It's against the law (Here in Portland, but these laws are being enacted elsewhere too; not sure if it's restricted to the states or if other countries are doing this too) in public establishments to smoke inside. A lot of apartments have also started to bare it's residents from smoking inside.
Multiplayer Major Flaw - This Tag Issue Needs Removed - Locally Modified
- Thread starter mcguirel
- Start date
It's against the law (Here in Portland, but these laws are being enacted elsewhere too; not sure if it's restricted to the states or if other countries are doing this too) in public establishments to smoke inside. A lot of apartments have also started to bare it's residents from smoking inside.
Private = public? I'm not interested in anti smoking nazis with their religious fervor to outlaw tobacco completely, but the analogy is a PRIVATE members only club where smoking is allowed, if you don't smoke don't join the club, go to one of the public taverns or other private club where possession of a pack of cigarettes will get you burned at the stake. Same deal here, make the locally modified restriction optional for private games only, with a warning in the password for joining that this game does not do the locally modified check. Or this game has the option to override the bot, whichever is easier to program. Done that way it would have zero effect on public games or other private games that want to pledge allegiance to the Holy Error Checker. Aside from offending neurotic types who can't stand the idea that others are "playing it wrong" somewhere in the world, nothing would change for people who don't use the new feature.
I don't understand why you're getting so heated, to be honest.
I think it would be desirable to design the game in a way where the content is checked to make sure it matches across all parties involved. Having modified content could cause issues in any number of ways.
Regarding private clubs, some towns have gone as far as banning smoking even in private clubs.
But, let's twist this little analogy around back at ya. You make the basic argument of don't like it, go elsewhere. Well, you're free to do that. No one here is forcing you to stay here. As far as I can tell the doors are wide open and there's no guards posted in front of them to keep you from leaving.
It's that simple.
The developers made a choice on how to handle the issue of content not matching up between the various installs of Trainz for multiplayer. It's unrealistic for the program to look at the content and match it bit by bit, so they used an in place system, the Download station, to simplify that process and guarantee that all content will match. You're getting pissed off at the developers because they are attempting to alleviate potential problems. If they left it open like you wish, then there would be a flood of other people complaining about modified content causing problems. You very well may have been one of those people.
So, take your own advice and go elsewhere. You obviously don't like what they've done, so go find a different sandbox to play in. Otherwise, suck it up and follow this handy bit of advice. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what ya need.
I think it would be desirable to design the game in a way where the content is checked to make sure it matches across all parties involved. Having modified content could cause issues in any number of ways.
Regarding private clubs, some towns have gone as far as banning smoking even in private clubs.
But, let's twist this little analogy around back at ya. You make the basic argument of don't like it, go elsewhere. Well, you're free to do that. No one here is forcing you to stay here. As far as I can tell the doors are wide open and there's no guards posted in front of them to keep you from leaving.
It's that simple.
The developers made a choice on how to handle the issue of content not matching up between the various installs of Trainz for multiplayer. It's unrealistic for the program to look at the content and match it bit by bit, so they used an in place system, the Download station, to simplify that process and guarantee that all content will match. You're getting pissed off at the developers because they are attempting to alleviate potential problems. If they left it open like you wish, then there would be a flood of other people complaining about modified content causing problems. You very well may have been one of those people.
So, take your own advice and go elsewhere. You obviously don't like what they've done, so go find a different sandbox to play in. Otherwise, suck it up and follow this handy bit of advice. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what ya need.
I have no clue where you got the impression I'm getting "heated", all I'm doing here is throwing out suggestions and trying to clarify misunderstandings. Maybe I talk too rough to get my point across, I'm a ghetto rat and that's just the way I talk, it don't mean anything. Suck it up and live with it or go elsewhere has already been covered, the question on the floor is how much work would it take to find a solution that would work for everybody?
impromptu dance party
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
but the problem is you want a solution that works only for you. for instance, i do not subscribe to your suggestion, and i find it careless and inviting many other problems.
the items must be identical for MP to work, period.
you want this to be some other way and it is not.
the items must be identical for MP to work, period.
you want this to be some other way and it is not.
sniper297, This right here is really the fault of your last argument. Truly though there's no one size fits all solution. The developers made a choice on how to handle this issue though, the issue that all the items must be identical. This is the problem with introducing player made content to a multiplayer game, especially in a situation like this where there's a vast amount of home brew content.
