Appalled and Dismayed

[uracco]

seriously, why we aren't allowed to edit things we've paid good money for is beyond me. If N3V stuffed up, we should at least be able to fix it. This is why N3V is coming under fire so much these days, because they've sucked up your're money and are basically saying "Thank you very much for you're money, now you're on your own. Go on fend for yourself". I refuse to buy Trainz from N3V, instead I buy it from Game.

 

[ryanstrains]

seriously, why we aren't allowed to edit things we've paid good money for is beyond me. If N3V stuffed up, we should at least be able to fix it. This is why N3V is coming under fire so much these days, because they've sucked up your're money and are basically saying "Thank you very much for you're money, now you're on your own. Go on fend for yourself". I refuse to buy Trainz from N3V, instead I buy it from Game.

I think the money from the game goes to the same people regardless of where you buy it.

 

[2995Valliant]

There are good reasons why we shouldn't be allowed to edit something we bought - like the fact we didn't necessarily buy the right to alter the product from the condition we purchased it, not to mention copy protection. However, there are also good reasons why some (myself included) would like to be able edit content in much the same way that we might detail/weather etc RTR model railway equipment. I just wonder whether this aspect occurred to the powers that be in their perfectly reasonable efforts to protect their revenue and that of their external payware providers as to me the ease of tinkering in Trainz is what sets it apart from the competition. No doubt they will have done their research though as to which is the best way to go for the mainstream, which let's face it is not most of us on this forum.

As for fixing problems - if they supply faulty product then it's down to them to fix it anyway, and plenty on here would complain vigourously at the concept of having to fix it for themselves so I don't see that side of it as much of an issue personally.

Regards,

Anthony

 

[RRSignal]

There are good reasons why we shouldn't be allowed to edit something we bought - like the fact we didn't necessarily buy the right to alter the product from the condition we purchased it, not to mention copy protection.

Actually, we did buy the right to do that, and it was sold with that expectation. Indeed, the entire Trainz community is built upon user-moddable content. Which means N3Vs alterations would likely be actionable, at least in the U.S. A court would consider not just the fine print of the EULA but the context. N3V could have avoided this back in 2001 by limiting at least the ability to edit/mod their own content or that of their partners. They didn't.

 

[johnwhelan]

Let's see if we can reduce the number of angels dancing on the head of this pin a little:

1.) If you have content that works, and you change it, and it doesn't work any more, you have induced an error. You can have done it for good or ill motives, and you can call the error the program's fault; you can also call it strawberry jam. The fact remains, you broke it.

2.) The program vendor can take a program that works, change it, and content that previously works doesn't work any more. The vendor has induced the error. The vendor can have done it for good or ill motives and call the error the content creator's fault; the vendor can also call it peanut butter. The fact remains, the vendor broke it.

3.) Content modifier and program vendor may advance various arguments as to why they made this or that change which broke something that worked previously; this is all very well, but it's just hand-waving. If you broke it and don't fix it, it's on you.

4.) Arguments from privilege - "I bought your program, it should work the way I want it to!" or "We sold this program, so we'll tell you how it will work whether you like it or not!" are forms of hand-waving. The only place to start is at who made the change, and what the change caused.

(Steps down from soapbox and walks off into the sunset, listing slightly to port.)

Content created and tested in TRS2004 worked fine. The same content doesn't work in TS12 because of slight changes in functionality especially scripts, or more likely errors that TRS2004 didn't flag. N3V hasn't changed TRS2004, the content still works in TRS2004. Are you saying we should just scrap all the old content?

Cheerio John

 

[boc61]

Content created and tested in TRS2004 worked fine. The same content doesn't work in TS12 because of slight changes in functionality especially scripts, or more likely errors that TRS2004 didn't flag. N3V hasn't changed TRS2004, the content still works in TRS2004. Are you saying we should just scrap all the old content?

Cheerio John

No, but there is something to be said about moving forward and evolving. This is an imperfect analogy, but it's the best I can come up with. Let's say we substitute "Trainz" for "Chevrolet". You have a 2004 Chevy. Now you buy a 2006 Chevy, but keep your 04. It is possible that if something needs replaced in the 06, parts from the 04 may work in it and vice versa. A few years down the road you get an 09 and parts from the 06 will work in it. Eventually, GM will draw the line and redesign that car say in 2012 or 13 and older parts will no longer work in it. Call it progress, call it marketing strategies, cal it greed,call it whatever you want. but it's part of doing business and moving forward.

Go ahead and point and laugh, it's scatterbrain logic at best mixed with Kentucky Windage, but it's all I got.

 

[narrowgauge]

I don't understand why there is such a problem, you still have the original TS12 install files together with the original add-on files. Why can't you go back to those? It is not obligatory to install the upgrades. Trainz will allow multiple instances of the program to exist on the same drive.

Peter

 

[ZecMurphy]

Good Morning All
In regards to editing of DLC (and some built-in) content, this has actually been a case for quite some time. Some content included with TRS2006 was uneditable (although there were ways to get around this), and of course none of the built-in content in TRS2004 was editable...

