Why do so few routes make it to the DLS ?

[dangavel]

Just perusing through screenshots and it occurred to me that there are many really good routes around, but sadly , the vast majority of these routes never make it to the DLS . Just out of curiosity , whats the reason why so many able route makers never put these routes up on the DLS ?
Is it because you are using third party assets?
The route is third party and you've modified it ?
You've modified others assets and cant get permission to upload them to DLS ?
is your route a constant WIP ?
Are your standards so high that you don't think its good enough for public scrutiny ?
Is it because its just too much hassle ?
Lack of appreciation from other users when its uploaded ?
Changes in Trainz build means its no longer usable ?

All of the above ?

 

[JackDownUnder]

Please refer to my response below.
My main reason for not publishing at this time is that it is and has been since TRS2004 a work in progress.
Putting it on the DLS would require the user to obtain the necessary pre WW1 NER rolling stock to run realistic sessions.

Just perusing through screenshots and it occurred to me that there are many really good routes around, but sadly , the vast majority of of these routes never make it to the DLS . Just out of curiosity , whats the reason why so many able route makers never put these routes up on the DLS ?
Is it because you are using third party assets?
Yes
The route is third party and you've modified it ?
No
You've modified others assets and cant get permission to upload them to DLS ?
NO
is your route a constant WIP ?
Yes
Are your standards so high that you don't think its good enough for public scrutiny ?
No
Is it because its just too much hassle ?
No
Lack of appreciation from other users when its uploaded ?
No
Changes in Trainz build means its no longer usable ?
No

All of the above ?

 

[pware]

In my case most of the latest screenshots I have posted have come from a route that is a WIP and may, or may not, be finished sometime later this year. It is a huge route and is taking far longer than I thought.

Lack of appreciation has never been a reason for me not to upload an asset (route or anything else). I create for my own enjoyment or because I needed something that was not available and was within my limited creation skills.

 

[dangavel]

I forgot to add another option, folks who intend to release their route as payware.

 

[dangavel]

In my case most of the latest screenshots I have posted have come from a route that is a WIP and may, or may not, be finished sometime later this year. It is a huge route and is taking far longer than I thought.

Lack of appreciation has never been a reason for me not to upload an asset (route or anything else). I create for my own enjoyment or because I needed something that was not available and was within my limited creation skills.

I mentioned that one as a prominent content creator made the comment that the lack of reaction ( positive or negative) re a route he made a few years back had discouraged him from uploading further routes. We don't get a lot of feedback on the forum , i know there is a button that can be used to rate threads but it appears not to get used by a lot of people.

 

[pitkin]

I will say that I sometimes find it a little strange when a creator starts a thread for a route that they do not intend to upload . It seems to me that it belongs in the screenshots section.

 

[wilts747]

I've just rebuilt a computer, installed TRS22, without any of the associated routes, and then installed my own route started back in the days of TS12. After downloading all the missing assets from the DLS I was still left with 400 plus unidentified assets. I know those unidentified assets came from routes associated with previous version of Trainz over the past 10 years and are available on my other computer, but many would likely not be available to members who have not run those previous versions of Trainz should I uploaded the route today. 'Catch 22' do I replace those assets with an alternative from within TRS22, or from the DLS, and perhaps repeat the process when the next release of Trainz is available and upload the route for others, or upload as is and let others sort it out while receiving all the negative feedback. Keeping a large route up to date for all to enjoy can be a lot of time and effort, yet missing assets cause a lot of complaints and I for one wonder is it worth it. Peter

 

[JCitron]

Honestly, it's upload and pray that the downloaders don't have issues.

Uploading routes is a painful process. A route gets uploaded, and we spend way too much time sending out missing dependencies to those that download the route.

Assets that appear to be built-in maybe payware DLC and not everyone has those assets installed. Related to this is the Trainz Flavor issue. Standard versus Plus, with Plus Gold having DLC that others don't have.

Content is third-party without remembering where it came from.

The problem is we go on a KUID hunt for some other route we download, and that asset or assets end up in our routes. If we could produce a "Content Report" that not only listed asset names, versions, and KUIDS, but also listed the source, that would be really helpful in knowing where stuff comes from, and I don't mean a column that says "Third-Party", which is useless because it's too vague.

