Please stop updating items for DLCs but not uploading them to the DLS!

Getting us back on track here. Here are my points:

1. Built-in should mean that it is built-in to the basic TRS19 and not come from a DLC.

2. I do not want my content items to have version numbers assigned by other people without my knowledge or approval, at least as long as I am around.

3. If items must be included in the DLC, then they should be also available for download from the DLS and the same version number as assigned by the original author.

4. With the exception of payware, I simply do not understand why folks can't download the needed DLC content from the DLS as they do for any other route or session downloaded from the DLS.

5. Except for payware, the DLS should be the one stop shop for all needed content for a route or session.

From a support viewpoint this becoming more and more of headache for me as users are having to search for needed content and telling me they can't find it.

Bob

pitkin said:

This thread has split into licensing versus creators not knowing what "built-in" really means.

I don't care about giving away my sessions. My point (and one of Bob"s) is that the term "built-in" has become somewhere between ambiguous and meaningless.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%, logically speaking to most people when talking about software built-in means part of the base program, not something that is added.

Something like Included in Payware or installed from DLC might be more appropriate and at least give people a clue as to what's going on?

Also anything that has been updated that was on the DLS should ideally be uploaded to the DLS before any Payware package including it is released.

Or my preference would be Payware packs only contain assets that are not on the DLS and when installing the Payware, the DLS assets are pulled in from the DLS as part of the install process thus removing the problem.
The current bundle everything together may be convenient for those who just buy payware and don't create and or download DLS routes, it's not very user friendly to those who create stuff for the DLS when things suddenly become unavailable without downloading or purchasing if not a Plus user, large and probably unwanted Payware routes.
Personally I'm not bothered if my stuff gets used in Payware, we can't do anything about that due to the DLS agreement. I am however bothered if other peoples routes get broken because "someone" has up-versioned one of my assets just to say add foreign languages and obsoleted the "free" version on the DLS.

I've just been bit by this. I installed Columbia Switching from NARM and have one missing dependency:<kuid2:124017:10112:3> . Trainz KUID Index says it's built in to 2019: Dockside Bulk Granular Loader. I don't have it as built in. I have v2 of the asset, but not V3. I think I have all the available routes installed, anybody have an idea where it's from? Worse comes to worse I guess I can just change the config to use v2.

maybe my dirty +1 trick helps (use it alot here)


Open ...:2 for edit, copy it to a folder on your pc, and [revert if unchanged] on the ...:2
Go to the folder with the copy, change the kuid to ...:3 at the end(in the config), and try to import the *cough* new ...:3


no guarantee whatsoever
greetings GM

boc61 said:

I've just been bit by this. I installed Columbia Switching from NARM and have one missing dependency:<kuid2:124017:10112:3> . Trainz KUID Index says it's built in to 2019: Dockside Bulk Granular Loader. I don't have it as built in. I have v2 of the asset, but not V3. I think I have all the available routes installed, anybody have an idea where it's from?

Click to expand...

Installed with "Port Zyd & Fulazturn Railroad - Model Trainz" route (<kuid2:69871:2269:5>). It is "Installed, Payware", not "Built-In".

HPL said:

Installed with "Port Zyd & Fulazturn Railroad - Model Trainz" route (<kuid2:69871:2269:5>). It is "Installed, Payware", not "Built-In".

Click to expand...

OK, that's why. I guess it'll be v2 then, I am not interested in buying that route for one item. Thanks

G.M. said:

maybe my dirty +1 trick helps (use it alot here)


Open ...:2 for edit, copy it to a folder on your pc, and [revert if unchanged] on the ...:2
Go to the folder with the copy, change the kuid to ...:3 at the end(in the config), and try to import the *cough* new ...:3


no guarantee whatsoever
greetings GM

Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

MSGSapper said:

Getting us back on track here. Here are my points:

1. Built-in should mean that it is built-in to the basic TRS19 and not come from a DLC.

2. I do not want my content items to have version numbers assigned by other people without my knowledge or approval, at least as long as I am around.

3. If items must be included in the DLC, then they should be also available for download from the DLS and the same version number as assigned by the original author.

4. With the exception of payware, I simply do not understand why folks can't download the needed DLC content from the DLS as they do for any other route or session downloaded from the DLS.

5. Except for payware, the DLS should be the one stop shop for all needed content for a route or session.

From a support viewpoint this becoming more and more of headache for me as users are having to search for needed content and telling me they can't find it.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, I never could have said it as well as you did (although i am not worried about my content). i am pausing my session development for now to avoid any further frustration.

if you upload anything to the DLS, you pretty much forfeit all your content rights to N3V, meaning they can do what they want with it. the solution is to not upload to the DLS. it's ****ty, but that's N3V for ya.

chris2001trainz2010 said:

the solution is to not upload to the DLS.