Something you don't seem to want to realize is how your solution can have negative consequences. Like I said, you'd probably be back here complaining about those issues, and those issues wouldn't be easily solved until the current system was re-implemented.
Trainz wasn't built around multiplayer. Heck, the first version of Trainz was poorly setup for custom content. How they've handled this situation seems ideal from a tech standpoint, especially considering what they're working off of.
They could probably reprogram Trainz and how it handles custom content to better suit the needs of multiplayer, but than everyone would be complaining about not being able to use old content and all the content creators would be complaining about having to update their content for this new multiplayer version of trainz. blah blah blah.
So take it easy, put some music on, and dance!
Trying to dance with these old legs would make somebody call the paramedics thinking i was having a stroke. 
"you want a solution that works only for you. for instance, i do not subscribe to your suggestion, and i find it careless and inviting many other problems."
No, if I was the only one who didn't like this, there wouldn't be so many other posts with people having trouble getting a multiplayer game running. And how would an optional override for private games only affect anyone else? The beta testers must have had something to test multiplayer that didn't require the check on the session itself, so the code should already exist, what part of "use at own risk" is so hard to understand? And get right down to it, four guys get together for a private multiplayer game, the host sets the session to override the checks, the password goes out with the warning that the checks are disabled, one guy has something that's actually locally modified, game starts and formats all four hard drives? Seriously, I'm really trying to understand the objections, would a mismatch between engine specs blow up all the electrical transformers in Hollywood?
"you want a solution that works only for you. for instance, i do not subscribe to your suggestion, and i find it careless and inviting many other problems."
No, if I was the only one who didn't like this, there wouldn't be so many other posts with people having trouble getting a multiplayer game running. And how would an optional override for private games only affect anyone else? The beta testers must have had something to test multiplayer that didn't require the check on the session itself, so the code should already exist, what part of "use at own risk" is so hard to understand? And get right down to it, four guys get together for a private multiplayer game, the host sets the session to override the checks, the password goes out with the warning that the checks are disabled, one guy has something that's actually locally modified, game starts and formats all four hard drives? Seriously, I'm really trying to understand the objections, would a mismatch between engine specs blow up all the electrical transformers in Hollywood?
Did you consider that perhaps they did test this aspect and it created too many stability issues to be a viable option? Even if they had a warning saying to use at your own risk, that wouldn't stop people, such as yourself, flooding on here and demanding that they fix the issues. That fix of course would be forcing the check of content, as it does now.
I read back a little at some of the comments the devs made and I thought they were pretty solid arguments. The best I can gather is that you refused to listen to them because it didn't suit your view of how things should be, how you want them to be, without realizing that there's a reason they are the way they are.
And at what point might you accept that the way things are right now is the best solution outside of reprogramming Trainz specifically around multiplayer and the issues of having synced content? At what point will you put any amount of faith in the developers and their choices? That perhaps there's other aspects to this problem that you don't fully understand, but they do because they're in the thick of it?
"Did you consider that perhaps they did test this aspect and it created too many stability issues to be a viable option?" I'd have to read back over the threads, but I don't remember anyone saying anything but "we know best, run along and play" using different phrasing which to me, meant exactly that. I don't recall anyone actually explaining the problems or giving examples of some of the problems they saw in testing. And if it's that unstable that it won't tolerate minor discrepancies, that pretty much trashes any faith in the developers, again no offense intended.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
i do hope you rethink the comment about so many people saying they cant get a multiplayer game running having anything to do with this conversation. i know you have a tendency towards the whimsical, but that was just a silly comment.
about private games: do i think that we need an option for LAN direct connection games? yes i do. do i think that has anything to do with this conversation? no i do not. i still think all assets should still be checked for modification against a master on the DLS or in the .ja files - just as it is now.
not really sure what this means at all. the test was a public beta, it worked then as it does now.
again having tested it myself. without the assets being the same, the game will become out of sync... you cannot seriously expect to run different data on different machines into one game session.
one last time, they MUST all be the same end of story.
well there you go, above. i have tested it, but i am not a member of the dev team, all i can say the results are less than great, rendering the multiplayer session useless within minutes.
what you are asking to do above is what i have already tried, so i am just telling you it wont work. i cannot tell you how to try it for yourself, just dont worry yourself about it, it doesnt work. the easy way is the way it is now. allowing anyone to just come in and play. it is even nice enough to back up anything that has to be replaced in order to play, so you can put it back later.
