PDA

View Full Version : Multiplayer Major Flaw - This Tag Issue Needs Removed - Locally Modified



mcguirel
October 14th, 2012, 03:39 AM
Multiplayer Requires NO LOCALLY MODIFIED ASSETS. Not a bright idea AT ALL.

If you have to reinstall the game FOR ANY REASON, importing ANY BACKUP CONTENT such as on a secondary drive I utilize SyncToy 2.0 to keep a backup of assets are listed as LOCALLY MODIFIED. Plain and Simple, dumb tag rule that needs removed from Multiplayer. The flaw is actually a CMP Flaw, not necessarily the Multiplayer Game itself. If the game can see the asset by SHOW KUID, you have the asset then you have a matching KUID DLS ASSET regardless if it is locally modified.

I had to spend an hour reinstalling a 10-14-2012 Backup Folder in the Trainz Game after trying to connect to a Multiplayer Session and then it failing.
N3V, rethink your position on the structure of Multiplayer and/or fix it to make it not a chore that kills your patience and then by the time you resolve you lack the time or willingness to actually play the game.

If you are the creator of the asset, guess what folks - If it is used, you have to redownload you own stuff cause it will show Locally Modified. Dumb.

You either need to overhaul MP and/or Overhaul CMP. Plain and Simple.

Five Thumbs Down on Multiplayer as structured now.


Here is a bright idea - CMP TALKS TO THE DLS SO LET IT WORK FOR THE END USER.

Since your Database Repair Takes So Darn Long if you experience a crash pretty much eliminating the ability to play for hours, have a reverify assets with DLS and then remove the darn tag. Save a h*ll of allot of bandwidth use on your servers and resolve a heck of allot else. No need to redownload assets.

"Show KUID" in the game engine sees the asset on the DLS, so why not CMP and then a simple removal of the "Locally Modified Tag".

shaneturner12
October 14th, 2012, 04:09 AM
I can understand the reason why MP does not permit locally modified assets - it's an issue of consistency.

Basically, all users of a MP session have to be using the exact same version of the route,session, and all dependencies, in order to avoid server problems.

Shane

mcguirel
October 14th, 2012, 04:18 AM
CMP and the Game Engine recognizes uninstalled necessary updates.
A new tag is issued on that asset to the end user. This is the consistency issue RESOLVED.

Just don't buy the logic of locally modified tag.

shaneturner12
October 14th, 2012, 04:20 AM
It's meant to be for assets that the user has modified or created themselves (that have not been downloaded from the Download Station).

Shane

mcguirel
October 14th, 2012, 04:28 AM
TS12 Multiplayer then for me is a total flop.
TS12 is a waste of money to me now.

Not redownloading assets i have already and or always have a FCT Ticket like I fortunately do now.
You never know when you need to reinstall your game or computer.
I have 230,000 assets. No way am I reinstalling when there is a much more efficient way to handle this.

oknotsen
October 14th, 2012, 04:48 AM
I agree that they should add some sort of a check function to the game that goes and matches your "locally modified" content against the same items on the DLS.

There are enough techniques that make this possible without having to compare each asset bit-by-bit. Cant remember the name right now, but an example is of creating a 128 bit hash and compare that to the other; Im sure the techies will understand.

Euphod
October 14th, 2012, 05:29 AM
I agree with Mcguirel. A creator who uploads to the DLS still has those assets locally, and they will show as "Locally Modified", but they are also on the DLS. Why can't the CM show them as both?

shaneturner12
October 14th, 2012, 05:45 AM
Its a folder thing - anything in original will not show as locally modified whereas anything in local will show as modified.

Shane

ZecMurphy
October 14th, 2012, 05:51 AM
Please keep in mind that manually committing an asset will, effectively, 'modify' the asset. There is no way, at least for existing content, to check if an asset that has been opened for edit then committed (or installed from a cdp file, or an external folder) matches exactly the asset on the Download Station.

This may seem minor, however any changes to assets could render the route or session un-playable. For example, you change the enginespec on a locomotive. Hence the two players have locos with different physics, which in turn causes the trains to end up out of sync, requiring either more bandwidth to do constant speed/location/physics updates, causing more lag.

Or you changed the attachment points on an industry (as an example for content created by the player). You then fire up multiplayer, and find that you have a broken map, since the fixed track sections are no longer attached to the track splines on the map.

These are some of the 'basic' extremes, which are more than easy enough to cause (actually, quite a few people still play around with different Especs...).

The only way, at the current time at least, for us to ensure that multiplayer itself doesn't get broken by modified content is to only allow content that is downloaded from the DLS, or is built-in, that is in an unmodified state. Manually installing content will constitute 'modification' as there is no way to check if it exactly matches the DLS asset without actually downloading the DLS asset again...

This may change in future, however at the current time to add extra info (such as a code that CM can use to check if an asset has actually been edited in any way) would require modifying every asset on the DLS, as well as modifying CM. Such a change would also require all content to be updated to that version of CM's build (so, as an example, build 3.7), which would mean that all content on the DLS would be TS12+ only (or which ever version such a feature was added in). This isn't something we would want to do, and hence such a feature is unlikely at the current time.

As it is, CM has a very simple method of checking if an asset has been modified. This is simply, if an asset is downloaded using the 'download helper' tool, or is built-in, then it is unmodified. If it has been imported from a cdp/external folder, or opened for edit then committed, then it is modified.

Regards

sniper297
October 14th, 2012, 09:44 AM
"This may change in future"

PLEASE!!

It causes more problems than it could ever prevent, plain and simple.

WindWalkr
October 14th, 2012, 10:10 AM
"This may change in future"

PLEASE!!

It causes more problems than it could ever prevent, plain and simple.

Zec's already put forward some ideas on what it might take to relax this restriction. Don't be so quick to leap at this option without considering what that means. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease. :)

chris

sniper297
October 14th, 2012, 10:18 AM
The vaccination is worse than any potential disease in this case, remember this?

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?78422-multiplayer-woes

To my way of thinking if the KUID numbers match that should be close enough for Disco, if somebody has changed his engine spec or other assets that should be HIS problem if it causes problems. Spending two days redownloading stuff to play one multiplayer game, then finding you have to spend another two days downloading on the other computer because the mere act of saving to CDP and importing same into the other computer makes it "locally modified" is just plain nuts. This is the primary reason multiplayer is so slow getting off the ground, too much penalty weight. If all else fails make it optional and add a disclaimer or something.

sniper297
October 14th, 2012, 10:48 AM
You know what, that's the best idea yet. Current choices are (YES) Let the 'bot do whatever it wants, go find something else to do while you wait, or (NO) Forget Multiplayer, it's more trouble than it's worth. So add another button;

http://imageshack.us/a/img210/2016/69552507.jpg

Optional third choice, proceed at own risk to play with whatever you have. All the error checks and fussiness are only a major problem if you have no choice, and with the current setup there's no choice since it simply won't let you play until it's satisfied.

mcguirel
October 14th, 2012, 12:20 PM
As it stands then based on Zec Murphy's Comment, the future will be the end of Multiplayer.
As it stands then based on Zec Murphy's Comment, expect to have to buy Multiplayer Routes from N3V.

Based on Zec Murphy's Comment, I will immediately stop working on the Multiplayer Route. While this is seen as an issue (a major issue in my opinion and need addressed effectively and swiftly with a Service Pack to CMP), lack of addressing for Multiplayer Growth without financial benefit to N3V has in my opinion just died. We, the content creators and especially route builders which is a very long commitment for quality have no reason to keep investing in the growth of Multiplayer.

Get rid of the Multi-Folder Structure, relax this issue now yet provide a clear warning to the end user as mentioned, or utilize a easy solution that I have provided.
Without this effort especially after a year of Multiplayer, this is a dead subject matter and not a Value-Added Feature.


A very tempting end-user test I am heavily considerring. Be smarter than the software and have the effective control to utilize a feature effectively which you paid for.
Will it work is yet to be determined, but I see why my idea would not work as there is no registry of the assets.

WindWalkr
October 14th, 2012, 07:37 PM
To my way of thinking if the KUID numbers match that should be close enough for Disco, if somebody has changed his engine spec or other assets that should be HIS problem if it causes problems.

But it's not. It's a problem for anyone whom he happens to play with, even if they don't know him and don't approve of his decision.

chris

WindWalkr
October 14th, 2012, 07:39 PM
As it stands then based on Zec Murphy's Comment, expect to have to buy Multiplayer Routes from N3V.

I've no idea what you're talking about. We are not currently selling any multiplayer routes, and have no plans to do so. There are plenty of multiplayer routes available on the DLS.

chris

oknotsen
October 14th, 2012, 11:37 PM
We are not currently selling any multiplayer routes, and have no plans to do so. There are plenty of multiplayer routes available on the DLS.To add to that (or correct that... or just to be generally anoying for yet to decide what reason :hehe:): Technically there is no such thing as a multiplayer route. A session 'decides' if something is multiplayer, a route can have multiple sessions of which some can be solo and some can be multiplayer ;).

I hope that was enough smilies to get the idea.

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 12:32 AM
"It's a problem for anyone whom he happens to play with, even if they don't know him and don't approve of his decision."

That's why there's an option for private games, which would also eliminate the kid who wants to throw switches in front of the other players to derail them. Would have been better to eliminate trailing point switch derailments altogether rather than locking the switches.