Click to expand...

That's not really an option for me because:

1. I want to make things easier for users of my content and routes to easily find and download needed content. Users are often reluctant to go to third party sites because of the potential of malware and other security issues.

2. Users cannot use the Content Manager to download from 3rd party websites.

3. I would have to purchase and set up a website and then manage it, something I do not want to do for a variety of reasons.

N3V has the power to solve this easily in a number of possible ways, but continues to drag their feet on fixing the problem which I have periodically brought up in these forums for some time now. They keep saying they will the problem but have yet to do so. As an example see this forum thread of mine from May 2019:

https://forums.auran.com/trainz/sho...tegy-causing-major-route-development-problems

Bob

This is what I do to avoid this kind of issue.

I have 2 different content folders - one is strictly for content creation, and the other is for DLC's / other things. This way it avoids all of the issues of having a newer version of a DLS item that isn't on the DLS, and basically saves a lot of troubles.

I know this won't work for everyone, but figure to share it out there.


Cheers

Hi All
In the past, we have worked to repair content errors in content that is used by DLC packs (or the 'builtin' content packs in a Trainz release, which are sometimes provided as separate downloads). Normally we try to place these onto the DLS once confirmed repaired, but we are human and sometimes this gets forgotten. Especially when it's related to a lot of different testing/fixing at the same time.

When we have received reports of specific assets that definitely fit this situation, we will place the updated assets onto the DLS.

There is, however, a second situation that can occur. This is where content has been provided to us by a content creator that is not on the DLS, but obsoletes a DLS asset. This may have been sourced from a 3rd party website, or may have been updated by the person submitting the DLC pack. Unfortunately this can cause some of the issues being discussed here, and has previously been somewhat outside our control. Again, when reported to us, we can generally place these assets onto the DLS.

As of now though, there's some good news

The main part is that with the automation of the creation of DLC packs via the TCCP system, we now actively check for assets that aren't on the DLS. If the author of the asset is different to the author of the DLC pack, then it will require the author of the asset to approve it's inclusion in the DLC pack. Or upload it to the DLS.

If the author of the asset is the same as the author of the DLC pack, then it is automatically approved, and means that the creator has decided to include that asset without uploading it to the DLS. However there's also nothing to stop them later uploading it if they choose to. In this case it's best to contact the creator directly.

This does of course mean that there is a chance that an author may choose to not make that asset available from the DLS, for what ever reason they might have, but still allow it to be included in the DLC pack. We would prefer this be avoided to DLS asset updates, but we do still give the creator a choice here.

In regards to DLC packs including everything from the DLS, this is done to ensure that players don't need to download assets separately, the DLC pack is an all-in-one. This has been the case since we first introduced pre-packaged DLC packs (going all the way back to a few route CDs for TRS2006!), is to make the use experience as easy as possible.


In regards to the specific assets mentioned:

<kuid2:60238:37038:2> - It appears that this asset was updated as far back as TS12, as part of the ECML route in that route, and was included in the relevant route packs going forward. I've checked and there is an update to this asset on the DLS (offhand I'm not sure if it was us who uploaded it or Vulcan who uploaded it).

<kuid2:124017:10112:3> - this appears to have been included in TS12 as builtin, and then included with the Port Zyd and Fulazturn Route. I've entered a task for our team to look into placing this onto the DLS.


In regards to the DLS EULA/upload agreement, despite what some people continue to say, you don't forfeit all rights to your content.

What you do is grant several permissions for us to redistribute that content (both via the DLS, and via paid products such as the First Class server, full Trainz releases and DLC packs), and repair/update that content as required to ensure that it continues to work (where possible of course). Repairs includes repairs made by the Content Repair Group, and by our team for builtin content. For DLC packs, again any repaired assets would require the original author to authorise the modified asset to include in the DLS (unless the update is on the DLS, or the author has already authorised it).

It must be remembered that there are cases where creators may also decide to redistribute updates to their content via other sources, instead of the DLS. If this is the case, and the DLC pack creator is using the updated version, then this can result in that update becoming a part of the DLC pack (if authorised by the asset creator) despite not being on the DLS; but this would apply no matter what if the update were installed and used in a route/session anyway.

Regards

Thanks Zec.

With regard to why DLC content is marked as Built-in, I believe a N3V staffer stated it had to do with copy protection of the DLC packages. I believe I understand what this means but it gets very close to breaking the CoC to talk about it here in the forum.

