Author 66128 allows variations but N3V has locked the asset textures - Why?

MSGSapper

Trainz route developer
I am trying to develop content based on variation of scenery assets included in TRS2019 by author 661281. Virtually all his/her assets are shown as installed, payware which means I am unable to open the textures for editing purposes.

This is at odds with the config.txt line as follows included with that authors assets:

license "This asset is for all the Trainz Community. The Trainz Community can create other variations of this asset if they wish."

Given the license why were users prevented from accessing the textures and other items of that authors content items in TRS2019?

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

<kuid2:661281:96211:3> Plant Lib 2 (water)

Why is this an issue? I have noticed a number of problems with both Clutter and TurfFX provided items and can create better versions but am prevented from doing so by N3V locking the assets, despite the generous license.

Bob
 
Have you tried cloning the asset. I believe that in TRS19 payware assets can now be cloned but not uploaded to the DLS. I just tried it with a scenery payware asset and a payware texture asset I was able to successfully clone them both.

Once cloned, you should be able to edit to your hearts content.
 
Have you tried cloning the asset. I believe that in TRS19 payware assets can now be cloned but not uploaded to the DLS. I just tried it with a scenery payware asset and a payware texture asset I was able to successfully clone them both. Once cloned, you should be able to edit to your hearts content.

Pware;

That doesn't work with most of the TRS2019 content items, including <kuid2:661281:96211:3> Plant Lib 2 (water), which I used for a test of what you said.

Yes, you can clone it, but you will be unable to access any of the textures using PEV's Images2TGA utility (Vers 1.34), which means its useless. Try it for yourself on the TRS2019 item I give you the KUID for and you will see what I mean.

What you stated will work on a few items but the vast bulk does not allow access, at least based on my tests.

Thanks anyway.

Bob
 
Why is this an issue? I have noticed a number of problems with both Clutter and TurfFX provided items and can create better versions but am prevented from doing so by N3V locking the assets, despite the generous license.
For a franchise that was built on a foundation of user-configurable content they seem determined on cutting their own throat. There is no conceivable commercial benefit in making these sorts of items payware, and lots of reasons not to.
 
Probably an oversight, or possibly had not realised that images2TGA wont work on the new format .texture files Suggest maybe notifying the helpdesk?

License does state that the community can use these to make assets.
 
We had good intentions of opening all the assets up to the community to make lots of variations, hence the license text but a lot of the assets and meshes have copyright and we are not allowed to distribute the source for those. This is why there is no source in the assets.

Due to the large list of new content in TRS19 it was safer to remove most of the source than to find out we release something that shouldn't have been released.

If there is something particular you are interested in please contact contentcreators@n3vgames.com and if there are no copyright issues we can send you the source to make variations for yourself.
 
We had good intentions of opening all the assets up to the community to make lots of variations, hence the license text but a lot of the assets and meshes have copyright and we are not allowed to distribute the source for those. This is why there is no source in the assets.

Due to the large list of new content in TRS19 it was safer to remove most of the source than to find out we release something that shouldn't have been released.

If there is something particular you are interested in please contact contentcreators@n3vgames.com and if there are no copyright issues we can send you the source to make variations for yourself.

Thank you for the reply!

The biggest issue is with the various clutter assets.

A number of the clutter assets show up as either totally white or partially white.

As an example in this screenshot of Plant 2 - Flower Plant 2 - Seasonal the asset looks normal from this viewpoint:

Clutter-Screenshot-Example-2.jpg


Approached from the other side the asset looks like this:

Clutter-Screenshot-Example-3.jpg


Another issue. In this screenshot some of the listed assets are shown in green while others are white. Why is this?

Clutter-Screenshot-Example-1.jpg


Also despite their name many of the clutter assets aren't really seasonal. I'll come up with a list and submit it to you at the email address you provided and perhaps I can make some variations or fix a few of the issues I am seeing.

What I am shooting for are routes that are truly seasonal so that PBR Textures, 70 of which I have now produced so far and are on the DLS, and clutter changes when the month setting is changed in the environment settings. To me seasonal means that the texture or item changes appropriately with the season. Snow by itself does not make a item seasonal in my opinion. See any of my new Truly seasonal PBR ground textures on the DLS for examples of what I am talking about here.

Bob
 
Another example of white clutter items. This was the Plants1 - stumpwithmushroom clutter item. After adding the item to the test route I clicked into the route and the stumps turned white.