As I said, why not just add an option to disable the part that says "no you may not play" with a disclaimer that you proceed at your own risk? That would be simpler than fiddling with 200000 assets on the DLS, and anyone who actually enjoys all the fiddling around necessary to get a game running would have the option to leave it on. Gotta do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, because what we have now is just too clumsy and complicated for a game.

norfolksouthern37
October 15th, 2012, 01:25 AM
because as Zec pointed out (and i have tested this) something as simple as a spec modified can cause sever out of sync problems with multiplayer. imagine that one player can travel the same distance in half the time, so in your game you see him at one location since would be using the spec you have locally, but in his game he can travel much faster and is in a totally different part of the map than what you see, not to be updated until his train comes to a stop. of course this isnt always the case, but if you are not checking or ignoring it then how would the game know? it is much simpler to have it guarantee that the installs are using the same exact asset from a central location, the DLS, rather than rely on players to keep their own files synchronized. you know sooner or later there would be mass complaints about the problems that would cause. been there and done that, and i dont think anyone even plays the game anymore because of it - at least not the PC version, where files could be modded.

if your locally created assets are not modified and are the same as those on the DLS, why does it matter (aside from the length of time it takes to download or bandwidth restrictions) if you get them from the DLS one time. if they are not changed you lose nothing, if they are changed they are backed up anyhow and still lose nothing.

another interesting thing about this thread, is that after all the fuss about asset version support, you see here a cry to have them essentially all updated to the latest software just to meet your own needs. funny how everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too...

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 01:37 AM
That's why there's an option for private games, which would also eliminate the kid who wants to throw switches in front of the other players to derail them.

We don't want an environment where everybody has to play private games for fear that somebody is going to deliberately exploit the game environment, or doesn't know whether a particular problem is a bug or is caused by somebody in the game who accidentally changed something on their local machine. If that means that it's a little harder to make a multiplayer-ready route and session than it is to make a regular single-player route, so be it.



Would have been better to eliminate trailing point switch derailments altogether rather than locking the switches.

That doesn't fix the case where somebody flicks the switch and sends you into another train at high speed. It doesn't fix the case where the AI decides that it needs to change your junction while you're expecting a clear run down the main line.

Sure, it's different to what we had before, but worse? That's certainly not an opinion that I agree with.



As I said, why not just add an option to disable the part that says "no you may not play" with a disclaimer that you proceed at your own risk? That would be simpler than fiddling with 200000 assets on the DLS..

Well, we've already answered the first, but as to the second- why would you need to fiddle with assets on the DLS? I assume that you are not referring to the person creating the route, here?

kind regards,

chris

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 02:00 AM
From Zec's post;

"This may change in future, however at the current time to add extra info (such as a code that CM can use to check if an asset has actually been edited in any way) would require modifying every asset on the DLS, as well as modifying CM. Such a change would also require all content to be updated to that version of CM's build (so, as an example, build 3.7), which would mean that all content on the DLS would be TS12+ only (or which ever version such a feature was added in). This isn't something we would want to do, and hence such a feature is unlikely at the current time."

Making an OPTION to disable just the "you may not play" guard bot would put the onus on the players, if they know the error checks are wrong they could play anyway with no problems. Again, whatever you do it needs SOMETHING, the way it is now people are avoiding multiplayer because it's just too much work to get a session running, and there's no way to beta test a multiplayer session using actual multiple players without uploading it first, then downloading it again. FCT is pretty much a requirement, and if the DLS isn't cooperating or updating you have to run an EDR to get it to refresh, no guarantee that will work, and if it does the KUID2 replacement system might not feel like cooperating that day, so after several hours of fooling around you're still stuck with a bot that won't allow you to play because it sees something it doesn't like. I've been playing flightsim, subsim, first person shooter, and RPG multiplayer games for 20 years, and all sometimes have occasional problems when one member is missing a "skin" or model the others are using. But the game companies always felt that was the players' responsibility to make sure everything matched. If it's a problem, quit the game, download and install whatever is out of synch, then try again, it's always been a lot faster and easier than satisfying this TS12 multiplayer bot. Want more people playing multiplayer, gotta do something to make playing multiplayer easier, simple as that.

norfolksouthern37
October 15th, 2012, 02:01 AM
Well, we've already answered the first, but as to the second- why would you need to fiddle with assets on the DLS? I assume that you are not referring to the person creating the route, here?

i think he was referring to this:



This may change in future, however at the current time to add extra info (such as a code that CM can use to check if an asset has actually been edited in any way) would require modifying every asset on the DLS, as well as modifying CM. Such a change would also require all content to be updated to that version of CM's build (so, as an example, build 3.7), which would mean that all content on the DLS would be TS12+ only (or which ever version such a feature was added in). This isn't something we would want to do, and hence such a feature is unlikely at the current time.

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 04:54 AM
...too much work to get a session running, and there's no way to beta test a multiplayer session using actual multiple players without uploading it first, then downloading it again.

Are you making the assumption that all players are content creators? All of your points appear to be specific to the content creation side of things, rather than the multiplayer experience itself. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

chris

mcguirel
October 15th, 2012, 07:46 AM
I've no idea what you're talking about. We are not currently selling any multiplayer routes, and have no plans to do so. There are plenty of multiplayer routes available on the DLS.

chris

With all do respect, the issues at hand with Multiplayer Supports this market BIG TIME. It was not a statement of fact, but more in lines with a line of sight of the future.


if your locally created assets are not modified and are the same as those on the DLS, why does it matter (aside from the length of time it takes to download or bandwidth restrictions) if you get them from the DLS one time. if they are not changed you lose nothing, if they are changed they are backed up anyhow and still lose nothing.

another interesting thing about this thread, is that after all the fuss about asset version support, you see here a cry to have them essentially all updated to the latest software just to meet your own needs. funny how everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too...

This is my whole point but at the same token I see the direction of your post opposite of why I am displaying what is a Major Software FLAW in CMP. Why must you redownload the same asset OVER AND OVER AND OVER if you face a Game Software Installation or even worse an complete computer reformat. There should be absolutely no need for the tag of a backed-up file to be listed as locally modified upon importing the back-up. Overhauling how this asset tag is placed in an asset is what needs to be significantly addressed FOR THE END USER.

If you are referencing me as in the need to have their cake and eat it too, this is not the direction of this flaw being brought into discussion or re-discussion. Again, the purpose of the post is to fully demonstrate that what worked prior to Multiplayer has major affect on the END-USER to enjoy Multiplayer in a more efficient and simplier manner. The END-USER is the one that supports the Software Developer. Is there an easy solution, not at this point? Should this be TOP PRIORITY if N3V intends for Multiplayer to be a marketable Value-Added Selling Point for TS12 and beyond, ABSOLUTELY.

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 08:22 AM
With all do respect, the issues at hand with Multiplayer Supports this market BIG TIME. It was not a statement of fact, but more in lines with a line of sight of the future.

Fair enough, although I've already pointed out that it's not something we're specifically interested in.



Why must you redownload the same asset OVER AND OVER AND OVER if you face a Game Software Installation or even worse an complete computer reformat.

You don't have to. If you back up the trainz installation (and I mean a proper backup; not piecemeal exports of the particular items) then you will never have this problem. If you don't reinstall frequently (or ever) then you will rarely (or never) have this problem, even without a backup. Finally, the tools are in place to ensure that this problem resolves itself- although I will freely admit that redownloading, while fully automatic, is only practical with an FCT.



There should be absolutely no need for the tag of a backed-up file to be listed as locally modified upon importing the back-up. Overhauling how this asset tag is placed in an asset is what needs to be significantly addressed FOR THE END USER.

I simply don't see this as a flaw, sorry. It's deliberate that CM can tell the difference between content downloaded from the DLS and content supplied (and potentially modified) by the user.

kind regards,

chris

mcguirel
October 15th, 2012, 09:33 AM
Forced to restart my whole collection of assets per the inability to see that this is infact an issue.
Just look forward to searching thru every asset, evaluating which to keep and redownload.

Please Advise: and I mean a proper backup

shaneturner12
October 15th, 2012, 09:38 AM
WindWalkr (Chris),

I've also noticed that regardless of whether you use Import Content or Import CDP, both can result in the Locally Modified icon. I believe it's something to do with the commit process, which should be identifying whether any edits have indeed been made before applying the Locally Modified tag.

Shane

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 09:47 AM
Please Advise: and I mean a proper backup

Either use a backup utility, or keep a whole copy of the Trainz program folder on your backup media.

kind regards,

chris

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 09:50 AM
I've also noticed that regardless of whether you use Import Content or Import CDP, both can result in the Locally Modified icon.

Yes, that's correct. CM has no way to determine what (if any) changes you've made to the content, so it is all considered a local version.

kind regards,

chris

shaneturner12
October 15th, 2012, 09:53 AM
I thought it may be. I see one potential problem with it, which will affect Multiplayer.

Due to another issue (which is also related to Content Manager) involving downloads not completing, users are having to download these assets manually using FTP. Unfortunately when these assets are imported, they are classed as locally modified even though they are unmodified assets direct from the Download Station.

I'd like to know what your take on this is, as this is part of the problem.

Shane

mcguirel
October 15th, 2012, 10:00 AM
I thought it may be. I see one potential problem with it, which will affect Multiplayer.

Due to another issue (which is also related to Content Manager) involving downloads not completing, users are having to download these assets manually using FTP. Unfortunately when these assets are imported, they are classed as locally modified even though they are unmodified assets direct from the Download Station.

I'd like to know what your take on this is, as this is part of the problem.

Shane


Thank You Shane - Another demonstration of what I am talking about, just did not communicate.
Structure of CMP Tagging NEEDS Revised.

Not battling this anymore. Place it into the lose category. Enjoy downloading your own content once you place significant effort to make it.

