Should N3V consign Trainz to the public domain?

R

robd

Well-known member
I apologize in advance for using what may be old fashioned terminology.

Is it now the time to consign Trainz to the public domain i.e. make it shareware or open source, in essence whatever the destiny of failed commercial or start up software programs or apps now become?

I think so purely on the grounds of its lack of playability and enjoyment and its countless problems that only the 'computer geek' can get to grips with.

I believe that there is a NEXT iteration of the never ending problems and strange nuances of the Trainz saga that will satisfy the computer geeks but make it more of a problem for those that wish to just have a playable, without problems, railway simulator game - 'game' being the significant word!

Sorry for the rant, but that's how Trainz is becoming, an exercise in computer programming for all users at all levels!

Rob.
 
I, for one, am enjoying Trainz/TANE in its latest version and previous versions as well. It is not perfect. A lot of games I play are not as well, but it is ours and has brought me countless hours of enjoyment. The folks that worked hard to develop and distribute this game in all its forms deserve to be proud of what they have accomplished. I do not consider it a failure by any standard.
 
I agree with jbaxter1964. As a longtime user of Trainz, since 2003 this month actually, I don't see it as a failure either. It's still quite usable and the bugs that exist now will be addressed.

Putting the program into the public domain, aka open source community, does not always work and in this case would be a detriment. The open source world does not have the resources or support from such companies as AMD and NVidia to work on new graphics libraries and features so what we would have is what's already produced such as TS12 or TRS2006. What we have today only scratches the surface of what we're going to see in the future.

There are also licensing issues to consider including software technologies acquired by N3V for product development, which may or may not be transferable to another entity, and there's also user licensing and activation. IP issues are quite complex and require an expensive legal team to work through. A good example is Speed Tree technology. That would have to be newly acquired by the new group that picks up the program. Software licenses such as this are not transferable. You already saw what happened when N3V upgraded to 64-bit from the 32-bit code libraries. Microsoft also has similar licensing requirements as well with the code libraries, and purchasing these off the shelf, though possible, is quite expensive. This is only a tiny example of what's at stake.

What do they do about the DLC servers, do the users dump all purchased DLC from N3V? What about the DLS. Surely N3V wouldn't just give that away too to the open source community. How about the activation servers? Should the company fail, it might be a different story but otherwise I don't think so. This infrastructure is quite expensive even with today's low-cost networks and servers.

Moving a product to the public domain isn't something that can be taken lightly, nor do I think it's fully possible.
 
robd,

Well, perhaps N3V should do so the day that you provide us your bank information. After all, your rant is so unjustifiable that it can hardly be taken seriously. This, therefore, is enough evidence to demand that you put it all up for grabs!;)

By the way, shareware and open source can hardly be equated with "failed commercial or start up software programs or apps." Laughable. Tell that to the folks at LibreOffice, Linux, Blender, and so forth...and see how far it gets you. Open source is quite a noble cause, with software such as LaTeX far superior to anything that we are able to purchase.

I think you will be working for some time to regain credibility after this rant...:eek:
 
Last edited:
Yes and the organizations behind Open Office such as the Apache Foundation have the bank account behind them to support the cause too. The big companies that created the products originally, set up the open source groups/companies to continue development and support them. In this case, if N3V stepped away, the product would become abandonedware, which happens all too often.

Sure you can say that Open Rails and Open TTDX did work for the old MSTS Train Simulator and TTDX respectively, but these are really old products with no further development on the underlying technology.

You also seem to forget, or do not realise, that product development is a separate branch from product support, though in some cases they do overlap. While the new product is being developed and researched, there is the ongoing support on the other end for previously created versions. This is always the case until the product supported is moved to unsupported status based on an established schedule.
 
I think the present mixture of user content and N3V doing the engine programming is about the optimum. The advances in materials recently need a specialist sort of programmer knowledge which means a paid programmer.

The system is complex bringing in the legacy stuff makes it more complex but tools such as the preview option which gives poly counts and draw calls mean we can now go hunting poorly performing assets.

Cheerio John
 
cressjl said:
robd,

Well, perhaps N3V should do so the day that you provide us your bank information. After all, your rant is so unjustifiable that it can hardly be taken seriously. This, therefore, is enough evidence to demand that you put it all up for grabs!;)

By the way, shareware and open source can hardly be equated with "failed commercial or start up software programs or apps." Laughable. Tell that to the folks at LibreOffice, Linux, Blender, and so forth...and see how far it gets you. Open source is quite a noble cause, with software such as LaTeX far superior to anything that we are able to purchase.

I think you will be working for some time to regain credibility after this rant...:eek:
Click to expand...

Beautifully put.
 
Well robd you were passingly right in that you gave a rant.

