Default Install Folder Names - New Rules

[tupac]

Hmm since MSTS2 is suposedly compatible with MSTS in many respects including stock. I wonder if it makes sense for us to developsome kind of standards or naming convention or taxonomy for the add-on train folders. Without a standard it really makes a mess of your MSTS trainsets folder and that in a way is MSTS's fault. I hate the way it's organized. Anyways I was at one time renaming the folders as I wished. Loco's folders were prefixed with 'L' and 'W' for wagons followed by some other codes and stuff.Anyways it all looked neat and tidy and then I realized my activities would be totally useless to anyone else but me.
So should we set up some kind of standard (maybe the same way that the standard tsection dat was set up) That names stuff with so the folders are organized in meaningful ways and that it is impossible to say have to loco's with the same folder name. For example ''0-6-0 black tank" and the other "0-6-0 black tank" from Germany. Of course this is just an example and if the name bears any resembalance to a real install folder it is by coincidence and I did not mean to cause embarassment.
Just interested in if anyone thinks the current sityuation is a problem and if they're interested and have some ideas of how to do it or does anyone want to do it for the community.

[LucaZone]

Too many people making models and repaints coming out. too hard to make everyone conform to the same folder naming system.

U'l get people allocating names to use, and people complaining they cant call their release by the name it should be.

far to complex i think

[saddletank]

You'd need to make it a world standard because people d/l from servers in the US and Europe plus other places which would mean getting all uploaders everywhere to conform. And what about the existing stuff?

This is a no hoper - should have been sorted out 2 years ago, and was in fact discussed then but without success.

[ForburyLion]

If only there was a TOPS system for MSTS.

If the model makers agree on a system for naming then they could add instructions on the readme insisting that the naming convention is followed by any repainters.

My initial suggestion would be for something like:

Country-Type-Class-Number-Livery-Name

UK-D-67-67001-EWS-Nightmail
UK-S-9F-92220-BRGN-EveningStar
UK-D-165-165001-NSE
UK-C-Mk3-xxxx-FGW
UK-C-Mk2-xxxx-VT
UK-E-76-76001-BRB

I'm not sure how wagons would fit into it though

And I'd also prefer some consistency in Activity Editor for finding stock - For example it would help if all the class 37's are listed numerically so that I can find the correct one.

If UKTS were to agree a naming convention, It would probably take the form of a recommeded guideline..... If someone takes the time and trouble to make a model available as shareware then they can call it what they want as far as I'm concerned.

[ianmacmillan]

I agree that we need a standard
I rename all folders By the following....

LMS_, or GWR_ etc for all pre BR stuff
exLMS_ or exGWR_ etc if in BR Livery
No prefix for BR. If it is not obvious whether an item is pre or post tops blue a suffix is added. eg D1234 (Blue)
IC_, REG_, RF_, NSE_ etc for BR Sectorised
GNER_ EWS_ etc for Privatised

Onerseas stock is given the state railway code eg SNCF_ , DB_, US_

NG3ft_, NG2ft_, NGx2_ for the little (and not so little) stuff

Using the underscore makes it easy to rename an item back if it is called for in a consist until I can change the consist in Route Riter.

I would, however, ask builders to give a little more detail in their names.
We are reaching the stage where some diesels are appearing in several different liveries and it can be hard to find the one I need.

If you don't know the exact description of an item (eg wagon TOPs code) a screenshot in the forums will soon get a reply.

I also add the line Name ( "whatever" ) to most stock to find it in RE.

[tupac]

yeah I have no doubts that it is inddeed incredibly complex issue and would require a global strategy. But the Tsection.DAT is a little like that even if only a few people actually develop stuff for it. And there are those who break the rules even for that. Anyways it's a drag MSTS didn't work it out better and it's interesting to hear that a system was discussed. If MSTS2 activities are not compatible is the switch over a goodtime to start renaming folders? I mean even our file library is really a total mess and the stuff is all over the place.
If we use Flight Sim as an example the game has been around a long time. If MSTS is aruond as long and say has MSTS version 8 or soemthing will we look back and say we should have got organized in 2003. Now thinking about it I wonder if the FlightSim people worked out a standard-though they havee far less planes to model than trains.

[NeutronIC]

There is no standard convention for folder or aircraft naming, no. You generally find that each group has its own convention, but each group has a different convention to everyone else that fits their own needs.

The biggest reason that the standardised tsection.dat has succeeded is because a very small number of individuals can mandate it - e.g. Okrasa and Tim Booth for example, being the authors of XTracks and UKFinescale, can add their stuff to the standardised tsection and then anyone that wants to use those track packs needs the standardised tsection - hence it becomes standard.

The loco's etc will not do this, too many people have too many different ideas about it and as usual it just ends up descending in to a brawl, or we end up with a system that meets everyones requirements and has tens of underscores and makes every folder name ten times longer

I think that UKTS is the logical place to try and mandate such a thing but again you run in to the same problem of what the format will be and we (as usual!) run a big risk of annoying half the community - so it's not something I want to get involved in, i'm stressed out enough

Matt.