This is a really big problem with routes that were developed in the past under older versions whose content was never uploaded to the DLS. My sprawling Enfield and Eastern, for example, was started in early January 2004 a few weeks after I got TRS2004 in December 2003. Many of the assets are still quite old and are slowly being updated to modern ones as I renovate the route bit by bit. Many of these older assets are no longer available due to being locked down in the older versions, but as you all know we think we found them all only to have a hold out or holdouts somewhere on the route making for yet another KUID hunt.

The older the route is, the more we fight the version curve. What looked great in the older versions usually looks like crap in the new ones. There are exceptions to this but with the current flora fiasco breaking grass splines and trees, we spend a good amount of time updating before we upload and even then, things aren't as good as they used to be because those stupid Speed Trees are too huge and perfect or don't render properly like the conifers that lose their needles when up close instead of the other way around. Anyway, I won't go down that rant again! And no, the TurfFX, ClutterFX is not an option either and neither is the PBR textures especially with older routes which require tons of updating. With the "FX" stuff, there's nothing worse than having that disappear because the program ran out of memory after spending hours putting down grass and plants. Talk about frosting and busting a bubble!

Sure, we can take the route we want to upload and install that into a vanilla copy of the Trainz version we're working in to ensure the assets can be found, but why should we? This stuff should be built into the program rather than relying on the user to go through hoops just to share their creations. It's just too much work and discouraging to boot.

 

[FootplatePhil]

whats the reason why so many able route makers never put these routes up on the DLS ?

Perfectionism? By its nature I think route building tends to attract pedants. There is always something else to be done/fixed before a route is uploaded. And its hard to upload a route you know is not quite perfect.

With regards John's comment regarding unknown assets creeping in.. I install other peoples routes into a separate Trainz installation from my development installation.

 

[BlackDiamond1964]

Perfectionism? By its nature I think route building tends to attract pedants. There is always something else to be done/fixed before a route is uploaded. And its hard to upload a route you know is not quite perfect.

With regards John's comment regarding unknown assets creeping in.. I install other peoples routes into a separate Trainz installation from my development installation.

It's even harder with a historical route. New information and facts always come to light after you finish the area in question.

 

[rogueranger1993]

I install other peoples routes into a separate Trainz installation from my development installation.

A wise decison, one that I may follow up on at some point. I myself am developing a route that I would like to release to the public someday, but even I feel a creeping dread whenever I think of the process I'm going to have to go through in future, what with checking KUIDs to make sure that all of the assets are readily available. And even then, it's entirely possible that some users are still going to experience issues. Honestly, N3V has made it very difficult for route builders to publicly release the routes they build, and that can be very discouraging for some, so I don't blame those who would rather not go through the hassle of it all.

 

[dangavel]

Honestly, it's upload and pray that the downloaders don't have issues.

Uploading routes is a painful process. A route gets uploaded, and we spend way too much time sending out missing dependencies to those that download the route.

Assets that appear to be built-in maybe payware DLC and not everyone has those assets installed. Related to this is the Trainz Flavor issue. Standard versus Plus, with Plus Gold having DLC that others don't have.

Content is third-party without remembering where it came from.

The problem is we go on a KUID hunt for some other route we download, and that asset or assets end up in our routes. If we could produce a "Content Report" that not only listed asset names, versions, and KUIDS, but also listed the source, that would be really helpful in knowing where stuff comes from, and I don't mean a column that says "Third-Party", which is useless because it's too vague.

This is a really big problem with routes that were developed in the past under older versions whose content was never uploaded to the DLS. My sprawling Enfield and Eastern, for example, was started in early January 2004 a few weeks after I got TRS2004 in December 2003. Many of the assets are still quite old and are slowly being updated to modern ones as I renovate the route bit by bit. Many of these older assets are no longer available due to being locked down in the older versions, but as you all know we think we found them all only to have a hold out or holdouts somewhere on the route making for yet another KUID hunt.