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 10:06 AM
Well, yes and no. Obviously I'm looking at it from the perspective of a content creator, I have uploaded a multiplayer compatible route and a few multiplayer sessions, creating routes and sessions is what I do so I don't have any other perspective on tap. But I'm trying to look at it from the casual player perspective as well, especially those who have limited time to play. "redownloading, while fully automatic, is only practical with an FCT." Having a complete backup and/or a separate copy that's set up specifically for multiplayer helps, but where that fails is with KUID2 replacements. I doubt I could find the thread now since the forum search still isn't working right, but remember the Mac multiplayer problem with Chicago Metro? The guy downloaded route and session, couldn't get it to work on the Mac because something was "locally modified". Several days later the problem was traced to a grain commodity which has a different KUID2 number in Mac than it does in TS12 - the session uses a covered grain hopper, the hopper has that grain commodity in its KUID table, the KUID number in the grain hopper's config matches the built in number in both TS2010 and Mac, but the one in TS12 is different. So the multiplayer bot sees that he has Grain HP,<kuid:46162:60001> and insists he must have Grain HP,<kuid2:46162:60001:9> instead or he can't play - and he has no way to download that update, it's not on the DLS. "For the want of a nail the shoe was lost" etc, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about, not Speed Racer hacking his engine spec to go 4000mph. Whatever the update for the grain commodity was, is it really that critical that it would ruin a multiplayer game if one guy had a different version of the grain commodity, or modified the hopper car to have corn as a default load instead? Other example leaving Mac out, I got a carefully backed up copy of TS12 with IntenCity route and multiplayer session installed and configured, works perfectly. Couple months later I get the itch to play that again with somebody, but the bot insists it doesn't match. Got a KUID2 on the DLS for something - but it's an unknown location? Okay, now you're stuck, gotta do an EDR and pray it works, after the EDR finishes maybe if you're lucky enough that day it will find and download that KUID2 replacement - but now everything else is locally modified.

At that point most people are just going to give up in disgust and go play Call of Duty or Quake multiplayer, something that doesn't require hours of maintenance for each hour of gameplay.

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 10:37 AM
Found it using google.

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?76753-Cant-start-Multiplayer-session-in-TS-MAC

This is where I so often get into a "user error" program loop, developer says the technology is there, but it's a random roll of the dice if it works. Starting on page 3 primarily, in post 49 you say,

"this would mean that the session creator would need to specify <kuid:46162:60001> for use in the session- then both users would be able to load the session."

And on from there, the session creator cannot specify which version of the KUID, when the session is saved, surveyor makes that decision.

Pretty sure my Chicago accent isn't the entire problem here;

http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?79945-Multiplayer-search-inop&p=873796#post873796

Since I assume Phil has an Australian accent and he don't get it either.

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 04:44 PM
Due to another issue (which is also related to Content Manager) involving downloads not completing, users are having to download these assets manually using FTP.

My take on this is very simple- a bug is a bug and needs to be fixed. If our users are unable to download then we need to find out why and we need to resolve that.

chris

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 04:51 PM
And on from there, the session creator cannot specify which version of the KUID, when the session is saved, surveyor makes that decision.

Yes.. and no.

Surveyor uses whichever version the content creator has installed. If the creator is using content that is not available to the other user for whatever reason, then the other user will not be able to use the route in multiplayer, it's that simple.

This isn't really any different from not being able to play because you don't have the route, or because you don't have a necessary loco. If the only problem asset is something small and unimportant, then that's unfortunate but also something trivial for the original content creator to resolve if they wish to do so.

kind regards,

chris

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 07:11 PM
From the content creator's viewpoint - How? I should buy an ipad, Mac, and Android, then the Trainz versions for all those, and test on each one for compatibility? A bit expensive for a hobby, also a bit tedious comparing dependencies, sub dependencies, and sub-sub dependencies to make sure there are no KUID2:yadayad:2 assets in Mac that are KUID2:yadayada:5 in android hiding someplace. Since there's no way to make sure it actually will pass the multiplayer bot tests without uploading it, however carefully I check thousands of KUID numbers I'm bound to miss one or two.

From the user's viewpoint, I bought a copy of TS12 for my son so we could multiplay together, online store server crash a few days later get the serial number, copy my TS12 over to his rather than downloading all of that, and changed sniper297 to topham217, deleted my serial number and entered his. Okay, let's play! Aaargh, half a dozen multiplayer sessions I spent so much time tediously downloading so they worked perfectly no longer work, all have dependencies or sub dependencies or sub sub dependencies that need updates. Okay, let's get one working. Five hours later got it working error free on my system, he's gone to bed, try again tomorrow. Save all I downloaded to CDP, transfer to his system over the LAN, import into his content manager - sorry, after 2 hours of that, turns out save to CDP and import is considered "locally modified". Okay, so delete his TS12 folder, copy my entire TS12 folder over on the LAN, then change username and serial number to his, another two hours. That worked, we played a session together for half an hour before he had to go to bed. So 30 minutes of playing time required 9 hours of preparation. For one session. All the other multiplayer sessions that were working a few months ago need the same thing before we can play any of those.

So, buy TWO first class tickets hoping the online store is working now so it won't crash when I enter my credit card info? Or buy one, download to my system, then go through the routine of copy over LAN and change username and serial number again, more practical especially since we have low speed DSL shared through a router. Then have to do it all over again a couple months from now as more assets on the DLS get updated.

That's what the average user is looking at, if we can agree on nothing else can we at least agree that multiplayer needs some kind of work to make it more play and less work? Otherwise change the name to multiworker to give people fair warning.

mcguirel
October 15th, 2012, 07:19 PM
Sniper, give it up.

Huge flaw they do not see. They do not see it therefore you will not get resolve.
As things are completely structured, Multiplayer is not a sustaining benefit.

MultiWORKER - Gotta Love It.

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 07:42 PM
Hee-hee, my grandparents came from The Buckeye State, what happened to hard headed persistence? :hehe:

Anyway the main way to resolve this since there are so many things we disagree on, let's find something we DO agree on and start from there. Is she right? Do the developers all believe multiplayer is Practically Perfect in Every Way as is, there's no need to improve anything?

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 07:58 PM
From the content creator's viewpoint - How? I should buy an ipad, Mac, and Android, then the Trainz versions for all those, and test on each one for compatibility?

If you expect your content to work on each platform, then the current answer is a simple yes. If that's too expensive or too bothersome, then you will simply need to accept that your content will not necessarily work on all of the above platforms.

Likewise, if you want to be sure that your content works on TS2009, TS2010, and TS12, you will need to install each and test thoroughly.

None of this is specific to multiplayer, or even Trainz for that matter.



Since there's no way to make sure it actually will pass the multiplayer bot tests without uploading it, however carefully I check thousands of KUID numbers I'm bound to miss one or two.

Take a fresh install of Trainz. Install your route, session, and any other content that you will be uploading to the DLS. Allow CM to download any missing dependencies from the DLS. If you are left with no faults and no missing dependencies, then you are good to go for that version of Trainz.

If you want to support multiple versions of Trainz, you would need to repeat the test on each platform.



From the user's viewpoint, I bought a copy of TS12 for my son so we could multiplay together, online store server crash a few days later get the serial number, copy my TS12 over to his rather than downloading all of that, and changed sniper297 to topham217, deleted my serial number and entered his. Okay, let's play! Aaargh, half a dozen multiplayer sessions I spent so much time tediously downloading so they worked perfectly no longer work, all have dependencies or sub dependencies or sub sub dependencies that need updates. Okay, let's get one working. Five hours later got it working error free on my system, he's gone to bed, try again tomorrow. Save all I downloaded to CDP, transfer to his system over the LAN, import into his content manager - sorry, after 2 hours of that, turns out save to CDP and import is considered "locally modified". Okay, so delete his TS12 folder, copy my entire TS12 folder over on the LAN, then change username and serial number to his, another two hours. That worked, we played a session together for half an hour before he had to go to bed. So 30 minutes of playing time required 9 hours of preparation. For one session. All the other multiplayer sessions that were working a few months ago need the same thing before we can play any of those.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the servers. For the multiplayer side of things, you're overcomplicating things by doing what you believe to be the right thing, rather than just let Trainz do its thing. All you need to do is press play and let it download what it needs.

If you are really short on download quota or have a really slow connection, then your best bet would be to configure one version of Trainz to be exactly as you like it, then duplicate that onto the second machine. As with most other software these days, that's not our intended usage pattern for installing updates, but it can work if you're really on limited access.

kind regards,

chris

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 08:37 PM
Quote myself, "Is she right? Do the developers all believe multiplayer is Practically Perfect in Every Way as is, there's no need to improve anything?"

I take your last answer as "Yes"? We can find no common ground here, you believe nothing needs to be fixed?

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 09:18 PM
Quote myself, "Is she right? Do the developers all believe multiplayer is Practically Perfect in Every Way as is, there's no need to improve anything?"

I take your last answer as "Yes"? We can find no common ground here, you believe nothing needs to be fixed?


I never said anything of the sort, and you know it. I didn't really bother to answer the question because it's an obvious troll rather than an attempt at discussion. Of course nothing is ever perfect and we can always find ways to improve things.

In the extremely limited context of the point that we are discussing here, I'm happy with what we have now and we don't have any plans to change it. If you want to discuss broader topics then of course there are many things that can be fixed or improved. For example, I've already made the point above that we're not happy with the problems that some people are reporting with the download process.

kind regards,

chris

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 09:37 PM
Wasn't an attempt at trolling, it was an attempt to clarify your position. OP stated that she was giving up trying to convince you that it's seriously flawed, I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground for discussion of what CAN be improved. If anything. I don't think it's a buggy piece of junk, but I don't think it's close to perfection either, the truth is actually about halfway between if you look at it dispassionately.

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 10:27 PM
I don't think it's a buggy piece of junk, but I don't think it's close to perfection either, the truth is actually about halfway between if you look at it dispassionately.

I'm happy that the multiplayer system is working as we intend.

In one hypothetical ideal world, all possible content would be built-in, there would not be any need for content creation since all the content would already be available, and so you would never need to download anything. I think we can agree that this would give a better multiplayer experience. However, we don't live in that world and so we need to handle downloading content and ensuring that all participants end up with an equal and fair multiplayer gameplay experience. There are many different techniques for this, each with their own tradeoffs (how much chance of failure? how much flexibility when it comes to content creation? how much protection against cheating? how many manual steps? how much bandwidth will it use? how long do you have to wait? what do we do about copyrighted materials? etc.)

Since we already have a single official repository of free content, which we have the right to redistribute, we have selected a model where all necessary multiplayer content is automatically sourced from the DLS. It reduces end-user interaction to a single click (barring any faults elsewhere.)

It has the upsides of:
* The user doesn't have to worry about where to find content, or which version to use, or whether it's compatible with other users' versions of the content.
* The user doesn't have to worry about whether the content can legally be downloaded.

It has the downsides of:
* Not allowing the use of content which is not licensed for DLS distribution.
* Expecting the user to have a suitable internet connection such that they are happy to let Trainz download the necessary content.
* The DLS interfaces (website, CM, etc) don't always present a clear picture of whether a given route/session will work on your version of Trainz. This isn't a problem specific to multiplayer, but it's something that is appearing in your criticisms above so I'll list it here.

I'm sure you can add a few more details on each side of the argument, but that's the way we look at it.

I agree that it doesn't necessarily achieve everything that everyone might possibly want. But it achieves what we want.

kind regards,

chris

sniper297
October 15th, 2012, 11:04 PM
Okay, that last part "it achieves what we want" essentially means you have no plans to make any major changes and trying to convince you otherwise is an exercise in futility. Straight answers are always the best, translated into my language "it is what it is, suck it up and buy a first class ticket" means I either accept it and deal with what I got, or move elsewhere, no hard feelings. I still think the whole setup is like cracking imaginary walnuts with a pile driver, and a huge waste of bandwidth, but I'll concede the argument is lost and find something else to rag youse guys about. :cool:

WindWalkr
October 15th, 2012, 11:43 PM
Okay, that last part "it achieves what we want" essentially means you have no plans to make any major changes

Yes. I've been pretty adamant about that throughout this conversation. I'm very open to discussion regarding bugs and possible improvements to the features, but we have little interest in changing the underlying principles of how the system is built. We're aware of the trade-offs; I'm happy to discuss the pro's and con's publicly but I don't expect that you'll bring up any points that we haven't already discussed internally.



I still think the whole setup is like cracking imaginary walnuts with a pile driver, and a huge waste of bandwidth, but I'll concede the argument is lost and find something else to rag youse guys about. :cool:

Sounds fair :)

I think one of the points of contention here is whether people care about that "huge waste of bandwidth". It's obvious that there will be people on each side of the fence. People with dialup, or who are forced to use expensive 3G data connections, will obviously see this as a big deal. I personally think that this market is small and declining rapidly- so it doesn't make sense for us to target a future-looking feature at such a market. Will it mean that some people will avoid multiplayer due to bandwidth concerns? Yes, but not more so than (for example) requiring an always-on connection to play a game- which seems to becoming a more common trend these days.

chris

sniper297
October 16th, 2012, 12:11 AM
I heard that, got Silent Hunter 1, 2, 3 and 4, won't buy 5 because it requires online play for single player games - draconian DRM. People vote with their wallets tho, apparently it's acceptable to the majority, the AYEs have it, all the NAYs siddown and shaddup.

Having just bought another first class ticket, now I gotta read this thread over again, along with the others complaining about the same thing, see where FCT or lack thereof is mentioned. Pretty much gotta think FCT or long long waits or no multiplayer.

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 12:46 AM
I heard that, got Silent Hunter 1, 2, 3 and 4, won't buy 5 because it requires online play for single player games - draconian DRM. People vote with their wallets tho, apparently it's acceptable to the majority, the AYEs have it, all the NAYs siddown and shaddup.

Yeah, same with Diablo 3. As a consumer, I'm against the concept. As a game player, I'm going to play the game regardless of what I think of the DRM. As a developer, I can sympathise with the desire to block piracy/cheating/etc. in this manner.



Pretty much gotta think FCT or long long waits or no multiplayer.

That's a fair summary, with the possible exception that you could use a fairly "light" route with the deliberate aim of reducing the download size. As shipped, you could also play the built-in multiplayer route without doing any real downloading, although over time our content creators like to update stuff so this doesn't remain true forever.


chris

Mouse84
October 16th, 2012, 12:47 AM
Online required to play single player? That isn't happening for me and from what's on the horizon, it won't be for a lot of people. When this game gets to that point, I will no longer support the new versions.

sniper297
October 16th, 2012, 12:52 AM
Well, hopefully N3V won't go that route, Ubisoft was always a firm believer in using a bomb to put out a fire in the living room, who cares how many customers we lose as long as we hang a few pirates.

"although over time our content creators like to update stuff", mea culpa - probably 3/4ths of the stuff I've uploaded has been KUID2s lately, with more to come as I find other stuff that needs to be fixed. :o

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 01:39 AM
When this game gets to that point, I will no longer support the new versions.

Well, then I guess you'll be glad to know we weren't talking about this game.

chris

shaneturner12
October 16th, 2012, 03:01 AM
My take on this is very simple- a bug is a bug and needs to be fixed. If our users are unable to download then we need to find out why and we need to resolve that.

chris

Indeed. May I suggest that is looked into as a priority, and also look into the possibility of updating Content Manager so it can check whether an asset has been modified when it is imported.

Shane

mcguirel
October 16th, 2012, 03:18 AM
SOLUTION AND VERIFIED
"Be Smarter Than The Software"


For Multiplayer Tag Issues on Asset Data Back-Ups, Utilizing FTP Downloading then Importing into CMP, Importing Built-In Content From TS2010 to TS12, converting your content to unmodified without having to delete and redownload if made available on the DLS, or other like issue which causes significant issues utilize the following procedure:


Enter your TS12 Folder Directory, then located the following two folders under UserData: Original and Local
Open the Local Folder and Select All, then Copy.
Open the Original Folder and Paste.
Open CMP, then you MUST COMPLETE AN EXTENDED DATABASE REPAIR
Close CMP, Reopen CMP, then make sure you attempt to load any Missing Assets and Update Any Content Needed (Important For Multiplayer Support)


This process is very effective and the least time consuming approach. There are simple reasons why this is HIGHLY EFFECTIVE, but I would like to keep that unspoken because it could lead to N3V Patching CMP to prevent this however would require a significant overhaul.

mcguirel
October 16th, 2012, 03:50 AM
Question when the Above Solution will be deleted or commented on regarding why NOT to approach this solution.
This will open up N3V Trainz Support to place significant efforts to modify CMP and Multiplayer. Mark my word.
Based on N3V Comments and these comments strictly reviewed as well as taken into heavy consideration, there is no side effects.

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 05:05 AM
Based on N3V Comments and these comments strictly reviewed as well as taken into heavy consideration, there is no side effects.

Despite the melodrama above, I'm quite happy to point out that we don't recommend this process and that by following the steps above you risk damaging the install. There's nothing particularly secret about the whole process, but I'd recommend against this kind of thing for the reasons outlined previously in this thread. Like all multiplayer games, Trainz is not oblivious to deliberate abuse.

kind regards,

chris

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 05:10 AM
Indeed. May I suggest that is looked into as a priority, and also look into the possibility of updating Content Manager so it can check whether an asset has been modified when it is imported.

I'm sure you've noticed that Tony has been paying personal attention to this issue on the forums. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of info to go on at the current time. It's widespread enough to be talked about, but not so much that we've got an accessible test case for it.

if anyone reading this has information or is interested in helping test the issue, please talk to Tony on the DLS forum.

thx,

chris

mcguirel
October 16th, 2012, 09:30 AM
Despite the melodrama above, I'm quite happy to point out that we don't recommend this process and that by following the steps above you risk damaging the install. There's nothing particularly secret about the whole process, but I'd recommend against this kind of thing for the reasons outlined previously in this thread. Like all multiplayer games, Trainz is not oblivious to deliberate abuse.

kind regards,

chris

How do you conclude Melodrama as my comment eliquently predicted as well as the comment above proved my statement.

No, nothing particular secret about the process, but for you to stop this would definitely take a considerable effort far beyond that of fixing the original flaw.

Rebuttal: YOU DO NOT Damage the installation with this process as CMP TAGGING IS Dependent ON TWO THINGS - Location of the Assets into a different folder NOT REGISTRY DEPENDANT PROVIDED EMPTY UPON GAME INSTALLATION and then in sequential order an New Database. This database is just that, a database. Databases can be restructured and revised on the server and the server client will see the changes accordingly with NO HARM to the file AS LONG AS THE FILE remains available and intact. CMP is the Database Client.

Making a statement of deliberate abuse was unwarranted. You were informed by Sniper297 and then I dug deeper into this only to determine this to be even more critical. You placed multiple comments proceeding that dictated a secondary solution be found. Zec Murphy was the only one who approached this in a manner that did not reflect subject matter is dead.
When I found the solution, I made people aware and it has ZERO IMPACT or touches any ORIGINAL GAME INSTALLATION FILE.