White-Stumps-Screenshot.jpg


This happens with a good number of clutter items.....

Bob
 
Make sure your game isn't in winter mode. That looks a lot like the seasonal feature is working as intended and your game slipped into winter mode accidentally as the game takes the current date when you open quickdrive/make a new session and we're currently in winter on most of the world.









Greets, Mika
 
Make sure your game isn't in winter mode. That looks a lot like the seasonal feature is working as intended and your game slipped into winter mode accidentally as the game takes the current date when you open quickdrive/make a new session and we're currently in winter on most of the world.
Greets, Mika

I ran some tests and got some weird results. Try this:

1. Add a clutter layer and select the Plants 1 - stumpwithmushroom item.

2. Now add this clutter item to a test layout.

3. Change the season months and see what happens (ie; Apr, Jul, Oct, Dec). In my case the stumps did not change.

4. Set the snow level to 0.0 meters. The stumps did not change until I clicked my right mouse button on the map. Usually setting the snow level should be all that is necessary to activate the snow season for a textured item. At least that's the case with PBR Ground Textures.

Bob
 
Bob

If the vegetation is just dead stumps with no leaves, I would expect the time of year to make no difference. The only other skin available to a dead stump (or any other non-living object) should be the snow skin, and as you have said, that one should only be triggered by the snowline value, not by the season.

In the case shown in your picture, presumably the ground itself is at 0.0m height. What happens if you set the snowline to a value much higher than the ground (e.g. 50 metres) to definitely stop the snow skin from being chosen? It's just that when the ground height is equal or close to the snowline height, the results can be a bit uncertain.

Also the season/snow changes often require a forced re-draw of the scene for them to show properly. A good zoom-out/zoom-in usually ensures a re-draw.


.
 
Last edited:
For a franchise that was built on a foundation of user-configurable content they seem determined on cutting their own throat. There is no conceivable commercial benefit in making these sorts of items payware, and lots of reasons not to.

It's really a sad state of affairs that a company that once wrote software specifically designed to help new users create variations of built in content has swung so hard to the opposite side of the spectrum, where they're actively making it difficult for people to do so. Do I even dare to go as far as to say that N3V is now discouraging people from becoming content creators now?

I personally would love to reskin the Rocky Mountaineer equipment, but alas that too is locked down "to prevent people from redistributing the content". Which is complete hogwash, as I was able to pull the files very easily out of 19 & with a single small change install them into TANE with no problems. The locked texture files had no effect on it.

peter
 
It's really a sad state of affairs that a company that once wrote software specifically designed to help new users create variations of built in content has swung so hard to the opposite side of the spectrum, where they're actively making it difficult for people to do so. Do I even dare to go as far as to say that N3V is now discouraging people from becoming content creators now?

You probably did not read post #6 above. If you did then your post makes absolutely no sense.

I personally would love to reskin the Rocky Mountaineer equipment, but alas that too is locked down "to prevent people from redistributing the content". Which is complete hogwash, as I was able to pull the files very easily out of 19 & with a single small change install them into TANE with no problems. The locked texture files had no effect on it.

It is not "hogwash". There is a significant difference between individuals using their knowledge of the technology to circumvent copyright protection and corporations ignoring the copyright of creators. While you could possibly argue that individuals who do just that for their own personal use and do not distribute the "hacks" are doing no harm, the same argument cannot be used to defend corporations who distribute the same work without copyright protection. That is regardless of how easy any protection may be to break.

This is just a re-run of the endless arguments that frequently appear in these forums. They all have the same theme - the poster wants the "right" to do whatever he/she wants with someone else's creative work, regardless of the wishes of the creator. Do you know for certain that the creator of the Rocky Mountaineer equipment has no objection to you reskinning his/her work, even for your own personal use?

Should N3V only use works that are totally freeware in all their DLC assets? That would defeat the whole point of DLC if creators had no financial incentive to spend their time and effort creating what they do. This would do far more to discourage people from becoming content creators and would certainly reduce the quantity of high quality assets.

If an asset cannot be "modded" because of copyright issues, then move on to something else.

My opinions only.
 
You probably did not read post #6 above. If you did then your post makes absolutely no sense.
You probably did not read post #1: "license "This asset is for all the Trainz Community. The Trainz Community can create other variations of this asset if they wish." It's post #6 that makes no sense.Why the need to get special permission to reskin when the asset clearly states that it is OK to do so?
 
