Repair my content or you may lose it!?

[bnsf50]

At Auran Administration

At Auran administration. You need to check your error checking parse. I received an email today with 4 assets flagged as faulty. I checked and even deleted and re-downloaded them and they were not faulty.
Kuids 39134:102066,067,068&069

 

[pw3r]

At Auran administration. You need to check your error checking parse. I received an email today with 4 assets flagged as faulty. I checked and even deleted and re-downloaded them and they were not faulty.
Kuids 39134:102066,067,068&039

You're correct. The error checking parse was performed quite a while ago, it's possible there was some bug at that time that has since been fixed.

Thankyou very much for letting us know, I'll investigate the cause right now. Please ignore the email and I'll make sure those assets are un-flagged as faulty.

Terry

 

[johnwhelan]

In short, yes. A new KUID will need to be created with an incremented version number, but it will retain the original author and content ID.

In detail, a website will be provided to allow the public to view any assets which are available for repair. From this website Trainz users will be able to 'claim' an asset. Once claimed you can then download and repair via the normal methods and upload the asset through the Auran website. Content Manager will block attempts to upload someone else's content, so uploads of this type will be restricted to the website.

Terry Palmer
N3V Games

Currently I'm working with others to correct content. We've done a fair number probably near a thousand under different kuids and built up a fair bit of experience. We have a queue that we are working through but I have no intention of continuing if I'm in some sort of race with some one else to fix the content. It takes time to fix content sometimes you hit a batch that need the same corrections which is easier and less error prone than doing one at a time.

How does the assignment work?

Cheerio John

 

[sparky15]

Another power play.
Neverwhatever released a program without compatibility and left it to the third party to fix.
Institute a new policy of access to user created content they benefited from in relation to the "new" version of this program.
Now they take control of content that is not theirs unless the original creator "updates" that content for them to sell.
All the while claiming "new" content when in fact they just recycle the old.
Maybe the programmers should have figured a way to fix the old instead of forcing the third party to fix it for them. To bad they needed it to sell the "new" program despite it was full of "old" content.
If there was actual "new" content, this situation wouldn't exist. Aside from the hidden new Speedtree content which was "inefficient" and had to be hidden, even though supplied by the program's provider.
Now, they will take control of third party intellectual rights to pursue a program they have zero invested in. Aside from the payware items that command a premium because their paid employees produced on top of the inefficient freeware they filled the program with.
Now, they can't even pay someone $1000 for a scenario to incorporate into a new release.

Another power grab by a greedy company that has prospered by stealing the works of others. To bad they can't even support what they stole and left that up to the same third party to make it work.

Good luck, and good bye neverwhatever. I'm sure this post will get me banned and I hope so. I can't support a thief, along with the I'll fix it for you clowns who don't mind altering other's works for your gain. No wonder torrents are so popular, sadly I wouldn't take you and your policies for free. Why respect your intellectual rights when you have abused everyone's for so long.

You did it to yourself.

Dave.....

 

[WindWalkr]

Another power play.

Another thoughtless whinge.

Neverwhatever released a program without compatibility and left it to the third party to fix.

N3V listened to their users and has instituted a policy of disallowing faulty content on the DLS.

Institute a new policy of access to user created content they benefited from in relation to the "new" version of this program.

Choose to offer improved support to the people who use our recent software products, and reduce the extent of freebies allowed to people who "bought something, once."

Now they take control of content that is not theirs unless the original creator "updates" that content for them to sell.

Now we offer the content creator a choice of fixing errors or having others fix it for them. It's a win-win situation- those active creators who want to control their product releases can do so, while those who are inactive or just don't care can sit back and not worry.

All the while claiming "new" content when in fact they just recycle the old.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here, so I won't attempt to rebut.

Maybe the programmers should have figured a way to fix the old instead of forcing the third party to fix it for them.

Maybe the content creator shouldn't have made the mistakes in the first place. (Note to content creators: I'm not being nasty here, just presenting the valid flipside of sparky's comment.)