Solved My Problem and made aware to the Trainz Community. ZERO IMPACT TO THE GAME INSTALLATION with NO INTENT TO ABUSE THE TRAINZ PROGRAM.

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 10:40 AM
No, nothing particular secret about the process, but for you to stop this would definitely take a considerable effort far beyond that of fixing the original flaw.

You're missing the point. If we really thought that this technique was a problem for us, I would have banned you yesterday when you first suggested using a workaround, instead of leaving you alone to say your part. What you're suggesting is a fairly well understood workaround, with both some benefits (as you've noted) and some serious drawbacks.



Making a statement of deliberate abuse was unwarranted.

No, I don't think so. I've pointed out that we don't agree that the process is harmless, and I've explained some of the reasons why we say that. If you insist on going ahead with this anyway then I don't really have much more to say.

For those playing along at home: we do take abuse of the multiplayer environment seriously. Manipulation of the game files used in a multiplayer session may lead to account bans. Don't do anything too silly.


knd regards,

chris

sniper297
October 16th, 2012, 10:55 AM
No offense intended to anyone, but criticizing a woman for being melodramatic seems a bit like criticizing a cat for having whiskers. :wave:

That said, I'm reluctant to do EDRs unless the installation is so badly screwed up it couldn't possibly get worse, on my system the EDR worked perfectly once, screwed it up worse than before all the other times I tried it. And it takes hours, so if I have a first class ticket wouldn't it take less time to redownload all the stuff needed for a given multiplayer session? Again, I'm on your side opposing the draconian measures they took to try to head off any remotely possible insignificant problem that might be triggered every other February 29th, but this just don't seem like a practical workaround for the average user.

norfolksouthern37
October 16th, 2012, 11:54 AM
really?

i just dont see what the fuss is about. you would have to download these files at most one time. the files across all participating platforms MUST be the same. having the same kuid number is not enough, anything could have a number, so the only options here are comparing each file across the network each time a game is joined or making sure that each player has an unmodified asset from one location. why is that so hard to understand? seems very simple to me.

you think it would be better with a third option to join the game regardless of the differences but the session would break, and then you would complain about something else not working and demand that the issue be resolved. you cannot rely on the player to keep the files identical. that system would fall apart almost instantly. it simply isnt a case of trying to prevent something that is an insignificant problem and might happen at some point, it is preventing a problem that will happen for certain if files are not identical.

mcguirel
October 16th, 2012, 06:23 PM
May I make a kind statement to you NorfolkSouthern37? Yes, really.

I have not changed these files and never intend to. These assets are of another person and I respect that and would never do such a thing to another person's asset under their KUID. It comes down to Locking A Tag Of Origin in CMP into the most logical area, the chump file on a local client basis. Stops SO MUCH ISSUE moving forward when things happen to people's computer hardware/software as happenned to me. What is so hard in understanding the need. With your own assigned KUID in the CMP Options, your content should never be recognized as locally modified, but I do not have any ideas regarding locking a CMP TAG on your own content.

I have respected the responses of N3V, and if they deem an account ban is what they prefer to do instead, well then I will immediate ask for a refund of TS12 and my 1 YR FCT.
I am just providing a TRUSTED means of effeciently overcoming what can become easily a very repetive issue with a database. By completeing such a task, we should be respectful in the fact that we are only saving ourself time, unexpected hassle, and overcoming any one of many personal circumstances limiting factor.

I never disrespected their view of this, but I am not downloading 35GB of data again due to how I was forced to back-up my data due to a crash.

I clearly understand N3V's view and if I were to make a Multiplayer Session on a Route, it would be my route where "Show KUID" is white or yellow based on their vision and what they deem critical.

Just best to leave this alone from here on out to anyone or any situation. Just not hungry for popcorn.

Utilize this solution AT YOUR OWN RISK and understand the potential of account banning as a result.

JoshEH
October 16th, 2012, 06:39 PM
Ohh, things are getting real!

mcguirel, you gonna threaten to take your power rangers home next? :p

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 06:43 PM
I have no changed these files and never intend to.

I think we all understand that, but your technique raises a few additional problems:

* Even if you don't intend to change the files, you will eventually do so by accident. Perhaps you accidentally include a file for which you had a temporary local modification. Perhaps you accidentally include a file which was never sourced from the DLS. Perhaps you simply make a typo or drag the wrong file at some point in the process. And if not you, then somebody else.

* Just because you don't intend to change the files, doesn't mean that other people will be so honest.



I have respected the responses of N3V, and if they deem an account ban is what they prefer to do instead, well then I will immediate ask for a refund of TS12 and my 1 YR FCT.

Sorry, we don't offer refunds for bans. If anyone is caught abusing the multiplayer system, they will be banned. It's not really any different from what happens if you abuse the forums. We don't tolerate that kind of behaviour.



I am just providing a TRUSTED means of effeciently overcoming what can become easily a very repetive issue with a database.

You may trust it, but you can be very sure that we don't.


kind regards,

chris

JoshEH
October 16th, 2012, 06:47 PM
Yeah you go Windwalkr! Tell mcguirel what's what!

I am on the edge of my seat.... the edge!

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 07:33 PM
Yeah you go Windwalkr! Tell mcguirel what's what!

I am on the edge of my seat.... the edge!

*shrugs* I'm just pointing out the risks involved. If you want to go ahead with this anyway, you're welcome to. But don't complain to us if you get banned as a result.

As noted above, I'm not going to stop people talking about this kind of thing. But I'm also not going to let people use that as a defence if they get caught exploiting it. You have been warned, and what happens next is in your own hands. If you don't use multiplayer then this whole thing is moot because the problem under discussion would never affect you, you won't get banned, and you wouldn't care even if you were. If you do use multiplayer then you need to play by the rules.

kind regards,

chris

norfolksouthern37
October 16th, 2012, 07:56 PM
With your own assigned KUID in the CMP Options, your content should never be recognized as locally modified, but I do not have any ideas regarding locking a CMP TAG on your own content.

why not? they are in fact locally modified. the only way to guarantee that everyone has the same files is for everyone to get them from the DLS, end of story. there is NO other reliable way. what N3V has done here is the best solution.


I am just providing a TRUSTED means of effeciently overcoming what can become easily a very repetive issue with a database. By completeing such a task, we should be respectful in the fact that we are only saving ourself time, unexpected hassle, and overcoming any one of many personal circumstances limiting factor.

you might think so for yourself, but i would never do what you suggested above. such an action could permanently break some assets already in the database, requiring install and re-download of potentially 1000s more assets than you claim to fix. i do not consider it trusted at all.


I never disrespected their view of this, but I am not downloading 35GB of data again due to how I was forced to back-up my data due to a crash.

sorry this happened to you, but it is nobody's problem but your own. if you wish to play multiplayer, the correct course of action is to download the files again. this isnt a bug or unintentional operation of things as evidenced throughout this thread, so i do not understand why you are still talking about it as such.

JoshEH
October 16th, 2012, 08:40 PM
*shrugs*(snip)

chris

*shrugs* I just walked in off the street(to get out of the rain) and saw people yelling at each other so thought I'd hoot and holler too. I'm touched that you took the time to write me such a whimsical assembly of words. I enjoyed the length, not to long, not to short. Somewhat informative with a touch of realization that I'm a penguin in Africa.

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 09:16 PM
*shrugs* I just walked in off the street(to get out of the rain) and saw people yelling at each other so thought I'd hoot and holler too. I'm touched that you took the time to write me such a whimsical assembly of words. I enjoyed the length, not to long, not to short. Somewhat informative with a touch of realization that I'm a penguin in Africa.

Yeah, I figured as much. I'm glad that you appreciated my reply, though it was directed at the wider audience moreso than yourself specifically. ;-)

chris

Retro00064
October 16th, 2012, 09:38 PM
I thought it may be. I see one potential problem with it, which will affect Multiplayer.

Due to another issue (which is also related to Content Manager) involving downloads not completing, users are having to download these assets manually using FTP. Unfortunately when these assets are imported, they are classed as locally modified even though they are unmodified assets direct from the Download Station.

I'd like to know what your take on this is, as this is part of the problem.

Shane

Remember how the Content Dispatcher program in TRS2004 and earlier would display a message before it showed the details of the CDP you were about to install, indicating whether or not the package had been processed by Auran's automated checking process, which the package would have gone through if it had come from the DLS? CDPs that had been downloaded from the DLS must have had some internal flag of some sort switched on that Content Dispatcher would detect, displaying the proper message to end user, while CDPs that came from elsewhere (which are as-generated by Content Dispatcher on the content creator's computer) would not have this internal indication, and Content Dispatcher would display to the end user the warning message used for such cases.

Based on Shane's post, Content Manager does not make this distinction. Would it be impossible to implement this functionality in CM? If not, then perhaps it should be implemented. As described above, CDPs that are downloaded from the DLS would have the proper internal indication that they had been processed by the DLS, while all other CDPs would not, and just like Content Dispatcher did, CM would detect this and mark the asset(s) from the CDP accordingly.

My 2 cents.

sniper297
October 16th, 2012, 09:43 PM
Two things I'm trying to puzzle out here;

http://imageshack.us/a/img819/7980/47598806.jpg

An EDR takes a long long time, and this is what I consider a GOOD result - the only things the EDR trashed were some built in sessions I never use anyway. Even if it always worked perfectly and left zero defects when it was done, it takes 2 or 3 hours, so how is mcguirel's method easier?

