Appalled and Dismayed
- Thread starter nathanmallard
- Start date
Well you could look at it the same way you look at Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick..all owned by GM but doing different things.
Or not.
From a simpler mind and one that still uses 2004 because it works.
I cannot see why I have to have an Internet connection to use 2010/12. I paid for the game, for that is what it is, so should be able to start my PC and run the game without having to have N3V's permission every time.
The new idea of flagging a simple texture as an error means I shall not be making any more for Trainz. I spent countless hours doing models but am now being told they are not welcome.
Fine, I will stop making for your company nice assets for which I receive no reward, just denigration. Making pefectly good content and trying to get it passed by N3V, assets which incidentally run perfectly fine in 2004 (for which I do not need to go online and get 'permission' to use) has got steadily ever more difficult and I agree with Nathanmallard that we have given our time and effort for free and yet perfectly good textures are being flagged so the asset is now not acceptable.
For me that kind of behaviour is also unacceptable.
Angela
I cannot see why I have to have an Internet connection to use 2010/12. I paid for the game, for that is what it is, so should be able to start my PC and run the game without having to have N3V's permission every time.
The new idea of flagging a simple texture as an error means I shall not be making any more for Trainz. I spent countless hours doing models but am now being told they are not welcome.
Fine, I will stop making for your company nice assets for which I receive no reward, just denigration. Making pefectly good content and trying to get it passed by N3V, assets which incidentally run perfectly fine in 2004 (for which I do not need to go online and get 'permission' to use) has got steadily ever more difficult and I agree with Nathanmallard that we have given our time and effort for free and yet perfectly good textures are being flagged so the asset is now not acceptable.
For me that kind of behaviour is also unacceptable.
Angela
GM would have been history, along with all their products, if they weren't bailed out by the American taxpayer.
Of course, unlike owners of video games and digital products, Chevy, Cadillac and Buick owners would still have been able to get third-party support if that had they gone under. If DRM were applied to cars, your Caddy would stop running the moment GM went under.
tommietomato2
British Trainz
And over the pond, Vauxhall lays off hundreds of workers, Saab goes bankrupt and Korean-European Chevy...... Cheap tat but stays neutral.
All of course owned by GM.
But back on topic... Ive so far stuck to 2010 till now.
All of course owned by GM.
But back on topic... Ive so far stuck to 2010 till now.
amigacooke
Well-known member
I'm not a creator so forgive if this is a stupid question and it's meant towards all creators, not just you. I can understand frustration over stuff you made all of a sudden not working with a new version of the game, and being reluctant to fix it. When I encounter a case, I try to fix it if I can but if not, then I delete it and try to find something that will work, and if not, ces't la vie, and I move on. But IF, N3V decides that new content must meet certain standards, and IF those standards are clearly defined moving forward, AND you choose to stay in step with the games evolution, why not just start making new compliant content, leaving your legacy items for the versions that they are compatible for?I understand you are all doing this for free and it's appreciated so that will have something to do with it I guess.
I realize it can be upsetting to be told what works now won't work in future versions, but sometimes Progress works that way. I do think that N3V really botched this up by just dropping it on everyone without warning, but that's what they did and we can't change that.
Yes. That subsidiaries are still subject to the decisions and financial woes of their corporate parent.
Hmm, well, unlike others going onto non-sequitur tangents about corporate operation, Apple, etc., I've tried to stay on-topic i.e. the OP's complaints about the new DRM system incorporated with TS12 SP1.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
the OP began with some baseless rant on things that were not even true. the amount of misinformation in this thread is at the peak! the trend lately in the forums is not attacking others or seeing it 'going downhill' but following a great portion of the internet spreading misinformation - it must be because internet users see it as their right to spout whatever they want regardless if it is true or not. everyone seems to think their opinion is factual gold... not sure whether this attitude is funny or not. i can only stand back and shake my head at some of the outrageous beliefs seen here... just wow.