The older the route is, the more we fight the version curve. What looked great in the older versions usually looks like crap in the new ones. There are exceptions to this but with the current flora fiasco breaking grass splines and trees, we spend a good amount of time updating before we upload and even then, things aren't as good as they used to be because those stupid Speed Trees are too huge and perfect or don't render properly like the conifers that lose their needles when up close instead of the other way around. Anyway, I won't go down that rant again! And no, the TurfFX, ClutterFX is not an option either and neither is the PBR textures especially with older routes which require tons of updating. With the "FX" stuff, there's nothing worse than having that disappear because the program ran out of memory after spending hours putting down grass and plants. Talk about frosting and busting a bubble!

Sure, we can take the route we want to upload and install that into a vanilla copy of the Trainz version we're working in to ensure the assets can be found, but why should we? This stuff should be built into the program rather than relying on the user to go through hoops just to share their creations. It's just too much work and discouraging to boot.

Nicely put John, I hope someone at NV3 reads your post.

 

[pware]

Honestly, it's upload and pray that the downloaders don't have issues.

Uploading routes is a painful process. A route gets uploaded, and we spend way too much time sending out missing dependencies to those that download the route.

I always make sure that all the assets used in my uploads are either built into the version for which they were released or available on the DLS. The only time my "due diligence" system has broken down was when a DLS asset I used was suddenly (a few days after I uploaded the route) removed from the DLS because of a copyright violation. I had to find a suitable DLS replacement and upload a newer version of the route. I do not know how you could protect your uploads against that.

This "due diligence" method now includes dependencies labelled "Packaged" - I make sure that they are actually on the DLS as some "Packaged" assets are only available in DLC. The term "Packaged" merely indicates that an asset is freeware (not payware) and has been bundled in the DLC package to reduce download hassles (all the contents of a DLC package must now be included in the package). If the DLC creator has also created the "Packaged" asset then it is entirely up to them as to whether or not it has been uploaded to the DLS as well. There have been cases where the creator of a missing "Packaged" asset has uploaded it to the DLS after politely being asked about the whereabouts of the asset - the original omission was an unintentional oversight.

Now back to the original topic.

Another possibility is that the route used in a screenshot is an unmodified DLS or DLC asset and, therefore, cannot be uploaded.

 

[rwk]

Maybe Tony Hilliam should take some tips to improve Trainz. I hate having to hunt down even 20 missing kuid's and a few of them aren't found by even kuid finder and I have no idea what they are, a track, road, a building. I don't know when I'll get 22 or subscribe to get the better Surveyor. I have TANE and TRS2019 right now and I was just having issues with a new second install of 2019 with broken and missing assets but I fixed it. The assets weren't really broken, my Trainz was acting up. I reinstalled it and rebooted the PC and it seems to be ok now.

 

[dangavel]

As a recent example of how hard it is to ensure that all assets used in a route are on the DLS or not , I recently sent Pitkin an updated copy of the Timber ridge line update so he can design some sessions for it in 2022. Ive ensured the standard gauge version had all the kuids on the DLS when i uploaded it originally for TRS 2019. The route was originally from the 2009/2010 era, I think.

Over the years a number of items had become part of the routes bundled with Trainz and since 2019 was released , more have become part of these routes, I had to download 50GB of routes into my new 2022 install before I had covered all the missing kuids.

Thats an awful lot of download just to ensure that I had 20 or so missing assets in the route .

Not only does it put off potential users but it also cheeses me off no end too. I have diligently attempted to remove any assets in packaged payware routes, but unfortunately it seems impossible to keep up. Base items are removed/changed over from each build , causing all sorts of issues, and items suddenly become unknown because they are part of a packaged route.

Which poses the question ,are NV3 all that bothered about freeware routes ? , they are , after all, competition against the payware routes , might be one of the reasons why they don't seem all that worried about the difficulties of getting a route to work on the DLS.

 

[pitkin]

@dangavel Which poses the question ,are NV3 all that bothered about freeware routes ? , they are , after all, competition against the payware routes , might be one of the reasons why they don't seem all that worried about the difficulties of getting a route to work on the DLS.