On the flip side, if she wants to do that, what's the harm to others? Only potential I could think of would be the hypothetical supertrain 1000mph engine spec that gets a game out of synch when she has it and nobody else does. In which case it wouldn't take very many games before people figured out having mcguirel join a game screws it up, so kick her out if she tries to join. Multiplayer games have been around since the original DOOM, trolls causing problems have been around since then as well, and the only thing anyone thought was necessary was the ability of the host to kick out anyone who caused problems. I just don't get it.

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 09:58 PM
Based on Shane's post, Content Manager does not make this distinction.

I suspect that Shane is incorrect here, but I'm happy for someone to point out to me if I'm wrong.

kind regards,

chris

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 10:03 PM
.. the only thing anyone thought was necessary was the ability of the host to kick out anyone who caused problems. I just don't get it.

Any mainstream game where cheating has become prevalent generally has to take increasingly significant steps to counter this kind of thing. See also Punkbuster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punkbuster), the WON ID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Opponent_Network), warden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_(software)) and so on.

We have our own little tricks, but I'm hoping that this kind of thing doesn't escalate because in the end it just means more work for us which could be better spent on improving the game.

chris

mcguirel
October 16th, 2012, 10:09 PM
sorry this happened to you, but it is nobody's problem but your own. if you wish to play multiplayer, the correct course of action is to download the files again. this isnt a bug or unintentional operation of things as evidenced throughout this thread, so i do not understand why you are still talking about it as such.

For the simple fact that when you find that even thru the course of redownloading perhaps many items you purposely had to delete due to Revertinng failures, this will then show face.
When you have stacked dependencies upon stacked dependencies and you redownload only those KUIDS reported in the Multiplayer Session Config/Route and spend hours upon hours trying to resolve the stacked dependency issues, frustration will set in making Multiplayer Participation Practically Impossible .

I have yet been able to enjoy one time Multiplayer since the purchase as a result of this issue. Sole Purpose for the purchase, and the FCT thereafter to hereby follow the procedures set for with utter failure.

sniper297
October 16th, 2012, 10:37 PM
That's what I'm missing, "where cheating has become prevalent", this is competition? How would you "win" a train simulator multiplayer game, with or without cheating? I'm really not trying to be a smartass here, I just don't understand what the point of cheating would be in a train simulator?

WindWalkr
October 16th, 2012, 11:01 PM
That's what I'm missing, "where cheating has become prevalent", this is competition? How would you "win" a train simulator multiplayer game, with or without cheating? I'm really not trying to be a smartass here, I just don't understand what the point of cheating would be in a train simulator?

Well really, what's the point of cheating in any game? Or griefing?

chris

sniper297
October 16th, 2012, 11:38 PM
Is that a trick question? The point of cheating is to win the game, but Trainz multiplayer is a cooperative game with no scoring, right? Or did I miss a memo? And what is "griefing", guess I gotta google that. Trainz multiplayer has some kind of deathmatch or racing mode?

sniper297
October 16th, 2012, 11:46 PM
Okay, looked that up;

Griefing is the act of irritating and angering people in video games through the use of destruction, construction, or social engineering.

I could see how that might be a problem in MMOs (which I've never played) but for Trainz multiplayer what would be the max number in any game? If that's what this is all about, why not eliminate all the restrictions for private games requiring a password?

WindWalkr
October 17th, 2012, 12:16 AM
Is that a trick question? The point of cheating is to win the game, but Trainz multiplayer is a cooperative game with no scoring, right?

Is it? Trainz Multiplayer is the ability to play a (specially-designed) gameplay session with more than one person. Just as we have singe-player gameplay sessions with different objectives, there can also be multiplayer sessions with different objectives. The only session that we've released so far is not scored, but that doesn't mean that we won't do so in the future and it doesn't mean that other content creators haven't or won't do that.



Griefing is the act of irritating and angering people in video games through the use of destruction, construction, or social engineering.

I could see how that might be a problem in MMOs (which I've never played) but for Trainz multiplayer what would be the max number in any game?

What do numbers really have to do with anything? It's about personality types, and I guess the more people you have, the more likely you are to run into trouble. But in any other respect, you only need one problem user to cause havok for everybody else.




If that's what this is all about, why not eliminate all the restrictions for private games requiring a password?

Because reliably enforcing restrictions in one place and not in another would be difficult, at best, and because we don't really see much in the way of benefits from that. Multiplayer is about playing together, and pushing people to play in private games sort of defeats that.

kind regards,

chris

sniper297
October 17th, 2012, 12:42 AM
Okay, I don't see the point of competitive train handling, but if that floats other peoples' boats, why not.

"What do numbers really have to do with anything? It's about personality types, and I guess the more people you have, the more likely you are to run into trouble. But in any other respect, you only need one problem user to cause havok for everybody else."

Answered your own question there, but if there are 3 people and one troll, the host kicks tho troll out or if the troll is the host the other three quit and start their own game without him. For a few friends playing together who all know each other and share the same ideas on train operations it's simply not an issue.

Pushing people to play private games - no, maybe? Question you gotta ask now, if all the "batteries not included lots of complicated assembly required" work was removed from private multiplayer, would you get a sudden flood of people moving from public to private multiplayer? If the majority of Trainz owners do have problems with all the restrictions, that would be a thundering "YES!" If only a small minority share my opinion then it wouldn't have much impact on public games.

Again, make it optional with a disclaimer, let people decide for themselves.

WindWalkr
October 17th, 2012, 01:38 AM
Answered your own question there, but if there are 3 people and one troll, the host kicks tho troll out or if the troll is the host the other three quit and start their own game without him.

Agreed, except how do you identify who "the troll" is? Unless they're deliberately being obvious, there's no guarantee of anything linking that player and the problems. Your train keeps derailing just when you're about to get somewhere interesting? Why is that the fault of "Player X"?



For a few friends playing together who all know each other and share the same ideas on train operations it's simply not an issue.

Agreed.



Pushing people to play private games - no, maybe? Question you gotta ask now, if all the "batteries not included lots of complicated assembly required" work was removed from private multiplayer, would you get a sudden flood of people moving from public to private multiplayer?

I don't agree that the lack of hand-installed content makes things particularly difficult as it stands right now. If anything, it makes it simpler for most people. You could perhaps argue that it makes the environment less flexible, but it's certainly easier to just press the button and go rather than try to find all the necessary content yourself.



Again, make it optional with a disclaimer, let people decide for themselves.

Again, I don't think that's a reasonable option. It's like smoking; it doesn't just affect you.

chris

sniper297
October 17th, 2012, 01:43 AM
If it was optional only for private games it would be like a private smoking room, people who don't smoke have the option of staying out of it.

JoshEH
October 17th, 2012, 12:33 PM
If it was optional only for private games it would be like a private smoking room, people who don't smoke have the option of staying out of it.

It's against the law (Here in Portland, but these laws are being enacted elsewhere too; not sure if it's restricted to the states or if other countries are doing this too) in public establishments to smoke inside. A lot of apartments have also started to bare it's residents from smoking inside.

sniper297
October 17th, 2012, 03:06 PM
Private = public? I'm not interested in anti smoking nazis with their religious fervor to outlaw tobacco completely, but the analogy is a PRIVATE members only club where smoking is allowed, if you don't smoke don't join the club, go to one of the public taverns or other private club where possession of a pack of cigarettes will get you burned at the stake. Same deal here, make the locally modified restriction optional for private games only, with a warning in the password for joining that this game does not do the locally modified check. Or this game has the option to override the bot, whichever is easier to program. Done that way it would have zero effect on public games or other private games that want to pledge allegiance to the Holy Error Checker. Aside from offending neurotic types who can't stand the idea that others are "playing it wrong" somewhere in the world, nothing would change for people who don't use the new feature.

JoshEH
October 17th, 2012, 07:01 PM
I don't understand why you're getting so heated, to be honest.

I think it would be desirable to design the game in a way where the content is checked to make sure it matches across all parties involved. Having modified content could cause issues in any number of ways.

Regarding private clubs, some towns have gone as far as banning smoking even in private clubs.

But, let's twist this little analogy around back at ya. You make the basic argument of don't like it, go elsewhere. Well, you're free to do that. No one here is forcing you to stay here. As far as I can tell the doors are wide open and there's no guards posted in front of them to keep you from leaving.

It's that simple.

The developers made a choice on how to handle the issue of content not matching up between the various installs of Trainz for multiplayer. It's unrealistic for the program to look at the content and match it bit by bit, so they used an in place system, the Download station, to simplify that process and guarantee that all content will match. You're getting pissed off at the developers because they are attempting to alleviate potential problems. If they left it open like you wish, then there would be a flood of other people complaining about modified content causing problems. You very well may have been one of those people.

So, take your own advice and go elsewhere. You obviously don't like what they've done, so go find a different sandbox to play in. Otherwise, suck it up and follow this handy bit of advice. You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what ya need.

sniper297
October 17th, 2012, 07:47 PM
I have no clue where you got the impression I'm getting "heated", all I'm doing here is throwing out suggestions and trying to clarify misunderstandings. Maybe I talk too rough to get my point across, I'm a ghetto rat and that's just the way I talk, it don't mean anything. Suck it up and live with it or go elsewhere has already been covered, the question on the floor is how much work would it take to find a solution that would work for everybody?

JoshEH
October 17th, 2012, 08:01 PM
the question on the floor is how much work would it take to find a solution that would work for everybody?

impromptu dance party

norfolksouthern37
October 17th, 2012, 08:03 PM
but the problem is you want a solution that works only for you. for instance, i do not subscribe to your suggestion, and i find it careless and inviting many other problems.

the items must be identical for MP to work, period.

you want this to be some other way and it is not.