There are other rail simulators which are most certainly not as varied and wide as Trainz and i don't in principle see a point in this at all. Do we follow the same slightly odd thinking about every hobby or pastime interest?? Years ago i discovered MSTS first but came quickly to realise how limited it wass and that you had to be a techy wizard to construct things. Then by chance and searching found Trainz and what a delight. Easier to build and can hop from one train to another build layouts with great scenery and you can work with more than one dashed train sitting in a cab. My present very large project for Ireland north and south would have been a negative elsewhere than this simulator. It does take much skill and progress to have an activity like Trainz created and I think the idea behind this thread is with respect a bit pointless in relation to what I have added here.
 
To add you also need patience and the ability to step back and take a break when things are not going the way you'd like.
 
robd said:
Sorry for the rant, but that's how Trainz is becoming, an exercise in computer programming for all users at all levels!
Click to expand...
Only if you decide to make it so.

As a commercial product, Tane can stand alongside any of the small scale specialised simulators. It works out of the box as described, and the included routes provide the user experience promised on the pack. If it appeared under a Christmas tree it could be installed and used in much the same way, and to much the same standard, as equivalent products. Provided always that the hardware was adequate - a proviso that applies to any software but especially to simulators and games.

On that basis there is no reason for N3V to contemplate abandoning the product - it ought to be able to succeed in the marketplace, and past comments from the manufacturer indicate that it is holding its place.

The issues you describe, and which have apparently triggered this rant, arise from the fact that the simulator provides a very high level of extensibility. Users can download items from the DLS that have been created by other users, they can download assets from other sites, swap assets with their mates, modify assets provided with the game, and even create their own from scratch. As users get more into this extensibility then the geek factor increases, both in managing the assets (fixing errors, for example) and in using them - building routes, finding out what does or doesn't work, etc. For some, the effort of using these features is the interest of the game, for others it is frustration and annoyance. But it's your choice. if you don't like the geek factor, stay away from it: use the product as delivered out of the box, run your Trainz around the provided routes and enjoy the views. For others, get down and dirty in a way that other simulators just don't allow.
 
From looking at other train simulations. I have to say Trainz is the MOST COMPLETE one. My friend has the new Train Simulator 2018 (it is on Steam) and it looks amazing, plays well but it just is not easy to use in other areas. Also, EVERYTHING for the game is payware and the company that makes the game also produces that add on content. There is little free stuff out there for it which is a huge strike on its part. Don't be fooled by what is on the Steam Workshop for the game, it looks like it is all just scenarios and sessions, no locos or rolling stock are on it. In my opinion the game is just a "money maker" and some of the DLCs go upwards of like $30 - $40! The building mode in it is also extremely hard to use and not exactly friendly to just about anyone. I don't even know why they put a building mode into it because it is so terrible.

Trainz's Surveyor is so much easier to use than TS18's. Trainz is also great because there is so much free stuff out there. There is nothing like that out there for other train sims, everything you have to pay for which REALLY adds up. There are some pet peeves with Trainz though, however, N3V tries very hard to fix these problems ASAP. One annoying thing has already been removed which was TADDeaom (so happy that is gone). I, unfortunately, still have TS12 but am waiting for TS2018 to come out next year. I honestly don't mind TAD though, it really is annoying sometimes because you have to sit there and wait for it to verify 5,000 assets, but it is worth it in the end.
 
There is also the issue that not all of the components in Trainz are owned by N3V. The code that places Speedtrees into a layout, for example, is copyrighted to a different company. N3V has also paid the end user licence fees for selected creators to be able to create Speedtree assets. I suspect that some of the new texture and lighting technologies that have been showcased for future versions of Trainz over the last month or so, may also be copyrighted to others (NVidea??).

If Trainz was to be made open source and freeware then it would most likely follow that no licence fees, for creators or for players, would be paid to these 3rd parties and their proprietary technologies would have to be removed.

As others have pointed out, where open source software has flourished there has been considerable financial resources available to support its continued development.
 
Last edited:
pware said:
As others have pointed out, where open source software has flourished there has been considerable financial resources available to support its continued development.
Click to expand...
Microsoft had a very interesting presentation just a month ago from someone who was responsible for an open source project. The message was that open source is probably not going to work, because of burnout in the administrators. This from a guy who has been heavily into it for years and originally was convinced that open source is the way of the future. Without substantial support for the administrators, certainly enough to take it from part-time interest to a full-time career, the project will fade away. Some very useful work will have been done in the meantime, but any open source project must be considered as having a fixed life, and that life can be relatively short. From an 'insider', with plenty of examples to back up his claims.
 
robd said:
I apologize in advance for using what may be old fashioned terminology.

Is it now the time to consign Trainz to the public domain i.e. make it shareware...

Rob.
Click to expand...

I will be clear, I think Trainz is unfit to be a commercial product and should be put in the public domain. I understand the public domain means freeware or shareware, NOT open source as I stated previously. I apologize to any open source software developers who may have read this thread.