To bad they needed it to sell the "new" program despite it was full of "old" content.

Too bad we actually like supporting our customers with a free third-party content repository.

If there was actual "new" content, this situation wouldn't exist.

If there was actual "new" content, we wouldn't have to run the DLS.. wait, what? That doesn't make much sense.

Aside from the hidden new Speedtree content which was "inefficient" and had to be hidden, even though supplied by the program's provider.

None of the SpeedTree content was hidden, actually. You're thinking of the "group" content which takes a bunch of visible SpeedTree assets and bundles it together as a fixed configuration of trees for compatibility purposes.

Now, they will take control of third party intellectual rights to pursue a program they have zero invested in.

Now we use our existing rights to ensure that we can continue to deliver a quality free service to our customers.

Aside from the payware items that command a premium because their paid employees produced on top of the inefficient freeware they filled the program with.

We actually made a slight profit for a change. We're quite happy about that. Hopefully our customers are enjoying the items that they purchased and will consider our future offerings in that area.

Now, they can't even pay someone $1000 for a scenario to incorporate into a new release.

And you say this based on... ? We don't publicise the terms of any agreements with third-party developers.

Another power grab by a greedy company that has prospered by stealing the works of others.

Another overly accusatory post by someone who has no idea of what they're talking about, especially regarding the profitability of the train simulation market space.

To bad they can't even support what they stole and left that up to the same third party to make it work.

Too bad we don't steal things.

Good luck, and good bye neverwhatever.

Good riddance.

I'm sure this post will get me banned and I hope so.

Not by me at least. I'm just going to point out how little you know about the subject.

I can't support a thief

I'm with you there.

along with the I'll fix it for you clowns who don't mind altering other's works for your gain.

I won't say we gain nothing, because a strong community certainly helps us in the long run, but I would say that the community gains more. What you gain from blaming people who are willing to donate their time to help the community (including us, yes) is an interesting question.

No wonder torrents are so popular, sadly I wouldn't take you and your policies for free. Why respect your intellectual rights when you have abused everyone's for so long.

So basically, you're looking for an excuse to pirate stuff.


kind regards,

chris

 

[pw3r]

Currently I'm working with others to correct content. We've done a fair number probably near a thousand under different kuids and built up a fair bit of experience. We have a queue that we are working through but I have no intention of continuing if I'm in some sort of race with some one else to fix the content. It takes time to fix content sometimes you hit a batch that need the same corrections which is easier and less error prone than doing one at a time.

How does the assignment work?

Cheerio John

The 'claiming' of an asset for repair by a third party will be a "first in, best dressed" kind of deal. Once the listing is made public anyone will be able to exclusively claim up to a certain number of assets for repair. Once claimed that person will be able to upload a repaired version, and when the asset is repaired the ability to modify that asset will be removed.

Hope that sheds some light on the plan, if not let me know. I'll be updating the wiki page with more details soon.

Terry

 

[sparky15]

No Chris,
A chance to buy something new. Instead we get a rehash of the old under new selling guidelines. If you had something new to offer you wouldn't have to turn DLS content over to anyone to fix for you.

You assumed control of others content in order to profit from it. Now you have passed that right on to others to fix it for you. You took the intent of your own policy and changed it after the fact passing intellectual rights to anyone who will fix it for you. Read your own upload policy. Who is the pirate.

Whinge? Really. Read your own posts and responses from your company here.

And, I did state I wouldn't take your products for free. I don't support piracy, therefore won't support your company. Twist it all you like.

Dave......

 

[RRSignal]

No Chris,
A chance to buy something new. Instead we get a rehash of the old under new selling guidelines. If you had something new to offer you wouldn't have to turn DLS content over to anyone to fix for you.

You assumed control of others content in order to profit from it. Now you have passed that right on to others to fix it for you. You took the intent of your own policy and changed it after the fact passing intellectual rights to anyone who will fix it for you. Read your own upload policy. Who is the pirate.