JoshEH
October 17th, 2012, 08:24 PM
but the problem is you want a solution that works only for you. for instance, i do not subscribe to your suggestion, and i find it careless and inviting many other problems.



sniper297, This right here is really the fault of your last argument. Truly though there's no one size fits all solution. The developers made a choice on how to handle this issue though, the issue that all the items must be identical. This is the problem with introducing player made content to a multiplayer game, especially in a situation like this where there's a vast amount of home brew content.

Something you don't seem to want to realize is how your solution can have negative consequences. Like I said, you'd probably be back here complaining about those issues, and those issues wouldn't be easily solved until the current system was re-implemented.

Trainz wasn't built around multiplayer. Heck, the first version of Trainz was poorly setup for custom content. How they've handled this situation seems ideal from a tech standpoint, especially considering what they're working off of.

They could probably reprogram Trainz and how it handles custom content to better suit the needs of multiplayer, but than everyone would be complaining about not being able to use old content and all the content creators would be complaining about having to update their content for this new multiplayer version of trainz. blah blah blah.

So take it easy, put some music on, and dance!

sniper297
October 17th, 2012, 08:56 PM
Trying to dance with these old legs would make somebody call the paramedics thinking i was having a stroke. :eek:

"you want a solution that works only for you. for instance, i do not subscribe to your suggestion, and i find it careless and inviting many other problems."

No, if I was the only one who didn't like this, there wouldn't be so many other posts with people having trouble getting a multiplayer game running. And how would an optional override for private games only affect anyone else? The beta testers must have had something to test multiplayer that didn't require the check on the session itself, so the code should already exist, what part of "use at own risk" is so hard to understand? And get right down to it, four guys get together for a private multiplayer game, the host sets the session to override the checks, the password goes out with the warning that the checks are disabled, one guy has something that's actually locally modified, game starts and formats all four hard drives? Seriously, I'm really trying to understand the objections, would a mismatch between engine specs blow up all the electrical transformers in Hollywood?

JoshEH
October 17th, 2012, 09:15 PM
And how would an optional override for private games only affect anyone else? The beta testers must have had something to test multiplayer that didn't require the check on the session itself, so the code should already exist, what part of "use at own risk" is so hard to understand?

Did you consider that perhaps they did test this aspect and it created too many stability issues to be a viable option? Even if they had a warning saying to use at your own risk, that wouldn't stop people, such as yourself, flooding on here and demanding that they fix the issues. That fix of course would be forcing the check of content, as it does now.

I read back a little at some of the comments the devs made and I thought they were pretty solid arguments. The best I can gather is that you refused to listen to them because it didn't suit your view of how things should be, how you want them to be, without realizing that there's a reason they are the way they are.

And at what point might you accept that the way things are right now is the best solution outside of reprogramming Trainz specifically around multiplayer and the issues of having synced content? At what point will you put any amount of faith in the developers and their choices? That perhaps there's other aspects to this problem that you don't fully understand, but they do because they're in the thick of it?

sniper297
October 17th, 2012, 09:37 PM
"Did you consider that perhaps they did test this aspect and it created too many stability issues to be a viable option?" I'd have to read back over the threads, but I don't remember anyone saying anything but "we know best, run along and play" using different phrasing which to me, meant exactly that. I don't recall anyone actually explaining the problems or giving examples of some of the problems they saw in testing. And if it's that unstable that it won't tolerate minor discrepancies, that pretty much trashes any faith in the developers, again no offense intended.

norfolksouthern37
October 17th, 2012, 10:05 PM
No, if I was the only one who didn't like this, there wouldn't be so many other posts with people having trouble getting a multiplayer game running. And how would an optional override for private games only affect anyone else?

i do hope you rethink the comment about so many people saying they cant get a multiplayer game running having anything to do with this conversation. i know you have a tendency towards the whimsical, but that was just a silly comment.

about private games: do i think that we need an option for LAN direct connection games? yes i do. do i think that has anything to do with this conversation? no i do not. i still think all assets should still be checked for modification against a master on the DLS or in the .ja files - just as it is now.



The beta testers must have had something to test multiplayer that didn't require the check on the session itself, so the code should already exist...

not really sure what this means at all. the test was a public beta, it worked then as it does now.


what part of "use at own risk" is so hard to understand? And get right down to it, four guys get together for a private multiplayer game, the host sets the session to override the checks, the password goes out with the warning that the checks are disabled, one guy has something that's actually locally modified, game starts and formats all four hard drives? Seriously, I'm really trying to understand the objections, would a mismatch between engine specs blow up all the electrical transformers in Hollywood?

again having tested it myself. without the assets being the same, the game will become out of sync... you cannot seriously expect to run different data on different machines into one game session.

one last time, they MUST all be the same end of story.


using different phrasing which to me, meant exactly that. I don't recall anyone actually explaining the problems or giving examples of some of the problems they saw in testing. And if it's that unstable that it won't tolerate minor discrepancies, that pretty much trashes any faith in the developers, again no offense intended.

well there you go, above. i have tested it, but i am not a member of the dev team, all i can say the results are less than great, rendering the multiplayer session useless within minutes.

what you are asking to do above is what i have already tried, so i am just telling you it wont work. i cannot tell you how to try it for yourself, just dont worry yourself about it, it doesnt work. the easy way is the way it is now. allowing anyone to just come in and play. it is even nice enough to back up anything that has to be replaced in order to play, so you can put it back later.

MountE
October 18th, 2012, 10:11 AM
I haven't used multiplayer since the first couple of weeks. If you download an item from anywhere other than the dls and its used in a session, you can not join. It could be a tree or a ground texture. So it is useless to me.

Rob

JoshEH
October 18th, 2012, 11:14 AM
Seriously sniper297, the appropriate information has been there, you just seem to refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit in with the way you personally want things to be. What did I say earlier? You can't always have what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need!


Let's gander back to the start of this whole thread though, please allow me to throw down a quote.





I can understand the reason why MP does not permit locally modified assets - it's an issue of consistency.


Basically, all users of a MP session have to be using the exact same version of the route,session, and all dependencies, in order to avoid server problems.


Shane


This was the second post in this thread and it should have ended there. I shouldn't have to explain why it's undesirable to have mismatched content across multiplayer games. People argued ahead anyway, completing ignoring this.




This may seem minor, however any changes to assets could render the route or session un-playable. For example, you change the enginespec on a locomotive. Hence the two players have locos with different physics, which in turn causes the trains to end up out of sync, requiring either more bandwidth to do constant speed/location/physics updates, causing more lag.


Or you changed the attachment points on an industry (as an example for content created by the player). You then fire up multiplayer, and find that you have a broken map, since the fixed track sections are no longer attached to the track splines on the map.



Here is two very good examples for you about what can happen if your content is out of sync. This shouldn't need any further explanation. The thread seriously should have stopped there. But no one wanted to listen and kept on complaining because they wanted it their way and refused to accept anything that wasn't and refused to accept any explanation that supported a view that wasn't their own. I'm talking about you of course. I saw your name as early in this thread so you must have read these posts and then all I can guess is promptly ignored them because they didn't support your view.


In fact, the next reply was yours.






It causes more problems than it could ever prevent, plain and simple.


I can't even fathom how you came to this conclusion, even as Zec gave a couple of really great examples about how it could cause problems. I would rather have to download content from the DLS than have to deal with buggy mutliplayer sessions caused by mismatched content.


I read through some more of the thread and realized a pattern of you ignoring everyone and demanding a button that allows you to bypass the check. Everyone brought up good examples and explanations about why this would be a bad idea, but you continued to ignore them and went ahead.


Besides the problems that could come up that would cause a multiplayer game to become unstable, It's inadvisable to put that sort of feature into a commercial product. I'm talking about a checkbox that has a "use at your own risk" warning. When developers put these sorts of checkboxes into an application it is usally smaller production where it's users are tech savvy enough to understand this risk. Or that particular feature was released as beta. If Auran introduced a checkbox with the warning saying "use at your own risk" That warning would be ignored by the userbase, by people like you, and then when the multiplayer sessions become unplayable, they'd take to the forums complaining about it. Complaining about how it's buggy, how they need to fix it, how they shouldn't have released it in that state.


All you are going to do is complain, no matter what. There is no doubt in my mind that your only ability is to be able to complain. When you set up your Fallout3 character, you checked the complainer trait and nothing else.


Let me say this again, in case you missed it. There is obvious problems that would come up if such a feature as you requested was added. There's been a lot of people that happily explained to you why it is a problem, why it would cause problems. I quoted a few of those people here and before this post is done I'm going to quote another. In fact, I'm going to do that right now.




well there you go, above. i have tested it, but i am not a member of the dev team, all i can say the results are less than great, rendering the multiplayer session useless within minutes.





Ohhh! What is that? It's exactly as we have been saying. It causes problems. Did we expect any different? No. We explained why it would cause issues, and for a lot of us, we didn't even have to experience those issues to understand why they would happen.


I’ve been part of this community since the first version was released. I saw where it came from; I saw what this version of Trainz is built upon. I released the first custom content for this game. When this game was first released, it wasn’t ready for prime time as far as custom content was concerned. There were a lot of aspects they didn’t think about and became a huge problem later on. It took a lot of effort for them to iron those issues out. Multiplayer is being added onto this, this heritage. This game wasn’t built for multiplayer, it’s being patched on. And to make everything compatible there’s certain compromises that have to be made. To make the multiplayer setup more ideal, a lot of things would have to be reworked and that would cause a whole new set of issues. Mainly that the content would have to be updated for the new multiplayer variation of Trainz. Then we would get the joy of having everyone complain about their old content not working in the new version of Trainz and we would get the joy of having the content creators complain about having to update their old content. This is the sort of issue a lot of programs face, especially as the years go on and the program becomes more complex and patched up.


