UltraScenery May Return - Read Post and Would Like Views

[JIb228]

Just got back from going to a Thai Restaurant for lunch because I have been craving it since my return from Thailand. Upon my return, I see the majority of the topic is Multiplayer Support Driven beyond anything else. Per comment 16, this may not be a viable return but it is preliminary. I refuse to have N3V be rewarded for my three years of knowledge. Creators of SpeedTree for games such as Battlefield 3 and Upcoming Battlefield 4, Call Of Duty, and movies such as the latest release of Star Trek to use SpeedTree make a considerable amount of money. I am not in this for the money aspect and not the motivation for my return.

Then when making your trees, don't put as much effort into them if you intend to release them via the DLS. Make a sub par tree, release it with a note that says "If you like this tree go here to get even better ones."

Or maybe work out an agreement with N3V.

Or just do you own thing. Ether way, I'll download your content. If its not on the DLS, then any route I build and release with them will just not have an MP session. I'm ok with that and can live with that. I'm only the guy using the content you have provided for us. And I am very thankful for what you have done so far.

 

[Vern]

I do agree these should be on the DLS. I source all my assets from there and the one thing I've learned from route building in Railworks or trying to acquire assets for RW routes that take my fancy, is the last thing end users want is trawling around a lot of external third party sites (which may come and go leaving assets eventually unobtainable) trying to find them.

This is no criticism of McGuirrel's view which is fully understood, but IMHO it is high time N3V reviewed this part of the DLS terms and conditions, when it potentially drives creators away.

 

[shaneturner12]

Speedtrees is a difficult one, as N3V do not own the software that makes them, and that a commercial license would be needed in order to upload the content to the Download Station.

Shane

 

[mcguirel]

Speedtrees is a difficult one, as N3V do not own the software that makes them, and that a commercial license would be needed in order to upload the content to the Download Station.

Shane

Inaccurate and Not An Issue regarding my content..............................

 

[shaneturner12]

That's surprising. I would have thought it would have been an issue, unless Speedtrees are not involved, or you already have a commercial license.

Shane

 

[mcguirel]

Think hard about how I have Built-In SpeedTree Content............ All I am open for discussion.

 

[shaneturner12]

Ah yes. I cannot remember exactly how that one was done although I'm guessing N3V probably had a license for that.

You may find that any trees that are not on the DLS or built-in are not going to appear in Multiplayer routes though.

Shane

 

[JCitron]

I would be very pleased to have your updated Ultra Tree on my routes. I use your trees all the time.

John

 

[Chadd04]

I wouldn't knock someone elses hard work, just saying.

 

[Derekc75]

I think the argument for putting mcguirel's Speed Trees on the DLS or on a different server is moot. Pofigs' Speed Trees are on lots of routes and we appreciate that. I have downloaded many from his site using Google translate from Russian to English to figure it out. Indeed Roy Joosten reached an agreement with Pofig so that Roy could provide the KUID's that he used on his CPR Mountain subdivision route as a download from his website. There are many possible options for route builders like that.

I agree that if everything is on the DLS it would avoid us having to poke around the Internet and sometimes "Google" for locations for KUID's. But I would much rather have a creator like mcguirel provide Trainzers with continued excellent content than have them decide that it is not worth it.

Mcguirel, you have my vote for providing us with new Speed Trees.

Cheers,

Derek

 

[mcguirel]

I wouldn't knock someone elses hard work, just saying.

I retract my opinion of Pofig Content. I can say with confidence my old content is dramatically flawed and this is a discussion regarding not that of negativity however that of if this is a viable year long effort on my behalf and of a retirement project in good standing with a clear means to meet the discussion on what is desired by the community. Clearly two things are of discussion: Multiplayer Support (Not On I Truly Support Any Longer) and Foliage Variation (Many Foliage of Vegetation is of a standard color).

 

[nugget2225]

i hope to see your new creations as well, i currently have some of your content in a route i am building now.