Seriously sniper297, the appropriate information has been there, you just seem to refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit in with the way you personally want things to be. What did I say earlier? You can't always have what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need!
Let's gander back to the start of this whole thread though, please allow me to throw down a quote.
This was the second post in this thread and it should have ended there. I shouldn't have to explain why it's undesirable to have mismatched content across multiplayer games. People argued ahead anyway, completing ignoring this.
Here is two very good examples for you about what can happen if your content is out of sync. This shouldn't need any further explanation. The thread seriously should have stopped there. But no one wanted to listen and kept on complaining because they wanted it their way and refused to accept anything that wasn't and refused to accept any explanation that supported a view that wasn't their own. I'm talking about you of course. I saw your name as early in this thread so you must have read these posts and then all I can guess is promptly ignored them because they didn't support your view.
In fact, the next reply was yours.
I can't even fathom how you came to this conclusion, even as Zec gave a couple of really great examples about how it could cause problems. I would rather have to download content from the DLS than have to deal with buggy mutliplayer sessions caused by mismatched content.
I read through some more of the thread and realized a pattern of you ignoring everyone and demanding a button that allows you to bypass the check. Everyone brought up good examples and explanations about why this would be a bad idea, but you continued to ignore them and went ahead.
Besides the problems that could come up that would cause a multiplayer game to become unstable, It's inadvisable to put that sort of feature into a commercial product. I'm talking about a checkbox that has a "use at your own risk" warning. When developers put these sorts of checkboxes into an application it is usally smaller production where it's users are tech savvy enough to understand this risk. Or that particular feature was released as beta. If Auran introduced a checkbox with the warning saying "use at your own risk" That warning would be ignored by the userbase, by people like you, and then when the multiplayer sessions become unplayable, they'd take to the forums complaining about it. Complaining about how it's buggy, how they need to fix it, how they shouldn't have released it in that state.
All you are going to do is complain, no matter what. There is no doubt in my mind that your only ability is to be able to complain. When you set up your Fallout3 character, you checked the complainer trait and nothing else.
Let me say this again, in case you missed it. There is obvious problems that would come up if such a feature as you requested was added. There's been a lot of people that happily explained to you why it is a problem, why it would cause problems. I quoted a few of those people here and before this post is done I'm going to quote another. In fact, I'm going to do that right now.
Ohhh! What is that? It's exactly as we have been saying. It causes problems. Did we expect any different? No. We explained why it would cause issues, and for a lot of us, we didn't even have to experience those issues to understand why they would happen.
I’ve been part of this community since the first version was released. I saw where it came from; I saw what this version of Trainz is built upon. I released the first custom content for this game. When this game was first released, it wasn’t ready for prime time as far as custom content was concerned. There were a lot of aspects they didn’t think about and became a huge problem later on. It took a lot of effort for them to iron those issues out. Multiplayer is being added onto this, this heritage. This game wasn’t built for multiplayer, it’s being patched on. And to make everything compatible there’s certain compromises that have to be made. To make the multiplayer setup more ideal, a lot of things would have to be reworked and that would cause a whole new set of issues. Mainly that the content would have to be updated for the new multiplayer variation of Trainz. Then we would get the joy of having everyone complain about their old content not working in the new version of Trainz and we would get the joy of having the content creators complain about having to update their old content. This is the sort of issue a lot of programs face, especially as the years go on and the program becomes more complex and patched up.
Outside of enjoying Trainz, I work in the video game industry. What I hate is self-entitled people like you. You think the developers owe you something, that they are your personally flunkies and you get to dictate to them as if you know what’s best. You refuse to acknowledge them, or that there might be a perfectly valid reason why they’ve done something the way they have. I’ve seen devs that put in 120 hour weeks for months only to be berated by people like you because something isn’t perfectly as you want it. It’s people like you that stress devs out and makes them feel like their job isn’t worth it.