Whinge? Really. Read your own posts and responses from your company here.

And, I did state I wouldn't take your products for free. I don't support piracy, therefore won't support your company. Twist it all you like.

Dave......

Yes, Auran is trying to milk the existing code rather than rewrite it from scratch, as some think they should do. Unfortunately, rewriting the sim is both expensive and likely will break most or all existing content, putting Trainz back at square one. If you really want to start over with relatively little content availability, RailWorks is a better option than Trainz, though I understand it has crappy AI and tons of faults of its own.

As for Auran "assuming control" over fixing content, cool. I believe that is a condition of uploading to the DLS. It's not as if Auran is stealing it and claiming it as their own; they simply want to fix it for compatibility reasons. Were Auran to update the game engine, they'd have to do that if it were even possible.

That said, Auran did make three mistakes. First was not enforcing better content creation rules for the beginning. Second was waiting to enter the market; I suspect, had they waited a few years, they could have developed a somewhat more modern game engine. Third is they should double or triple the price of the product and hire more programmers and content creators. I'm tired of the sniveling and whining about patches and imperfect content - and the general overall sense of entitlement; people are too used to expecting stuff for free or for cheap but expect near perfection at the same time. Of course, this is probably the worst thing Auran could do market-wise.

 

[WindWalkr]

No Chris,
A chance to buy something new. Instead we get a rehash of the old under new selling guidelines.

We usually introduce a major new product every year or so, and minor products more frequently. For compatibility reasons, we don't usually remove older content from the major Trainz releases, but we certainly do add a substantial amount of new content with each release.

If you had something new to offer you wouldn't have to turn DLS content over to anyone to fix for you.

You don't seem to realise that the DLS is a third-party content repository that we host for the benefit of the Trainz community. I'm not denying that we are part of the community, so the hosting benefits us as well as everybody else. We certainly did not build very much of the content on the DLS, so I don't see where your assumption that we should fix the content is coming from.

You assumed control of others content in order to profit from it.

And your evidence of this is...?

I think that you are promoting a negative stance, and therefore are placing everything we do in a negative light. While you are free to form your own opinions, I would suggest there are a lot of possible motivations for us looking to repair the DLS content, and the one you have decided to focus on is deliberately selected to paint us in the worst possible light.

I can say honestly that profit has never been a direct motive for us in repairing the DLS. Improving our user experience and laying the path for future improvements most certainly is. If by improving our user experience, we are able to profit, then I'm sure we won't complain, but to paint that as our driving goal is both incorrect and insulting.

Now you have passed that right on to others to fix it for you. You took the intent of your own policy and changed it after the fact passing intellectual rights to anyone who will fix it for you. Read your own upload policy. Who is the pirate.

I don't believe we've ever offered to pass any intellectual rights to anyone.

Whinge? Really. Read your own posts and responses from your company here.

I am addressing your responses directly. If you don't like to hear our side of the story, nobody is forcing you to post.

And, I did state I wouldn't take your products for free. I don't support piracy, therefore won't support your company. Twist it all you like.

And yet you finished up your post by explicitly speaking in support of piracy. Twist it all you like.

kind regards,

chris

 

[WindWalkr]

That said, Auran did make three mistakes. First was not enforcing better content creation rules for the beginning.

Guilty as charge. We never expected third-party content to take off like it did, and it's taken us a long time to build up a mature toolset for third-party content creators. I seem to remember that the early DLS involved uploading executable files - certainly a big no-no by today's standards.

Second was waiting to enter the market; I suspect, had they waited a few years, they could have developed a somewhat more modern game engine.

I don't quite follow what you're saying here. You mean that we shouldn't have created the game for 2001? Well, of course anyone who enters the game later will have a more modern game engine, but on the flipside they'll have more resistance to entering the already established market. Keep in mind here that Trainz was absolutely state-of-the-art when it was launched, and our major competitors during much of our development had 2D graphics

As it turned out, Microsoft launched a competing product in the same timeframe but there's no way to predict that kind of thing ahead of time, and I'm not sure that delaying the launch as a result would have been a very smart move.

