SPORBUST's Locos

[PEV]

Today I repaired the stand-alone locos of Frank's that are in the DSL repair scheme. They have all been tested in railyard and are error-free and warning-free in CM 3.7. All have been up-versioned to trainz-build 2.9, but they should all work in TRS2006 onwards if you down-version them.

The following have been approved.
<KUID2:113556:70020:2> - Susq 8-40b #4002
<KUID2:113556:51104:2> - Loco Dash 8 UP-2
<KUID2:113556:60077:3> - BNSF 8-40b #8603
<KUID2:113556:60003:3> - SP 8-40b #8019
<KUID2:113556:60000:3> - SP 8-40b #8024
<KUID2:113556:60020:3> - SP 8-40b #8001
<KUID2:113556:60060:3> - CSX 8-40b #5942
<KUID2:113556:60059:3> - CSX 8-40b #5952
<KUID2:113556:60056:3> - BNSF 8-40b #8618

All have now incremented kuid versions. These are some of the assets that are not repairable with normal tools.

Frank was very generous with his data. In one of the above I deleted 72 files and it still works.

The aliased locos are still to be repaired. For those I am waiting for a new feature in AssetX to be finalised so I can open the master asset automatically as I open the alias one.

 

[deneban]

Today I repaired the stand-alone locos of Frank's that are in the DSL repair scheme. They have all been tested in railyard and are error-free and warning-free in CM 3.7. All have been up-versioned to trainz-build 2.9, but they should all work in TRS2006 onwards if you down-version them.

The following have been approved.
<KUID2:113556:70020:2> - Susq 8-40b #4002
<KUID2:113556:51104:2> - Loco Dash 8 UP-2
<KUID2:113556:60077:3> - BNSF 8-40b #8603
<KUID2:113556:60003:3> - SP 8-40b #8019
<KUID2:113556:60000:3> - SP 8-40b #8024
<KUID2:113556:60020:3> - SP 8-40b #8001
<KUID2:113556:60060:3> - CSX 8-40b #5942
<KUID2:113556:60059:3> - CSX 8-40b #5952
<KUID2:113556:60056:3> - BNSF 8-40b #8618

All have now incremented kuid versions. These are some of the assets that are not repairable with normal tools.

Frank was very generous with his data. In one of the above I deleted 72 files and it still works.

The aliased locos are still to be repaired. For those I am waiting for a new feature in AssetX to be finalised so I can open the master asset automatically as I open the alias one.

Yes I've done the "SSW 8-40b 8049" and "8051" and agree with all your findings.

 

[n8phu]

Hmmm..............

I too have repaired them and upgraded them.... Lots to delete and they run great.

 

[deneban]

@Pev: just to clarify n8phu has permission from sporbust to re-release them under his (n8phu's) author ID, and therefore is not using the DLS cleanup facility like you did.

 

[PEV]

I'm just browsing through the DLS repairs list and fixing things that I am confident will work when I'm done.

I was surprised to see some of Frank's bits there. I know what the issue is with them so they were easy for me to fix. There are a few more, but as I say above, the problems are different. Nothing has changed from Frank's models, except that they now work in TS12. I fully comply with N3V's rules for DLS repairs.

I've also been converting paintshed assets to stand-alone ones. I've done nearly all the boxcars (40ft and 50ft) and the F7A's and F7B's.

 

[nicky9499]

Thanks Peter, more Frank stuff is always welcome, even in this day and age.

 

[deneban]

Thanks Peter, more Frank stuff is always welcome, even in this day and age.

In fact the quantity of it is multiplying.

 

[KingConrail76]

I'm just browsing through the DLS repairs list and fixing things that I am confident will work when I'm done.

I was surprised to see some of Frank's bits there. I know what the issue is with them so they were easy for me to fix. There are a few more, but as I say above, the problems are different. Nothing has changed from Frank's models, except that they now work in TS12. I fully comply with N3V's rules for DLS repairs.

I've also been converting paintshed assets to stand-alone ones. I've done nearly all the boxcars (40ft and 50ft) and the F7A's and F7B's.

While I am grateful to both Frank, for allowing it, and N8phu, for making repairs, I am very delighted to see Peter using his resources to repair these assets via the DLS Cleanup program...it is a lot less work for us "end users" to have the original KUID>KUID2, than to have to rework all sessions using N8Phu's repaired KUIDs in place of Franks originals.

Thanks Peter.

