How to find a missing dependency that states "Was not found on the download store"
- Thread starter LastG_N64
- Start date
Post the KUID here: https://forums.auran.com/threads/missing-kuids-post-them-here.111942/ Perhaps we can help you find it.
Last edited:
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
Hi there,
Fortunately -because so we are many more- there are asset creators (blessed all of them!) who decided not to upload them into the DLS. What we do is to include an explicit list of kuids on every release so that Saint Google can spot them on the 'Net.
An instance:
First step when something is not on the DLS: Do some googling!
Hope it helps. Have a great day!
The googling side of Alberte
Fortunately -because so we are many more- there are asset creators (blessed all of them!) who decided not to upload them into the DLS. What we do is to include an explicit list of kuids on every release so that Saint Google can spot them on the 'Net.
An instance:
ZVT Serie Meshy 1: las Fuerzas Armadas | ZVT Meshy Series 1: The Armed Forces
Realizado por Alberte Zato (ZVT). Mallas y texturas primas generadas por la máquina IA de Meshy. Assets finales producidos en 3ds Max y texturas refinadas en Photoshop. | By Alberte zato (ZVT). Pri…
www.zatovisualworks.eu
First step when something is not on the DLS: Do some googling!
Hope it helps. Have a great day!
The googling side of Alberte
PhilChorusch01
Well-known member
Many kuid's that cannot be found on the download station "DLS" are mostly 3rd party payware or freeware assets. I know it can be rather frustrating when many 3rd party content creators doesn't bother uploading the asset to the DLS "If they all did that, we wouldn't have missing dependencies" just saying!.. It is what it is though, freeware routes you can get away with having missing dependencies, that's no problem but when it comes to rolling stock or locomotives they simply will not work without that asset or you can replace it in the config file
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
Hi there,
Sir, have you thought maybe we don't just want to? And we did in the past. There must be some reasons, musn't there?
Have a great day.
A variety of reasons.
Some creators do not like the N3V T&Cs for uploading assets to the DLS. Others do not like the possibility of their assets being used in payware.
Each creator has the option to upload to the DLS or not - it is their choice.
In my case the T&Cs and the possibility of assets appearing in payware do not bother me. In the very few cases where my assets have been used in payware N3V have always checked with me first even though, under the T&Cs they are not required to do so.
On the other side of the coin, I refuse to use any assets in my creations that are not on the DLS or built-in.
PhilChorusch01
Well-known member
Hi there,
Sir, have you thought maybe we don't just want to? And we did in the past. There must be some reasons, musn't there?
Have a great day.
HAHAHA no need to share the angry emoji
I have also contributed into Trainz, but I chose to upload to the DLS for many reasons. The main reason to upload content to the DLS it's to allow the content to be utilised in multiplayer sessions, I will admit it! I enjoy playing multiplayer even though I only played an official multiplayer game once on the Bairnsdale to Orbost route "packaged with TRS22". Multiplayer sessions, require assets to be on the DLS, Built in, Packaged or payware purchased via only Trainz Store, including on Steam.I know that authors has "every" right not to upload any content to the DLS! I do respect that, but it can be rather frustrating not being able to have those assets especially if it's a missing bridge, track or road as for buildings, fences, telephone poles are easy to replace with something else or if it's really unnoticeable simply then I will not care about it being missing, but when it comes to trying to or wanting to create a multiplayer session for that specific route, there's no chance. You can build the multiplayer session but when someone else attempts to play the multiplayer session they will be asked to revert modifications, which is annoying and too bad if the asset is not on the DLS the multiplayer session will not work at all without that specific asset
Hopefully, that best explains my statement above
... they would have a nice chance to find their content labelled as "Payware" or "Packaged", forcing the users to purchase/download one or more routes they would never be interested in a million years. As an alternative, they would find their content "updated" by N3Vs (without ever bothering to ask the author's permission, of course).
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
HAHAHA no need to share the angry emoji
I know that authors has "every" right not to upload any content to the DLS! I do respect that, but it can be rather frustrating not being able to have those assets especially if it's a missing bridge, track or road as for buildings, fences, telephone poles are easy to replace with something else or if it's really unnoticeable simply then I will not care about it being missing, but when it comes to trying to or wanting to create a multiplayer session for that specific route, there's no chance. You can build the multiplayer session but when someone else attempts to play the multiplayer session they will be asked to revert modifications, which is annoying and too bad if the asset is not on the DLS the multiplayer session will not work at all without that specific asset
Hopefully, that best explains my statement above
My most grateful respect to all kind of creators, IMHO. I used the angry emo because I was bothered by your "... doesn't bother uploading the asset to the DLS..." . Not my case. So sorry if you feel upset by my
.Hope you have a great day!
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
What is really quite acceptable and agreed. But I can't think of the great Trainzitalia (for instance) - Carlo, let me use yours as a sample- in the DLS. I cannot.
PhilChorusch01
Well-known member
Doesn't matter if we like it or not, most of the modern routes does require you to purchase payware routes in order to have no missing dependencies. I don't mind this at all. Bit off topic: Train Simulator Classic you require to buy the entire earth just to get any routes working, thankful Trainz isn't like that!
PhilChorusch01
Well-known member
No, not at all! I'm not even close to being upsetMy most grateful respect to all kind of creators, IMHO. I used the angry emo because I was bothered by your "... doesn't bother uploading the asset to the DLS..." . Not my case. So sorry if you feel upset by my
Hope you have a great day!
LOLzatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
Battle? What battle? Sir, are you witnessing any battle? Or is it a matter of semantics for debating? Anyway, my first reaction to that innocent question (trying to find a solution for it) was as innocent as...It was just an innocent question - How to find a missing dependency?
He probably didn't even realize that this would turn into a battle.
Hi there,
Fortunately -because so we are many more- there are asset creators (blessed all of them!) who decided not to upload them into the DLS. What we do is to include an explicit list of kuids on every release so that Saint Google can spot them on the 'Net.
An instance:
...
First step when something is not on the DLS: Do some googling!
Hope it helps. Have a great day!
The googling side of Alberte
If an asset that was uploaded to the DLS is later relabelled in your CM as "Packaged" then it is still on the DLS and can still be downloaded from there. The label "Packaged" simply means that the asset is also part of a DLC package that you have downloaded and installed. Anyone who has not installed the DLC package will still see the asset on the DLS as "Available for Download".
As for a DLS asset being relabelled "Payware", I am not aware of any recent examples of this occurring. There were a few reports of this a few years ago that either turned out to be mistaken - e.g. a creator deliberately releasing a new version of the asset as payware and not uploading it to the DLS - or they were the result of a "glitch" when the DLC asset packaging system was first introduced.
As for updating assets by N3V, I fail to see the problem with this. Some of my assets were updated by the Content Repair Group and I am extremely grateful for that. Otherwise those assets would not continue to work in the latest versions of Trainz - and no I could not have updated them myself. In any case, the CRG is not allowed to make any changes to an asset that would alter the original intent (or creativity) of the author. As for not asking permission, read the T&Cs. You would also be surprised to discover how many creators do not answer emails or (what used to be called) PMs and so some very useful assets that could be "updated" to continue their useful lives would be left as legacy assets that only work in older versions of Trainz. As a creator I would prefer that my assets be updated.
My thoughts.
Last edited:
This is true, as long as the asset was labelled as "packaged" or "payware" with their version index increased.
Recently, I discovered an enginesound for a Class 43 that is identical to the one available on the DLS (including its trainz-build, which is a paleozoic 1.3) but has its version index increased by 1. So, if you wanted to use a locomotive, you would have to download the ECML just to obtain the enginesound. I changed the reference in the kuid-table from the "updated" version to the exactly identical version on the DLS, but having to do this on a route (with thousands assets as dependencies) is not very funny.
When the "Sebino Lake" was published, it included several hundred assets, all of them from TrainZItalia, all of them freeware and never released on the DLS. These assets were not made as custom content for that route and their authors (me included) were never contacted by N3V, but the assets were suddenly listed as "payware". We were not amused.
As for repairs:
1) N3V "repaired" a very common asset found on Italian railways (a catenary portal) rendering it useless on any electrified Italian route, i.e. almost any Italian route.
2) The sessions in the "West from Denver" route, which worked without a fault during the betatesting phase at TrainZItalia were so skillfully repaired that they had to be issued again as separate downloads to make them work (there are several threads about this issue).
Is this enough to explain my point of view?
Recently, I discovered an enginesound for a Class 43 that is identical to the one available on the DLS (including its trainz-build, which is a paleozoic 1.3) but has its version index increased by 1. So, if you wanted to use a locomotive, you would have to download the ECML just to obtain the enginesound. I changed the reference in the kuid-table from the "updated" version to the exactly identical version on the DLS, but having to do this on a route (with thousands assets as dependencies) is not very funny.
When the "Sebino Lake" was published, it included several hundred assets, all of them from TrainZItalia, all of them freeware and never released on the DLS. These assets were not made as custom content for that route and their authors (me included) were never contacted by N3V, but the assets were suddenly listed as "payware". We were not amused.
As for repairs:
1) N3V "repaired" a very common asset found on Italian railways (a catenary portal) rendering it useless on any electrified Italian route, i.e. almost any Italian route.
2) The sessions in the "West from Denver" route, which worked without a fault during the betatesting phase at TrainZItalia were so skillfully repaired that they had to be issued again as separate downloads to make them work (there are several threads about this issue).
Is this enough to explain my point of view?
Yes, one of my great annoyances. I have seven assets labeled "Packaged, Newer version available", but they aren't. They have been up-versioned into some other package and are not available at all. I have complained about this before and there was a supposed response that these will be "hidden" from the user, but it never happened. And why should it? Why not make the upversions available to those who have already paid for the packages or payware? It is just irritating.
The label "Payware" can include assets from 3rd party web sites that may actually be freeware. I just checked the info details for Sebino Lake on the Trainz Content Store and found the following quote:-
So somewhere along the line, possibly at the asset creator @jango or TrainZItalia end of the line, there may have been a communications glitch. In any case the content creator, @jango not N3V, is the one who decides what is included in a DLC package. Perhaps you should contact her/him.
Regarding repairs. I do not have any of the "repaired" assets or their routes that you mentioned so I cannot give a specific answer. But who is/are the author(s) of those assets? Are they still operating in the forums and/or creating new assets - in other words are they still contactable? That may be part of the problem.
Love when these questions get posted and then the Op doesn't come back to check their post, LOL.
@LastG_N64 - Get yer butt back in here, LOL
Rico
@LastG_N64 - Get yer butt back in here, LOL
Rico