I hope this clarifies my argument to all.

Rob.
 
The beauty for me of Trainz/TANE is that it can appeal to all types of people and interests. If your interest is simply running stuff there are plenty of routes and sessions available. If your thing is building routes/sessions only your imagination is the limit of what can be done. Then there are the people who love to build assets of all kinds. This group in particular deserves a lot of credit for doing what they do just for the fun of it. There are nearly 450,000 assets available for people to use, and that's just on the DLS.

What other game or simulation allows such flexibility for all kinds of users to enjoy it and the ability to do so many things. I have enjoyed the game for almost 14 years and have seen steady advancement in what is possible to achieve. Yes there are some frustrating moments with it but they do become resolved in time. For me TANE becomes an interesting challenge/puzzle to see if I can build routes using the AI feature so that 30 or 40 trains can navigate a session without any intervention from me. That's my thing. I admire those whose goal it is to make the most realistic route scenery wise that is possible.

But again that is the real genius of Trainz - It allows you to do your own thing while being supported by a dedicated group of people who have a passion for the game and are committed to constantly improving the Trainz experience.
 
I somehow don't think N3V are ready to walk away from their investment just yet.

The biggest problem with TANE is that too much tinkering seems to have gone on to change how core elements of the game work, known in common parlance as nerfing it, under the cover of bugfixes which unfortunately has opened up new problems. This was particularly apparent on the transition from the relatively stable SP1 HF4 to SP2 and the further breakage which has occurred in HF1. Certain elements need to be set in stone to aid in keeping the product stable for those of us producing content and building routes. This didn't seem the case with TS12 or previous versions of the game, apart from CMP there wasn't the marked degradation on moving from 49922 to the final iteration.

With regard to Open Rails, I spend a bit of time hanging out at Trainsim.com and it is quite amusing to see the same old group of a couple of dozen zealots who think it is the train sim second coming, when in reality it runs *some* MSTS routes and assets slightly better. OpenBVE comes and goes, the original developer having walked away and crucially there is no easy way to design your own routes or content.

That said I do feel TS2018/Next or whatever it's been called this week could be the deal maker or breaker for N3V. The experience with TANE has not generally been a good one and some urgent assurances are needed that the team know what they are doing and competent to deliver it. Another buggy product that needs endless patches with significant nerfs along the way will not be well received. Particularly as by then DTG may have got their act together with TSW, fixed their particular bugs and released some user tools. Ergo, TS2018 is also going to have to look, sound and play pretty darn good to match the competition and that starts with up to date routes and train-sets which don't look like relics from 2005. That's not intended to put noses out of joint just a personal IMHO as to what N3V should seriously be looking at this time round.
 
Communism is another name given to the seizure of private assets and intellectual property rights for distribution to the 'comrades' (typically an oligarchy in itself).
Open source is great for some projects and works well if properly funded, finely-focused and supported by an informed (and typically geeky) community. But there are no commercial consequences for failure, so mediocrity and failure is possible.
On the other hand, proprietary development of software products works well when there is a clear market audience and developers determined and incentivised to satisfy customer needs.

robd -
I think so purely on the grounds of its lack of playability and enjoyment and its countless problems that only the 'computer geek' can get to grips with.​
Click to expand...

Sorry Rob, but I don't believe the premise you outline above prevails for all of us and - even if I did - do not think making Trainz open source is the solution.
 
Last edited:
Certainly, if you are a project administrator for a commercial product in a profit making software corporation, then you usually do not have to worry about raising the funds to pay for the salaries of your staff and yourself. You will almost certainly have a working budget for your project for the next 12-18 months that will probably include the salaries of short term contract and non-permanent staff but you would never need to put "nagware" in your products to solicit donations - just look at the messages that popup on Wikipedia these days.
 
PC_Ace said:
Communism is another name given to the seizure of private assets and intellectual property rights for distribution to the 'comrades' (typically an oligarchy in itself).
Open source is great for some projects and works well if properly funded, finely-focused and supported by an informed (and typically geeky) community. But there are no commercial consequences for failure, so mediocrity and failure is possible.
On the other hand, proprietary development of software products works well when there is a clear market audience and developers determined and incentivised to satisfy customer needs.



Sorry Rob, but I don't believe the premise you outline above prevails for all of us and - even if I did - do not think making Trainz open source is the solution.
Click to expand...

Why be sorry???

See this post #15
https://forums.auran.com/trainz/sho...nz-to-the-public-domain&p=1644776#post1644776

Rob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
How to explain Trainz in a nutshell to people who unfamiliar with it
Replies
18
Views
6K
JCitron
J
S
The Trainz Journey
Replies
0
Views
617
Saieditor
S
D
Trainz for Mac 2010 .Help needed to transfer edited route from mac to pc
Replies
1
Views
1K
dangavel
D
Back
Top