 

[BuilderBob]

I've also been converting paintshed assets to stand-alone ones. I've done nearly all the boxcars (40ft and 50ft) and the F7A's and F7B's.

Unless you are creating your own meshes, I would have thought that would be disallowed by the N3V requirement that only components that are significantly modified from the original can be included with an upload. Or are the rules for the Cleanup different?

The assets are much better with the meshes included rather than aliased, but aliasing seems to be required by the licence condition.

 

[Dermmy]

I'd like to thank both Chris and Peter for their work on these fantastic assets.

As mentioned, Peter's repaired units will drop straight into old sessions filling a gap that has lasted far too long.

Chris's units are not only repaired, they are enhanced with additional features which fall outside the scope of permissions associated with the 'DLS CleanUp' giving these old war-horses a new lease of life on new routes and sessions.

In short - we now have the best of both worlds. Thanks Gents!

 

[deneban]

I wish someone would thank me for my subject humble contributions, it took me many hours of independent debugging (and its the first one that is the most difficult to do).

 

[matruck]

Be interesting too see how they look in the new version.

 

[PEV]

Unless you are creating your own meshes, I would have thought that would be disallowed by the N3V requirement that only components that are significantly modified from the original can be included with an upload. Or are the rules for the Cleanup different?

The assets are much better with the meshes included rather than aliased, but aliasing seems to be required by the licence condition.

From your comments, you seem to show a lack of understanding how paintshed assets work. I have not created anything new in this process.. There is no need.

All I have done is include the mesh and aux textures from the original paintshed parent asset, so that what was a paintshed skin is now a stand-alone asset with no alias call.

N3V are planning ahead with the DLS repairs as they have advised that aliased assets will not work in future Trainz versions.

Anyhow this is not the subject of this thread.. I will make no further comment.

 

[BuilderBob]

All I have done is include the mesh and aux textures from the original paintshed parent asset, so that what was a paintshed skin is now a stand-alone asset with no alias call.

Precisely. You are using someone else's work to upgrade the asset. That's what I understood was not allowed.

I am not criticizing that process, because it is much better than persisting with the aliasing. But I would be interested in knowing whether that procedure is available generally, or is only allowed for the cleanup, or is an exception available in the case of any aliased asset, or is an exception that applies only to paintshed reskins, or is my misunderstanding of the licence, or what.

 

[deneban]

Unless you are creating your own meshes, I would have thought that would be disallowed by the N3V requirement that only components that are significantly modified from the original can be included with an upload. Or are the rules for the Cleanup different?

The assets are much better with the meshes included rather than aliased, but aliasing seems to be required by the licence condition.

The grant of the license to the DLS Cleanup claimant is to modify only to the extent necessary for correct asset validation. It does not exclude mesh changes if that is the minimum required to make a proper validation.

In the case of Paintshed meshes, Auran has already furnished the meshes, so no new mesh work is needed to convert a Paintshed reskin to properly validate.

The DLS cleanup licensee is different than the standard upload agreement: that requires that Auran meshes cannot be significantly changed.

 

[deneban]

Precisely. You are using someone else's work to upgrade the asset. That's what I understood was not allowed.

All Paintshed assets are a combination of work from two parties, Auran for the mesh (aliased or not), and the asset author for the paint scheme.

Once that asset is uploaded, N3V has license to it.

N3V then grants license to a DLS Cleanup claimant to modify to the extent required to validate the asset. It doesn't matter how many parties originally contributed to the faulty asset, N3V has full authority to authorize an agent and the agents methods.

 

[BuilderBob]

In the case of Paintshed meshes, Auran has already furnished the meshes, so no new mesh work is needed to convert a Paintshed reskin to properly validate.

No change to the mesh is required, but it has to be copied from the original asset into the paintshed reskin, so therefore it is being uploaded with the repaired asset.

The DLS cleanup licensee is different than the standard upload agreement: that requires that Auran meshes cannot be significantly changed.

The change to the license conditions that apply to a cleanup upload is that the mesh cannot be uploaded unless it has been substantially modified from the original.

"I confirm that the files contained in the package ... do not contain any 3D meshes or textures created or distributed by Auran that have not been substantially modified;"

Including the mesh with the asset is a better repair than referencing it as an alias, but I am having difficulty in understanding how that complies with the upload conditions, because the mesh has been added to the repaired asset without being changed at all.