Outside of enjoying Trainz, I work in the video game industry. What I hate is self-entitled people like you. You think the developers owe you something, that they are your personally flunkies and you get to dictate to them as if you know what’s best. You refuse to acknowledge them, or that there might be a perfectly valid reason why they’ve done something the way they have. I’ve seen devs that put in 120 hour weeks for months only to be berated by people like you because something isn’t perfectly as you want it. It’s people like you that stress devs out and makes them feel like their job isn’t worth it.


Programming a game is no simple task and it isn’t without its troubles. When you get into multiplayer, those problems get even worse. The devs of Trainz, they aren’t ID software, or Epic games. They don’t have those sorts of resources at their disposal. Even companies as big as that, it’s a huge undertaking to make sure everything works. It’s a set of experiences and lessons that have been built up over decades and as time goes on, it only gets more complex. The dev team here is doing the best they can with the resources they have and the issues that would crop up either route they took. They have to balance that with a community that would be up in arms if they changed too much.

shaneturner12
October 18th, 2012, 03:07 PM
I've got to agree with you JoshEH. I did give an explanation at the start, but it seems some users do not agree with what is effectively set in stone.

I think it may be time for a moderator to close the thread to avoid further issues.

Shane

JIb228
October 18th, 2012, 03:28 PM
I haven't used multiplayer since the first couple of weeks. If you download an item from anywhere other than the dls and its used in a session, you can not join. It could be a tree or a ground texture. So it is useless to me.

Rob

Though I am quoting one user here, this kinda goes with every thing that every one has said here.

The fact that every thing in your game for MP sessions must be the same as every one else's, as well as on the DLS is what makes this work.

Lets step back to TRS2006, I was part of the group of players who tried to use the iPortals in a large group setting. Now that was a pain because each player wanted to use content from other web sites. As far as I know, the group never got any where because of this. It was a butt ton of work to try and get all the assets for every one and I think that is what did it in.

Moving on to TRS12. Now just imagine how hard it would be if I made a route, but used content from all over the internet to build it. Then when you went to go download it, you would have to search for every last asset before you could use it. And no imagine if some of the assets where locally modified by me, and those modifications never made it out there. You'd have no way to use the route.

Its much like this in other games, such as Garry's mod. My little brother invited me to a game of it once. I had just bought the game, where as he had owned the game for some time. He had all sorts of content he had downloaded that was really nice on his end. But because I didn't have any of it downloaded, all I saw was large error boxes. I had to go out and download all that stuff on my own. A several hours of game play lost because of it.

As it is, I htink MP and the DLS are just right, and how it should be for most any MP PC game.

Azervich
October 18th, 2012, 03:44 PM
I'm not sure if this has been brought up as I didn't read all 3 pages, after downloading with download helper go to

userdata>cache>internet and all downloaded cdp's are stored there, what I do is back those up and when I re-install I copy all those cdp's to CMP and they install without it being marked 'locally modified' it's the same way when you ftp a download and put it in cmp as those files are original straight of the dls, that way you don't need to re-download them again, only time you need to re-download them is for a V1/V2 onwards type update.

Cheers.

Razor01
October 18th, 2012, 10:29 PM
You know, I rarely comment because I don't have as much knowledge about how computers work as many of you do.

However, one thing is very simple to me - if multiplayer doesn't start working properly most of the time with no issues, many (I for one) am going to walk from this game. Every single time I start the game, I wonder - is multiplayer working today? If I join a session, will it work properly? Will the game kick me out again? Will the multiplayer session crash? Will Auran's servers stall? The list goes on.

It's the most frustrating multiplayer game I've played in at least 20 years! I've never had multiplayer in a game not working as much as this game! NEVER! I love this game but am sooo frustrated that I'm "" this close to deleting it forever! I've reloaded it 3x from scratch in about 1 year, I've spent hours & hours trying to figure out why multiplayer sessions that I have used before suddenly won't load, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on for a long time.

Auran, you are losing your customers respect, and I think the avalanche may just be beginning... If nothing gets done, I believe this game is headed to the grave. So sad for what could be a really good multiplayer experience.

As a businessman who has at least 30 years of customer experience, you are shooting yourself in the foot. Fix it or get out - don't pretend like we don't know what we should be able to expect from a product we purchased. There are so many players I don't see any longer because the multiplayer just simply does not work to anyone's satisfaction. Put your efforts into fixing these many, many ongoing problems with multiplayer. If it were my company, I would be putting all my efforts into solving these issues because it will be the death of you in the end.

There you go - my thoughts for what they are worth. It doesn't fix anything, but I think says what many other players have already said, and many have not.
Ray.

Euphod
October 18th, 2012, 11:26 PM
If you are the creator of the asset, guess what folks - If it is used, you have to redownload you own stuff cause it will show Locally Modified. Dumb.

The OP seems to be remarking about the locally modified tag when the item is actually on the DLS, and the requirement to download a creator's own assets to circumvent that step for multiplayer. I note the rest of this thread has ballooned far past that, but I do agree with her original complaint.

CM should be be able to recognize that an asset created and then uploaded to the DLS is no longer locally modified, but is now on the DLS, or at least in my way of thinking, both.

WindWalkr
October 19th, 2012, 12:59 AM
CM should be be able to recognize that an asset created and then uploaded to the DLS is no longer locally modified, but is now on the DLS, or at least in my way of thinking, both.

I agree in principle, but this isn't practical for us. As a simple example:

* Create a valid asset.
* Upload it.
* Modify the asset.
* Wait for the asset to hit the download station.

Clearly the asset is locally modified in this case, even though you are the original creator and were responsible for uploading it.

This is a very simple example; there are many more complicated examples using multiple trainz installations, or involving uploading an asset via the web site rather than directly through CM, or involving the use of system snapshots.

The only solution that would allow for your request would be to securely checksum every asset (see Zec's post) which, while certainly not impossible, also introduces problems of its own. That's not to say we won't head in that direction eventually, but it's not an option available to us at the moment.

chris

sniper297
October 23rd, 2012, 07:11 PM
Okay, nearly winter here so I guess I should summarize. :hehe:
ORIGINAL POSTER: This locally modified stuff is a pain, can't you reprogram to have it just check for matching KUIDs?
DEVELOPERS: We tried that, it kept crashing the game. Locally modified check was the only way we could get it to work at all, so for now we're stuck with it.

No response from the OP, who by this time had gotten tired of fiddling with the squelch knob trying to pick a simple straight answer out of all the background static.

So it is what it is for now, all the end user can do is buy an FCT and get used to downloading a lot of stuff over and over again. What can the content creators do to help?

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5642/60118756.jpg

Testing a new route in a virgin copy of TS12, set the columns to add a "SIZE" column and click that to get the largest downloads at the top. Since I intend for this route to be multiplayer compatible, wherever possible I should replace any really huge downloads with stuff that's either smaller, or built in to TS12.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4736/46528844.jpg

That's an improvement, some large downloads like the CNR switchstand I can't live without, but quite a few other objects have smaller sizes or built in equivalents if you look around. Main thing is it's a natural impulse to want to create Awesome Scenery, but if we intend to use it for TS12 multiplayer we need to consider how many megabytes will have to be downloaded and balance that with the scenery.

mcguirel
November 4th, 2012, 10:03 AM
No response from the OP, who by this time had gotten tired of fiddling with the squelch knob trying to pick a simple straight answer out of all the background static.

Bingo, no straight answer on when they tried to do this it crashed CMP, but works fine in the Game (Search the KUIDS on DLS and Revert). CMP Pings the DLS, downloads fom the DLS, but having a manual command to run a "reverting tool"'' based on the DLS crashes the game. Interesting and do not buy it.

Been doing Letter Archives, and of course the 2GB Split Fails thus making this a fun chore, then downloading the assets AGAIN taking 6 to 10 hours even with a FCT.
Reinstall the Archive, and those not on the DLS return to the Local Folder. So far out of 87,000 asset 253 were NON-DLS yet I have about 3 weeks into this "Trainz Multiplayer" Procedure. This is way more fun then actually playing or creating within Trainz, really - Cough, Cough.

sniper297
November 4th, 2012, 10:15 AM
"Bingo, no straight answer on when they tried to do this it crashed CMP, but works fine in the Game"

I know there's an incredible amount of words to wade through, but I don't think that's what it all means - after filtering out all the excess chatter I interpreted it to mean they tried the multiplayer GAME and the GAME was unstable unless the assets were rigidly controlled. It is what it is, we want to get rid of the locally modified check, they say they can't do it because it wouldn't work.

Mouse84
November 4th, 2012, 08:36 PM
I have found a very easy solution to all of this. On my desktop, I have an icon for TS12 and an icon for TS 2010, as long as I click on the icon for TS 2010, I get a lot of enjoyment out of the sim. I think I've clicked on the TS12 icon a couple of times in the past 6 months and only once did I get enjoyment out of it. I'll just keep on with 2010, to me TS 12 isn't worth the headaches.

mcguirel
November 4th, 2012, 11:27 PM
Yes, I know what they mean. I understand their dilema, but the need to see the dilemas from a consumer standpoint.
My whole point is asset tagging where and converting issues making multiplayer a pain in the arse.