We have made DLC content uneditable, both to ensure that the content is MP compatible (do you want to have to re-download a couple of GB every time you go to use the MP session because you edited one of the assets in the pack ), and to ensure that the DLC content is secure. We have, unfortunately, had many issues recently with people uploading built-in content, and in a few cases DLC content, to the Download Station or other locations. This is not something that we wish to see happen, as it hurts the creator, and in turn the community if the creator decides to simply no longer release their work.

That said, if you wish to edit one of the assets for personal use, you can simply contact the author. They may actually take your changes/suggestions onboard (e.g. more accurate physics, or fixing errors in the route...), and implement them in an update to the DLC pack... Or, if you wish to repaint the asset (not something we've ever supported with DLC's, and this was actively blocked with the Blue Comet pack - however we did not keep this on later DLC packs as there were ways to work around it at the time), they may supply the necessary files.

However we do not support the editing of DLC packs, nor have we ever advertised this. Actually, we've never even suggested that it was appropriate to edit payware content... Most groups also actively request obtaining permission before showing screenshots of reskins.

Regards

 

[haddock56]

Good Morning All
In regards to editing of DLC (and some built-in) content, this has actually been a case for quite some time. Some content included with TRS2006 was uneditable (although there were ways to get around this), and of course none of the built-in content in TRS2004 was editable...

We have made DLC content uneditable, both to ensure that the content is MP compatible (do you want to have to re-download a couple of GB every time you go to use the MP session because you edited one of the assets in the pack ), and to ensure that the DLC content is secure. We have, unfortunately, had many issues recently with people uploading built-in content, and in a few cases DLC content, to the Download Station or other locations. This is not something that we wish to see happen, as it hurts the creator, and in turn the community if the creator decides to simply no longer release their work.

That said, if you wish to edit one of the assets for personal use, you can simply contact the author. They may actually take your changes/suggestions onboard (e.g. more accurate physics, or fixing errors in the route...), and implement them in an update to the DLC pack... Or, if you wish to repaint the asset (not something we've ever supported with DLC's, and this was actively blocked with the Blue Comet pack - however we did not keep this on later DLC packs as there were ways to work around it at the time), they may supply the necessary files.

However we do not support the editing of DLC packs, nor have we ever advertised this. Actually, we've never even suggested that it was appropriate to edit payware content... Most groups also actively request obtaining permission before showing screenshots of reskins.

Regards

Understandable, though I have a couple ideas I have been thinking of lately regarding these DLC packs.

 

[PWeiser]

The Point

Content created and tested in TRS2004 worked fine. The same content doesn't work in TS12 because of slight changes in functionality especially scripts, or more likely errors that TRS2004 didn't flag. N3V hasn't changed TRS2004, the content still works in TRS2004. Are you saying we should just scrap all the old content?

Cheerio John

The point (of the pin?) is that calling content "erroneous" or "faulty" because a later version of the program breaks it (or the program is broken by it - we really need a better lexicon here) is hand-waving, an attempt to shift responsibility for the problem (such problems are often called "faults" rather than "errors," which confuses the issue of responsibility even further).

"Faulty" is particularly bad terminology because it implies blame, including malice or negligence. When we say it is the "fault" of N3V that something which worked before they altered their program no longer does, it exudes a sour whiff of malice or incompetence when in fact there's no way N3V can have considered every consequence of the change for content of which they have no way of knowing. In the same way, calling non-N3V content "faulty" in the exact same situation savors of incompetence or laziness on the part of the content creator - who likewise had no way of knowing what N3V was going to do to the program in the future (or, undocumented, in the past).

In view of the above, I suggest that the terms "fault" and "faulty" be retired immediately: they tempt everyone to cast blame where it's neither intended nor appropriate, and to imply blame while evading responsibility for the insult. We need a better word - some variant of "compliant," maybe?

(In taking a bow, executes a low dive off the soapbox, dusts self off and retires.)

 

[H222]

That does not EXPLAIN why it needs to be locked if cloned. Why do we need moderators H222? Please, if you don't like a statement, let others have a viewpoint to add without shouting for OMG MODS CLEAR THINGS UP!!!

It sounds like you don't want anyone to have a different point of view. BTW, thanks for your comment about MP-Compatible items. Fair point, but why should this lock items that people want to edit for their own use?

On old payware, this was not the case. why the change? On new payware, if true, a statement should be used TELLING people, that you can not edit anymore. N3V are moving the goal posts let again.

Regards.
CaptEngland.

Oh boy. There's a difference of getting FACTS wrong, and having differing OPINIONS.

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

I am just annoyed that older content that I have paid for <if it is built-in I have still paid for it> that the creator has walked away from, is locked into the game and now not able to be used in TS12 SP1 HF2 due to a silly error that is very easy and quickly fixable.

I am talking about the Silver City Comet sets that are an amzing bit of gear that were one of the only reasons I bought an earlyer version of trainz but now due to one texture error useless.