That had occurred to me as well

 

[pware]

Which poses the question ,are NV3 all that bothered about freeware routes ? , they are , after all, competition against the payware routes , might be one of the reasons why they don't seem all that worried about the difficulties of getting a route to work on the DLS.

They certainly are interested ("bothered") in the freeware routes (and other assets) available on the DLS. It provides all users with some quality routes (and assets) that are free for all to use, unlike some sims/games, and is certainly a selling point for the game (not just for DLC). Not everyone downloads DLC routes. I have some but nowhere near the number that are available.

The DLS costs N3V in hosting (and I would guess) other charges and now that all DLC routes have to contain ALL their dependencies it would be a good opportunity for N3V to remove that cost to their business. So if they had no interest in maintaining the DLS it would probably have gone by now or it will go in the future (plenty of food for the forum conspiracy theorists there!).

As I stated in my previous post, the problem of "Packaged" assets not available on the DLS is due to creators of DLC routes either making a conscious decision not to upload these assets to the DLS or, as has been shown in some cases (at least), simply an unintended omission. If it is the case that the creator has decided not to upload the "Packaged" assets to the DLS then would you, if you were N3V, tell them to "go away" and risk having them host their routes on other payware sites and possibly get more money for their efforts?

Recently N3V took steps to deal with the issue of updates to an existing DLS assets being used in a DLC route where the update is not available on the DLS - see https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki...Packaged_Assets_in_Routes_Uploaded_to_the_DLS

My thoughts.

 

[nicke]

Interesting discussion.
Thanks Dangavel.

I'm inspired to write, not so much because of routes not being uploaded, but because the extended issues beyond those in the replies above.
I recently downloaded a bunch of VR / V/L carriages that had a missing bogie sound file. For me to get that sound file I had to download a very large Italian route.
And many of the excellent new(ish) Australian routes come with the requirement to have installed a number of other routes from around the world.
This trend of only being able to access content from a DLC route, rather than the download station has introduced a new issue - having to install routes that will never be used.

The other thing I have become quite philosophical about is the hope I build up when I see a screenshot of a work in progress - containing an asset that would really sit nicely on my route - but it's never released.
In the Australian content we don't have suburban footbridge - covered with stairs and lifts - yet over the years there have been a couple created by people, but never released.
One series of screenshots showed a great model of Dandenong station in Melbourne. A number of Dandenong assets were released, but not the station or the route.

While this is disappointing, I do understand a number of reasons could result in something not being released - and i try to make the most of what I have.
I was able to use the Dandenong screenshot to help scratch build a covered footbridge, which sits there hopefully to be replaced by a real one at some point.
- and it should be noted that there have been so many assets replaced on my 20 year old WIP by newer, more fitting assets.
I don't build content and I am eternally grateful for the generosity of those who share..

So even though I keep on seeing things I want - sometimes having to download hundreds of other assets to get one little file - and even though I see something that would really work for me - but it doesn't get released
it's all very worthwhile for the huge satisfaction I get from Trainz - and I again thank everyone who makes my time on Trainz so fullfiling.
Cheers
Nick

 

[dangavel]

They certainly are interested ("bothered") in the freeware routes (and other assets) available on the DLS. It provides all users with some quality routes (and assets) that are free for all to use, unlike some sims/games, and is certainly a selling point for the game (not just for DLC). Not everyone downloads DLC routes. I have some but nowhere near the number that are available.

The DLS costs N3V in hosting (and I would guess) other charges and now that all DLC routes have to contain ALL their dependencies it would be a good opportunity for N3V to remove that cost to their business. So if they had no interest in maintaining the DLS it would probably have gone by now or it will go in the future (plenty of food for the forum conspiracy theorists there!).

As I stated in my previous post, the problem of "Packaged" assets not available on the DLS is due to creators of DLC routes either making a conscious decision not to upload these assets to the DLS or, as has been shown in some cases (at least), simply an unintended omission. If it is the case that the creator has decided not to upload the "Packaged" assets to the DLS then would you, if you were N3V, tell them to "go away" and risk having them host their routes on other payware sites and possibly get more money for their efforts?

