Build Version 3.8 ???

There are a number of assets from individuals showing up (in TS12 CM) as v3.8 and which cannot therefore be downloaded by TS12 SP1hf4's CM.

Is this merely a typo (for 3.7), a way of getting v2.8 assets onto the DLS or does it have some "real" significance?

Peter.

that is problably TS MAC 2. i saw them too.

it is the T2 MAC version.

Thanks norfolksouthern37 and Chris.

So what are the chances I can use one of these in TS12SP1 if I download it from the DLS and then modify the version number in the context.txt file?

Have either of you tried it?

Peter.

peterwise said:

So what are the chances I can use one of these in TS12SP1 if I download it from the DLS and then modify the version number in the context.txt file?

Click to expand...

I did try so modifying one. It worked, but I was so disappointed with the general quality of the route that I will need to be far more convinced of a route's quality (and usefulness to me) to bother making (even this tiny change) for another such route.

In general, I always wonder why people upload assets (that presumably they want people to use), without meaningful title, description or even thumbnail. It seems so counter-productive. This is especially so when people upload routes that they might have spent many months or years perfecting, when it seems a waste of their talent. Other people seem to favour quantity over quality and turn out two "quick" (and decidedly unsatisfying) routes every week or existing routes with minor (and usually unstated) changes. Still others upload part-finished routes to the DLS as backups, though they would better be saved as CDPs on their own computers. "Aye! There's none so strange as folks!".

(Rant over).

Peter.

Another, related, thing I find particularly annoying is when people upload their route in the highest build number possible when there's no good functional reason for not 'dialing down' the build number for the uploaded version so that more people can use it. There's no good excuse not to use the lowest build number compatible with an asset's functionality and the required build threshold of the Download Station (currently 2.9).

Paul

That does not work, if you build a route in 3.7 it will NOT work in 3.6 or lower changing the build version does NOT work for routes. there are additional route files require in HF4 that are unrecognised in 3.6 and all you will get is a nice Blue nothingness.

As I said,

lowest build number compatible with an asset's functionality

Click to expand...

So if it's the case you can't revise routes down from 2.7 to 2.6 and below, well that's just the way it is. Which is a shame.

Paul

Paul,

I think the problem is that, if you are always using, for example, TS12 SP1hf4 (as I do), then the route you're building will naturally be v3.7 and almost certainly you will have used at least some v3.7 assets. Now one could specify the base KUIDs of those assets in the config.txt file (i.e. kuid:... rather than kuid2:...), but then, in my experience dependent KUIDs replaced in a route's config.txt get mysteriously and very annoyingly changed back in the next version of the route.

Anyway, I imagine many of us will be upgrading to TANE once it comes out.

Peter.

Another thing to consider is, for example for tunnels and bridges splines created with the new tags and new names now needed to create, these WILL NOT work in lower versions other than V3.7.

My biggest complaint is, how much new stuff is getting uploaded on to the DLS recently with either NO screenshot picture, NO (or NO meaningful) description or both are missing. Why can not N3V Games knock back such uploads, they do this with other uploads with only a minor warning.

Lennard

Lendorf said:

Another thing to consider is, for example for tunnels and bridges splines created with the new tags and new names now needed to create, these WILL NOT work in lower versions other than V3.7.

My biggest complaint is, how much new stuff is getting uploaded on to the DLS recently with either NO screenshot picture, NO (or NO meaningful) description or both are missing. Why can not N3V Games knock back such uploads, they do this with other uploads with only a minor warning.

Lennard

Click to expand...

Good point Lennard!

It is already almost impossible to know whether you might want to download something without any information on region and period (fixed I hope in TANE, N3V please note), but without meaningful screenshot, title and description, it becomes next to impossible. Authors of such assets are shooting themselves in the foot as they may get far fewer downloads than they deserve.

Peter.

The trouble for n3v is that the meaningfulness of a screenshot and description can't be checked by coding, it requires human subjective judgement. They are no longer willing to have a person employed for that purpose.