 

[sparky15]

N3V wants to break from Auran's past while utilizing the same game engine and years of content.*
Not working out for us end users.*

 

[frogpipe]

Backward compatibility is a luxury and often, though not always, results in substandard looking or performing content.

And before someone gets their nickers in a knot, an awesome / bleeding edge / pushing the envelope / innovative asset in UTC is not going to be the marvel it once was 8 years, and several versions later. - so I'm not knocking the old stuff or it's creators...

 

[railventure]

I am just glad they did not auto patch this update, we still have a choice.

 

[Vern]

I have a feeling the popularity of multiplayer is somewhat overestimated, to use that as a judgement in whether or not DLC content should be locked.

What if I want to create a session/scenario purely for my own use and enjoyment, but add in a bit of extra scenery to the session layer - perhaps a little diorama on the end of a platform?

Do "locked" routes even allow us to create our own sessions or are we stuck with just those the original author was gracious enough to provide?

More seriously, what happens if the route has an issue which emphatically is not being fixed by N3V (such as the track error at Carlisle on S&C2009 mentioned either here or in another thread). I could probably fettle that myself in a couple of minutes rather than wait months for an "official" fix that might or might not arrive.

It is fairly evident raising the game with version control and pushing DLC, N3V are trying to emulate the RSC business model. However at least in TS2013 if you buy a DLC route you can mod it to suit yourself (cloning first to avoid the original being over-written at a Steam verification) and create your own scenarios.

All a bit moot anyway as many of us are staying with 49922 or TS2010 - with no disrespect to the builders, putting out a 12 mile obscure secondary route around the back of Stoke on Trent (no matter how detailed or nicely done) as payware is not nearly enough to convince me to upgrade. Something like the recent WLOS or WCML North for TS2013 then we might be talking!

 

[NSWGR_46Class]

Not having 2006 and not being a New South Welshmen you would have no idea on how wonderful a bit of kit the Silver City Comet is it set new standards and its held back by one silly texture issue

Backward compatibility is a luxury and often, though not always, results in substandard looking or performing content.

And before someone gets their nickers in a knot, an awesome / bleeding edge / pushing the envelope / innovative asset in UTC is not going to be the marvel it once was 8 years, and several versions later. - so I'm n

ot knocking the old stuff or it's creators...

 

[clam1952]

I have a feeling the popularity of multiplayer is somewhat overestimated, to use that as a judgement in whether or not DLC content should be locked.

Agreed although Zec's post indicates it is also due to unauthorised uploading and such like. Perhaps those of us not bothered or interested in multiplayer should have made as much noise on here as the few who are MP "fans".

Do "locked" routes even allow us to create our own sessions or are we stuck with just those the original author was gracious enough to provide?

Yes, briefly tested last night on S&C. Create session button works, however you have to create the session from scratch. Once created you can save the session under your own kuid.

 

[johnwhelan]

The point (of the pin?) is that calling content "erroneous" or "faulty" because a later version of the program breaks it (or the program is broken by it - we really need a better lexicon here) is hand-waving, an attempt to shift responsibility for the problem (such problems are often called "faults" rather than "errors," which confuses the issue of responsibility even further).

"Faulty" is particularly bad terminology because it implies blame, including malice or negligence. When we say it is the "fault" of N3V that something which worked before they altered their program no longer does, it exudes a sour whiff of malice or incompetence when in fact there's no way N3V can have considered every consequence of the change for content of which they have no way of knowing. In the same way, calling non-N3V content "faulty" in the exact same situation savors of incompetence or laziness on the part of the content creator - who likewise had no way of knowing what N3V was going to do to the program in the future (or, undocumented, in the past).

In view of the above, I suggest that the terms "fault" and "faulty" be retired immediately: they tempt everyone to cast blame where it's neither intended nor appropriate, and to imply blame while evading responsibility for the insult. We need a better word - some variant of "compliant," maybe?

(In taking a bow, executes a low dive off the soapbox, dusts self off and retires.)

Content that was correctly made for TRS2004 will run under TS12 SP1. For content that was incorrectly made i.e. had errors TRS2004 would attempt to run whilst TS12 SP1 has more error checking.

Cheerio John

 

[PWeiser]

More...

Content that was correctly made for TRS2004 will run under TS12 SP1. For content that was incorrectly made i.e. had errors TRS2004 would attempt to run whilst TS12 SP1 has more error checking.

Cheerio John

Must say that changing the offending term from "faulty" to "incorrectly made" doesn't really help matters. If it worked in TS2004, it was correctly made (compliant, I'd say) in TS2004; if it doesn't work in TS12 SP1, it is non-compliant with TS12 SP1 (and, to be fair, TS12 SP1 is non-compliant with some aspects of TS2004).

What we need to avoid here are normative (i.e. right-or-wrong) terms. They just get everyone's back up to no purpose.

(Coffee? Where's my coffee hiding? BAD coffee!)