canceling membership: installed payware = not active

I agree, items that are on the DLS at the time the package is built should never be marked payware. That suggests that the item was not on the DLS at the time the package was built.
As the packages don't carry a created date, and it is very difficult to identify which payware comes in which package, any list is going to be something of a guess. But start with this:
3DZ Coil 2200mm Large (PR),<kuid2:212731:500122:2>
3DZ Coil 2200mm Small (PR),<kuid2:212731:500123:2>
3DZ Coil 1800mm Large (PR),<kuid2:212731:500124:2>
3DZ Coil 1800mm Small (PR),<kuid2:212731:500125:2>
3DZ Coil 1400mm Large (PR),<kuid2:212731:500126:2>
3DZ Coil 1400mm Small (PR),<kuid2:212731:500127:2>
3DZ Coil 800mm Large (PR),<kuid2:212731:500128:2>
3DZ Coil 800mm Small (PR),<kuid2:212731:500129:2>

It may have been uploaded since
Why does that matter? The effect on the user is the same. If a subscription is suspended for a period, or the user chooses to go off line for a period, they should have access to everything on the DLS, regardless of whether it was placed there before or after their payware package was created.

... or it may in fact not be available on the DLS at all.
Uh? The issue is about items that are on the DLS and are also payware. Payware that isn't also a DLS item does not create a problem.

(Please don't confuse this with the case where an older version is on the DLS, but the payware includes a newer version which has not yet been released as a free download.)
That is indeed a different problem, specific to route builders who try to ensure that no payware in included in their route, and find that the asset kuid gets upversioned to the payware version by default.
 
Perhaps the simple solution is that N3V recant their stance on content uploaded to the DLS and that it doesn't automatically become theirs's or their associates to use as you wish. Keep freeware as freeware.

Then those who want to make money out of the game can get on and create their own assets and textures (clearly marked or endorsed in the name as payware) for their routes to stop piggybacking on the donated efforts of others.
 
Then those who want to make money out of the game can get on and create their own assets and textures (clearly marked or endorsed in the name as payware) for their routes to stop piggybacking on the donated efforts of others.

Then you'll get no new route's at all as a ton of payware provider's use the DLS for content, And then you'd whinge at that also. The DLS is there to be used and you clearly sign over any right's when you up load content to it.
Cheers Mick.
 
As the packages don't carry a created date, and it is very difficult to identify which payware comes in which package, any list is going to be something of a guess. But start with this

Thanks. Concrete examples are useful as otherwise we're just discussing hypotheticals. I'll get these looked at to see what the story is for these specific items.


Why does that matter? The effect on the user is the same.

For sure, but expecting us to be able to react to something which happens in the future is a bit wishful. If we did the right thing at the time the package was created, and the situation later changes, the best that you can hope for is that we eventually fix it. Given the amount of effort that goes into preparing and testing large content packages for release, "eventually" is definitely the right word.

This is why I suggested above that the real fix is better support for end-user management of how payware is installed, rather than simply "let's make sure it doesn't happen in the first place". We don't have control over whether it happens (since we can do everything right and it can still happen) so there needs to be a plan B.

chris
 
Then you'll get no new route's at all as a ton of payware provider's use the DLS for content, And then you'd whinge at that also. The DLS is there to be used and you clearly sign over any right's when you up load content to it.
Cheers Mick.

What a load of fanboy cobblers. There are plenty of people creating and uploading freeware routes which is what the DLS should be for, not an easy source of free assets for those who want to make money and can't be a&sed to create their own. At least MSTS and DTG TS, people creating payware routes make their own assets and textures and there never seems to be a shortage of *quality* DLC there. With the possibility of great reward comes the responsibility of managing all aspects of production and if you can't stick to freeware.
 
If we did the right thing at the time the package was created, and the situation later changes, the best that you can hope for is that we eventually fix it. Given the amount of effort that goes into preparing and testing large content packages for release, "eventually" is definitely the right word.
While it would be nice to fix the packages, it's not essential: the fix is available in Content Manager.

