There are days in the world of MSTS when you want to strangle someone. Today is one of those days.

Some chap posts the following on a message board:

I have been pondering this one: For MSFS there is an API called FSUIPC, which allows the interfacing of 3rd party custom models with the simulation. Through FSUIPC, we are able to use functionality in aircraft models, which have not been within the scope of the out-of the-box program.

Now, for the new train simuator, let me imagine the following scenario. Imagine the new simulator out of the box does only have a limited functionality regarding EOT devices, like the current version. With the current version we helped ourselves with the creation of a car, which looks like an EOT device. It works, but honestly, it does not really cut the mustard for known reasons.

Now if in the new simulation, there would be a TSUIPC functionality, we would be able to make a working EOT device, which would be rendered at the last car and feed-back the relevant information to a new custom gauge within the locomotive cab. (End of Imagination)

On the top of that an API like this would enable to fully customise how a given locomotive model works, down to simulation complex systems. It would enable the user not to have to rely on what the box provided, but what the community is able to come up with.

In other words, what he wants is the opportunity to spend more money. Pete Dowson charges for FSUIPC at this point, and has for some time. Let me imagine the following scenario: Someone makes TSUIPC and charges for it. No.

I am not enamored of solutions that involve giving third party vultures the opportunity to insert themselves into train simulation as they have for flight simulation. The original poster is an FS devotee, and quite frankly, I don't care for his opinion. A fair amount of the FS apparently loves spending money and driving out freeware or Microsoft-created functionality. No thanks; one of the reasons I enjoy railroad simulation is that it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. This is contradistinguished from flight simulation, where PMDG charges sixty bucks or so for a 747-400.

Our poster also dreams of "full customization" for how a locomotive works, apparently tacking on additional layers of overhead on the processor. Oh, let's make this game even more demanding on hardware than it already will be. Sure thing!

To once again quote Joschka Fischer, "I am not convinced." What's the point? If Microsoft are able to shoehorn some sort of intelligent FRED into the game, who needs TSUIPC (and the probability of additional costs)?

There's one response so far, and it's the sort that makes you want to throw something at the poster:

I'm a bit of an evangelist for it, but I've already seen some awesome things done in FSX with the API. I look forward to the future when people can build add-on products (other than planes or trains, things like environmental add-ons) that use SimConnect and can be cross-platform between Flight Sim and Train Sim.

I have actively loathed the term "evangelist" as applied to bloody software since 1996-1997 when I first heard it. A guy told me he was an evangelist and I asked him what for, expecting the Southern Baptist Church or something similar. He told me, "Apple", and you could have knocked me over with a feather.

To the point, I have heard this fantasy of FS/TS interoperability before, and I've yet to figure out what the value of it is. His dream of add-ons that are useful in both FS and TS seems irrelevant; they're simply very different modes of transportation and I don't see anything that could benefit the simulation railroader from the simulation pilot's world. Navigation's a whole different ballgame, and as for environmental add-ons, who cares? Trains run at ground level, where the weather's a lot different than at FL350. A weather add-on? Forget it; already exists in the FSX engine. I'm not paying a red cent for what Microsoft already provide for free in their game engine.

This sounds mean and nasty, and it should. I have no interest in railroad simulation being turned into the high cost replica of flight simulation. I don't think the railroad simulation interest group should be dragged to FS economies just because a couple of people think it's a great idea to hamstring the basic program in favor of some half-wit API.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.