Hi All
In the past, we have worked to repair content errors in content that is used by DLC packs (or the 'builtin' content packs in a Trainz release, which are sometimes provided as separate downloads). Normally we try to place these onto the DLS once confirmed repaired, but we are human and sometimes this gets forgotten. Especially when it's related to a lot of different testing/fixing at the same time.
When we have received reports of specific assets that definitely fit this situation, we will place the updated assets onto the DLS.
There is, however, a second situation that can occur. This is where content has been provided to us by a content creator that is not on the DLS, but obsoletes a DLS asset. This may have been sourced from a 3rd party website, or may have been updated by the person submitting the DLC pack. Unfortunately this can cause some of the issues being discussed here, and has previously been somewhat outside our control. Again, when reported to us, we can generally place these assets onto the DLS.
As of now though, there's some good news
The main part is that with the automation of the creation of DLC packs via the TCCP system, we now actively check for assets that aren't on the DLS. If the author of the asset is different to the author of the DLC pack, then it will require the author of the asset to approve it's inclusion in the DLC pack. Or upload it to the DLS.
If the author of the asset is the same as the author of the DLC pack, then it is automatically approved, and means that the creator has decided to include that asset without uploading it to the DLS. However there's also nothing to stop them later uploading it if they choose to. In this case it's best to contact the creator directly.
This does of course mean that there is a chance that an author may choose to not make that asset available from the DLS, for what ever reason they might have, but still allow it to be included in the DLC pack. We would prefer this be avoided to DLS asset updates, but we do still give the creator a choice here.
In regards to DLC packs including everything from the DLS, this is done to ensure that players don't need to download assets separately, the DLC pack is an all-in-one. This has been the case since we first introduced pre-packaged DLC packs (going all the way back to a few route CDs for TRS2006!), is to make the use experience as easy as possible.
In regards to the specific assets mentioned:
<kuid2:60238:37038:2> - It appears that this asset was updated as far back as TS12, as part of the ECML route in that route, and was included in the relevant route packs going forward. I've checked and there is an update to this asset on the DLS (offhand I'm not sure if it was us who uploaded it or Vulcan who uploaded it).
<kuid2:124017:10112:3> - this appears to have been included in TS12 as builtin, and then included with the Port Zyd and Fulazturn Route. I've entered a task for our team to look into placing this onto the DLS.
In regards to the DLS EULA/upload agreement, despite what some people continue to say, you don't forfeit all rights to your content.
What you do is grant several permissions for us to redistribute that content (both via the DLS, and via paid products such as the First Class server, full Trainz releases and DLC packs), and repair/update that content as required to ensure that it continues to work (where possible of course). Repairs includes repairs made by the Content Repair Group, and by our team for builtin content. For DLC packs, again any repaired assets would require the original author to authorise the modified asset to include in the DLS (unless the update is on the DLS, or the author has already authorised it).
It must be remembered that there are cases where creators may also decide to redistribute updates to their content via other sources, instead of the DLS. If this is the case, and the DLC pack creator is using the updated version, then this can result in that update becoming a part of the DLC pack (if authorised by the asset creator) despite not being on the DLS; but this would apply no matter what if the update were installed and used in a route/session anyway.
Regards