N3V has stated that they plan to release all future DLC via the new distribution system and that they've obsoleted prior versions and methods - specifically, the EXE installers. I don't see what's baseless about the OP's post there as Zec stated it in post #12. As for "effectivly excluding 60% of N3V's customer base", I have no idea where that figure came from, though the OP did mention the source might not be reliable. During the course of this, N3V has clarified much including how the new DRM system works e.g. that it requires periodic online reauthorization from N3V's servers. As a result, it's been a very informative thread.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
yes of course, the N3V representatives were attempting to counter the fabricated 'facts' presented here. as i can tell up to the last few postings, it has largely been ignored for favor of opinion.
And can sometimes be the thing keeping that parent in business.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
well let's take a look, excluding some of the opinionated misinformed postings since.
i think this is a matter of your point of view - an opinion. the software does have bugs, but it also has some functionality that some might mistakenly call a bug, just because they disagree with it. don't misinterpret me here, i have my fair share of disagreements with the software from time to time, but i do not go about making posts like this. i could give examples, but that might take us further off topic.
the 'obsessive error checking' does not break content, it merely flag what content already has errors that needs to be fixed. yes, this can be an annoyance, but it is not the end of the world and can be fixed with a little patience. in the end, the blame falls on the authors for not making an asset carefully enough. some of my own assets fell to this checking, and i alone take responsibility for messing it up the first time. if these were truly error free assets and then they became 'broken' because of a software fault, then i might feel as if the rug had been pulled from beneath me as some people do. and it is only some people, not the mobs of angry, let-down users that some of your claim exist.
this bit has to be taken in all at once, not out of context. regarding the distribution of DLC, i think it is a good idea. i also think that as it progresses N3V will realize what it demands and make appropriate adjustments for it's continuing operation. of course, i may be putting a lot of faith in them in saying that, but i would like to think that it is a possibility. now how you can determine that this excludes 60% of trainz users i do not know. i am extremely skeptical of that figure and think it was just made up in attempt to make this position look stronger, but in my view it failed and instead made me ignore the post altogether.
this might be true, and i cannot comment on the decision by N3V to not do this other than to say it is extremely costly in terms of time and effort to support things this way. even at my small company, it is difficult to support multiple versions. is it right or wrong to make that move? - i dont know because i do not know the internal workings of N3V. if i were in the position of figuring out if it was worth it or not and i came to a conclusion that it was not worth the cost i certainly would not do it, even if it did ruffle the feathers of a few. it is rather silly to expect it to be any other way. it is even more silly to expect that and to say that if your wishes are not met that you will attempt to dissuade others from the product.
I've got SnC Preston-Carlisle stuck open for edit. I can't revert, commit or delete, and it's not in my editing folder. So why wasn't the clone option greyed out?
I'm on capped broadband and have no intention of downloading the whole thing again (that's asuming it would even let me).
On another thing that's come up in this thread:
Why is uploaded content available for edit? Surely the sensible thing would be for all content to be locked unless the creator states otherwise. It's no wonder people get the idea that it's ok to mod anything from the DLS.
PS, regarding error reporting:
I had a couple of items flagged, which showed I had made a typo in them that nobody had picked up, so well done the error checking in this case.
Chris.
Chris.
Good point well made. There does seem to be a certain amount of ambiguity here. On the one hand we are seeing TS12 updated to lock down officially sold DLC, on the other freeware creators uploading to the DLS may still have to run the gauntlet of 1. N3V being able to do what they like with the content or, 2. Some irk taking your sweated over route/asset, making a couple of cosmetic changes and uploading it under their own KUID. Isn't that just piracy under a different name? And when instances are reported via the forum, you can almost see the virtual shoulder shrug, reports have to come from the original creator not third party (if they take piracy so seriously they could always email the original owner) and judging by the number of cloned items still visible in the library from known offenders it is still going on.
Smacks of double standards - protect the money guys and associates while the hoi polloi are hung out to dry. If you want to lock down payware fair enough, but extend the same privilege to all contributors to protect their work not just the ones you're cosyed up to.
Similar threads