Third is they should double or triple the price of the product and hire more programmers and content creators. I'm tired of the sniveling and whining about patches and imperfect content - and the general overall sense of entitlement; people are too used to expecting stuff for free or for cheap but expect near perfection at the same time. Of course, this is probably the worst thing Auran could do market-wise.

I think you sum up the problems with that approach quite well. I agree with both the sentiment and the analysis. In practice, our best option is to try to improve the mass-market appeal of the product in order to fund further development. We can't afford to overreach too heavily, so we do it a little increment at a time.

kind regards,

chris

 

[RRSignal]

The second item was meant a bit sarcastically. To some extent, all of it was. Too much criticism is based on the luxury of hindsight.

As much as I dislike Microsoft, the situation with Trainz/Auran is very similar: MS-DOS was a hugely successful operating system early on in the PC market. But, the fact that it was adopted so early and that it worked so well on primitive hardware with serious limits eventually turned into a major limitation of its own. Rather than start from scratch - leaving millions of users out in the cold, and M$ without an established product - Microsoft created a series of products that overcame those limitations while providing varying degrees of backwards compatibility with older products. That's what Trainz has to do - and has done, to a degree. A lot of people don't get the fact that his is really the ONLY realistic option for Trainz, or for any established product with a large content base.

 

[johnwhelan]

The 'claiming' of an asset for repair by a third party will be a "first in, best dressed" kind of deal. Once the listing is made public anyone will be able to exclusively claim up to a certain number of assets for repair. Once claimed that person will be able to upload a repaired version, and when the asset is repaired the ability to modify that asset will be removed.

Hope that sheds some light on the plan, if not let me know. I'll be updating the wiki page with more details soon.

Terry

Just to add confusion to this a number of creators have been kind enough to give me permission to reskin their work. Where you see the words "minimal reskin" in the description essentially it is simply an error corrected original but under my kuid and has my email address etc as the creator.

In other words it has already been corrected but is not under the original kuid.

Cheerio John

 

[johnwhelan]

That's exactly correct. We are gradually emailing the original creators of known faulty content on the Download Station to first give them ample time to perform any repairs themselves.

After the 8 weeks have elapsed we will make the public listing available so that anyone can repair these assets. The deletion of assets from the Download Station will be an absolute last resort, and will hopefully remain a rare case.

Terry Palmer
Programmer
N3V Games

8 weeks is not long enough to correct everything. The Defiant took longer than that by itself. If the creator has a number of items to correct and is working through them then they should be allowed more time.

Correcting all my kuids certainly took more than 8 weeks.

Cheerio John

 

[pw3r]

8 weeks is not long enough to correct everything. The Defiant took longer than that by itself. If the creator has a number of items to correct and is working through them then they should be allowed more time.

Correcting all my kuids certainly took more than 8 weeks.

Cheerio John

If a creator needs/wants more time we can certainly provide it. My guess was that this would not be a common occurrence, so there is no officially mandated way to do this yet.

The best approach if a creator wants more time, would probably be to go via the helpdesk or pm me directly on the forums. If this starts to happen often then we'll implement a better solution.

Terry
N3V Games

 

[WindWalkr]

8 weeks is not long enough to correct everything. The Defiant took longer than that by itself.

In addition to Terry's comments, it's worth me pointing out that we expect 99% of the errors to be a five-minute fix. We're not asking people to make new models or textures, so there's typically no reason why it would take a long time to fix the items.