Programming a game is no simple task and it isn’t without its troubles. When you get into multiplayer, those problems get even worse. The devs of Trainz, they aren’t ID software, or Epic games. They don’t have those sorts of resources at their disposal. Even companies as big as that, it’s a huge undertaking to make sure everything works. It’s a set of experiences and lessons that have been built up over decades and as time goes on, it only gets more complex. The dev team here is doing the best they can with the resources they have and the issues that would crop up either route they took. They have to balance that with a community that would be up in arms if they changed too much.
Let's gander back to the start of this whole thread though, please allow me to throw down a quote.
This was the second post in this thread and it should have ended there. I shouldn't have to explain why it's undesirable to have mismatched content across multiplayer games. People argued ahead anyway, completing ignoring this.
Here is two very good examples for you about what can happen if your content is out of sync. This shouldn't need any further explanation. The thread seriously should have stopped there. But no one wanted to listen and kept on complaining because they wanted it their way and refused to accept anything that wasn't and refused to accept any explanation that supported a view that wasn't their own. I'm talking about you of course. I saw your name as early in this thread so you must have read these posts and then all I can guess is promptly ignored them because they didn't support your view.
In fact, the next reply was yours.
I can't even fathom how you came to this conclusion, even as Zec gave a couple of really great examples about how it could cause problems. I would rather have to download content from the DLS than have to deal with buggy mutliplayer sessions caused by mismatched content.
I read through some more of the thread and realized a pattern of you ignoring everyone and demanding a button that allows you to bypass the check. Everyone brought up good examples and explanations about why this would be a bad idea, but you continued to ignore them and went ahead.
Besides the problems that could come up that would cause a multiplayer game to become unstable, It's inadvisable to put that sort of feature into a commercial product. I'm talking about a checkbox that has a "use at your own risk" warning. When developers put these sorts of checkboxes into an application it is usally smaller production where it's users are tech savvy enough to understand this risk. Or that particular feature was released as beta. If Auran introduced a checkbox with the warning saying "use at your own risk" That warning would be ignored by the userbase, by people like you, and then when the multiplayer sessions become unplayable, they'd take to the forums complaining about it. Complaining about how it's buggy, how they need to fix it, how they shouldn't have released it in that state.
All you are going to do is complain, no matter what. There is no doubt in my mind that your only ability is to be able to complain. When you set up your Fallout3 character, you checked the complainer trait and nothing else.
Let me say this again, in case you missed it. There is obvious problems that would come up if such a feature as you requested was added. There's been a lot of people that happily explained to you why it is a problem, why it would cause problems. I quoted a few of those people here and before this post is done I'm going to quote another. In fact, I'm going to do that right now.
Ohhh! What is that? It's exactly as we have been saying. It causes problems. Did we expect any different? No. We explained why it would cause issues, and for a lot of us, we didn't even have to experience those issues to understand why they would happen.
I’ve been part of this community since the first version was released. I saw where it came from; I saw what this version of Trainz is built upon. I released the first custom content for this game. When this game was first released, it wasn’t ready for prime time as far as custom content was concerned. There were a lot of aspects they didn’t think about and became a huge problem later on. It took a lot of effort for them to iron those issues out. Multiplayer is being added onto this, this heritage. This game wasn’t built for multiplayer, it’s being patched on. And to make everything compatible there’s certain compromises that have to be made. To make the multiplayer setup more ideal, a lot of things would have to be reworked and that would cause a whole new set of issues. Mainly that the content would have to be updated for the new multiplayer variation of Trainz. Then we would get the joy of having everyone complain about their old content not working in the new version of Trainz and we would get the joy of having the content creators complain about having to update their old content. This is the sort of issue a lot of programs face, especially as the years go on and the program becomes more complex and patched up.
Outside of enjoying Trainz, I work in the video game industry. What I hate is self-entitled people like you. You think the developers owe you something, that they are your personally flunkies and you get to dictate to them as if you know what’s best. You refuse to acknowledge them, or that there might be a perfectly valid reason why they’ve done something the way they have. I’ve seen devs that put in 120 hour weeks for months only to be berated by people like you because something isn’t perfectly as you want it. It’s people like you that stress devs out and makes them feel like their job isn’t worth it.
