Gandalf0444
FVRR member
Last time I checked it was less the 30kbsI think you are getting confused with something else.
(same as with the CoC where it says sig images must be less than 30kb)
Mike.
Rail Simulator Screenshots
- Thread starter overmars
- Start date
- Status
I have yet to see a sim with convincing smoke effects out of the box... and as Overmars said I currently have no graphics card so I'm quite happy with RS as it is :hehe:
You should check again, then you'd see it's 186kb...
Last time I checked it was less the 30kbs
You should check again, then you'd see it's 186kb...
Last edited:
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
Hi, my friend.
Do you really think there would be Trainz payware with that policy? Our payware creators are sensible people, not daring businessmen!
Alberte :wave:
Hi, my friend.
Do you really think there would be Trainz payware with that policy? Our payware creators are sensible people, not daring businessmen!
Alberte :wave:
I'd be interested to learn if there was a similar arrangement for MSTS. Over the last few years the MSTS community has produced an expansive selection of payware titles - many of which are available off-the-shelf in computer games stores. This not only suggests that the market has an appetite for such releases but also that there is money to be made.
Accordingly, I can understand why a company would want to charge a fee to allow people to have a stake in such a market.
Perchpole
that smoke does look rubbish, and yet again I am cringinging at BGP, a good friend has looked at maps and watched Ivo Peter's films with me and talked me through them and that is miles off what the S&D looked like, in anycase imho something like a Standard 4, Fowler 2P or 4F would have been better for the S&D rather than a black five
Gandalf0444
FVRR member
What gets me the most is that your the only to that have even bothered to look,and do you know how long I have had it up there the way it is?
Anyway I will change it,thanks.
Also great pics Jive.
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
I'd be interested to learn if there was a similar arrangement for MSTS. Over the last few years the MSTS community has produced an expansive selection of payware titles - many of which are available off-the-shelf in computer games stores. This not only suggests that the market has an appetite for such releases but also that there is money to be made.
Accordingly, I can understand why a company would want to charge a fee to allow people to have a stake in such a market.
Perchpole
Hi dear P_P,
You are a sensible payware creator, aren't you?
I do know . And you know the Trainz payware potential market very well... Alberte :wave:
Last edited:
Hi dear P_P,
You are a sensible payware creator, aren't you?
Alberte :wave:
Alberte -
Exactly what is that supposed to mean?!!!
If I was mercenary enough I think I would be making payware content for RS - simply because it offers the opportunity for even greater financial rewards.
However, as much as I might admire what they've done with RS, I have no intention of turning my back on this community.
Perch
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
My dear Perchie,
Of course you are not! You are a trainzer above all... and that's the right word to define a person over here.
My deepest apologies if I wasn't able to express myself better. What I just meant is that you are sensible enough to understand that by making payware over here nobody can get rich or even earn a living, and I also doubt if cover costs. I'm so sorry if I seemed to express something different: Market is not very large for Trainz payware.
All my respect and appreciation for you, Perch. No doubt.
Alberte :wave:
Last edited:
A-ha! Now I understand.
Yes, we are Trainzers - but please don't be offended if we look at other stuff because some of us really do want to make Trainz even better!
Perch
There never has been nor will there be any restrictions on retail content for MSTS , this will also apply to Microsoft TrainSim2 . Similarly the same applies to retail content for the Flight Sim series - no restrictions at all . Microsoft encourage commercial developers , knowing that there is a market for addons and that there are benefits - increased sales of their product .
BlueNeon
If true, this is the way to go. The software producer should make the basic program the very best it can be, and allow the third parties to release content (free and pay ware) to expand it.
Trainz tried to do this, but stumbled with 2006, and continues to try to stand up with TC 1&2, and TC3...
Ed
grogstop65
TrainzEasternRoutes
I agree!
Auran and MSTS's open policy to payware creators is the best way to develop a strong community to complement and extend the life of a sim.
Trainz's biggest strengths are its powerful and very functional route editor, and strong base of 3rd party content creators of both payware and freeware.
For anther train sim to surpass Trainz, it would need better graphics, a hands off 3rd party creation policy, easier conten creation tools, and of course a route editor with the same if not more functionality/flexibility and user friendliness than that of Trainz.
The above being the case trainz will stay one of the leading train sims or a long time to come.
Cheers, John
Auran and MSTS's open policy to payware creators is the best way to develop a strong community to complement and extend the life of a sim.
Trainz's biggest strengths are its powerful and very functional route editor, and strong base of 3rd party content creators of both payware and freeware.
For anther train sim to surpass Trainz, it would need better graphics, a hands off 3rd party creation policy, easier conten creation tools, and of course a route editor with the same if not more functionality/flexibility and user friendliness than that of Trainz.
The above being the case trainz will stay one of the leading train sims or a long time to come.
Cheers, John
Last edited:
Grogstop
I'd be interested to know on which particular criteria you base that assertion?
:hehe:
Perchpole
Hi Euphod
As noted by grogstop65 > "Auran and MSTS's open policy to payware creators is the best way to develop a strong community to complement and extend the life of a sim"
This from Rick >
--snip --
We have no intentions of changing our model for add-on developers. As noted above, we see it as being in our best interest for there to be a strong, vibrant, add-on community who has full ability to build new content for our products. In the end, this makes for a stronger franchise, which is our goal.
-Rick
Rick Selby
Lead Game Designer
Microsoft Train Simualtor
------------
This link http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/10/18/devcon-topics.aspx gives an indication of Microsofts commitment , A great time was had apparently .
Blueneon
tommylommykins
KUID 224131
I was under the impression that RSDL would only charge you the £1000 for distributing payware only if the creator did not notify them before starting distribution, or something along those lines. It's certainly what I've read on the forums.
But does 'notification' actually mean that you have to acquire their consent or agreement before being able to distribute 3rd party payware? If notification simply means telling them before you publish and going ahead whether or not they like what you're doing, then I doubt anyone will have any problems. But if 'notification' in practice means securing consent then effectively they're taking editorial control over these 3rd party items (unless you wish to pay their £1000 charge, that is.)
zatovisualworks
Veteran but blossoming
Yes, sir, of course, but going relatively off-topic is a delight we can't help. Keep delights up :hehe:
:wave:
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky