I’ve been musing over this thread for a while now. What follows are my thoughts on the issue of updating/correcting old content to work in TS 2009/2010 Native. It has nothing to do with re-skinning or aliasing which is a separate issue and has been discussed elsewhere.
Ian – I’m not entirely sure how you’re intending to ‘deliver’ these updated assets but that will come into my discussion. Also, my views relate only to assets on the DLS, not on other sites.
EXTREMES
Reading posts both here and in other threads, extreme views seem to range between…..
1) Anything that’s on the DLS is fair game. If people want to copy and modify it, they should be allowed to without reference to anyone, even if the author doesn’t want them to. It’s for the good of the community!
and
2) If assets were created for earlier versions of Trainz they should stay only for that version. Authors should not be allowed to update old stuff as its graphically inferior and will put new people off Trainz!
The above extremes go beyond what has actually been written but you get the idea. I suggest that both extremes are unreasonable. What we need is something in between which will hopefully satisfy those wanting to use older assets but not alienate those who feel they should go by the way.
FILTER
Before I go any further, lets specify which assets I’m talking about and ignore the rest. As I see it there are 3 categories….
1) Assets where the author has given specific permission for his asset to be updated and/or re-issued, either by its notice in the ‘licence’ or by written consent after a request. We can ignore these for this discussion as some will be updated by the author himself anyway, the rest Ian or a 3rd party should have free reign to go ahead and modify/correct, (I would suggest!)
2) Assets where the author has indicated that he does not want his asset to be updated and/or re-issued, either by its notice in the ‘licence’ or by a posting on this or another forum, (or indeed any method of saying he’s against it). These can be ignored as they will not be modified or touched in any way. Wishes respected!
3) Assets where the author has not expressed any wishes in his licence regarding modification or re-issuing but cannot be contacted for specific permission, despite concerted efforts to do so.
The only assets I am about to refer to fall into category 3.
******************************************
The ‘nays’ will argue that to modify an asset without that person’s specific permission will either be a breach of legal copyright or that it is morally wrong… or both.
Regarding the moral aspect….
Surely it is only immoral if it goes against that person’s wishes and had he know about it, he would have stopped it. How do we know he’s against it? He may not care one way or the other….
Or he may have worked on an asset for months that he really wants people to be able to use and enjoy. He may be mortified to know that his efforts are to fall by the wayside and be unavailable in future versions of Trainz. In that case isn’t it almost immoral if it’s NOT modified?
The fact is we don’t know but since he wasn’t concerned enough to put anything in the licence forbidding it when he made it, at the very least odds are that he won’t care.
As for Copyright….
Well, this is an issue. But I don’t think its clear-cut and I think you’d need a lawyer to really have a definitive answer.... Maybe it depends on the way the ‘updates’ are issued?
DELIVERY
Again, only referring to the assets in category 3, I see three ways of issuing updated/corrected versions.
1) Whoever decides to update the asset would first ‘clone’ it. Then make the minimal modifications to get it to work in TS 2010 Native and then re-issue it under their own kuid with full reference and credit to the original author. This is currently the only way it really can be re-issued on the DLS. It’s the method that in my more frustrated moments I’ve used the term ‘Publish and be Damned’. Do I think that this infringes copyright? Yes I think it probably does. Do I think this is the best way to do it? No, it’s not! Frustrating though!
2) Persuade Auran to set up a system to accept updated part-assets from people like Ian, (who in turn could accept updates from us). These part assets, (which in many cases might only be a spelling correction in the config) could then be exchanged for the ‘faulty’ parts in the original DLS asset. Then they could be downloaded under their original kuid number with maybe just a Kuid2 upmark. This system, particularly with Auran’s blessings may well not actually infringe any copyrights. And remember we’re only talking about assets where authors haven’t expressed a preference.
3) The last method might be from a 3rd party site like Ian’s. Downloading full assets though would have the same issues as 1 above unless full waivers had been obtained. However, a half-way idea might be to publish tutorials on how to up-grade individual assets yourself. Fine for the experienced but it doesn’t help new-comers. It’s not an ideal solution
I have to express a personal preference for method 2.
**************************************
What’s in an update?
This really depends on the asset. Before TS 2009/10 Native, Trainz was a little more forgiving. If you got something wrong it still worked. As a result small errors went unnoticed. Now, if something isn’t quite right it will go red and not work. For some it really may only be a simple spelling error in the config. For others, its more complex and more down to Trainz new requirements. Train cars now need a shadow. Old ‘progressive’ meshes aren’t liked by TS 2010 so they need converting to Indexed meshes…. Etc. There are excellent tools for this by PevSoft so these things are possible. Not everything will be convertible though. Script issues might be tricky and mesh problems will be difficult if not impossible. So each is different.
A final thought on ‘old’ assets.
It’s been said that old assets should not be updated as they are not good enough. Well I’d agree that there is a lot of tat on the DLS…. But not all of it is old! Some of the new stuff aint that brilliant either. I think assets should be taken on their merit. Some things produced for early Trainz are still looking good today! Others produced recently would put a newbie off in a second.
Anyway, those are my views. There are so many good assets that are broken in Native. It would be a real shame to lose them just because their authors have taken up golf.
I’d be interested if the above way of looking at things would be acceptable to those who do not want their assets updated. Euphod?
Cheers,
Boat
