The Idiocy Of N3V Policy

Thought I would update the Italian ALN668 railcars which shipped in TRS2019 to use a better engine sound than the default Alco loco sound which is totally unsuited.

First check (as expected) is these items are tagged as payware so cannot be changed or edited in any way. Okay, so clone the asset to my own KUID, open for edit and insert the different engine sound KUID. On committing, however, the item is now faulty - the first error shows the age of the item N3V trying to pass off as new content as the asset build is unsupported, easily changed to 3.5. However due to the changes in content control, then presented with a load of further error messages:

! <kuid:30024:100005> VE82: Individual mesh files are not supported for traincar assets. Upgrade 'aln668_body/aln668_body.im' to a .lm file.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/aln668_body_l1.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/classe.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/edolo.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_1-finestra_1.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_2-finestra_1.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_2-finestra_2.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_3-finestra_3.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_4-finestra_4.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_5-finestra_5.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_6.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/finestra_7.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/logofn.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/night/luce_interna.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/night/lucirosse-lucirosse.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/pisogne.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_body/snftlogo.texture'.
- <kuid:30024:100005> VE65: The *.texture.txt file is missing for texture resource 'aln668_shadow/ombra.texture'.
! <kuid:30024:100005> VE109: The low-detail meshes total more than 500 polygons. This may have a negative impact on performance: 0: 5487


Now maybe those can be fixed in a third party edit, maybe they can't. But the point is - we shouldn't blooming well have to! If you're going to bundle ancient items and pass it off as new content, at least ensure it is updated to your own standards. This is not some asset I have picked off the DLS, it is to all intents and purposes a N3V built in item shipped with the Sebino route (which also contains other old motive power assets which will probably give similar errors if we try and improve to modern standards ourselves).

The question also needs to be asked how this item passed QA with a totally unsuitable engine sound in the first place, or is this what happens when N3V and their "creative" partners lay free claim to anything on the DLS without actually checking the standards it is built to or whether updating should be carried out?

There always someone their to defend them.

If these assets have been packaged into payware, they can't be edited. These errors will occur due to these assets being compressed and the textures not decompiling completely which is the case with regular assets off the DLS. The problem though is with a payware asset, there is no real mesh or other components that can be edited including the .textures, which would normally be replaceable using PEVs Images2TGA.

You may be able to find these assets on the DLS, and if that's the case, you can modify them there. They maybe a lower asset version so you will need to use download this version to obtain them. You can then update those and even clone them and use those instead of the payware ones where suitable.

I fully understand and sympathise with the OPs comments in dealing with editing payware assets, but there is the question of whether or not the creator of those assets (and that is not normally N3V) allows them to be edited. The point has been raised in the past about editing payware assets and the response has (often) been that the original creator did not want their creations "messed with" by others. But I agree that this is something that needs to be looked at so that "honest" users are not disadvantaged.

The issue of authenticity is an interesting one. Now I, in all modesty, claim to be able to tell the difference between the sounds of a steam loco and a diesel loco and, at a stretch, can sometimes tell the sound of a railcar motor as well. But as to whether a particular sound is authentic to a particular rail vehicle I would not have a clue, and I suspect nor would most others. So how is N3V, or anyone else, going to determine if an engine or horn sound is genuine and authentic to a particular rail vehicle? Particularly since users are submitting sound files for steam and diesel locos, DMUs, EMUs, etc, etc from all over the world, including from Italy.

My thoughts.

Jayco-man said:

There always someone their (sic) to defend them.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the purpose of that was - perhaps it was an attempted put down for anyone who tries to put forward any point of view that is not 100% opposed to N3V. If that is the case then it has clearly failed and was a waste of bandwidth.

One of the many reasons Trainz has gone downhill.

Its biggest strength was always its customization. You could have 3 of the same locomotive cloned with different hornsounds (one brand new, one ruined and one inbetween) if you wanted. I had 2 of the same locos cloned with different hornsounds (Just like in real life, approx half the fleet had Nathan's, half had Leslie's.) If they ever get built in? Nah.

pware said:

I fully understand and sympathise with the OPs comments in dealing with editing payware assets, but there is the question of whether or not the creator of those assets (and that is not normally N3V) allows them to be edited. The point has been raised in the past about editing payware assets and the response has (often) been that the original creator did not want their creations "messed with" by others. But I agree that this is something that needs to be looked at so that "honest" users are not disadvantaged.

The issue of authenticity is an interesting one. Now I, in all modesty, claim to be able to tell the difference between the sounds of a steam loco and a diesel loco and, at a stretch, can sometimes tell the sound of a railcar motor as well. But as to whether a particular sound is authentic to a particular rail vehicle I would not have a clue, and I suspect nor would most others. So how is N3V, or anyone else, going to determine if an engine or horn sound is genuine and authentic to a particular rail vehicle? Particularly since users are submitting sound files for steam and diesel locos, DMUs, EMUs, etc, etc from all over the world, including from Italy.

My thoughts.

Not sure what the purpose of that was - perhaps it was an attempted put down for anyone who tries to put forward any point of view that is not 100% opposed to N3V. If that is the case then it has clearly failed and was a waste of bandwidth.

Click to expand...