William

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that users can download items from the DLS without getting "Unknown Asset" notifications. Where the system is going wrong, is the way in which DLS assets are allowed to be updated for use in a DLC package.

Your "good news" does not go far enough. I would suggest:

If someone updates an asset currently on the DLS specifically for a DLC package then either the updated asset MUST be uploaded to the DLS, or, if the Asset author does not want to release it on the DLS, it should be given a completely different Kuid thus leaving the original asset available to everyone.

One does have to question however, why someone who is not the author of an asset should think it necessary to include it in their DLC, it if it is broken.

Mike

Stonegate said:

One does have to question however, why someone who is not the author of an asset should think it necessary to include it in their DLC, it if it is broken.

Mike

Click to expand...

Easy error to make if you have fixed it locally and forgotten, always best to replace anything from the DLS that is locally modified with the DLS version.

I've got a similar problem to MSGsapper, but with Maddy25's 'Bulk-Granular/Liquids Unloading Facility'. The one on the DLS is <KUID2:124017:10054:2>, while the one in my CM is <KUID2:124017:10054:3>. I've got a route that I'd like to upload to the DLS, but because of this, I cannot upload it.

ZecMurphy said:

As of now though, there's some good news

The main part is that with the automation of the creation of DLC packs via the TCCP system, we now actively check for assets that aren't on the DLS. If the author of the asset is different to the author of the DLC pack, then it will require the author of the asset to approve it's inclusion in the DLC pack. Or upload it to the DLS.

If the author of the asset is the same as the author of the DLC pack, then it is automatically approved, and means that the creator has decided to include that asset without uploading it to the DLS. However there's also nothing to stop them later uploading it if they choose to. In this case it's best to contact the creator directly.

This does of course mean that there is a chance that an author may choose to not make that asset available from the DLS, for what ever reason they might have, but still allow it to be included in the DLC pack. We would prefer this be avoided to DLS asset updates, but we do still give the creator a choice here.

In regards to DLC packs including everything from the DLS, this is done to ensure that players don't need to download assets separately, the DLC pack is an all-in-one. This has been the case since we first introduced pre-packaged DLC packs (going all the way back to a few route CDs for TRS2006!), is to make the use experience as easy as possible.

Click to expand...

Zec:

I appreciate the response, and that you are all now working to finally resolve this headache for us content creators once and for all.

However, wouldn't it be far simpler to have everything except the route/session itself on the DLS and not in the DLCs? As I stated earlier the DLS should be the one stop resource for all who are seeking needed content for routes and sessions. After all anyone who downloads a route or session from the DLS has to do that anyway, and that has been the case for many years. Why should DLCs be treated differently?

Bob

jordon412 said:

I've got a similar problem to MSGsapper, but with Maddy25's 'Bulk-Granular/Liquids Unloading Facility'. The one on the DLS is <KUID2:124017:10054:2>, while the one in my CM is <KUID2:124017:10054:3>. I've got a route that I'd like to upload to the DLS, but because of this, I cannot upload it.

Click to expand...

I know what I'd be inclined to do in this case, download version 2 clone it or you could clone v3 and use images2tga to create the texture.txt etc, does work on it just checked, modify it in some way and use and upload that as Maddy25's licence permits alterations etc. Modify could be update the config to 3.5 minimum, although I'd be inclined to tweak the colours slightly so they are not so bright in TRS19 , use assetX to update the config to 3.5 and update the config. just done it here, no problem.

This content for TRAINZ is released to anyone who wishes to use it. You are free to modify it in any way, as long as Madeline Usher is mentioned as the original creator. This content may not be sold for profit by anyone. This content is distributed 'AS IS' which means that you use the content at your own risk. The creator is not responsible for any damage or loss of revenue or perceived loss of revenue in any way.

Click to expand...

Note: this is not to be used on other creators assets unless their licence permits it.

Thanks Zec,

I uploaded the green track version 3 a couple of days ago at the request of Bob. I had referred above to the Dam Spillway Wet <KUID2:60238:38201:1> asset that I also updated to a version 3 for the same reason last December.

Ian

vulcan said:

Thanks Zec,

I uploaded the green track version 3 a couple of days ago at the request of Bob. I had referred above to the Dam Spillway Wet <KUID2:60238:38201:1> asset that I also updated to a version 3 for the same reason last December.

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian:

Thank you for doing that.

It is unfortunate that you had to do this simply because someone else created a different version of your content item then what was on the DLS and packaged it in a DLC without your consent or knowledge. I am starting to see this issue with my stuff as well.

Hopefully, based on Zec's reply above, this problem will finally be solved, although we have have been complaining about this for almost two years now.

Bob