Programming a game is no simple task and it isn’t without its troubles. When you get into multiplayer, those problems get even worse. The devs of Trainz, they aren’t ID software, or Epic games. They don’t have those sorts of resources at their disposal. Even companies as big as that, it’s a huge undertaking to make sure everything works. It’s a set of experiences and lessons that have been built up over decades and as time goes on, it only gets more complex. The dev team here is doing the best they can with the resources they have and the issues that would crop up either route they took. They have to balance that with a community that would be up in arms if they changed too much.
shaneturner12
Tutorial Creator
I've got to agree with you JoshEH. I did give an explanation at the start, but it seems some users do not agree with what is effectively set in stone.
I think it may be time for a moderator to close the thread to avoid further issues.
Shane
I think it may be time for a moderator to close the thread to avoid further issues.
Shane
Though I am quoting one user here, this kinda goes with every thing that every one has said here.
The fact that every thing in your game for MP sessions must be the same as every one else's, as well as on the DLS is what makes this work.
Lets step back to TRS2006, I was part of the group of players who tried to use the iPortals in a large group setting. Now that was a pain because each player wanted to use content from other web sites. As far as I know, the group never got any where because of this. It was a butt ton of work to try and get all the assets for every one and I think that is what did it in.
Moving on to TRS12. Now just imagine how hard it would be if I made a route, but used content from all over the internet to build it. Then when you went to go download it, you would have to search for every last asset before you could use it. And no imagine if some of the assets where locally modified by me, and those modifications never made it out there. You'd have no way to use the route.
Its much like this in other games, such as Garry's mod. My little brother invited me to a game of it once. I had just bought the game, where as he had owned the game for some time. He had all sorts of content he had downloaded that was really nice on his end. But because I didn't have any of it downloaded, all I saw was large error boxes. I had to go out and download all that stuff on my own. A several hours of game play lost because of it.
As it is, I htink MP and the DLS are just right, and how it should be for most any MP PC game.
I'm not sure if this has been brought up as I didn't read all 3 pages, after downloading with download helper go to
userdata>cache>internet and all downloaded cdp's are stored there, what I do is back those up and when I re-install I copy all those cdp's to CMP and they install without it being marked 'locally modified' it's the same way when you ftp a download and put it in cmp as those files are original straight of the dls, that way you don't need to re-download them again, only time you need to re-download them is for a V1/V2 onwards type update.
Cheers.
userdata>cache>internet and all downloaded cdp's are stored there, what I do is back those up and when I re-install I copy all those cdp's to CMP and they install without it being marked 'locally modified' it's the same way when you ftp a download and put it in cmp as those files are original straight of the dls, that way you don't need to re-download them again, only time you need to re-download them is for a V1/V2 onwards type update.
Cheers.
You know, I rarely comment because I don't have as much knowledge about how computers work as many of you do.
However, one thing is very simple to me - if multiplayer doesn't start working properly most of the time with no issues, many (I for one) am going to walk from this game. Every single time I start the game, I wonder - is multiplayer working today? If I join a session, will it work properly? Will the game kick me out again? Will the multiplayer session crash? Will Auran's servers stall? The list goes on.
It's the most frustrating multiplayer game I've played in at least 20 years! I've never had multiplayer in a game not working as much as this game! NEVER! I love this game but am sooo frustrated that I'm "" this close to deleting it forever! I've reloaded it 3x from scratch in about 1 year, I've spent hours & hours trying to figure out why multiplayer sessions that I have used before suddenly won't load, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on for a long time.
Auran, you are losing your customers respect, and I think the avalanche may just be beginning... If nothing gets done, I believe this game is headed to the grave. So sad for what could be a really good multiplayer experience.
As a businessman who has at least 30 years of customer experience, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Fix it or get out - don't pretend like we don't know what we should be able to expect from a product we purchased. There are so many players I don't see any longer because the multiplayer just simply does not work to anyone's satisfaction. Put your efforts into fixing these many, many ongoing problems with multiplayer. If it were my company, I would be putting all my efforts into solving these issues because it will be the death of you in the end.
There you go - my thoughts for what they are worth. It doesn't fix anything, but I think says what many other players have already said, and many have not.
Ray.
However, one thing is very simple to me - if multiplayer doesn't start working properly most of the time with no issues, many (I for one) am going to walk from this game. Every single time I start the game, I wonder - is multiplayer working today? If I join a session, will it work properly? Will the game kick me out again? Will the multiplayer session crash? Will Auran's servers stall? The list goes on.