Of course there will always be exceptions, so as Terry says, if you have a legitimate reason why you might need additional time then don't hesitate to contact us.

kind regards,

chris

 

[paulzmay]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the good news I've been waiting for since the original announcement of a DLS clean-up. I think all of my stuff is OK, but I'll fix it if not. I'll certainly want to make sure that items I've fixed to use in my native mode routes will be corected and available, so I guess I'll probably be joining in the effort. I look forward to seeing how the whole process works. I trust that there will be an ability to drop a kuid requiring correction if it proves too hard, or if another creator (looking at you JW) has already worked it out. Also I think we need to allow a fairly long time limit for getting corrections done. I suspect there are some in the community who would like to acheive 100%, and will do so, given time.

I also read the part about non-DLS dependencies:

N3V will also seek to reduce the occurrence of missing dependencies in DLS content. It is expected that we will begin to tighten the upload criteria in this regard. We have not fully evaluated our options here - we do not wish to negatively impact the payware marketplace, for example - but it is clear that we are unhappy with the current situation.

I'd ask N3V to look long and hard at this - personally I'd just want a warning that not all dependencies are available, and let the downloader choose. Ideally, a set of links to missing content (either free or payware) should be included. A way to include this (possibly even a wiki-style page) in the DLS interface would be a huge bonus.

And Sparky - I don't speak for everyone, but you certainly don't speak for me...

Paul

 

[WindWalkr]

I'd ask N3V to look long and hard at this - personally I'd just want a warning that not all dependencies are available, and let the downloader choose.

This sounds like a reasonable compromise on the face of it, but the key here is in finding a way to express this to a new end user which doesn't lead to frequent frustration or disappointment.

We also want to be in a position where most DLS items have all their necessary dependencies available. In our "ideal world", content would either be built-in, available on the DLS, or created locally. You'd never end up with missing dependencies. Unfortunately this model doesn't allow for payware (either first- or third-party.) From there on out, the ideas get a little more complicated and a little less ideal.

We'll certainly give this some very thorough consideration before taking any big steps, and involve the developer community when it comes time to make changes.

kind regards,

chris

 

[tmz06003]

I was wondering how this system will handle aliased assets? For instance I've uploaded several aliased reskins, where the alias itself is error free but the original asset is faulty. Will this flag an error on my reskins also, or the original asset only?

If the original creator doesn't fix these I'd certainly be willing to do this as I've already sorted many of the issues to create the reskin in the first place.

Do you have a quality control system between uploading a fixed asset to your website and going on the DLS? If not there could be the possibility of someone making unauthorised changes to someone else's asset, although they would be error free, what is to stop someone changing textures without permission for instance?

 

[WindWalkr]

I was wondering how this system will handle aliased assets? For instance I've uploaded several aliased reskins, where the alias itself is error free but the original asset is faulty. Will this flag an error on my reskins also, or the original asset only?

Original only.

Do you have a quality control system between uploading a fixed asset to your website and going on the DLS? If not there could be the possibility of someone making unauthorised changes to someone else's asset, although they would be error free, what is to stop someone changing textures without permission for instance?

As always, we have a limited quality control system and back that up with direct human intervention. If somebody deliberately abuses the system, we'll ban their Planet Auran account and repair the damage.

kind regards,

chris

 

[Shortline2]

Hi,

In regards to uploads needing dependencies not on the DLS.

As CM(P) do list things not on the DLS, would it be possible to add in a sort of form where the uploader could put in where the various things not on the DLS came from?
This would be done with the upload kind of thing.

It would of course demand that the uploaded figure out where the stuff used came from, but in a way it is easier for the uploaded to do it then for a downloader of the same route/model as the uploader have the advantage of knowing what items was used where.
Build up sort of a database where kuids get a link to a website where they can be found, and that shows as a clickable link with the item description or something.

I know, not my best idea, it came when I read the above, I started to write and realized I was not doing the best thinking as I thought I was.
But, I let this post go out there in case small parts of the thinking might be expanded upon by others and it might end up into a useful solution.
I think there is already a place out there where someone tries to keep track of where kuids are located outside the DLS?

Best wishes to all, and thanks for the work on the DLS clean up, I for one appreciate the effort and work and all put into it from all parties.

Linda