I suspect that there is some special arrangement that excludes a paintshed reskinnable mesh from that condition, but I can't find it.

 

[deneban]

No change to the mesh is required, but it has to be copied from the original asset into the paintshed reskin, so therefore it is being uploaded with the repaired asset.

In the original faulty asset, there was a paintshed mesh in "progressive mesh" format and a skin. Legally and functionally they are both present and inseparable. When we use to see and use the now faulty asset in the older simulators, the aliased pm and the skin manifest as a single entity.

For the DLS Cleanup claimant, he/she is substituting the "pm" form (which may come via alias) with the "im" form of the same mesh. Legally the pm and im formats are also considered the same creation, just manifested in a different file format (the same way an image can be conveyed as a jpg or png). The "pm" is furnished to the claimant in the form of a different asset number for the sake of convenience to provision it to the repairer, under the conventional transfer and packaging methods. The "im" comes from the same licensing authority as the one authorizing the repair, so the claimant is pre-authorized to combine the "im" to the paint scheme of the asset author, but giving you the appearance that the result is a combination of two assets. Functionally, an asset fragment was combined, not a stand-alone asset. Legally the substitution coming from an external item was appropriately authorized.

The change to the license conditions that apply to a cleanup upload is that the mesh cannot be uploaded unless it has been substantially modified from the original.

"I confirm that the files contained in the package ... do not contain any 3D meshes or textures created or distributed by Auran that have not been substantially modified;"

Including the mesh with the asset is a better repair than referencing it as an alias, but I am having difficulty in understanding how that complies with the upload conditions, because the mesh has been added to the repaired asset without being changed at all.

I suspect that there is some special arrangement that excludes a paintshed reskinnable mesh from that condition, but I can't find it.

The restriction is for substantially modified Auran meshes. If the claimant uses the "im" Auran mesh in its pristine form, obviously he/she has performed no mesh modification, and is not subject to that restriction.

 

[SailorDan]

In the original faulty asset, there was a paintshed mesh in "progressive mesh" format and a skin. Legally and functionally they are both present and inseparable. When we use to see and use the now faulty asset in the older simulators, the aliased pm and the skin manifest as a single entity.

If you are suggesting that the mesh is part of skin.dat then that is not correct. There is no mesh information in the paintshed asset, other than the KUIDs of the assets where they can be found.

The "im" is furnished to the claimant in the form of a different asset number for the sake of convenience to provision it to the repairer, under the conventional transfer and packaging methods.

That's part of the point of the Paintshed - to enable user to create their own assets without getting involved with the detail of meshes. But part of the point is also to enable users to create assets that do not need to include meshes, therefore avoiding the issues related to copyright. It is a very effective way to give people access to the mesh without risking your copyright rights.

The "im" comes from the same licensing authority as the one authorizing the repair, so the claimant is pre-authorized to combine the "im" to the paint scheme of the asset author

Yes, by using the alias function that is a necessary part of the Paintshed process. The user has not been authorised to copy the mesh. The alias function is provided to avoid the need to copy the mesh, not to authorise it. Whether it is the same or a different licensing authority is not relevant.

Legally the substitution coming from an external item was appropriately authorized.

No. The use of an alias to use the external item was authorized. There was no authorization to substitute anything.

The restriction is for substantially modified Auran meshes. If the claimant uses the "im" Auran mesh in its pristine form, obviously he/she has performed no mesh modification, and is not subject to that restriction.

I think you are still not reading it correctly. The restriction applies to a mesh that has not been substantially modified. In other words. if you take the mesh and make significant changes (for instance, enough changes so that it is no longer recognisable as an Auran mesh) then it is OK to upload it. But if you don't make significant changes or it is a straight copy with no new original content, then uploading is not permitted. This is a very standard copyright restriction - it acknowledges that you cannot be prevented from using existing material as a source of ideas or as a starting point, but you have to make a significant contribution of new work, or we will consider it an infringing copy.

Please note that I am not suggesting that N3V actually meant to do what they have actually done by including that restriction, and in particular that they intended it to apply to Paintshed reskins. I have no idea what they intended. I only know what they have done.

 

[PEV]

All this argument is a waste of time.

One would assume if N3V did not want paintshed assets to be updated they would NOT has included them the DLS repair scheme. It would be simple enough for N3V to filter them out.

I think it's time all you bush lawyers went back to bed to dream up some other copyright issue to argue about.

Mods, please lock this thread..