It's the most frustrating multiplayer game I've played in at least 20 years! I've never had multiplayer in a game not working as much as this game! NEVER! I love this game but am sooo frustrated that I'm "" this close to deleting it forever! I've reloaded it 3x from scratch in about 1 year, I've spent hours & hours trying to figure out why multiplayer sessions that I have used before suddenly won't load, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on for a long time.
Auran, you are losing your customers respect, and I think the avalanche may just be beginning... If nothing gets done, I believe this game is headed to the grave. So sad for what could be a really good multiplayer experience.
As a businessman who has at least 30 years of customer experience, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Fix it or get out - don't pretend like we don't know what we should be able to expect from a product we purchased. There are so many players I don't see any longer because the multiplayer just simply does not work to anyone's satisfaction. Put your efforts into fixing these many, many ongoing problems with multiplayer. If it were my company, I would be putting all my efforts into solving these issues because it will be the death of you in the end.
There you go - my thoughts for what they are worth. It doesn't fix anything, but I think says what many other players have already said, and many have not.
Ray.
The OP seems to be remarking about the locally modified tag when the item is actually on the DLS, and the requirement to download a creator's own assets to circumvent that step for multiplayer. I note the rest of this thread has ballooned far past that, but I do agree with her original complaint.
CM should be be able to recognize that an asset created and then uploaded to the DLS is no longer locally modified, but is now on the DLS, or at least in my way of thinking, both.
I agree in principle, but this isn't practical for us. As a simple example:
* Create a valid asset.
* Upload it.
* Modify the asset.
* Wait for the asset to hit the download station.
Clearly the asset is locally modified in this case, even though you are the original creator and were responsible for uploading it.
This is a very simple example; there are many more complicated examples using multiple trainz installations, or involving uploading an asset via the web site rather than directly through CM, or involving the use of system snapshots.
The only solution that would allow for your request would be to securely checksum every asset (see Zec's post) which, while certainly not impossible, also introduces problems of its own. That's not to say we won't head in that direction eventually, but it's not an option available to us at the moment.
chris
Okay, nearly winter here so I guess I should summarize. :hehe:
ORIGINAL POSTER: This locally modified stuff is a pain, can't you reprogram to have it just check for matching KUIDs?
DEVELOPERS: We tried that, it kept crashing the game. Locally modified check was the only way we could get it to work at all, so for now we're stuck with it.
No response from the OP, who by this time had gotten tired of fiddling with the squelch knob trying to pick a simple straight answer out of all the background static.
So it is what it is for now, all the end user can do is buy an FCT and get used to downloading a lot of stuff over and over again. What can the content creators do to help?
Testing a new route in a virgin copy of TS12, set the columns to add a "SIZE" column and click that to get the largest downloads at the top. Since I intend for this route to be multiplayer compatible, wherever possible I should replace any really huge downloads with stuff that's either smaller, or built in to TS12.
That's an improvement, some large downloads like the CNR switchstand I can't live without, but quite a few other objects have smaller sizes or built in equivalents if you look around. Main thing is it's a natural impulse to want to create Awesome Scenery, but if we intend to use it for TS12 multiplayer we need to consider how many megabytes will have to be downloaded and balance that with the scenery.
ORIGINAL POSTER: This locally modified stuff is a pain, can't you reprogram to have it just check for matching KUIDs?
DEVELOPERS: We tried that, it kept crashing the game. Locally modified check was the only way we could get it to work at all, so for now we're stuck with it.
No response from the OP, who by this time had gotten tired of fiddling with the squelch knob trying to pick a simple straight answer out of all the background static.
So it is what it is for now, all the end user can do is buy an FCT and get used to downloading a lot of stuff over and over again. What can the content creators do to help?
Testing a new route in a virgin copy of TS12, set the columns to add a "SIZE" column and click that to get the largest downloads at the top. Since I intend for this route to be multiplayer compatible, wherever possible I should replace any really huge downloads with stuff that's either smaller, or built in to TS12.
That's an improvement, some large downloads like the CNR switchstand I can't live without, but quite a few other objects have smaller sizes or built in equivalents if you look around. Main thing is it's a natural impulse to want to create Awesome Scenery, but if we intend to use it for TS12 multiplayer we need to consider how many megabytes will have to be downloaded and balance that with the scenery.