One would hope the original author of the item would know enough about the sound of their chosen prototype to consider whether the Alco sound is really appropriate. Ditto the route author who is (presumably) from Italy and has close knowledge of the real thing. This comes back to earlier point here and indeed voiced previously about how the use of assets off the DLS makes payware authors complacent. If they were having to do this from scratch and research everything that goes in the route (including their chosen rolling stock) maybe this would be offered to a higher standard in the first place. Without looking terribly hard, I found several clips of ALN668 movement on YouTube and it's patently obvious they sound nothing like a diesel loco, Alco or otherwise!

I quite accept that sound engineering is quite complex which is why, as per my original point, I'm quite happy to substitute in a more suitable sound myself (in this case it was the UK Class 158/159 engine sound) but the game needs to let me do it!

As regards the cricket sound from YouTube, added nothing to the discussion and sadly does show up the immaturity of the poster as being unable to accept a valid criticism. Maybe I came across as a bit harsh in my OP but rather frustrated at being unable to execute a simple fix myself.

Guess we will have to wait for N3V to wake up and do something to update the asset.

Edit: I just checked and there are no other ALN 668 class railcars on the DLS, the only ones available are all marked as built in payware. So sadly John's solution can't work.

Bummer on the DLS replacement.

I don't agree with locked assets either including and DLC built-in routes. Yeah we can faff with a clone, but can't merge or do anything else with them which makes that useless.

Not knowing a lot about how a lot of this stuff, but is there a way to alias the better sound-asset to replace the old one? This would be the solution, but I don't know if it exists.

Only by changing the entry in the config file John, which means opening the clone to edit the KUID but then unable to commit due to the other errors...

Vern said:

Only by changing the entry in the config file John, which means opening the clone to edit the KUID but then unable to commit due to the other errors...

Click to expand...

But there's a way around that.

Instead of submitting the asset import it instead. I did that the other night and it works like a charm. James Moody mentioned that somewhere a long time ago and I just remember that recently.

Interesting. So basically copy the editing folder out to a new location. Then submit and delete the faulty asset then import from the new location. I'll give that a try tomorrow John though, of course, it doesn't really let N3V off the hook for forcing us down that path in the first place!

Please read here:

https://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?150128-TRS19-SEBINO-LAKE-Italy-1980-OFFICIAL/

For locos ALn see pag.1

We are working for you (free) and it must be fun.

Thanks for the attention...
you must be patient, but the updated version will have many surprises ...

Appreciate the info Jango and that the work was originally freeware. However once N3V grabbed it for inclusion in TS19 as default content and made it payware, as noted a couple of weeks ago by another poster with regard to the Cornish route, then constructive criticism is fair game. My post was also more aimed at N3V for engineering the situation rather than the original work done by yourself and associates.

With regard to the ALN 668 railcars is there any chance you or the author could upload a freeware version to the DLS so it then becomes possible to drop in the better sounding engine noises, if you are unable to source more accurate sounds yourself.

It *is* a very nice route which is the source of frustration at having (at present) such outdated train assets to use on it.

They will not be uploaded to the DLS, for the reasons you mentioned yourself.
They will be freely available on the Trainzitalia.it website as soon as they are ready.
You can download and modify them as you wish.

The improvements will be well received and republished, with news also on the Auran forum.

Thank you.

Fair comment Jango.

BTW John, I just tried editing the item outside the content folder and import but just got the same errors and it's still showing as payware. Think I'll throw the towel in on this exercise.

Vern said:

Fair comment Jango.

BTW John, I just tried editing the item outside the content folder and import but just got the same errors and it's still showing as payware. Think I'll throw the towel in on this exercise.

Click to expand...

I just read what you attempted, and no that wouldn't work... A replacement horn of your choice, however, given the SAME kuid as the original with an up-version would import fine. I'm sorry I wasn't clear in your description. The good news is Jango has an update coming out anyway.

Hello Vern,

I have been absent for a long time due to family issues.

Unfortunately, making enginesounds is a fine art none of us at TrainZItalia has ever mastered.

I will try using the Class 158/159 enginesound for our imminent big release of ALn668 for the Sebino Lake. Could you point out which enginesound you attempted to use? I have found several and I don't know which is the better one.

The new release will also have a prototypical hornsound, taken from a cab ride in a Sebino Lake ALn 668 train.

They are all good Carlo, though I would probably go for the ones by davidmacveigh - KUID 171914:100102

JCitron said:

If these assets have been packaged into payware, they can't be edited. These errors will occur due to these assets being compressed and the textures not decompiling completely which is the case with regular assets off the DLS. The problem though is with a payware asset, there is no real mesh or other components that can be edited including the .textures, which would normally be replaceable using PEVs Images2TGA.

You may be able to find these assets on the DLS, and if that's the case, you can modify them there. They maybe a lower asset version so you will need to use download this version to obtain them. You can then update those and even clone them and use those instead of the payware ones where suitable.

Click to expand...

I keep my last version of TS12 on my hard drive for exactly this reason, although I haven't built anything with it for a couple years. Pull up the asset in TS12, clone it (perfectly legitimately) and export as CDP, then load it into TANE or whatever and make modifications needed. I'm surprised the creators of these assets okayed their being made payware, as this will certainly cause some users to simply avoid them. In my case, if I can't rename an asset to make it findable (which requires editing) then as far as I'm concerned it's junk and I disable it. Is this what the creators really want?

--Lamont