The immediate fix is to ensure that 'Installed Payware (not active)' that also exists on the DLS (eiaDl?f) is listed as 'Available for download' and can be downloaded. This change also needs to be implemented in the calculation of the obsolete status of an asset (for those items where the payware item obsoletes the DLS item). In other words, a 'Installed Payware (not active)' asset does not obsolete any prior version.

The future fix is to not allow the package installer to overwrite an installed asset with the same KUID/Version.

The user with disabled payware would see a one-time need to re-download pre-existing items that had been overwritten by payware. If a payware item subsequently appears on the DLS they will see that it needs downloading next time they disable the payware. Eventually, any new payware won't affect any items already downloaded.

Those items listed were selected from a very rough list that is currently over 600. People with more payware would have a bigger list.
 
What a load of fanboy cobblers. There are plenty of people creating and uploading freeware routes which is what the DLS should be for, not an easy source of free assets for those who want to make money and can't be a&sed to create their own. At least MSTS and DTG TS, people creating payware routes make their own assets and textures and there never seems to be a shortage of *quality* DLC there. With the possibility of great reward comes the responsibility of managing all aspects of production and if you can't stick to freeware.

Post reported as a possible breach of the COC which you have no problem quoting when it suite's. The majority of Payware route's available all contain DLS item's if sum body is gifted enough to put it all together so be it. Do not ever call me a fanboy again I also have a small amount of content on the DLS and have no drama with folk's using as it was intended be it freeware or payware BUT I was smart enough to keep the source files so if I wish to change it or update it I can.
This isn't Dovetail or MSTS it is community based trouble is people like you want it all for nothing and complain non stop when it isn't to your liking.
We can always take this off forum to any of the other forums you consistently whinge at Vern.
Cheers Mick.
 
While it would be nice to fix the packages, it's not essential: the fix is available in Content Manager.

The immediate fix is to ensure that 'Installed Payware (not active)' that also exists on the DLS (eiaDl?f) is listed as 'Available for download' and can be downloaded.

This isn't really anything to do with CM, unfortunately. There's a fundamental requirement in the game that each KUID maps to a single asset. Our entire content model is based around this requirement, so we can't simply change it on a whim. That means that if you already have the asset in question, you need to get rid of it first before installing another copy.

Packages are designed to be a monolithic installation - you either have the package installed, or you don't. This allows the game to take a lot of shortcuts with dependencies, validation, etc. which benefits the end user in a lot of ways (some subtle, some very obvious). The downside of this (as compared to individual DLS assets) is that you can't say "this specific asset here, i don't want it in the package". You either accept the package as provided, or you remove the package.

As noted above, I'll check the KUIDs you provided to see what their story is. It's of course feasible that we screwed up somewhere and I'll definitely be checking for that. Based on our policies for handling such things internally, I can definitely say that we don't deliberately take something that is currently on the DLS, and flag it as payware when creating a package. In fact, that whole process is automated in a way that should avoid such problems. DLS content can definitely still make it into packages, but not flagged as payware.

chris
 
The only alternative would be not to include DLS items in the DLC package, which would then have missing dependencies, entailing the user to go look for them on the DLS / CM. I can see that also causing many complaints from the DLC "collectors". Don't think anyone is going to win on this one.
 
The only alternative would be not to include DLS items in the DLC package, which would then have missing dependencies, entailing the user to go look for them on the DLS / CM. I can see that also causing many complaints from the DLC "collectors". Don't think anyone is going to win on this one.

This process could be automated too. When the DLC package is being installed, the package installer then searches the DLS for all the assets on the DLS. The onus will be on both N3V and the original DLC creator to ensure that all non-DLS and proprietary assets are in the packages. The issue I see is this could make the installation process a bit longer.
 
Packages are designed to be a monolithic installation - you either have the package installed, or you don't. This allows the game to take a lot of shortcuts with dependencies, validation, etc. which benefits the end user in a lot of ways (some subtle, some very obvious). The downside of this (as compared to individual DLS assets) is that you can't say "this specific asset here, i don't want it in the package". You either accept the package as provided, or you remove the package.

