stop and green means go. It's far more complicated than that. ABS is different from CTC which is different from Track Warrants. Pretty much everything I listed is stuff that was overlooked, or poorly executed in MSTS.I love trains and planes equally, but I have to say, I think there are some pilots out there who couldn't handle a train for beans. They would get in the cab and be shocked that they couldn't spin a knob and push a button, and have the train drive itself. I admit, I was very ignorant of the skill that is required to drive a train at one time myself.

>> There's one big difference with trains. Can you guess what>it is?>>The AI is alot less difficult to program because trains don't>need to give way, over take etc. But they can change to other>tracks.Actually, signalling, track switching, loading, etc. requires signifigant AI work.

Right on! The physics of train movement is actually quite sophisticated. Each car has its own characteristics that must be modeled (things like 'hunting' brought on my the tracks and trucks aren't exactly parallel), in addition to the mechanics of the connections, air-driven brake systems, dynamic engine braking, etc.The effect of grade is very complicated because each car is experiencing different forces based on where it sits in the consist. At least with airplanes you can get away with distilling things to simplified centers of gravity and lift. You just can't do that with a train.As you say, you can easily break a train in two by accelerating too fast. It's actually a very fascinating modeling problem.

Drag, thrust, traction and weight distribution etc also apply to flight models. In addition theres also: yaw, lift, roll and reverse thrust! Then factor in all the effects from the atmosphere (wind, air pressure, wind shear, gusts, updrafts, downdrafts, currents, humidity, condensation, air density, jet streams etc). Do I need to mention planes come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes ;)

>Do I need to mention planes come in all sorts of>different shapes and sizes ;)Nope you don't. I'm certainly not trying to say that the physics involved with aircraft are simple. I'm just trying to point out that the physics of a train are very complex. A train can be over 100 cars long. That's 100 object interacting with each other and placing forces on each other. There are just so many factors. Like Mike mentioned, there is a center of gravity that is different on each car. Another thing I hadn't thought of is the friction of the wheel flanges against the rail. It changes according to the radius of a turn. I can't fathom what it would take to accurately model even some of these things. Flight Sim has had over 20 years to work on it, and it's still improving. Train simming is in it's infancy. I can't wait to see what these sims are capable of in say, 10 years!

You're correct. Many of the simulation apects are the same between the two.