 

[ZecMurphy]

Mcguirel, I would suggest you look again at the DLS End User License Agreement...

Uploading to the DLS does NOT mean that N3V owns the content. Actually, it very clearly states that you do NOT transfer ownership of the artwork to us.

You grant two things, essentially.

First is a non exclusive commercial license for us to redistribute the content. It allows us to distribute the content via the DLS (free or paid/FCT - this is how all content is currently handled from the DLS), or as either built-in content or part of a DLC pack. We do not own the content, you simply grant a license for it's usage (Same as we grant a license for you to use Trainz; you don't own Trainz, you own a license to use it).

Second is that you agree to the content being made available from the DLS (in part covered by the above). This includes the section that outlines that content will only be removed at our discretion. This is to prevent creators from hurting the community by removing commonly used assets (e.g. trees, etc).

Regards

 

[mcguirel]

OK, but I find I am not in full agreement on utilizing the DLS for many reasons at this stage as Redistributable Large SpeedTree MB Content is preferred in a manner such as Pofig has provided to the community. Having it both ways is impractical and I would like my content utilized by a larger audience. I have personally changed significantly and regret my past. My effort with SpeedTree over the years have progressed and I feel I can contribute in a much larger capacity than in the past, or hope to as I can not predict the future. My goal is to be a more utilized standard of vegetation which while not a tree simulator one can not deny this is a primary asset utilized in route creation.

 

[prr325]

I would very much like to see you develop a Redistributable UltraScenery Package as you proposed in your first post in this thread. I have no problems with your proposed conditions. I would greatly appreciate more of your excellent Speed Trees/foliage. I don't care if the Redistributable UltraScenery Package was payware, I would buy it.

I hope you go forward with your work.

Peace,

 

[johnwhelan]

Mcguirel, I would suggest you look again at the DLS End User License Agreement...

Uploading to the DLS does NOT mean that N3V owns the content. Actually, it very clearly states that you do NOT transfer ownership of the artwork to us.

You grant two things, essentially.

First is a non exclusive commercial license for us to redistribute the content. It allows us to distribute the content via the DLS (free or paid/FCT - this is how all content is currently handled from the DLS), or as either built-in content or part of a DLC pack. We do not own the content, you simply grant a license for it's usage (Same as we grant a license for you to use Trainz; you don't own Trainz, you own a license to use it).

Second is that you agree to the content being made available from the DLS (in part covered by the above). This includes the section that outlines that content will only be removed at our discretion. This is to prevent creators from hurting the community by removing commonly used assets (e.g. trees, etc).

Regards

I think the DLS issue is the payware side, both N3V and others may use sorry "reference" DLS content in payware. This is the reason I'm a little reluctant to create for the DLS at the moment N3V including content from the DLS no problem, having others making money by including my content I have a problem with especially with the need for me to pay to license textures so that others may use them in payware.

Cheerio John

 

[mcguirel]

I think the DLS issue is the payware side, both N3V and others may use sorry "reference" DLS content in payware. This is the reason I'm a little reluctant to create for the DLS at the moment N3V including content from the DLS no problem, having others making money by including my content I have a problem with especially with the need for me to pay to license textures so that others may use them in payware.

