Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So "and therefore are not considered as valid repairs" is just an opinion, the upload process, my laptop and I have a different one, they work.
Luv Karen
I know they work for you and your laptop, but do you have an example where they (DLS Cleanup products with warnings) were considered valid repairs? I'd be interested to see that since I am in the DLS Cleanup business. Actually I made the statement based on experience and what gets sent back to me.
It's easy to find examples. For instance:I know they work for you and your laptop, but do you have an example where they (DLS Cleanup products with warnings) were considered valid repairs? I'd be interested to see that since I am in the DLS Cleanup business. Actually I made the statement based on experience and what gets sent back to me.
"Uniform color" but they spelt colour wrong.
Luv Karen
The point was there should not be warnings on repaired DLS cleanup items. If your getting a warning, that asset likely not been repaired by that effort.
It's easy to find examples. For instance:
StatusCleanupUpload&StatusWarning&StatusPaintshed&Build29
AADA 10 ton,<kuid2:61637:100054:1>
...
Originally Posted by deneban
The point was there should not be warnings on repaired DLS cleanup items. If your getting a warning, that asset likely not been repaired by that effort.
It has been stated in these forums several times that warnings are just that - an instruction to be cautious. They are not errors and should not be treated as errors. They do not necessarily indicate conditions that will become errors in the future.
Moreover, nothing new was created in the process, things were just moved around and re-referenced. No licensing terms were violated./QUOTE]
That statement is unsupportable. 'moved around' is exactly the sort of copying that the licensing terms seek to prevent. It is doublespeak for 'copied'. 'nothing new was created' is exactly the circumstance that the cleanup upload addendum to the licensing terms addresses.
You cannot know the connection between users participating here and contributions to the content. If you make assumptions about that connection you will likely be wrong.I am highly amused that those, with 1 exception, who are making the most noise about this have contributed virtually NOTHING to the game's content.
You don't have to upload in order to know the conditions.Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to be arguing so vehemently when you have obviously never read the N3V upload conditions (having sent nothing TO the DLS).
The suggestion that those who contribute to the community are somehow exempt from the rules, or exempt from having their attention drawn to the rules, is elitist claptrap.Instead of doing you best to offend those who attempt to contribute to this community, try biting your tongues for once, and let the rest of us get on with trying to improve the game.
Repairing content that has no LOD to begin with and throwing back on the DLS isn't "Improving The Game" at all.and let the rest of us get on with trying to improve the game.
I'm starting to enjoy this argument.
I am highly amused that those, with 1 exception, who are making the most noise about this have contributed virtually NOTHING to the game's content.
Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to be arguing so vehemently when you have obviously never read the N3V upload conditions (having sent nothing TO the DLS).
Instead of doing you best to offend those who attempt to contribute to this community, try biting your tongues for once, and let the rest of us get on with trying to improve the game.
offend
Moreover, nothing new was created in the process, things were just moved around and re-referenced. No licensing terms were violated.
That statement is unsupportable.
'moved around' is exactly the sort of copying that the licensing terms seek to prevent. It is doublespeak for 'copied'. 'nothing new was created' is exactly the circumstance that the cleanup upload addendum to the licensing terms addresses.
....
Warning: Aliased meshes cannot currently be verified by Trainz.
Warning: Required container 'mesh-table' is missing.
....He did what was needed in TS12 to remove all warnings, and that is fair game for any TS12 repairer; and cannot be accused of modifying beyond the licensing basis because that, the latest version of Trainz, said there was still a problem to repair.
We are not talking about what is on someone's hard drive. We are talking about what N3V allows you to include in a upload through the DLS cleanup.If the asset is getting its mesh from within then it was "moved" from when the asset got its mesh from an external source. I am not afraid to say "copied" either because there is no legal significance to how many copies of a publicly released mesh are on someones hard drive or in how many assets it is copied into.
It is an addendum because it is in addition to the terms that every user has already agreed to, and applies only to that action of uploading. I have suggested several times that the restriction might be unintended. But until it's removed or modified, it should be complied with. You cannot just unilaterally decide that it no longer applies.The addendum you speak of was written way before the DLS Cleanup license, like back in the year 2002, so it is not an addendum, it is older text that was not updated by oversight to agree with the advent of the DLS Cleanup license.
Chris (WindWalker) once said: "Warnings are NOT Errors. They may, or may NOT, become errors in the future, but are NOT, at this point, ERRORS."
In response to YOUR statement ALONE, and nothing else in this thread, you are flat out WRONG!
--Fixing "warnings" is NOT required of the DLS Cleanup, and IS in fact BEYOND the scope of the DLS Cleanup.
The DLS Cleanup is to "Remove ERRORS" when content is used in TS12, not to remove "warnings".
However, on a slightly different note, I have made notice of several N3V policies that contradict common sense, and I've seen several N3V staff contradict written policy...
--Such as: "Warning: Aliased meshes cannot currently be verified by Trainz." ..Clearly a "Warning", and may become an error in future versions, but yet, Chris has also said that using the "Alias Method" is the correct and proper way to "Reskin DRM protected DLC assets", which leads one to believe that "Aliased" assets are perfectly fine and dandy...and don't need to be made "not aliased" to be acceptable...