That's unfortunately not true in practice. There's already content in multiple versions with the same KUID. A concrete example - I purchase the Coal Country route directly from Jointed Rail & install it, I get versions of the assets that are marked modified installed. Yet the DLS shows available "Not Installed - Payware (not active)" versions of the same route and session packages. They are theoretically the same assets but i can't install the updates because I didn't buy them directly from N3V.

Thanks,
Diego
 
The only alternative would be not to include DLS items in the DLC package, which would then have missing dependencies, entailing the user to go look for them on the DLS / CM.

Running an automatic 'Download Missing Dependencies' already happens for any downloaded item. There is no reason that it couldn't happen for any item installed from a DLC package, at time of installation.
 
I only see one possible issue with not including DLS items with DLC, and that is for those who have not got First Class Tickets.Some DLS assets are large enough that it would only take a few to reach the 100MB/day limit for non-FCT holders. From memory the DLC download system isn't subject to that limit.

Shane
 
This isn't really anything to do with CM, unfortunately. There's a fundamental requirement in the game that each KUID maps to a single asset. Our entire content model is based around this requirement, so we can't simply change it on a whim. That means that if you already have the asset in question, you need to get rid of it first before installing another copy.
OK. Then allow the user to get rid of it. The issue is with "Installed, Payware (not active)". The asset can't be used. The shortcuts etc are irrelevant. We are talking about replacing it with DLS content, which is fully validated. That's doable in CM.

Based on our policies for handling such things internally, I can definitely say that we don't deliberately take something that is currently on the DLS, and flag it as payware when creating a package. In fact, that whole process is automated in a way that should avoid such problems. DLS content can definitely still make it into packages, but not flagged as payware.
That rule should also apply to Built-in. Assets that could previously be edited now can't.
https://forums.auran.com/trainz/sho...h-stand-in-route-region&p=1732190#post1732190
This also forces route builders who try to avoid payware to create new assets that aren't required. It's almost impossible to work out what payware is actually built-in and therefore safe to use, and what needs to be avoided.
 
I only see one possible issue with not including DLS items with DLC, and that is for those who have not got First Class Tickets.Some DLS assets are large enough that it would only take a few to reach the 100MB/day limit for non-FCT holders. From memory the DLC download system isn't subject to that limit.

Shane

N3V could make an exception for those downloads done through the DLC installer.
 
... in the meantime, between all those discussions ...

... downloaded all "available downloads" ... (also <kuid2:523:1972911:4> n&w y6b) ...
... one unknown asset, which tki could't find, but i found it in t:ane and exported to cdp ...
note: see the "double" Rauch <kuid2:68787:115047:1> and <xx:18 in t:ane...
then there was a faulty loc: tep60-1029 .. as i had payed for it (but now it is free ..), i had it somewhere on my disc, so i deleted it in contentmanager and installed it again ...

and finally ... i had no more "missing dependencies' in the aforementioned routes


missing-in-tsr19-found-in-t%3Aane.jpg


as the original poster (op) i have to say that it was not my intention to fire up a discussion ...
i see it happens in many threads these days (months/years) that somebody has an issue and many repliers jump on it to discuss about management and frustrations ...
although i smiled with the brexit-jokes and learned from the hot discussions, they were off topic and not to the point ..
i was asking / looking for a solution for a simple question: what to do with not-active-asset ...
and i got a simpel answer from clam1952 : remove package folder(s) .. already and directly in post #2 (of #38)...
the elaboration of given answer was not so simple, but in the end satisfying for me ..
let's make an agreement: try to find a solution for the asked question and open if necessary a new thread for complaining or management issues ... maybe a new category: "complainbox" or even "dear oprah" ...
to the point occurs a lot of scrolling / reading and forgetting about what was the issue ..

thankz again malc ... and all the others who are trying to help me ..
have a nice life and keep respecting each other ...
grtz
daveric
 
@daveric
How do you get rid excactly of the packages folder?
I tried it but to no avail.

Any help is very appreciated, thank you very much in advance.

Regards

Swordfish
 
Back
Top