So in your argument, if I buy a Van Gogh and wanted to paint something into the picture, I legally cannot because it's Van Gogh creative work? What about if I wanted to add a bumper sticker to my car, I didn't create the car? Can I add salt to my meal at a restaurant? Why is a image file in a computer game any different? I bought it, let me do what I want with it.

Software, primarily video games are the only products on the market where we buy and then can't modify.

Reskins, config changes, or script changes have no relation to redistribution anyways. I could see the problem if my intent was to give out (or even sell) the content to other people. But if I just want to have my own reskined version of something on my own computer, what's the problem in that? My understanding of US copyright law (I'm not a lawyer but had to look it up once) I should be allowed to do that.

As for DLC, there are dozens of payware creators out there that sell content for trainz with none of the security things N3V apply and they do quite well. If I had to guess, JR probably makes more money selling the content at www.jointedrail.com then the items they have listed on the Trainz store. Every creator started by looking at what other people did, and most started by modifying what others did, and I guarantee that almost all of them did not start creating content with the intent to make money.

No I don't know if the creator of the Rocky Mountaineer has any objection to it, and it shouldn't matter. I didn't ask Subaru if I could change the rims on my car, I didn't ask Motorola if I could put a sticker on the back of my phone, I didn't ask Lego if I could change the face on one of my guys, I didn't ask TfL if I could draw my route on my pocket map. Should I need to ask all these people first? Then why should I need to ask the guy who made some content in a game?

peter
 
Those arguments are totally invalid. If you put a sticker on your car you cannot then mass reproduce the car (with stickers) for commercial gain. Add as much salt to your meal as your heart and blood pressure can stand, once consumed the meal is gone. Van Gogh is dead and will not care and his copyright has expired but if you purchased a copy of the latest song by Beyonce is it OK for you to make and sell as many CD copies as you like because "it is yours, you own it"?

What makes software different is that it gives the purchaser the power to copy, with or without modifications, and redistribute. You cannot do that with a car or a meal.

It does matter what the creator of the Rocky Mountaineer thinks.
 
Reskins, config changes, or script changes have no relation to redistribution anyways. I could see the problem if my intent was to give out (or even sell) the content to other people. But if I just want to have my own reskined version of something on my own computer, what's the problem in that? My understanding of US copyright law (I'm not a lawyer but had to look it up once) I should be allowed to do that.

I never said in any of my arguments that I was planning to redistribute or sell anything. I agree with you that yes you need to have permission if the intent is to redistribute, but not if it's for personal use.

peter
 
I didn't ask Subaru if I could change the rims on my car, I didn't ask Motorola if I could put a sticker on the back of my phone
That's an improper analogy. It would be more accurate to ask why Subaru has encrypted the computer code for the engine management system, or why Motorola enabled the security bit on the PLA that controls the phone. The answer is that they want to force you to start over from scratch if you want to duplicate the work they've spent time and money on, and that's a proper and common protection for their effort. But in this case the content creator has expressly stated that the work should be made available for others to use, but N3V, without consulting the original creator, has made it inaccessible to the community. It's odd that they are so protective of the content creator's rights when they want to restrict them, but blissfully ignore the clear and unambiguous statement that the content should be available to all.
 
But in this case the content creator has expressly stated that the work should be made available for others to use, but N3V, without consulting the original creator, has made it inaccessible to the community.

In post #6 above, N3V clearly stated that they added the licence text "This asset is for all the Trainz Community. The Trainz Community can create other variations of this asset if they wish." and not the creator but then realised that they did not have the right to distribute the source without the express permission of each creator. So they took a blanket approach, presumably to avoid further endless delays waiting for individual approvals. At least that is how I read post #6.

I would hope that if such approvals come through from the creators (but perhaps not from all) then the affected assets will be updated and re-released.
 
That's an improper analogy. It would be more accurate to ask why Subaru has encrypted the computer code for the engine management system, or why Motorola enabled the security bit on the PLA that controls the phone. The answer is that they want to force you to start over from scratch if you want to duplicate the work they've spent time and money on, and that's a proper and common protection for their effort. But in this case the content creator has expressly stated that the work should be made available for others to use, but N3V, without consulting the original creator, has made it inaccessible to the community. It's odd that they are so protective of the content creator's rights when they want to restrict them, but blissfully ignore the clear and unambiguous statement that the content should be available to all.

But I'm not changing the code for the model. I'm changing the look of it, just like if I changed the rims on my car or a sticker on my phone.

peter
 
Back
Top