Cheerio John

I am unable to sleep so I decided to review any additional discussion. Well expressed and I might add I could not of said it any better. On a secondary note and wish I knew how to add breaks into this forum, it has been noted a support for Payware. I feel Payware Scenery is a mistake and a bad structure. I do not feel I have the support and ability to manage a website plus invest in all that would be required. I, as a former project manager, am placing significant thought into this and figuring out an efficient means to provide such new content where I do not get burned out and becomes available at a pace where route creators find my New UltraScenery Vegetation of choice. SpeedTree can be a task that one just says I can no longer create as I have found out. Well, off to doing more commission work (potentially my first 3D Ground Cover) for a great friend and true supporter of my content for his Payware Route Use (some of it can be seen in the GMax Render Screenshot Section). Overcoming some TS12 SP1 Challenges are not easy, has ruined some previous hard work, and not all of them have I found solutions for at this time. I feel moving forward with completely new content in the manner I have approached the commission content is highly effective. Is it JVC Quality, no but I find my efforts as a vast improvement from old content and I refuse to compete. Starting fresh without Obsolete Issues, not working with old meshes, among other preliminary project management concerns is the best approach whereas the content is Sponsored ....... I will have a decision by month's end if this is a Go and is dependent on a either RRMods or JointedRail coming forward with support because at this stage I find the DLS not a viable option unless N3V would like to sponsor such development. I send my sincere apology to those who wish I would provide Multiplayer Content.

 

[AJ_Fox]

Hey Mcguirel

I've always liked your creations. I've made a couple of things for the DLS probably not worthy of mention, but I always hoped a few would like them. All freeware of course. I'm never arrogant, but my thought was if the people like them, great, but if they don't, as it is said, you can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can never please all the people all of the time.

Cheers

AJ

 

[mcguirel]

Hey Mcguirel

I've always liked your creations. I've made a couple of things for the DLS probably not worthy of mention, but I always hoped a few would like them. All freeware of course. I'm never arrogant, but my thought was if the people like them, great, but if they don't, as it is said, you can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can never please all the people all of the time.

Cheers

AJ

Amen AJ_Fox.

 

[Lataxe]

Copyright conundrums

Dear McGuirel and all other Trainz content creators,

First I would like to offer thanks for all the pleasure you have given me by providing your content, especially when it's made to such high standards as are those trees and other flora of yours McGuirel. I spend many happy hours re-doing old routes by replacing the clunkier stuff with the better-looking content. My appreciation is large, to match the large effort made by the providers to construct and perfect their creations.

But now I am going to say what many of you same creators may find unpalatable (or worse).

If your motivation is not commercial but rather to do service to the Trainz user community (as well as derive the usual pleasures associated with human creativity) why does this mean that you object to others leveraging your creations within payware? I fully understand your desire to avoid commercialism yourself (I make furniture to a high standard and give away what I don't use myself - many pieces). But....

What do you lose if someone else includes your creations in payware? I suggest - nothing. In fact, you gain something: a more widespread use of your creations along with even more fame and good reputation as a creator. You lose no money as you didn't want any in the first place.

To continue with my furniture-making analogy, I have no objection to someone selling or even chopping up a piece I made for them. The fact is that I gave it freely and it is now theirs. I hope they will continue to value and use it themselves; but I don't expect to control some part of their life-behaviour just because I gave them a gift.

Well, the analogy falls down a little bit, perhaps, as your Trainz creations are not really given away like furniture but licensed for use. But my question still stands: what do you lose by allowing payware providers to include your creations in their larger creations? You still own and control the originals, after all.

Why do you object to others making money by using your creations? Does Tim Berners-Lee mind us all using his web-invention for nowt? No, he genuinely made it freely-available. What's more, his invention evolved and became very much more once it was out in the wild. I believe he takes pleasure in this, despite Amazon and others making loadsamoney from it too.


Personally I would love to have more McGuirel items in particular, especially if they become even more realistic than they already are. I would like to have them from the DLS - perhaps even as part of built-in content that is properly upgraded when necessary (eg avoiding a TS12 SP1 debacle). Moreover, I would happily pay for a wodge of such stuff as an n3V pack, especially if the cash went towards providing the hardware & software infrastructure required by creators to create.

Alternatively, why not construct a special license so that payware providers must return a fee for use of your items, even in they are on the DLS? Is that feasible?

Or is it all, at bottom, an ideological matter that eschews the current capitalist mode? (I can sympathise with that one - but it is also currently a fact of life).

Lataxe, always confused by the whole copyright notion and it's many consequences (foreseen & otherwise).