Recently N3V took steps to deal with the issue of updates to an existing DLS assets being used in a DLC route where the update is not available on the DLS - see https://online.ts2009.com/mediaWiki...Packaged_Assets_in_Routes_Uploaded_to_the_DLS

My thoughts.

I certainly am not suggesting that its a conspiracy, but its highly likely that its a low priority for them,given they are a small company with limited resources, they would have to assign someone to monitor the DLS full time to try and ensure there aren't these conflicts.I volunteer for an animal welfare society, they are so strapped for funds that even though their laundry is one of the their most important functions as it provides clean bedding for the animals, they neglect it and let it be run by volunteers, as they can save an employees salary that way. As a result the volunteers are rather cheesed off as they feel neglected as no one in the organisation will do anything to rectify the situation . Nv3 do something rather similar with the content repair group who are overwhelmed by faulty content that has resulted from changes in the game build, to fix that, they would need to employ yet another person to do the work. To fix all these issues could involve employing a whole team of people at great cost.

In the same way I am sure that NV3 would like to do something to sort out the DLS, but in their circumstances they probably let it slide because its not something that the majority of the user base are up in arms about, long term users just tolerate it.Newbies are confused by it, its original route builders who really have the biggest headache and they are a minority .But I am sure it is one of the major reasons why people don't upload routes. it took me weeks to get every item in my Uintah route to be on the DLS and it was a nightmare as so many people were missing one or two items , mostly due to them having different builds or installs. It nearly put me off bothering with creating any more freeware routes.

NV3 can boast that there are all these free assets and that attracts new users, but once they have sold a copy of the game , is there really an urgent incentive to make the process better ? The customer is confronted with a free route that is full of missing assets, but its no big deal for them , so they just move on to another that hasn't got any missing items, although how many freeware routes have you downloaded that have no missing items that remain free of " unknowns" over a long period ? not too many I would think .....

NV3 has a problem that they probably will never solve , sadly one of their greatest advantages ( free content) is also one of their biggest problems, they have exacerbated it by their persistence in having items that are installed in their DLC packages appear as unknowns if the DLC isn't downloaded .

Because they don't give users a way to easily identify where these items reside they are undermining their own advantage over the opposition and discouraging a percentage of route builders from ever uploading their creations, its a classic conundrum and its been allowed to go so far I don't think it can ever be concluded in a satisfactory matter. If it had been addressed a decade ago it might have been possible, before it got to such a large scale issue.

 

[dangavel]

Interesting discussion.
Thanks Dangavel.

I'm inspired to write, not so much because of routes not being uploaded, but because the extended issues beyond those in the replies above.
I recently downloaded a bunch of VR / V/L carriages that had a missing bogie sound file. For me to get that sound file I had to download a very large Italian route.
And many of the excellent new(ish) Australian routes come with the requirement to have installed a number of other routes from around the world.
This trend of only being able to access content from a DLC route, rather than the download station has introduced a new issue - having to install routes that will never be used.

The other thing I have become quite philosophical about is the hope I build up when I see a screenshot of a work in progress - containing an asset that would really sit nicely on my route - but it's never released.
In the Australian content we don't have suburban footbridge - covered with stairs and lifts - yet over the years there have been a couple created by people, but never released.
One series of screenshots showed a great model of Dandenong station in Melbourne. A number of Dandenong assets were released, but not the station or the route.

While this is disappointing, I do understand a number of reasons could result in something not being released - and i try to make the most of what I have.
I was able to use the Dandenong screenshot to help scratch build a covered footbridge, which sits there hopefully to be replaced by a real one at some point.
- and it should be noted that there have been so many assets replaced on my 20 year old WIP by newer, more fitting assets.
I don't build content and I am eternally grateful for the generosity of those who share..

So even though I keep on seeing things I want - sometimes having to download hundreds of other assets to get one little file - and even though I see something that would really work for me - but it doesn't get released
it's all very worthwhile for the huge satisfaction I get from Trainz - and I again thank everyone who makes my time on Trainz so fullfiling.
Cheers
Nick

Interesting comment Nick, it is particularly frustrating when people create assets and then keep them in house. Or when third party websites go belly up.